US Warns Iran

Discussion in 'Politics and Current Events' started by mcb0703!, May 6, 2019.

  1. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Iran possibly preparing to attack US forces in the Middle East...most likely targets would be Bahrain or UAE, as we have many military members in both countries

    Not a coincidence that Iran initiated fighting with Israel last week; the Iranians are running the show in the Gaza fighting

    Many Islamic countries or terror groups like to use anniversaries or holidays for these types of events. Only May holiday I can find is Iranian National Holiday Martyrdom of Imam Ali on May 26

    https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...cations-iran-planned-attack/story?id=62843182
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2019
    TexasPalladin likes this.
  2. Scipio Tex

    Scipio Tex Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

  3. UTGrad91

    UTGrad91 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    hwhondaman, Shane3 and TexasPalladin like this.
  4. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-aircraft-idUSKCN1SG0TQ

    U.S. B-52 bombers reach Middle East in message to Iran
     
    TexasPalladin and Turnbo828 like this.
  5. ttaghorn

    ttaghorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Surely the rulers, whoever to hell they are, in Iran are not stupid enough to take on the US. They should be content with allowing puppet's like Hezie, Palestie, Alki, and other groups to continue snipping away at Irasel and the US in the Region. When do you think Egypt, Saudi's, and the Turks will get a gut full and make them knock it off.
     
  6. ttaghorn

    ttaghorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    IFO are glad he got his legacy deal done, the World is now at peace, Iran has stopped its Nuclear development of bombs, stopped its Terroristic activities, stopped abetting terror in the World. Obama has saved the World, again.

    Hee, hee, hee.
     
    padrehorn11 and TexasPalladin like this.
  7. U.S. Bates

    U.S. Bates Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    There’s not much those Sunni nations can do about Iran. They’d love to but can’t.
     
  8. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    This isn’t how it works in the Middle East
     
    windycityhorn and TexasPalladin like this.
  9. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Yes they can
     
    Bobcat 9 likes this.
  10. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Will they?
     
  11. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Hard to say...would likely lead to a Middle East civil war.

    But Saudi, Jordan, Kuwait, et al have the significant militaries to conduct the operations; deciding to conduct these ops is a different question
     
    windycityhorn and TexasPalladin like this.
  12. TexasPalladin

    TexasPalladin Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    It would require the U.S. to be involved with the Arab States along the same lines of the Desert Storm coalition and buildup in 89-90.
    Although the entire Pan-Arab coalition could possibly defeat the Persians...They would want the U.S./NATO/Etc to insure victory rather than risking losing to and allowing Iran hegemony in the Middle East.

    Semper Fi
     
  13. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    2 Saudi oil tankers attacked near UAE, port of Fujairah; different Middle East state media reporting 7 ships attacked, that report has not been confirmed. Port of Fujairah is one the largest oil ports in the world & one of the closest points to Iranian coast

    The timing on this seems very strange
     
    eodhorn, Shane3 and TexasPalladin like this.
  14. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    More strangeness.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-n...jairah-uae-fears-us-iran-conflict-2019-05-13/

    The statement from the Saudi government on the alleged "sabotage attacks" off the United Arab Emirates port at Fujairah came just hours after Iranian and Lebanese media outlets aired false reports of explosions at the port, which sits less than 100 miles from the mouth of the vital Strait of Hormuz shipping channel. Emirati officials have declined to elaborate on the nature of the sabotage or say who might have been responsible.
     
  15. padrehorn11

    padrehorn11 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Evidently the oil market has decided there's nothing to it. The price rose about $1.60 or so, but it's now fallen about $2.45 from that high. In other words it's now about $0.85 lower than before the reports.
     
    Shane3 and TexasPalladin like this.
  16. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    What’s your guess? Did the Saudis fake an attack?
     
    TexasPalladin likes this.
  17. padrehorn11

    padrehorn11 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I'm reminded of what LBJ said in private (now revealed) about the second 'attack' of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, "Hell, for all I know it could have been whales our Navy was shooting at out there." And thus do 'Incidents' become 'Wars'.
     
