The Trump Presidency 14

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
Right now we have 5-4 Conservative majority on the Supreme Court. The only reason that up until... like the last few months that hasn't mattered is traditionally SCOTUS has been the least partisan of all the major branches of government so often one of the Justices would break ranks.

But Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are hard line party android.And he's nominated young folks. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are in their early to mid 50s. Trump puts one more person on the Supreme Court and that's it, we're basically Conservative controlled as a country for a long, long time.
Click to expand...

CJ Roberts is now the closest we have to a swing vote, I think.

Of course, we only have a year and a half to a presidential election, so obviously McConnell wouldn't bring a new Trump nomination up for a vote, right?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
The Iranian Navy would be sunk within days of anything starting.
How long do you think those subs will last ?

You overestimate the capability of the Iranian navy and vaqstly underestimate the US.

It's the tankers that will be at risk, first priority will be to blockade the straights and sink any tankers.
As soon as any shooting looks likely the oil flow will stop as the shipping lines pull their ships out.
Click to expand...

Iran's conventional forces would indeed lose to the US and pretty quickly. However that isn't the problem. The problem would be Iraq and Afghanistan writ large.
 
jimbob said:
Iran's conventional forces would indeed lose to the US and pretty quickly. However that isn't the problem. The problem would be Iraq and Afghanistan writ large.
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't, because they would not meet them in direct battle. They would melt into cities and mountains, doing hit-and-run attacks - that's what they trained for.
The US would get hammered.
 
Trebuchet said:
CJ Roberts is now the closest we have to a swing vote, I think.

Of course, we only have a year and a half to a presidential election, so obviously McConnell wouldn't bring a new Trump nomination up for a vote, right?
Click to expand...
Oh no, the situation in 2020 would be totally different than the 2016/Obama/Garland situation.

You see, obviously since Trump is up for re-election, it is perfectly valid to rush any of his nominees through, as opposed to Obama who was nearing the end of his term and couldn't stand for re-election.

(Not that I believe it; just trying to imagine the justification McConnell might actually use.)
 
smartcooky said:
If you think that the US Navy will be able to strike the Iranian navy with impunity, you have forgotten what two guys on a Zodiac and some explosives did to the USS Cole. Its now thought that Iran may have taken "Q-Ships" to a new level; that they have what appear to be ordinary fishing dhows capable of launching ship to ship missiles. If this is true, you can multiply the potential threats such as what happened to the USS Cole by a few thousand times.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point.

What Trump is after is Iran to give him cause to start a war (false flag, anyone?) then nuke Tehran. No American lives at stake, and note the nice timing of this episode to coincide with the very high likelihood of any waste blowing away from Saudi and toward a load of non-friends of USA.

What's Putin going to do when faced with the choice of retaliation or not, when retaliation will bring about MAD?

newyorkguy said:
Sobering how quickly people are buying into this. And scary. To my ears the whole thing sounds like madness. One thing I learned in the military. Wars are real easy to start. Not so easy to end.
Click to expand...

Ah, but in wars America has fought and failed miserably at - A'stan, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria... - they only conventional materiel, while the one war they used nukes in stopped almost immediately, at a cost of very few American lives.

That's the kind of History trump likes.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
The Iranian Navy would be sunk within days of anything starting.
How long do you think those subs will last ?

You overestimate the capability of the Iranian navy and vaqstly underestimate the US.

It's the tankers that will be at risk, first priority will be to blockade the straights and sink any tankers.
As soon as any shooting looks likely the oil flow will stop as the shipping lines pull their ships out.
Click to expand...
According to Wikipedia, Iran has over 30 submarines. Let’s assume that 50% are operational. How confident are you that none of them will get close enough to torpedo your carrier?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
The Iranian Navy would be sunk within days of anything starting.
How long do you think those subs will last ?

You overestimate the capability of the Iranian navy and vaqstly underestimate the US.

It's the tankers that will be at risk, first priority will be to blockade the straights and sink any tankers.
As soon as any shooting looks likely the oil flow will stop as the shipping lines pull their ships out.
Click to expand...

I think war with Iran would be a horrid mistake, but,yeah, the Iranian Navy would not last long in a conflict with the US Navy. The real problem would be that Iran would not attack the US navy directly, but go after the tankers.
 
dudalb said:
I think war with Iran would be a horrid mistake, but,yeah, the Iranian Navy would not last long in a conflict with the US Navy. The real problem would be that Iran would not attack the US navy directly, but go after the tankers.
Click to expand...


Don't make the mistake of assuming Iran doesn't have allies who would step up to the plate and aid Iran to protect their own interests in that part of the world.

I also wouldn't make the mistake of assuming each and every US ally would be willing to touch this fight the US is stirring up with a 10-foot pole.

