[Rama Set]

Well anyone who liked Trump because he didn’t start needless wars can strike that from their list.

[Rushy]

Well anyone who liked Trump because he didn’t start needless wars can strike that from their list.

Please explain what war has been started and precisely where it's taking place.

[crutonius]

Well anyone who liked Trump because he didn’t start needless wars can strike that from their list.

Please explain what war has been started and precisely where it's taking place.

I believe Rama Set is referring to Trump ordering the assassination of a high ranking Iranian general, something most nations would regard as an act of war.

Let's turn this situation around and see what we think;  Suppose Gina Haspel, the current director of the CIA, is in Heathrow on whatever business.  Iran then fires a bunch of rockets into whatever terminal she's waiting for her flight in killing her and her aides in the process.  A spokesman for the Supreme Leader of Iran states that Haspel was a war criminal and ran an illegal torture program and on top of that she was planning brutal attacks of which they won't disclose any evidence or sources, not even to their own government.

How should the US react in this hypothetical situation?

[Dr David Thork]

Well anyone who liked Trump because he didn’t start needless wars can strike that from their list.

And then re-add it back onto the list.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50989745

[Rushy]

I believe Rama Set is referring to Trump ordering the assassination of a high ranking Iranian general, something most nations would regard as an act of war.

He was also coordinating with militia leaders and helped organize an attack on a US embassy. Iran attacked the US and now they realized there are consequences to that. It's not like the Pentagon woke up one morning and decided to kill a random person. To say "The US started a war!" when Iran was the first to strike the US is nonsense. Even if the missile strike results in war, to say we caused it is pure lies. It was an act of war the moment they decided to fund terrorist groups to attack the US.

Let's turn this situation around and see what we think;  Suppose Gina Haspel, the current director of the CIA, is in Heathrow on whatever business.  Iran then fires a bunch of rockets into whatever terminal she's waiting for her flight in killing her and her aides in the process.  A spokesman for the Supreme Leader of Iran states that Haspel was a war criminal and ran an illegal torture program and on top of that she was planning brutal attacks of which they won't disclose any evidence or sources, not even to their own government.

How should the US react in this hypothetical situation?

If any current US enemy could get away with killing high ranking US officials, they would. They don't have the means to do so and they definitely don't have the means to weather the consequences. Iran is a US enemy and a weak one at that. Our current goal is to make sure they stay that way, which is why we've been busy coordinating with Israel to destabilize their government and wreck their nuclear production line. We had a major setback when Obama decided to literally send Iran billions of dollars. Good thing we're back to actually wrecking them again.

[Lord Dave]

I believe Rama Set is referring to Trump ordering the assassination of a high ranking Iranian general, something most nations would regard as an act of war.

He was also coordinating with militia leaders and helped organize an attack on a US embassy. Iran attacked the US and now they realized there are consequences to that. It's not like the Pentagon woke up one morning and decided to kill a random person. To say "The US started a war!" when Iran was the first to strike the US is nonsense. Even if the missile strike results in war, to say we caused it is pure lies. It was an act of war the moment they decided to fund terrorist groups to attack the US.

Let's turn this situation around and see what we think;  Suppose Gina Haspel, the current director of the CIA, is in Heathrow on whatever business.  Iran then fires a bunch of rockets into whatever terminal she's waiting for her flight in killing her and her aides in the process.  A spokesman for the Supreme Leader of Iran states that Haspel was a war criminal and ran an illegal torture program and on top of that she was planning brutal attacks of which they won't disclose any evidence or sources, not even to their own government.

How should the US react in this hypothetical situation?

If any current US enemy could get away with killing high ranking US officials, they would. They don't have the means to do so and they definitely don't have the means to weather the consequences. Iran is a US enemy and a weak one at that. Our current goal is to make sure they stay that way, which is why we've been busy coordinating with Israel to destabilize their government and wreck their nuclear production line. We had a major setback when Obama decided to literally send Iran billions of dollars. Good thing we're back to actually wrecking them again.

Ok, help me understand something.

In the first bit, you said Iran started it by attacking the US Embassy via proxy.
But in the second part, you said we've been working to destabalize their country and destroy their equipment for, I presume, years.

Ssooo..... Who started it?

[crutonius]

There's a few things I want to point out.

Obama didn't fly in a mountain of cash to Iran.  All he did was unfreeze their money.  https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/obama-didnt-give-iran-150-billion-in-cash/

Iran isn't exactly a push over.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-ranked-2018-2#9-germany-17 We would win I'm sure.  It'll cost us dearly though.  My advice is buy stock in defense contractors.  They're the only ones that'll come out ahead.

Broadly speaking I believe our goal is to make Iran not a threat.  That doesn't necessarily mean make them weaker.  In fact that's probably counterproductive since failed states tend to generate terrorists.

If we're going to play the game of who started it then we're not going to look good.  https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days  This incident by the way is not ancient history.  A clear line can be drawn from this to the situation today.

[Rama Set]

Rushy if you want to have an honest conversation about “who started it”? We probably go back to the 80s when the US provided massive aide to Iraq, including chemical weapons, in their war against Iran.

Iran has now fired rockets at a US Embassy in Iraq, so it appears the current theatre is in Iraq.

[Rama Set]

Well anyone who liked Trump because he didn’t start needless wars can strike that from their list.

And then re-add it back onto the list.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50989745

Ugh. 1984 was supposed to be fiction. Thork was supposed to be a free-thinker.

My world is crumbling.

[Lord Dave]

Rushy if you want to have an honest conversation about “who started it”? We probably go back to the 80s when the US provided massive aide to Iraq, including chemical weapons, in their war against Iran.

