Israel: US Asks Iran to Not Sink an American Carrier, “Just Kill Some Troops Instead”

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Sobo, Jan 5, 2020.

  1. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    43,471
    Likes Received:
    7,332
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) All the crew of the ship would not die - in fact most would live - that's what the dingy's and life jackets are for. You might not have many deaths .

    2) even if they did all die - nukes would not be used -

    You seem to not understand the consequences of such an action.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    31,577
    Likes Received:
    6,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK. Let's agree that stability is where one nation doesn't conquer another nation.

    That is a central tenet of the UN and NATO that the US has fully agreed with and supported since we caused those organizations to be created.

    Let's remember that NATO is one of the tools we use in advancing our ideas of stability, self determination, democracy, international law, etc.

    It is NOT merely a limit to the region where our ideals apply.
     
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    31,577
    Likes Received:
    6,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A warship is absolutely NOT justification for crossing the line and using nukes.

    Let's remember that India and Pakistan were at serious war until Pakistan got nuclear deterrence. There is an argument direction that nukes brough a greater degree of peace.

    Nobody has a clue what Trump might do. Not a clue. Not even our military.
     
  4. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    32,087
    Likes Received:
    8,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It actually is limited. We have treaty responsibilities to specific countries that are NATO signatories, not to the world at large.

    But in your example seems to be Ukraine, so..when the Russians took back the Crimea, what should we have done that we obviously didn't do?
     
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    31,577
    Likes Received:
    6,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is backwards.

    We have principles that we see as applying everywhere.

    We create variaous treaties and agreements to further our principles.

    NATO is not the definition of some border on where our principles apply - instead, it is one of the various tools for promoting our principles as it comes with political, econmic and military strength.

    As for Crimea and other places where we have not intervened, the fact that we have principles does not mean we are going to go to war in every instance of noticing that someone took action that we abhore.
     
  6. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    32,087
    Likes Received:
    8,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. You're simply wrong about NATO. It's a specific treaty covering specific countries. It's not a universal set of principles that we can bludgeon the entire world with. That's exactly why I described your position as a neo-con one.

    2. So if you recognize that we're not going to take action every time some other power takes an action that we abhor, then what's the issue? If we're not going to do anything no matter what Russia does to Ukraine, what in the world are you talking about?
     
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    31,577
    Likes Received:
    6,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You missed the point entirely. Our principles are NOT limited by NATO. Obviously, NATO is not a tool that can be used everywhere. The point is that we have a number of tools and we use the ones that are appropriate and have a chance at being effective. Our views on Ukraine are not constrained by NATO. Our approach might be constrained by NATO in that we may need to use other tools or we may need to choose to not act at all.

    You are WAY too caught up in the idea that "taking action" means that we're going to start shooting people. Our tools are political, economic and military. They include the relationships we have with allies and other countries (remembering that Russia signed the nuclear treaty with Iran that we engineered). They include NATO and the UN.


    In the case of Ukraine, we are giving political support and military equipment. Whether Ukraine is in NATO is not a determining factor whether we do that. Plus, NATO certainly does have interests in Eastern Europe that are perfectly within NATO's brief to take action on - where AGAIN "action" doesn't necessarily mean your neocon dreams.
     
  8. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    32,087
    Likes Received:
    8,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So NATO isn't our tool for imposing our values worldwide and you are not threatening military action to protect the Ukraine's borders. It took 2 pages but I think I've successfully gotten you back from the neo-con ledge.

    You're welcome!
     
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    31,577
    Likes Received:
    6,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    YOU are the one who has presented neocon values.

    And, your argument that since it isn't part of NATO we have no business there is just as wrong as it was when you first proposed that nonsense.
     
  10. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    32,087
    Likes Received:
    8,993
    Trophy Points:
    113

    OK this is rich. Please explain how I'm the one who has presented neo-con values?
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    31,577
    Likes Received:
    6,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have tended to equate taking action with military intervention.
     
  12. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    32,087
    Likes Received:
    8,993
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Do you realize this entire thread is about military action? Check the subject line.
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    31,577
    Likes Received:
    6,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please! That doesn't justify treating a foreign policy decision as restricted to "war" vs. "retreat".
     
  14. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    32,087
    Likes Received:
    8,993
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I haven't done that. For some reason you are trying to swing the discussion pretty far afield from what we originally were discussing, which is that I think the killing of Soleimani was legal and justified, and you don't. We don't seem to have made any progress on advancing that discussion.
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    31,577
    Likes Received:
    6,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To me, legality of the assassination seems like a absurdist question when the administration doesn't believe US law applies to the president, let alone international law or the laws of other countries.

    As I've stated several times, there are reasons why the asssassination was a blunder regardless of any law.

    Also, there is the very important issue of how the decision was made. When the administration can't tell a consistent story about an assassination it raises all sorts of questions for us as citizens, for our allies and for the world at large.

    I do not see any justification for limiting the question to one of whether there is an explicit law somewhere that suggests Trump can't kill who he wants to kill.
     
  16. SkullKrusher

    SkullKrusher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    4,004
    Likes Received:
    1,290
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What has Germany done for US lately?

    besides making a battleship that might be able to shoot down some Chinese satellites and or alien UFO’s?
     
  17. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    43,471
    Likes Received:
    7,332
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have responsibilities to the world at large - outside of treaties -. we are signatories to all kinds of things - a member of the UN Security council - These are big responsibilities.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  18. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    43,471
    Likes Received:
    7,332
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We violated a millennia old covenant that you don't assassinate leaders of other nations - and your question is silly on that basis.

    The second issue with your comment is you claiming this fellow is a "terrorist"
    Generals and leaders on our hierarchy have committed way more acts of terrorism than this fellow -

    What "terrorist acts" did this guy commit ? - then we will compare to out leaders.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
  19. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    32,087
    Likes Received:
    8,993
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Well there is a difference between merely legality and good policy. I myself think that killing Soleimani was good policy. We killed a terrorist who was responsible for the death of many Americans. That isn't always a popular policy on your side. I know that the Democratic front runner, Joe Biden, opposed the Bin Ladin raid. Hopefully these foreign policy differences can be discussed in the campaign.
     
  20. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    32,087
    Likes Received:
    8,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True but the discussion was about NATO, the Ukraine, and Russia. I know of no agreement that we are a signatory to that requires going to war to protect the Ukraine from Russia.
     
  21. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    32,087
    Likes Received:
    8,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Got it, Amerika are the real terrorists.

    Moving on...
     
  22. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    43,471
    Likes Received:
    7,332
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed - in fact it can be argued that the contrary is true. We are party to agreements that says NATO will not expand into Eastern Europe.
     
  23. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    43,471
    Likes Received:
    7,332
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can try to avoid reality all you like - that however will not change the fact that our leaders have engaged in acts of terrorism far greater than Solimani - and you know this is true :)
     
    gabmux likes this.
  24. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    31,577
    Likes Received:
    6,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't claim that you are responding to a policy. We have no policy.

    What we have is disconnected responses made without even consultation. That is not policy.

    I'm not saying you have a policy difference. I'm saying that you don't have a policy.

    And, further evidence is that you refuse to even consider what is happening outside of the one ad hoc event.
     
  25. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    32,087
    Likes Received:
    8,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Usually when you make claims like that I assume you have something specific in mind.
     

Share This Page