I don’t share your optimism on the US Military stalling tRump’s war mongering.
6 Likes
It was ever thus 
2 Likes
Actually, I think things changed sometime between WWII and Vietnam.
3 Likes
The prospect of America getting bogged down in conflict with Iran will have put a grin on the faces of the dictators in Moscow and Beijing. Expect them to make statements generally supportive of Iran in the next few weeks, highlighting how Iran has stuck with the nuclear agreement so far.
And if Iran really wants to upset the Americans, it could invite Russian and Chinese military forces to take part in joint exercises. Imagine what Bolton would do if a number of Chinese vessels sailed through the Straits of Hormuz and moored in an Iranian harbour on a ‘goodwill visit’. China has legitimate energy interests in the region so it is not going to stand by and let the US dictate what goes on in the Persian Gulf.
5 Likes
and Trump becomes a wartime president. He gets free moral authority with the authoritarians in our country, and a boost in his re-electability for a large number of our fellow americans.
5 Likes
The problem is that Trump is merely a craven opportunist whereas Bolton really wants a fight. Once Bolton gets his Tonkin Gulf, it’s off to the races.
1 Like
Why don’t we put some boxing gloves on that asshole and send him over?
5 Likes
The problem with trying a Tonkin Gulf now is the lack of prior buildup or ability to grow a decent sized military that we had in the 60’s. We don’t have the Cold War to justify constant unfettered growth of our Air Force or Navy or a draft to give us the numbers to fill out the Army and Marines.
Starting another war is not going to get recruitment numbers up. We already have a generation of soldiers in Afghanistan who were toddlers when 9/11 happened. They are not exactly racing to get into ANOTHER war.
1 Like
But one has to see what it is being spent on. Much of it just keeping what overly expensive toys we have functional. The numerous wars and proxy wars largely ignored and unnoticed because of their small scale and limited involvement on our part. Fighting wars with checkbooks. (See Yemen)
We are relying on UAV’s, using bombers which are upwards of 50 years old and continuing their use for the next 20 years, The F-35 has been a complete failure, the Navy is looking for development in littoral regions as opposed to development of deep water capabilities, the Army is at its lowest recruitment numbers in ages.
You sure about that? Look at our efforts against ISIS in Iraq. Small scale, very few boots on the ground, mostly air support and money for bribes.
Not likely.
If they had the ability to do that, they would have put their uranium enrichment efforts underground and away from detection like every other successful nuclear power has done. They would simply keep it hidden and then surprise the world with a nuclear test. They would not be crowing about it in a half-baked effort to spark a conflict like they did a few years ago and just now.
Its not the technology which is the limiting factor, that is more than 70 years old. Its only supplies of enriched uranium which limit its development. That is simply a matter of money spent and time. It can be effectively hidden from the world if a nation chooses to.
NK is a bad example because its not just nukes keeping them safe from attack, its geography. Sure we can attack them, but only if we want to see major economic center Seoul reduced to rubble in the process.
2 Likes
You say middle east. He says Holy Land.
6 Likes
Human beings are dead. I think that’s more than just a fucking shrug.
Are you forgetting the drones.
They are still there. Their “caliphate” was “destroyed”, but we’re making more as we speak by refusing to act as a fair and neutral arbiter in the middle east. We are in fact supporting the primary funder of terrorism, the Saudi royal family. It’s their twisted intepretation of Islam into the world, when we decided that our pals should align with other muslims…
You’re the one who seems to think that the Iranians aren’t logical actors… A nuke is a deterrent, when you are dealing with an increasingly hostile and nuclear ARMED power, who has claimed the land of your allies territory.
We are making bank with arms sales… how do I know? One, because we have been doing so for a while, and two, because the president of the united states has said that’s part of his calculus for his mid east strategy (let the Saudis and Israelis do literally whatever they want, while doing our best of fuck over anyone who opposes them).
No. It’s China. If they weren’t backed by China, we’d have already ended the Korean war by ramping back up an invasion. But China is one of the few countries who actually has at least some of the fire power to hold us off.
4 Likes
War with Iraq was always a stupid idea but war with Iran would be catastrophically bad. Nothing like Iraq. I’ve seen little evidence of Iran as an aggressor in any of this. Trump and his people seem to be just itching for a new war both to feed their own sadistic egos and for a popularity bump.
5 Likes
Only if Johnny leads from the front. If you want it so bad, Johnny, you go right ahead. We’ll be a step or two behind ya.
2 Likes
FTA: “Defence contractors including Boeing…”
Well, it didn’t take long for the US to suck up to Boeing. Shanahan’s not even confirmed yet.
2 Likes
It was so the British could keep their hands on all that gooey oil. Mossadegh was nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP).
1 Like
The short answer is: Money.
4 Likes
2 Likes
The US did well out of the deal, they broke BPs monopoly and five of the eight oil businesses allowed into Iran were American.
3 Likes
That seems highly plausible. I don’t think America has ever forgivin Haiti for having a successful slave rebellion.
2 Likes
