Iran retaliation
4 responses | 0 likes
Started by wglassfo - Jan. 5, 2020, 12:53 p.m.

If Iran does something to cause Trump to attack the 52 sites, then what???

Ist of all: I think some thing will happen to cause the 52 sites thing to happen

There seems to be some indication he would strike culture sites. Maybe yes, maybe a false flag

 In my opinion, attacking cultural sites is of little value other than inflame the local population. I think Iran would risk attacks on cultural sites. 

If I were Trump I would attack locations that have military value in order to degrade Iran's ability to wage war, especially their sites where they are trying to build a nuclear bomb  

I would also have a target on the Iman's

It seems to me the Iman's are the biggest threat 

If I thought my house, family was at extreme threat, that would make me really nervous. That would mean I would have to constantly move every day, what do I do about my family and friends??? and still wonder if the USA has tabs on my where abouts

It's one thing to send other people to battle

It is another very different thing if the people sending people into battle, have a personal target on their back

On the flip side, Trump and secret service, need to be aware,the fact that repeated attempts of trump assasssination is very likely 

Iran knows the most they can do is sort of hit and run attacks. Even trying to attack in the strait of Hormuz would not succeed, on a long term basis. Their navy would be decimated

What would be the most effective

Maybe china or russia would help. Maybe not

The best solution

Eliminate Trump

That is what I would do if I was Iran. Iran has enough people, williing to try, repeatedly. At some time Iran would succeed

Heck a good sniper can kill at over a mile away

How do you set up a saftey permiter of over a mile radius

Iran can afford to hire the best

Trump still likes his golf

By metmike - Jan. 5, 2020, 7:49 p.m.
Like Reply

Iran drives another stake into the heart of the nuclear deal

 (CNN)"The nuclear deal painstakingly negotiated by the international community with Iran has become the first victim of the crisis provoked by the killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdadin a US drone attack.

But while declaring its independence from the JCPOA, Iran has not articulated any intention to race towards weapons-grade uranium."

1. The US had already withdrawn from that bad  deal, so they are withdrawing from an agreement on paper that they still had with "other" countries.

2. We have verification from inspectors last year that they had violated the terms of that agreement regarding uranium enrichment. There is speculation that they are doing even more. The current announcement, that they will enrich more than the deal held them to,  just means that they are being more honest about what they are planning to do.  

3. That deal allows them to continue their reign of terror and sponsoring terrorism in the region. They have been acquiring massive amounts of other non nuclear weapons to use for this. They bombed the Saudi oil facilities in September. They attacked several merchant ships in May and June of 2019. They shot down a US drone. They attacked the US embassy in Iraq. 

What Trump wanted was a deal that addressed this and he repeatedly offered to meet with their leaders to make a new deal that included that in order to lift renewed US sanctions when he withdrew from the old deal.

Iran nuclear deal: Why do the limits on uranium enrichment matter?

What has Iran done?

The global nuclear watchdog that monitors compliance with the deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), confirmed on 1 July that Iran had breached the 300kg enriched uranium stockpile limit.

A week later, inspectors verified that Iran had also begun enriching uranium to 4.5% concentration so that it could provide fuel for the Bushehr power plant - beyond the 3.67% cap. 

On 4 September, President Hassan Rouhani said "all limitations" imposed on Iran's research and development of centrifuge technology would also be lifted."

Would we be better off if President Trump had just stayed in the old deal compared to right now?


However, Iran was already in violation of the old deal as verified above and was doing numerous things, using weapons and attacks in just the last year to disrupt the interests of the West and Saudi Arabia, an ally of the West. 

So that agreement, which was still valid with all the other countries did what to control Iran's aggression in the region? 

Did the man who was assassinated deserve to be killed? Absolutely. He was an evil man responsible for many deaths.

 Is killing him going to ratchet up  the violence several notches? 


So does that mean we should let Iran get away with all the crimes and attacks they have been responsible for in just the last 7 months? And their leader allowed to continue to carry out plots/plans of new American killing ventures? Violate terms of the crummy nuclear deal?

It's a lose-lose situation. Which one is better and causes the least losses?

Iran is a terrorist country and will always be a terrorist country and is eventually going to have nuclear weapons. 

I wouldn't want to be Israel.  

The world wants the US to police the Middle East. When we don't do enough of it, they are upset. When we confront the bad guys, they are upset.

Lose-lose situation. 

By metmike - Jan. 5, 2020, 7:50 p.m.
Like Reply

I have always thought that we should just get the heck out of the Middle East and stay as uninvolved as possible because no military or otherwise intervention has paid dividends for us in the past.........just the opposite. Cost trillions over the decades and thousands of our brave, young soldiers lives and tens of thousands with PTSD.

The Rates of PTSD in Military Veterans

One study of National Guard Soldiers highlighted the persistent effects of combat by looking at the rates of PTSD both three months and 12 months post-deployment. Rates of nine to 31 percent were noted overall, but of even more importance was the persistence of symptoms a year after return. In this study, there was also a high rate of alcohol misuse illustrating self-medication—a risky form of self-treatment for PTSD.




By wglassfo - Jan. 6, 2020, 9 a.m.
Like Reply

Hi Mike

Your idea of getting out of the ME is some thing a lot of people agree with


There are at least a couple reasons why we stay

Oil and the nuclear bomb

Now the nuclear bomb hasn't really been stopped,  no matter what we and allies have tried to do. Obama tried to bribe Iran with some 1.5 or more billions dollars. That did not work. Israel bombed facilities. That didn't work. Iran just went deep under ground with bomb proof facilities

Work on enrichment  continues and a bomb making effort continues

The other reason is oil

The USA supply of oil is not infinite. At 50/barrel oil production in the USA does not met requirements. If oil was 100 then our economy would suffer

So: At 50-60 we produce about 50% of our needs and import the rest. There is some exports and imports of different grades and products but that final number is close The economy moves along and all is well

There is a big question by the farm community of why not use ethanol to fill in the deficit of oil consumption

I am not sure if ethanol has improved efficiency of all factors required to produce ethanol or not. Such as the energy required to produce machinery, infrastructure to move inputs to the field, grain to ethanol plant etc.  You know not just the inputs and end energy of ethanol equation

I suppose if ethanol was equal, in the total energy production  equation, at least nobody died in a corn field in IA

So: I have to leave the oil question to somebody who has studied the entire equation of ethanol energy production

Then of coarse we have alternative energy production, but that hasn't reached a level of supply that is constant 24/7/365

So: Do we need cheap ME oil. It looks like we do

Are we being selfish to put our comfort ahead of somebodies life in the ME military

We certainly are a selfish bunch of people

We could figure out how to survive with out cheap ME oil but that would require a sacrifice to our comfort level, increased spending on R & D to produce alternative energy, and we don't want to do that.

By metmike - Jan. 6, 2020, 11:25 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks Wayne,

Unfortunately, under the circumstances, Trumps character flaws that feature his impulsive tweets, that are now including elevated threats/warnings to Iran are exactly what we DON'T need in this situation.

As a decades long anti war/dove, this is very disturbing.

It's unknown how far that Iran will take this. They don't think like people in the Western World. They are much more powerful than Iraq. China and Russia are considered allies but I don't think those 2 countries would want WW-3.

For those that insist we need to stop using fossil fuels, this sort of thing might be seen as a positive.