Letwin_Larry wrote: » look no matter how you try to dress it up, there is no denying Iran just does not possess anything close to the capability of the US. i actually feel embarrassed for you having to spell that out.
Quin_Dub wrote: » Soleimani was clearly an evil man who directed multiple atrocities to be carried out across the region over many years. I don't think anyone is disputing that.
Leroy42 wrote: » Its funny, because if that wa the case then why didn't Pompeo et al come out with that rather that the 'he is evil and there is an imminent treat to US lives" If in a war why not just say that? Totally understandable that during a war your try to kill the generals on the other side. But they didn't. Because they are not at war with them. And what they did was to use War rules under civilian rules.
Red (Iran) used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. The losses were as follows: one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » i would like to see Trump take out this guy's newly appointed successor, just as he was getting his new office furniture sorted. the Americans clearly have the capability and the psychological impact would be immense. once Iran hits American interests which it will inevitably do through its' terrorist proxies, such a strike will become almost irresistible imo.
briany wrote: » I wonder how far the Russians would be willing to let this antagonism between the U.S and Iran escalate? I assume Putin wants his man back in the White House. Would conflict hurt or help Trump's bid? We know that jingoism is a one political force, but there's also the inevitable protest against war. I'm guessing there will be many advisers trying to read the American electorate's mood at the moment.
Quin_Dub wrote: » This canard that Obama et al were "weak" or "cowardly" in their approach to the ME is just that , a canard and a falsehood - Just as claiming that Trump is some kind of Hard-man because of his actions is also a falsehood.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » Trump has made it quite clear, that any further attacks, proxy or otherwise will have direct consequences for Iran. The days when they could murder Americans & their allies with impunity are over.
Quin_Dub wrote: » Soleimani was clearly an evil man who directed multiple atrocities to be carried out across the region over many years. I don't think anyone is disputing that. The question is whether it was in the Middle Easts (or the worlds) best interest to "take him out" in the manner that it occurred. This canard that Obama et al were "weak" or "cowardly" in their approach to the ME is just that , a canard and a falsehood - Just as claiming that Trump is some kind of Hard-man because of his actions is also a falsehood. Obama and others (including the EU) considered that the best way to deal with Iran and to neuter their influence was via the treaties they signed to limited the Nuclear program and also to allow the Iranian economy to move forward - thereby taking a lot of people out of poverty and making them perhaps a little bit more pragmatic in their approach to the West and a bit less reactionary. Now we can absolutely discuss the merits of that policy and how successful it was , but it was at the very least a clear policy based on a coherent plan. Trump on the other hand does not appear to have a coherent policy or plan. He cancelled the Nuclear agreement just to spite Obama - He had absolutely ZERO plan on what to do next and since then he has lurched from one knee-jerk reaction to another. The assassination of Soleimani just being the latest and most extreme example yet. There has been utterly no evidence to suggest that anything that Trump does in terms of foreign policy has given any thought to "What might happen next if we do this?" . They just do something and then react to the consequences. Just like every decision he's made in his entire life he takes the incredibly short term view of "what makes me look good right now" or "what makes me money right now". He neither thinks nor cares about what happens next.
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » That the excuse. Japan wasn't far off surrender in any case. Japanese diplomats were in the process of arranging a surrender and the US knew that. The US wanted live targets to test their new weapons on, they wanted to study the effects on real cities full of real people. War crimes.
Itssoeasy wrote: » John Bolton has said he’s willing to testify before the senate impeachment trial if subpoenaed.
Brian? wrote: » That’s not true at all. The Japanese aren’t close to an unconditional surrender. They were negotiating peace based on keeping territory in China and Korea, as well as keeping their armed forces, government and imperial structure in place. There was zero chance of the allies agreeing to it. Even after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Japanese still tried to negotiate reduced surrender terms. It was only when the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki that they surrendered unconditionally and gave orders for their troops in China to stop fighting. Because Truman told Japan a H bomb would be dropped every 3 days until they surrendered. Dropping the H bombs was a horrendous thing to do. But it actually made sense.
everlast75 wrote: » No reason he can refuse to testify in the house then so. It's widely reported the White House didn't know about this, but Bolton did give McConnell a head's up
BonnieSituation wrote: » It really didn't.
Irish Praetorian wrote: » Now be fair, Brian? made a few arguments as to why the bomb (which incidentally were not 'H-bombs', just simple fission devices) ended up used and a few plausible reasons why that might be the case. Just saying 'It really didn't' isn't a counter argument, it's barely above saying 'nuh-uh'. These are serious and complicated issues, which deserve serious and nuanced arguments. If we keep going like this, we'll end up with economic arguments where people call each other socialists or robber-barons, or housing debates where everyone is a slumlord or a problem tenant.
woohoo!!! wrote: » The US reasons were deeply unpleasant, they wanted a live test of the bombs and they absolutely hated the Japanese. They had zero problem with the possibility of minimal US force losses and didn't care about Japanese losses. They were bluffing about dropping more after Nagasaki, they couldn't produce more for several months. The Japanese didn't know that. The Japanese emperor stepped in to bridge the division between the militarists and those who knew the game is up. To surrender went against everything the Japanese stood for and only the emperor could have achieved it. It is perhaps the most impressive u turn of the 20th century as to how the Japanese went from never surrender murderous imperialists to embracing a peaceful trading model who abhor nuclear weapons.
[Deleted User] wrote: » He'll get an easy ride in the senate, no pesky Adam Schiff to ask uncomfortable questions.
everlast75 wrote: » Kamala Harris would not be a walk in the park to be fair
duploelabs wrote: » She took Barr to the cleaners, my 8 year old looked more confident under questioning
AbusesToilets wrote: » Have you ever read about Operation Downfall? The scale and projected casualties, just for the Allied forces was off the scale. They are still using purple hearts made for it nowadays. Japanese didn't surrender after horrific fire bombings of their major cities, which produce higher casualty figures than the atom bombs.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5e7421d1b72840ccd9e51db307da48ea.svg)
