Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[US Foreign Policy] A Generation of War

19394969899102

Posts

  • NotYouNotYou regular Registered User regular
    What's really crazy is that this shit is happening AFTER Bolton left.

    TicaldfjamFencingsaxCommander ZoomGONG-00Emerlmaster999Johnny ChopsockytynicjdarksunDuke 2.0MagellTetraNitroCubaneSealJazzRchanenMrVyngaardSanguinius666264ToxGennenalyse RuebenErleclonelyahavaElldrenStabbity StyleboogedybooAimGSM
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    That's actually the main good thing to happen here.

    If Bolton were still about we'd probably already attacked.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    That's actually the main good thing to happen here.

    If Bolton were still about we'd probably already attacked.

    I think he'd certainly have tried. I wonder how far he could have pushed that though.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • monikermoniker regular Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    That's actually the main good thing to happen here.

    If Bolton were still about we'd probably already attacked.

    I think he'd certainly have tried. I wonder how far he could have pushed that though.

    I forget when, but last year or so there was an airstrike that was called off after the planes were already in the air.

  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum regular Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    moniker wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    That's actually the main good thing to happen here.

    If Bolton were still about we'd probably already attacked.

    I think he'd certainly have tried. I wonder how far he could have pushed that though.

    I forget when, but last year or so there was an airstrike that was called off after the planes were already in the air.

    Less than three months ago.

    Fun days, right?

    Edit for that event: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/world/middleeast/iran-us-drone.html

    OneAngryPossum on
    shrykeKoopahTroopahFencingsaxtynicNobeardRchanenelectricitylikesmeMrVyngaardKamarCalicaGennenalyse RuebenStabbity Styleboogedybooemp123
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers regular Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    Gaddez wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Dac wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    So far I've not found any mention of Saudi oil worker casualties in the story, which is kind of the moderating control for "how much am I pleased about this" from a climate change and "stop fucking bombing civilians in Yemen" perspective.

    It’s quite frankly a massive feat if nobody died as a result of this.

    A lot of large refineries have gotten very very good at keeping their personnel intact when something goes wrong. I'd assume that the people designing Saudi Arabia's refineries are probably second to none in that kind of department.

    Yeah, but Saudi refineries? They practically run a slave state. If they have high standards of safety, it’d be to protect the equipment over the personnel. Granted protecting the equipment can result in less injury and deaths, but it’s not the same thing.

    Oil is their nation's lifeblood and the source of their ridiculous wealth. If anything, you would make sure those workers are absolutely happy and fulfilled, so as to reduce risks to the refinery and temptation for espionage/sabotage.

    They can always get more.

    You're going to have a hard time getting skilled workers to move to the kingdom if you don't offer the incentives the Saudis already offer (good pay, benefits, paid school for employee children etc.). Skilled workers in the petroleum field have options.

    In other countries I'm sure that's the case, though I'm skeptical that the house of Saud feels so constrained.

    As I understand it from talking with people who have done O&G work over there, is that the structure is basically.

    Management is Saudis and Westerner consultants. Engineering is done via one of the big EPC companies, so a lot of western PM and overall design, but a lot of the junior stuff at those EPCs and the day to day stuff at the facilities is Indians - or Saudis just doing a few years before moving into management. Plant maintenance and other physical labor at the plant, is basically done by the same groups that the Qataris use to build their soccer stadiums.

    Thats how out of a population of 33 million you have 2.5m Indians, 1.6m Pakistanis, 1.6m Philippians, 1.3m Bangladeshis, and a bunch of other Asian expants. Something like 1/3 of the country is immigrant workers.

    e: At each tier the wages are very good. But they are very good "for an American plant systems expert", "for a junior Indian engineer", "for a migrant Bangladeshi worker". There isn't the "stealing our jobs" mindset from the Saudis because the low level work is seen as beneath them. The consensus is "we should bring in foreigners to do this shit work".