The US could very well be alone in this one.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
No, they wouldn't, because they would not meet them in direct battle. They would melt into cities and mountains, doing hit-and-run attacks - that's what they trained for.
The US would get hammered.
Click to expand...

Yep. People seem to picture this like armies lined up in a game of Risk.

The Soviets couldn't handle their conflict in Afghanistan. The USA couldn't manage Vietnam. 'Boots on the ground' in Iran would be a disaster for the US; they know it and it won't happen.
 
GlennB said:
Yep. People seem to picture this like armies lined up in a game of Risk.

The Soviets couldn't handle their conflict in Afghanistan. The USA couldn't manage Vietnam. 'Boots on the ground' in Iran would be a disaster for the US; they know it and it won't happen.
Click to expand...

... and we know Bolton's aim is regime change in Teheran. He has actually said as much publicly.

In the whole history of the world, no-one has ever brought about regime change by bombing the country into submission with no troops on the ground. Even in Japan, there was an occupying force; it was after Japan surrendered. In the highly unlikely event that Trump uses nukes as TheAtheist suggests, that could trigger WWIII.

Iran will not surrender, they will not fight the Americans where the Americans will want to fight; they will employ assymetric warfare. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has millions of well trained, well equipped troops; and they will be defending their own home, a mountainous country. If the America is forced to put boots on the ground in Iran, there will be a steady stream of body bags back to the USA.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
This highlights one of the biggest damages Trump has inflicted on the US. The Supreme court was already politicized, but now all judges are valued by which party's president appointed him or her. This means justice is completely partisan, and the system is broken.

I'm truly sorry this has happened to the US, and I hope you guys can catch a break. As it is, I see no end to it, and it's going to get worse.
Click to expand...

I don’t see that this changed at all under Trump. I think the only thing he did was change the makeup of the court.
 
smartcooky said:
Iran will not surrender, they will not fight the Americans where the Americans will want to fight; they will employ assymetric warfare. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has millions of well trained, well equipped troops; and they will be defending their own home, a mountainous country. If the America is forced to put boots on the ground in Iran, there will be a steady stream of body bags back to the USA.
Click to expand...
In addition Iran has an extremely strong sense of national identity. An attack would unify it internally like nothing else could. Russia and possibly China would support Iran. U.S. allies would be limited - Saudi, the Gulf States except for Qatar, and Israel would back the U.S. Most of Europe probably wouldn't.
 
Minoosh said:
In addition Iran has an extremely strong sense of national identity. An attack would unify it internally like nothing else could. Russia and possibly China would support Iran. U.S. allies would be limited - Saudi, the Gulf States except for Qatar, and Israel would back the U.S. Most of Europe probably wouldn't.
Click to expand...

According to the Center for Strategic International Studies, Iran possesses the largest and most diverse missile arsenal in the Middle East, with thousands of short and medium range ballistic and cruise missiles capable of striking as far west as Israel and southeast Europe. Most analysts and other ME experts I read agree that if the US attacks, Iran will launch some of those missiles at Saudi oilfields, and probably those of Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE as well. They won't bother sneaking up on tankers and US warships with submarines, they'll just let cruise missiles do the job for them.
 
eeyore1954 said:
This highlights one of the biggest damages Trump has inflicted on the US. The Supreme court was already politicized, but now all judges are valued by which party's president appointed him or her. This means justice is completely partisan, and the system is broken.

I'm truly sorry this has happened to the US, and I hope you guys can catch a break. As it is, I see no end to it, and it's going to get worse.
Click to expand...
I don’t see that this changed at all under Trump. I think the only thing he did was change the makeup of the court.
Click to expand...
There are 2 issues here:

- A question of degrees. Yes, its true... someone like RBG typically takes a more left-wing stance when doing rulings. But, they at least make an attempt to appear unbiased. Compare that to Judge Drunky McRapeface, who spent a good chunk of time lashing out at various people. Even if you think "Hey, nothing wrong with attempted sexual assault", his rantings during the hearings should have been enough to have him disqualified.

- The longest serving Justice on the supreme court is Thomas, who has served since the early 90s. Since that time, the U.S. has had a republican president for about 12 years. They have had a democratic president for 16 years. While the supreme court shouldn't necessarily be subject to issues of political popularity, the fact that the republicans have managed to install a majority of supreme court justices despite having less control over the white house during that time is problematic.
 
Minoosh said:
In addition Iran has an extremely strong sense of national identity. An attack would unify it internally like nothing else could. Russia and possibly China would support Iran. U.S. allies would be limited - Saudi, the Gulf States except for Qatar, and Israel would back the U.S. Most of Europe probably wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Plus, Israel's "support" would be pretty much useless, since if they attempted to get involved, it would likely cause a backlash among other countries (including Saudi Arabia) and probably end up causing support for Iran to increase in the region.

The U.S. can rely on Israel or Saudi Arabia. Not both.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom