How about "Don't eat your turtles before they hatch"? Is that good advice?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For everyone who told me I was stupid to think war with Iran was likely or iminent
- Thread starter Kangaroo Feathers
- Start date
How about "Don't eat your turtles before they hatch"? Is that good advice?
I might still have questions.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
If that were the case, I'd be giving myself bad advice every time I eat hard-boiled eggs.
I've long thought of the 2 parties this way....Americans have funny ideas about what constitutes significant political difference. I guess that's what happens when you live in a state with 2 parties and one popular ideology.
Democrats pretend to like black folk.
Republicans pretend to like small government.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I did say "tend" for a reason... and note well, the "war time leader" bump only lasts while the actual war is on. Once the war is over, the voting public has no problem dropping the war time leader like a hot rock. Churchill is an excellent example.
I also doubt (hope?) that Trump wouldn't necessarily receive such a bump, hopefully the American voting public is war weary enough not to fall for it, but even if the American public flatly declare that they won't support Trump in a new war, I doubt very much that Trump will listen if he's gotten it into his head that it's a good idea.
It's offensive to turtles.
Anti-turtlism!
Road Warrior
Seeking the middle path..
A thousand troops isn't sufficient for invasion. When you see numbers like this, then start bleating about it:
2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia
The U.S.-led coalition sent 177,194 troops into Iraq during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from 19 March to 1 May 2003. About 130,000 arrived from the U.S. alone, with about 45,000 British soldiers, 2,000 Australian soldiers, and 194 Polish soldiers. 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath. In preparation for the invasion, 100,000 U.S. troops assembled in Kuwait by 18 February.
I think it also depends on how well the war is actually going. That is, how the public perceives the war.
I couldn't disagree more!
By the time you see numbers like that it's too late.
Now is the time to get educated and ask hard questions.
Tom
Forgive me, I've suffered enormous trauma from turtles during my misspent youth playing Super Mario Brothers.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Go look up "escalation" before you presume to lecture me. Note I said "First step" in great big letters at the bottom of the OP? No one was suggesting a thousand troops, by themselves, is a war fighting group. By the time there's a couple hundred thou in theatre, it will have too much momentum to stop. Start demanding de-escalation now, before things get to invasion level troop numbers.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
A million times this.
Adding to your post....
The greater the military presence, the greater the chance of provocation,
even by error, eg, our accidental murder of 290 people on Iranian Air flight 655.
Can you imagine Trump's response if they killed that many of our civilians?
The few survivors would glow in the dark.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Yes. Its not all the same pile of manure many would have us believe.
Around 20 years ago I realized how little I knew about Muslims and the Muslim world.
To make a long story short, I started visiting a mosque in Bloomington Indiana. Once the people there came to realize that I was neither a potential convert nor an enemy, I just wanted to learn, I was included in some pretty frank discussions about the situation in the Middle East. I learned things about both them and my own country that were gut wrenching.
Things I have never, to this day, heard competently discussed in western media.
Like the Iranian view of the Iran/USA history and relationships. They have a whole different, and better informed, version of events.
Tom
I personally think it could be the Saudis. The Saudis plant it on Iran, and then get the US to take out Saudi Arabia's decades-long rival for supremacy in the region.
It's not necessarily a pile of manure. A person can state a set of truthful facts, yet still be selective in their presentation - as well as in whatever spin or interpretation of the facts they may put forth.
But I was also referring to how the mainstream media generally present the outside world to the American public. There might be slight differences in terminology.
For example, one outlet might refer to certain sections of the world as the "underdeveloped world." Another outlet might refer to it as the "third world." Trump may refer to it as "sh*thole countries."
But they're all talking about the same thing, they present the same perception, and they see that part of the world in the exact same way.
Some may insist that we be more polite about it, but that's really the only "difference" that one can discern.
Any stories in particular you'd like to or would be at liberty to share?
Anything is possible of course.
But an ugly thought that's occurred to me is this.
Iran has a powerful motivation to develop weapons technology that can control shipping in the gulf oil shipping lanes. New technology, with advanced computer brains and advanced destruction potential.
Suppose this is a trial operation to see how well the new technology works?
Tom