    This is a lot of generalizations, but I think its pretty valid.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    shrykeBlackDragon480NSDFRandKetBraRchanenGnome-Interruptus
  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    Just to be clear: We’re “locked & loaded” the day after something happens in Saudi Arabia but the President has all but told the NATO nations to get fucked?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum regular Registered User regular
    Apparently the admin is trying to say the attack came from inside Iran. WHEEEEE

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • GaddezGaddez regular Registered User regular
    The best part is that it wasn't even Iran that did this.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    Kayne Red Robe
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom regular Registered User regular
    If they acknowledged it was rebels, that might call attention to the rebels, and some people might wonder "well, why are they rebelling?" and discover that, hey, the house of Saud is kind of shit.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
  • Romantic UndeadRomantic Undead regular Registered User regular
    Also, and maybe this is just my 4X video-game addled mind speaking here, but what does an attack on a Saudi Oil field have to do with the US, exactly? Did you guys sign a mutual defense pact that I'm not aware of? How is this anyone but the Kingdom's problem? Are they not capable of defending themselves?

    I mean, I know the real answer, but I'd still like to hear what the "official" justification would be for any actual military response here. At least with Iraq, the administration had the gall to lie about needing to "destroy WMDs". What "threat" to the US is Iran posing here, assuming we believe everything coming out of this admin?

    3DS FC: 1547-5210-6531
    KrieghundRchanenGnome-InterruptusSmrtnikJaysonFourLovelyKayne Red Robe
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum regular Registered User regular
    Also, and maybe this is just my 4X video-game addled mind speaking here, but what does an attack on a Saudi Oil field have to do with the US, exactly? Did you guys sign a mutual defense pact that I'm not aware of? How is this anyone but the Kingdom's problem? Are they not capable of defending themselves?

    I mean, I know the real answer, but I'd still like to hear what the "official" justification would be for any actual military response here. At least with Iraq, the administration had the gall to lie about needing to "destroy WMDs". What "threat" to the US is Iran posing here, assuming we believe everything coming out of this admin?

    They took American hostages 40 years ago. That's basically it.

    The real reason of course, is the billion+ dollar bribe they gave the Trump family.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    monikerMorganVCommander ZoomEmerlmaster999DarkPrimusRchanenGnome-InterruptusMillGennenalyse RuebenTNTrooperautono-wally, erotibot300ElldrenStabbity StyleboogedybooOrcaMr Rayemp123
  • chrisnlchrisnl regular Registered User regular
    So the basic situation that I can determine from a quick read of the internet is that Yemen was basically a puppet-state of Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of different groups of rebels rose up to overthrow that government. They appear to have been largely successful, and Saudi Arabia has been trying for years to stamp them out without any noticeable success. The current situation is an utter clusterfuck of epic proportions, with every side of the conflict doing terrible things to every other side. The Houthi movement seems like the strongest / most stable faction at the moment, but that doesn't exactly make them good guys either.

    This seems like something the USA should stay well away from. Any USA involvement seems more likely to end up with a Vietnam / Iraq / Afghanistan outcome with no good results for anybody. I don't see a way our involvement would improve anything even under a competent, compassionate administration, much less the chucklefucks we have in power now.

    steam_sig.png
    Gnome-InterruptusMr Ray
  • PhillisherePhillishere regular Registered User regular
    Also, and maybe this is just my 4X video-game addled mind speaking here, but what does an attack on a Saudi Oil field have to do with the US, exactly? Did you guys sign a mutual defense pact that I'm not aware of? How is this anyone but the Kingdom's problem? Are they not capable of defending themselves?

    I mean, I know the real answer, but I'd still like to hear what the "official" justification would be for any actual military response here. At least with Iraq, the administration had the gall to lie about needing to "destroy WMDs". What "threat" to the US is Iran posing here, assuming we believe everything coming out of this admin?

    We've been quietly on "Team Sunni" since at least the late 1970s.

