Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

[Helen]

Plan? Nothing they've done has been planned. The bloke in charge of "war" is an alcoholic Faux News guy. They've been clueless all the way.

That's unfair, they may have the concepts of a plan. Or an idea for the concepts of a plan. Or an inkling of an idea for the concepts of a plan. Or a vague nation of an inkling of an idea for... No. They have no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ clue, do they?

 

[jimbob]

That's unfair, they may have the concepts of a plan. Or an idea for the concepts of a plan. Or an inkling of an idea for the concepts of a plan. Or a vague nation of an inkling of an idea for... No. They have no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ clue, do they?

I did hear him speak on the radio news this morning. A phrase that if even he wasn't senile, he'd realise that it has an unsuccessful precedent. I guess it popped into his head and he had no idea where it came from, but sounded aggressive and militaristic.

Yes he did talk about "bombing them back to the stone age"

The 1960s called, they want their quagmire back

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I did hear him speak on the radio news this morning. A phrase that if even he wasn't senile, he'd realise that it has an unsuccessful precedent. I guess it popped into his head and he had no idea where it came from, but sounded aggressive and militaristic.

Yes he did talk about "bombing them back to the stone age"

The 1960s called, they want their quagmire back

The trees are laughing in Vietnamese.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Department of State
@StateDept
SECRETARY RUBIO: NATO wasn’t just about defending Europe, but allowing us to have military bases in Europe for our national security.

If we’ve reached a point where the NATO alliance means that we can’t use those bases to defend our interests, then it’s a one-way street.

Video in link

Yeah, but when push came to shove the US never had to defend Europe, but Europe helped the US three times in it's wars of aggression.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, but when push came to shove the US never had to defend Europe,

Because our spending helped ensure the Soviets never attacked. You can't treat that as cost-free to the US since war never broke out. It wasn't cost free. Not even close.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Can we classify Trump as an autoimmune disease?

Considering his anticedents and offspring I suggest The Trumps as a whole are an STD.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That's a no then

NEWSMAX: Is boots on the ground the red line for Republicans in Congress?

REP. GREG STEUBE: Well, I think if you do it in a limited manner. Strategically, we need Kharg Island to secure the strait.

Link

 

[The Great Zaganza]

He doesn't know where Kharg is, does he?

 

[TragicMonkey]

He doesn't know where Kharg is, does he?

I thought Kharg was killed by Worf in a bat'leth duel in the third season?

 

[alfaniner]

In May 2017, Trump said his trillion-dollar infrastructure plan would be arriving in "the next two or three weeks, maybe sooner." For various reasons, that never came to pass during his first term. On 15 November 2021, President Joe Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, aka the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

In July 2020, Trump said he would replace Obamacare by a new health care plan within two weeks. A little over four years later, he said he had "concepts of a plan" to do that.

Shortly after losing the 2020 presidential election, Trump said he would provide evidence of election fraud within two weeks. It's been more than five years, and he's still working on it.

"Two weeks" has been used by The POSOTUS so often that there are Bingo cards and memes about it.

 

[jimbob]

That's a no then

NEWSMAX: Is boots on the ground the red line for Republicans in Congress?

REP. GREG STEUBE: Well, I think if you do it in a limited manner. Strategically, we need Kharg Island to secure the strait.

Link

Because nothing controls the Strait of Hormuz like an island nearly 600km from it..

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Because our spending helped ensure the Soviets never attacked. You can't treat that as cost-free to the US since war never broke out. It wasn't cost free. Not even close.

True, the US made a lot of money out of the contributions of member nations being funneled to their industrial complex.
And maybe the US presence stopped a soviet attack, but then again, maybe there was never a real threat of that, the Soviet Union preferred to destabilize from the inside.

That does not remove the fact that when it came to boots on the ground in combat the EU supported the US three times, and now the US is whining we won't do so a fourth time, when they started a pointless, illegal war without any coordination.