  18. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    No, I don't believe the Saudis faked an attack. & you need to stop with the Alex Jones level Saudi conspiracy theories...

    In the Middle East, there are no neutral players; so, do you support the Iranians or the Saudis?
     
  19. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I don’t trust either side. We’ve mostly been friends with the Saudis, with the exception of Obama’s bizarre Iranian deal, so I expect that to continue.
     
  20. Shane3

    Shane3 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Hopefully we’re smarter now.

    https://sg.news.yahoo.com/saudi-oil-tankers-hit-sabotage-attacks-gulf-tensions-100602956.html

    Acting Pentagon chief Patrick Shanahan proposed a revamped military plan at a meeting with senior national security aides that would send up to 120,000 US troops to the Middle East were Iran to attack American forces or speed up nuclear weapons development, The New York Times reported.
     
  21. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    I get that, & understand not trusting SA

    I’m partial to SA because of my experience with them; but they're also enemies with Iran. The Iranians continue firing missiles from Yemen into SA, & they’re running the show against Israel with the recent fighting.

    But more than anything, the Iranians are directly responsible for 800+ deaths during the Iraq war. So in this case, siding with SA & other ME countries is the only option I see that helps us & that region. There specific Iranian individuals I hope have long slow painful deaths after what they did to US personnel in Iraq
     
    Shane3 and TexasPalladin like this.
  22. windycityhorn

    windycityhorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    All of this recently with Iran seems to me to have John Bolton's fingerprints all over it. The president is not an interventionist; he prefers talking to dictators to overthrowing them militarily. Bolton has had a hard-on for Iran for a long time.

    Can someone make the case for military intervention in Iran? I don't see it. And what happens after? We're still feeling the ill effects of the last Middle Eastern war for which Bolton banged the drum.
     
    40A and acreativeusername like this.
  23. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Bolton is on the extreme side, I agree.
     
  24. U.S. Bates

    U.S. Bates Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    So Bolton flew armed drones into Saudi crude tankers?
     
  25. scout3dave

    scout3dave Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    That bastard!
     
  26. windycityhorn

    windycityhorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Did Iran? Have the Saudis ever lied about something to advance their interests? Has the United States ever used an incident at sea as an excuse to ramp up conflict with a foreign enemy? Has John Bolton ever been wrong about the Middle East? Has he ever been accused of misrepresenting intelligence?
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2019
    40A and acreativeusername like this.
  27. UTGrad91

    UTGrad91 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Hopefully this issue will be resolved without armed conflict, but if fighting does break out we need to stay out of it unless of course the Iranians do attack us and then we have no choice.
     
  28. U.S. Bates

    U.S. Bates Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Did i blame the Iranians? You specifically mentioned Bolton so i assumed you thought he was behind it.

    The other points are fair and probably better paired with a previous post that doubted the narrative wing pushed by the media rather than basically accusing our government of doing something like this with zero proof.
     
  29. windycityhorn

    windycityhorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Maybe I should have been more clear what I was referring to, then. This dropped today:

    WASHINGTON — At a meeting of President Trump’s top national security aides last Thursday, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, administration officials said. The revisions were ordered by hard-liners led by John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser.

    And also today an anonymous administration official told the AP that Iran was behind the attacks on the Saudi tankers. Taken as a whole, and knowing Bolton's long-stated stance on Iran, I see the hand of Bolton in the current escalation with Tehran.
     
  30. Bobcat 9

    Bobcat 9 Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    And interestingly the Israelis and Saudis have a sort of alliance to deal with Iran.
     
  31. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    You're giving 1 person waaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit for escalating to the brink of war. Given the policies & structure of the National Security Council, it's just not possible

    & there are many @ the CIA & DoD leadership levels that would make sure this would be leaked in order to reign in Bolton. Secretary Shanahan would not put soldiers, sailors, marines in any jeopardy whatsoever based on Bolton trying to escalate. Also, ALL intel agencies are in constant contact with our partners in the ME to get their latest intelligence; this would only refute or confirm anything Bolton or any other member of the NSC is trying to present

    Stop acting like Bolton can do this on his own; it's literally impossible to do so
     
    TexasPalladin likes this.
  32. windycityhorn

    windycityhorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Did I ever say Bolton was doing all this by himself? If you disagree with me, that's fine, but you're misrepresenting what I said. Maybe I'm being unclear today, I dunno. Maybe some folks just like to argue.