Iran has now fired rockets at a US Embassy in Iraq, so it appears the current theatre is in Iraq.

We killed a general.
They fired rockets at our Embassy. 

When does the actual WAR bit start?

[Rama Set]

Rushy if you want to have an honest conversation about “who started it”? We probably go back to the 80s when the US provided massive aide to Iraq, including chemical weapons, in their war against Iran.

Iran has now fired rockets at a US Embassy in Iraq, so it appears the current theatre is in Iraq.

We killed a general.
They fired rockets at our Embassy. 

When does the actual WAR bit start?

The US also moved troops to the region. What do you need exactly?

[Dr David Thork]

Well anyone who liked Trump because he didn’t start needless wars can strike that from their list.

And then re-add it back onto the list.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50989745

Ugh. 1984 was supposed to be fiction. Thork was supposed to be a free-thinker.

My world is crumbling.

Yeah, I have no idea why I took the BBC version of events to be accurate. As I read more accounts it became clear they are lying again.

Still, Boris is going to take their license fee off them and they'll be dead within a few years of that. No more BBC.

[Rushy]

Ok, help me understand something.

In the first bit, you said Iran started it by attacking the US Embassy via proxy.
But in the second part, you said we've been working to destabalize their country and destroy their equipment for, I presume, years.

Ssooo..... Who started it?

Countries attempt to economically destabilize and ruin infrastructure with each other at all times. The US has more resources than most and so its campaigns are generally more effective.

Iran attacking an embassy was a bridge too far, which is why the response was equally high profile. If you're looking for "who started conflicts between nation states" then ultimately the conflict started the moment Iran came into being. All states compete with all other states at all times.

The US also moved troops to the region. What do you need exactly?

We've had troops in Iraq for almost two decades now. Where have you been?

Rushy if you want to have an honest conversation about “who started it”? We probably go back to the 80s when the US provided massive aide to Iraq, including chemical weapons, in their war against Iran.

Iran has now fired rockets at a US Embassy in Iraq, so it appears the current theatre is in Iraq.

That's a pointless conversation to have, especially when you just got done claiming Trump started it.

[Rama Set]

If you don’t want to admit that Trump’s actions are a clear escalation of the situation then I would love to hear how you interpret it.

[Rushy]

If you don’t want to admit that Trump’s actions are a clear escalation of the situation then I would love to hear how you interpret it.

Trump's actions were a retaliation for a situation that was already escalating. Iran had been increasingly funding anti-government militias that culminated in the attack on a US embassy. The Suleimani strike sends a pretty clear message of "stop doing that". Would you prefer Trump just kindly ask them to stop attacking US assets? Further, why is your argument now escalation rather than Trump started a war?

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Rushy if you want to have an honest conversation about “who started it”? We probably go back to the 80s when the US provided massive aide to Iraq, including chemical weapons, in their war against Iran.

We could go further back then that and talk about giving weapons to Bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.


It's not that this guy isn't a butthole who needs to be killed. He's been on U.S radar for a while and there is a specific reason we didn't kill before. Iran is NOT Afghanistan. Iran is not Iraq. If this escalates, it will be real war.


After all these years, our troops are still dying in Afghanistan after our purported 'victory' and the only air force Afghanistan had was a few helicopters. Iran has jet fighters, drones, submarines and thousands of suicidal fighters. Thanks to Trump ditching the nuclear treaty they will have nuclear weapons in two years instead of ten. If you enjoyed Afghanistan and Iraq, you're going to love Iran.


Trump pulled this ill-conceived,reality TV spectacle to divert attention from the impeachment and gain more support from his base.

[Rama Set]

Trump's actions were a retaliation for a situation that was already escalating. Iran had been increasingly funding anti-government militias that culminated in the attack on a US embassy. The Suleimani strike sends a pretty clear message of "stop doing that". Would you prefer Trump just kindly ask them to stop attacking US assets?

I think you are too smart to engage in silly false dilemmas like that. There is a world of diplomacy that can happen before assassination.

Further, why is your argument now escalation rather than Trump started a war?

Again, I know you are better than this. These aren’t mutually exclusive ideas. Isn’t war an escalation?

[Lord Dave]

Ok, help me understand something.

In the first bit, you said Iran started it by attacking the US Embassy via proxy.
But in the second part, you said we've been working to destabalize their country and destroy their equipment for, I presume, years.

Ssooo..... Who started it?

Countries attempt to economically destabilize and ruin infrastructure with each other at all times. The US has more resources than most and so its campaigns are generally more effective.

Iran attacking an embassy was a bridge too far, which is why the response was equally high profile. If you're looking for "who started conflicts between nation states" then ultimately the conflict started the moment Iran came into being. All states compete with all other states at all times.

So a protest with rocks and tear gas but no serious injuries or fatalities should be responded to by killing the one organizing it?

I guess that makes sense.  When someone is protesting against you strongly, kill the leader.   
Trump should probably kill all those liberals organizing protests against him too.  You know, just because they are attacking him, and He Is America.

[Lord Dave]

Welp, Iraq just voted to remove all US troops from the country. 

Trump is also sending MORE troops to the Middle East.

We be gearing up for War, y'all.  And it will not be pretty.

[Dr David Thork]

Welp, Iraq just voted to remove all US troops from the country. 

Trump is also sending MORE troops to the Middle East.

We be gearing up for War, y'all.  And it will not be pretty.

You're on your own. We have a Brexit thing to do and The Queen has a birthday this year and ... good luck.