    EncBigJoeMFencingsaxJaysonFourboogedyboo
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    Gaddez wrote: »
    The best part is that it wasn't even Iran that did this.

    It's fine to be skeptical, but where is your quotation proof end quotation that definitively Iran did not do this? You are saying there's a 0% chance this happened?

    manwiththemachinegun on
    Diplominator
  • JayKaosJayKaos regular Registered User regular
    Also, and maybe this is just my 4X video-game addled mind speaking here, but what does an attack on a Saudi Oil field have to do with the US, exactly? Did you guys sign a mutual defense pact that I'm not aware of? How is this anyone but the Kingdom's problem? Are they not capable of defending themselves?

    I mean, I know the real answer, but I'd still like to hear what the "official" justification would be for any actual military response here. At least with Iraq, the administration had the gall to lie about needing to "destroy WMDs". What "threat" to the US is Iran posing here, assuming we believe everything coming out of this admin?

    They're already arguing that economic/trade surplus stuff is enough of a national security threat to justify whatever new tariffs they see fit, they could easily make the argument that attacking Saudi oil is equivalent to attacking American gas prices.

    Steam | SW-0844-0908-6004 and my Switch code
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand regular FloridaRegistered User regular
    Also, and maybe this is just my 4X video-game addled mind speaking here, but what does an attack on a Saudi Oil field have to do with the US, exactly? Did you guys sign a mutual defense pact that I'm not aware of? How is this anyone but the Kingdom's problem? Are they not capable of defending themselves?

    I mean, I know the real answer, but I'd still like to hear what the "official" justification would be for any actual military response here. At least with Iraq, the administration had the gall to lie about needing to "destroy WMDs". What "threat" to the US is Iran posing here, assuming we believe everything coming out of this admin?

    The threat, if for the sake of this discussion we characterize it as such, from Iran to the US in this case is a threat to our national interest in the region: a stable oil market.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    BlackDragon480JayKaos
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand regular FloridaRegistered User regular
    Also, and maybe this is just my 4X video-game addled mind speaking here, but what does an attack on a Saudi Oil field have to do with the US, exactly? Did you guys sign a mutual defense pact that I'm not aware of? How is this anyone but the Kingdom's problem? Are they not capable of defending themselves?

    I mean, I know the real answer, but I'd still like to hear what the "official" justification would be for any actual military response here. At least with Iraq, the administration had the gall to lie about needing to "destroy WMDs". What "threat" to the US is Iran posing here, assuming we believe everything coming out of this admin?

    We've been quietly on "Team Sunni" since at least the late 1970s.

    Iran, until the revolution in 1979, was part of our "Twin Pillars" strategy against the Soviet Union. And we have worked with the Shia majority in Iraq since the invasion.

    I would argue that any ostensible "preference" for working with Sunni Muslim actors is a product of Sunni Muslims being a vast majority of the Ummah (usually presented as 80-90%).

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    BlackDragon480shrykeRchanenMr Ray
  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    edited September 16
    Also, and maybe this is just my 4X video-game addled mind speaking here, but what does an attack on a Saudi Oil field have to do with the US, exactly? Did you guys sign a mutual defense pact that I'm not aware of? How is this anyone but the Kingdom's problem? Are they not capable of defending themselves?

    I mean, I know the real answer, but I'd still like to hear what the "official" justification would be for any actual military response here. At least with Iraq, the administration had the gall to lie about needing to "destroy WMDs". What "threat" to the US is Iran posing here, assuming we believe everything coming out of this admin?

    We've been quietly on "Team Sunni" since at least the late 1970s.

    More specifically team Wahhabi/Salafi. The Saudis are tolerable of other Sunnis and are willing to work with them, but they still see them as borderline idolaters at a fundamental level.

    But, we also work quite a but with Shia, when interests align.

    BlackDragon480 on
    First they came for the Muslims and we said...NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKERS!
    MrVyngaard
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D regular Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    The best part is that it wasn't even Iran that did this.