    Nobody does anything solo in national security. One wouldn't pin the Iraq War on Bolton, either, but his fingerprints were on that, too.

    I'm saying I see the influence of John Bolton in this entire ramp-up with Iran. Not that he's the only one. There is a group of conservatives who have argued in favor of finally having it out with Iran; Steve Bannon was also a proponent, but he's not in the White House any more. Bolton is one of the most vocal members of that club, and he's now the NSA.

    So no, it's not just him -- I'm sure the Saudis and Netanyahu are right there with Bolton -- but to the extent that we can know any of what goes on in this White House, is there anyone in the administration who has more influence with the president on Iran policy right now than his national security advisor?
     
  33. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    You've mentioned 2 people pushing this "ramp-up" with Iran, & 1 of those individuals was fired more than a year ago. Who else in this administration or NSC is pushing this agenda against Iran?

    & no, the National Security Advisor does NOT have more influence over the president; the NSA is not a Senate confirmable position, nor is a Cabinet Secretary position. I don't care if it's Trump, Obama, Bush, whoever, the Secretary of Defense, CIA Director, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, & many others will have as much, if not more influence with the president than the National Security Advisor. & I haven't event mentioned the NSC's influence
     
  34. windycityhorn

    windycityhorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Neither you nor I know who has influence over this president. This president does not care who is Senate-confirmed or in the Cabinet. This is not a normal administration. The president's son in law might have more sway over him than anyone, and he's neither Senate-confirmed nor a member of the Cabinet. Trump (reportedly) stopped listening to Mattis long before he was let go, and he (reportedly) never got along with McMaster. Principals Meetings are (reportedly) down significantly since Bolton took over. The acting SecDef is newer than Bolton and himself has never been confirmed by the Senate. Gina Haspel testified that Iran is technically in compliance with the nuclear disarmament agreement; who knows where she is on the issue at the moment.

    I don't know, why don't you tell me? I thought I was giving Bolton too much credit? If that's your argument then make a case for it instead of just naysaying mine. I can think of one without doing a bunch of research: Victoria Coates, NSC Senior Director for the Middle East. Former RedState blogger, worked for Rumsfeld advisor to Rick Perry and Ted Cruz. But at the senior level, if it's more than just Bolton, then please enlighten me.
     
  35. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    This ^^^^ was your quote & now you want me to tell you who's helping to "ramp up" this situation with Iran? Uh no...how about you back up your own statement with the details. It's not my responsibility to figure out WTF you meant. So far, you've mentioned Bolton & Bannon; who else (that's actually working in this administration) is helping "ramp-up" this situation with Iran?

    Why am I not surprised a lib on this board can't keep his story straight...

     
  36. windycityhorn

    windycityhorn Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Oooh. "Lib." That's the quality content we know and love from ol' McB.

    I just gave you a name. It's right there in my post. She's on the National Security Council. Does that qualify as working in this administration?
     
  37. mcb0703!

    mcb0703! Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    No, Victoria Coates is not helping "ramp-up" this situation with Iran. Try again.
     
  38. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

  39. acreativeusername

    acreativeusername Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

    Two great Onion articles the last few days

    Bleeding John Bolton Stumbles Into Capitol Building Claiming That Iran Shot Him https://politics.theonion.com/bleeding-john-bolton-stumbles-into-capitol-building-cla-1834847900

    John Bolton: ‘An Attack On Two Saudi Oil Tankers Is An Attack On All Americans’ https://politics.theonion.com/john-bolton-an-attack-on-two-saudi-oil-tankers-is-an-1834791494
     
  40. calvin farquhar

    calvin farquhar Member Who Talks (A Lot!)

Share This Page