 

[Ziggurat]

And maybe the US presence stopped a soviet attack, but then again, maybe there was never a real threat of that

If that was true, then NATO was superfluous from the start, and no one should decry its demise.

That does not remove the fact that when it came to boots on the ground in combat the EU supported the US three times

No. Individual European countries supported the US. The EU did not. There is no EU defense force.

And which three times are you talking about? I presume Afghanistan is one. What are the other two you're thinking of? Iraq? Libya? Something else?

, and now the US is whining we won't do so a fourth time,

Nobody is asking any European country to put boots on the ground. The US is asking to use bases and air space (which doesn't cost the EU anything), and for our European allies to help contribute to freedom of navigation. That latter one does require a commitment, but it's a commitment to something that the EU should have considerable interest in.

If the EU doesn't care about maintaining freedom of navigation, well, there are consequences to that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's nothing to do with the EU.
It's up to individual countries.

 

[Andy_Ross]

NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker: "It's very clear that President Trump is reevaluating everything, whether that's our involvement at NATO or our support for European efforts in Ukraine. Everything is on the table."

Link

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

If that was true, then NATO was superfluous from the start, and no one should decry its demise.

No. Individual European countries supported the US. The EU did not. There is no EU defense force.

And which three times are you talking about? I presume Afghanistan is one. What are the other two you're thinking of? Iraq? Libya? Something else?

Nobody is asking any European country to put boots on the ground. The US is asking to use bases and air space (which doesn't cost the EU anything), and for our European allies to help contribute to freedom of navigation. That latter one does require a commitment, but it's a commitment to something that the EU should have considerable interest in.

If the EU doesn't care about maintaining freedom of navigation, well, there are consequences to that.

I deeply apologize for getting the semantics wrong.

The EU members of NATO supported the US in three wars, all of which were quite dubious whether they were obliged to as neither Iraq (2X) or Afghanistan ever attacked the US. But help they did.

And you haven't read the various rants of your own president demanding NATO help him out in his current illegal war? Or his rants how nobody ever helped the US? Odd.

 

[Helen]

Perhaps you should talk to your ...allies, before starting a war, if you want their help?

 

[Steve]

NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker: "It's very clear that President Trump is reevaluating everything, whether that's our involvement at NATO or our support for European efforts in Ukraine. Everything is on the table."

Link

Trump "reevaluates" everything on a minute by minute basis. That is as long as he can hold a thought in his demented brain.

 

[Planigale]

Biden got a law passed so Trump can't pull out of Nato. It takes 2/3 majority of senate to abrogate the treaty or an act of congress. He can threaten all he wants but he can't actually pull out of NATO and he can't kick anyone out of NATO. To quote Will, 'full of sound and fury signifying nothing'.

 

[Ziggurat]

The EU members of NATO supported the US in three wars, all of which were quite dubious whether they were obliged to as neither Iraq (2X) or Afghanistan ever attacked the US.

"Afghanistan" was not a state in the traditional sense. Al Qaeda did attack the US, and they were based in the region known as Afghanistan. So there absolutely was a NATO obligation to support the US there. You can argue all you want about how that war was handled, but if you don't understand why this was an absolutely legitimate Article V invocation, you're not even worth discussing this with.

Iraq was different than Afghanistan. NATO was never invoked, though many NATO members participated. For the 1991 Iraq war, I'm not sure why attacking the US is the relevant metric. They attacked and occupied Kuwait. The first gulf war was fought to expel Iraq from Kuwait, and had the support of the United Nations security council. European nations weren't sticking their necks out for us, they were participating in a joint UN effort to defend Kuwait's sovereignty. Is that not sufficient justification? Do you really think that was dubious? Russia didn't attack any NATO or EU members, but both organizations are quite invested in helping Ukraine against Russia, and desperately want the US to as well. How is that any different?

For the 2003 Iraq war, the only two European nations to provide boots on the ground were the UK and Poland. Don't pretend that this was some general European support, it wasn't.