    It's fine to be skeptical, but where is your quotation proof end quotation that definitively Iran did not do this? You are saying there's a 0% chance this happened?

    I haven't seen a single source pinning on Iran directly. The Yemem groups they arm and support, yes.

    Gaddez
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand regular FloridaRegistered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    So the basic situation that I can determine from a quick read of the internet is that Yemen was basically a puppet-state of Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of different groups of rebels rose up to overthrow that government. They appear to have been largely successful, and Saudi Arabia has been trying for years to stamp them out without any noticeable success. The current situation is an utter clusterfuck of epic proportions, with every side of the conflict doing terrible things to every other side. The Houthi movement seems like the strongest / most stable faction at the moment, but that doesn't exactly make them good guys either.

    This seems like something the USA should stay well away from. Any USA involvement seems more likely to end up with a Vietnam / Iraq / Afghanistan outcome with no good results for anybody. I don't see a way our involvement would improve anything even under a competent, compassionate administration, much less the chucklefucks we have in power now.

    I think it is more accurate to emphasize the internal, tribal and political conflicts as more important to the Yemen civil war than Saudi involvement. It was only in 1990 that North and South Yemen unified.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    BlackDragon480RchanenKaputa
  • monikermoniker regular Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    The best part is that it wasn't even Iran that did this.

    It's fine to be skeptical, but where is your quotation proof end quotation that definitively Iran did not do this? You are saying there's a 0% chance this happened?

    The Yemeni group claiming credit for it seems like pretty good evidence that they did it.

    BlackDragon480JragghenjmcdonaldFencingsaxjdarksunGnome-InterruptusSmrtnikGennenalyse RuebenGaddezElldrenLovelyKaputaboogedybooemp123
  • SmurphSmurph regular Registered User regular
    Also, and maybe this is just my 4X video-game addled mind speaking here, but what does an attack on a Saudi Oil field have to do with the US, exactly? Did you guys sign a mutual defense pact that I'm not aware of? How is this anyone but the Kingdom's problem? Are they not capable of defending themselves?

    I mean, I know the real answer, but I'd still like to hear what the "official" justification would be for any actual military response here. At least with Iraq, the administration had the gall to lie about needing to "destroy WMDs". What "threat" to the US is Iran posing here, assuming we believe everything coming out of this admin?

    Being a close US ally is supposed to mean people are too scared to attack you. Iran is challenging this in a big way through a proxy.

    If being a US ally does not actually insulated you from attacks from other states, then the world will probably see more wars not less.

  • RingoRingo Out of things to say Heartbreak HillRegistered User regular
    So, acknowledging that internal Saudi politics/military capability/etc are unknown to me, and thus I could be way off base, but....

    I believe US military action against Iran is probably the least desirable response right now from the Saudi perspective.

    I say this because if the US attacks Iran in the name of Saudi Arabia, this opens the Saudis up to retaliatory strikes from Iran that don't tarnish the Iranian government either at home or internationally. And seeing as how a single drone strike has done significant damage to Saudi oil infrastructure, I would not be seeking to provoke a military capable neighbor into attempting more.

    Basically I see the "rational" calculation being whether the US can manage one of three outcomes if they want Saudi support/approval:

    1 - The US first strike completely eliminates Iranian capability to operate outside its borders or in the Persian Gulf
    2 - US involvement is limited enough that it does not provoke any Iranian hostilities towards Saudi Arabia
    3 - US forces pose such a threat to Iran that the Iranians do not have the capability to attack Saudi Arabia without opening themselves to devastating losses

    Of course, the Saudis may not be looking at things in such a "rational" manner. But they probably should be aware of the outcome of every US operation in the Middle East which is that US forces will eventually go home while their "allies" still have to live there

    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand regular FloridaRegistered User regular
    The Saudis are likely aware of how US operations in the region work because we have deployed there in the past and worked with the Saudi National Guard to fight the Iraqi army back to their border in 91. They aren't a stranger to US operations.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    Rchanen
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    The best part is that it wasn't even Iran that did this.

    It's fine to be skeptical, but where is your quotation proof end quotation that definitively Iran did not do this? You are saying there's a 0% chance this happened?

    The Yemeni group claiming credit for it seems like pretty good evidence that they did it.

    How is that evidence? It's a claim of responsibility. I could claim I own the moon, that's not evidence of doing so. The broader issue is if Iran helped plan and stage the attack, which is what a few sites are now reporting.

    The Trump admin and Neo cons clamoring for war may or may not be the case. I've said before, this isn't a blameless game. if Iran is directly providing support and technical support for strikes against major oil producers, I'm having a hard time seeing how even a Democrat could avoid doing limited strikes in retaliation. It's a hand forcing deal.

    I'm waiting to see more concrete evidence before I'm weighing in.

    ArbitraryDescriptor
  • MorganVMorganV regular Registered User regular
    One concern I have, is that Trump has wanted to avoid intervention in Iran. Arguably, it's one of the reasons for Bolton's punting.

    Then this incident happens. And it's a known liar, totalitarian, orderer of torture (multiple accounts) and murder (of at least an American resident and member of the Press), and another liar and wannabe totalitarian, that are at the ones we're supposed to trust on this matter?

    There's also something unseemly to me that Trump is claiming America needs to step up.
    "We don’t need Middle Eastern Oil & Gas, & in fact have very few tankers there, but will help our Allies!" (not open linking that shitgibbon's tweet, because fuck that).

    Except, when it comes to South Korea, and Japan, he'll happily throw them under the bus for his boy KJU. When it comes to Europe, he wants to dismantle NATO, and bring Putin back to the G7.

    But this is the "ally" he'll go to war for? An "ally" that has engaged in a ~4.5 year campaign against Yemen that has resulted in untold civilian deaths, including tens of thousands of deaths of children by starvation. One that went to Trump vetoing a rebuke against Saudi Arabia. Yeah, I have an issue with that.

    I get that Iran, especially if responsible for this, is a geopolitical threat. I'm no Iran apologist.

    But I have issue with
    a) believing what Trump (or MBS) says on ANY subject,
    b) think that helping out Saudi Arabia is in any way a good thing while they keep doing heinous shit,
    c) think that a campaign against Iran will in any way be handled in a competent manner at a strategic/politic level.*
    d) concerns about what Trump will do if resistance is significantly more than what Trump expects.**

    * I have no doubt servicepeople in theater will execute well. I have no doubt that military planning at the Pentagon will execute well. I have EVERY doubt that Trump's decisions in the Situation Room will be unparalleled fuckups.

    ** I have no doubt that the American military can defeat Iran. But at what cost to American forces, and at what level of devastation to Iran itself? How many servicepeople is Trump willing to lose, for this fight? And at what point does he start escalating indiscriminate warfare (bombings of questionable military targets, wanting to put nukes in the field) Because you know he won't just accept defeat.

    Finally, Tulsi Gabbard summed it up pretty well. "Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not ‘America First'".

    Gnome-InterruptusLovelyBlackhawk1313ForarSiska
  • KrieghundKrieghund regular Registered User regular
    Eh, Iran acting like the regional power it is isn't something I especially care about. I'm also not especially keen on the US thinking it's the only country allowed to swing its dick around. Especially when Iran isn't going anywhere and our interest in the area is transitory and transactional at best. We gain nothing by being SAs mercenaries here.

    manwiththemachinegunBlackDragon480FencingsaxMagellGnome-InterruptusGennenalyse RuebenNeveronLovelyDuke 2.0Mr Ray
  • HandkorHandkor regular Registered User regular
    edited September 17
    To your first asterisk it's also scary is to think how Trump would respect any wartime conventions. Avoiding civilian casualties, use of banned or restricted weapons, use of nuclear weapons and a whole list of things to get you charged with war crimes. He has never been one to play by the rules and figures he can bully his way into anything and then go "what'ch gonna do about it".

    Handkor on
    MorganVRchanenMrVyngaard
  • MorganVMorganV regular Registered User regular
    Handkor wrote: »
    To you first asterisk it's also scary is to think how Trump would respect any wartime conventions. Avoiding civilian casualties, use of banned or restricted weapons, use of nuclear weapons and a whole list of things to get you charged with war crimes. He has never been one to play by the rules and figures he can bully his way into anything and then go "what'ch gonna do about it".

    Especially if costs/casualties are more than Americans consider unacceptable, and it'll have an impact on Trump's re-election.

    Because as we saw with Dorian and Alabama, the lengths Trump will go to for his own self-aggrandizement has no bounds.

    HandkorRchanenGnome-InterruptusGennenalyse Rueben
  • KrieghundKrieghund regular Registered User regular
    That I think we can trust the military to know not to send ground troops and just use an air campaign to reduce Iranian capability to do anything outside its borders. I can't imagine them following an order to deliberately target civilians.

  • monikermoniker regular Registered User regular
    Handkor wrote: »
    To your first asterisk it's also scary is to think how Trump would respect any wartime conventions. Avoiding civilian casualties, use of banned or restricted weapons, use of nuclear weapons and a whole list of things to get you charged with war crimes. He has never been one to play by the rules and figures he can bully his way into anything and then go "what'ch gonna do about it".

    He already loosened rules of engagement in Afghanistan.

    Ardol
  • ProhassProhass regular Registered User regular
    edited September 17
    Honestly I believe that Iran likely did this, or at least organised it. But I also don’t really give a shit, and anyway the best way to resolve this shit would have been to stay in the fucking Iran deal and not go to maximum pressure and start seizing their tankers and shit for exactly no reason. And you definitely shouldn’t spend years isolating yourself from the UN and antagonising the international community which could have been leveraged for pressure in response to just such an incident, which the Iranians probably wouldn’t have been so audacious to do in the first place if they were still benefiting from the Obama deal.

    Trump boxed himself into this nonsense, and isn’t exactly inspiring confidence when he spent the last two weeks saying he would meet Iranian leaders without any preconditions, only to now say he never said that and the media is lying.

    Are we going to kill people over this? Are we going to risk American lives on behalf of a tyrants oil?

    Fuck the saudis, they’ve killed thousands upon thousands of Yemeni children over the last few years, so excuse me while I don’t exactly want to go to war on their behalf explicitly because of oil production going down.

    They have a military, they can take defensive measures and retaliate as they see fit.

    Prohass on
    MorganVJragghenSmrtnikelectricitylikesmeGaddezRaijuSealLovelyStabbity StyleGnome-InterruptusMr RaySiska
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit I'm a good person yes it's trueRegistered User regular
    My instinct is to say there is no way Iran was responsible if only because of who is claiming Iran is responsible

    fuck gendered marketing
    HonkLovelyMagellZibblsnrtFencingsaxGennenalyse RuebenSmrtnikKayne Red Robekime
  • SolarSolar regular Registered User regular
    They probably were heavily involved let's be honest. Like if they didn't do it they supplied the drones and the technical know-how. That doesn't change the strategic calculation though. That there is a proxy struggle between the KSA and Iran is nothing new, and that Iran is striking at KSA through proxies and vice versa is also nothing new. The question is: what should we do? And the answer shouldn't be escalate the situation.

    Gnome-InterruptusKayne Red Robe
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia regular Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    One concern I have, is that Trump has wanted to avoid intervention in Iran. Arguably, it's one of the reasons for Bolton's punting.

    Then this incident happens. And it's a known liar, totalitarian, orderer of torture (multiple accounts) and murder (of at least an American resident and member of the Press), and another liar and wannabe totalitarian, that are at the ones we're supposed to trust on this matter?

    There's also something unseemly to me that Trump is claiming America needs to step up.
    "We don’t need Middle Eastern Oil & Gas, & in fact have very few tankers there, but will help our Allies!" (not open linking that shitgibbon's tweet, because fuck that).

    Except, when it comes to South Korea, and Japan, he'll happily throw them under the bus for his boy KJU. When it comes to Europe, he wants to dismantle NATO, and bring Putin back to the G7.

    But this is the "ally" he'll go to war for? An "ally" that has engaged in a ~4.5 year campaign against Yemen that has resulted in untold civilian deaths, including tens of thousands of deaths of children by starvation. One that went to Trump vetoing a rebuke against Saudi Arabia. Yeah, I have an issue with that.

    I get that Iran, especially if responsible for this, is a geopolitical threat. I'm no Iran apologist.

    But I have issue with
    a) believing what Trump (or MBS) says on ANY subject,
    b) think that helping out Saudi Arabia is in any way a good thing while they keep doing heinous shit,
    c) think that a campaign against Iran will in any way be handled in a competent manner at a strategic/politic level.*
    d) concerns about what Trump will do if resistance is significantly more than what Trump expects.**

    * I have no doubt servicepeople in theater will execute well. I have no doubt that military planning at the Pentagon will execute well. I have EVERY doubt that Trump's decisions in the Situation Room will be unparalleled fuckups.

    ** I have no doubt that the American military can defeat Iran. But at what cost to American forces, and at what level of devastation to Iran itself? How many servicepeople is Trump willing to lose, for this fight? And at what point does he start escalating indiscriminate warfare (bombings of questionable military targets, wanting to put nukes in the field) Because you know he won't just accept defeat.

    Finally, Tulsi Gabbard summed it up pretty well. "Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not ‘America First'".

    Trump and Kushner are on KSA’s payroll

    MorganVOneAngryPossum
  • Slacker1913Slacker1913 regular Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    They probably were heavily involved let's be honest. Like if they didn't do it they supplied the drones and the technical know-how. That doesn't change the strategic calculation though. That there is a proxy struggle between the KSA and Iran is nothing new, and that Iran is striking at KSA through proxies and vice versa is also nothing new. The question is: what should we do? And the answer shouldn't be escalate the situation.

    The issue here is that Trump is turning the US into a KSA proxy because they are such well-paying customers.

    Eh, I'll get around to it.
    Kayne Red Robe
  • ViskodViskod regular Registered User regular
    Apparently the admin is trying to say the attack came from inside Iran. WHEEEEE

    What?

    It absolutely came from the Houthi in Yemen right? I thought that was just a known fact. In blaming this on Iran I thought they were trying to say that Iran supplied the drones or Iran is supporting the Houthi in a way that lead to the strike, but now they're just going with "IRAN DID IT"?

    Really?

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    Elldren
  • PhillisherePhillishere regular Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Apparently the admin is trying to say the attack came from inside Iran. WHEEEEE

    What?

    It absolutely came from the Houthi in Yemen right? I thought that was just a known fact. In blaming this on Iran I thought they were trying to say that Iran supplied the drones or Iran is supporting the Houthi in a way that lead to the strike, but now they're just going with "IRAN DID IT"?

    Really?

    It's what they did to Iraq after 9/11.

    Zibblsnrtautono-wally, erotibot300Fencingsax
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva regular Registered User regular
    edited September 17
    Let's be honest, the whole reason we went into Iraq in the very first place in Desert Shield/Storm was because Saudi Arabia felt threatened and wanted to eliminate a regional rival that was growing in power and getting bolder about throwing its weight around. This is nothing really new.

    My opinion is that if Iran did strike Saudi Arabia that’s a big problem... For Saudi Arabia. But fuck the US being a cat’s paw for various internal regional disputes.

    Jealous Deva on
    CelestialBadgerSmrtnikTicaldfjamMr Ray
This discussion has been closed.