• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

dudalb said:
I still believe that when Iran strikes back, it will be with it/s terorrists proxies.
Click to expand...
... which would be the de-escalating strategy.
the US has tens of thousands of troops in far closer reach to Iran than Israel: in Qatar, Kuweit, Iran etc., and none have the level of protection that the Iron Dome provides.
The same people who call the Iranian Regime Religious Fanatics with a Death Wish think that the Iranians will use great restraint in their response, not even threatening shipping lanes "because it would be suicide".
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
... which would be the de-escalating strategy.
the US has tens of thousands of troops in far closer reach to Iran than Israel: in Qatar, Kuweit, Iran etc., and nonw have the level of protection that the Iron Dome provides.
The same people who call the Iranian Regime Religious Fanatics with a Death Wish think that the Iranians will use great restraint in their response, not even threatening shipping lanes.
Click to expand...
Iran is now threatening the shipping lanes, especially oil.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Iran is now threatening the shipping lanes, especially oil.
Click to expand...
..which is the responsible threat: even if Iran ends up doing nothing, just issuing it makes shipping more expensive, raising prices.
And overt action, like mines or limited attacks on tankers will make oil prices skyrocket - all without causing any casualties.

Honestly, I think the Gulf States, US and Israel all would prefer attacks on US bases than a blocking of the Strait of Hormuz.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
The same people who call the Iranian Regime Religious Fanatics with a Death Wish think that the Iranians will use great restraint in their response, not even threatening shipping lanes "because it would be suicide".
Click to expand...
'The enemy is both terribly strong and pitifully weak'. Fascism 101.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
..which is the responsible threat: even if Iran ends up doing nothing, just issuing it makes shipping more expensive, raising prices.
And overt action, like mines or limited attacks on tankers will make oil prices skyrocket - all without causing any casualties.

Honestly, I think the Gulf States, US and Israel all would prefer attacks on US bases than a blocking of the Strait of Hormuz.
Click to expand...
They only need to stop tanker traffic. Don't need to board them or sink anything. Just blockade.
 
Trump tore up the nuclear deal with Iran during his first term. But Joe Biden, who ran a consistent and even-keeled government, appears to have done nothing to negotiate a new deal or even try to get the old one back in place. Why was that?
 
Blue Mountain said:
Trump tore up the nuclear deal with Iran during his first term. But Joe Biden, who ran a consistent and even-keeled government, appears to have done nothing to negotiate a new deal or even try to get the old one back in place. Why was that?
Click to expand...
I wonder the same thing about why he did not remove the increased sanctions on Cuba especially once it became apparent they didn't have a secret energy weapon. I don't understand US politics enough to understand why Biden was so passive. By keeping so many Trump reversals of Obama policies in place he was effectively validating those decisions made when he was VP. I think Biden should have cleared as much Trump era policy out of the system ASAP.
 
Planigale said:
I wonder the same thing about why he did not remove the increased sanctions on Cuba especially once it became apparent they didn't have a secret energy weapon. I don't understand US politics enough to understand why Biden was so passive. By keeping so many Trump reversals of Obama policies in place he was effectively validating those decisions made when he was VP. I think Biden should have cleared as much Trump era policy out of the system ASAP.
Click to expand...
If and when the next Dem president comes in, they won't make that mistake.
 
Armitage72 said:
For decades, US foreign policy has been clear. If you don't have nukes, doing something that even mildly annoys us will get you bombed and/or invaded. If you have nukes, you can do whatever you want and you'll get little more than a firmly-worded letter.
If a nation is worried that the US may dislike them at some point, it's in their best interests to look into the possibility of nukes.
Click to expand...
There are two more criteria that'll get you put into category B; 1) sell the US lots of oil or other fossil fuels or 2) own large chunks of US real estate.
 
Dems have always, always felt that they are vulnerable to claims of not being sufficiently patriotic. Despite all evidence.
And instead of reframing the issue, they keep on chasing after pro-military, pro-law enforcement, anti-immigration cred they will never get because it has nothing to do with facts.
Biden and Harris didn't think they could win unless they out-hawked Trump.
Remember who called Iran America's enemy no.1.
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
All this . . . thing did was to guarantee the U.S. will experience a briefcase nuke somewhere in the future.

Or am I being too cynical?
Click to expand...
Or I think more likely a dirty bomb. And I think a real concern for the USA given the current regime's incompetence and ignorance is whether it has the necessary safeguards in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom