Biden orders airstrikes on Iranian backed militias in Syria.

[Stevicus]

What Trump didn't do, Biden did.

U.S. carries out airstrikes against Iranian-backed militia facilities in Syria: Pentagon

I'm actually impressed. Iran is a very dangerous country and the airstrikes serves a very strong message here.

What do you think of the situation and Biden's actions?

Looks like the warmongers are back in the saddle again.

 

[Revoltingest]

==================================
People, people, people....
Remember that accusing others of hatred
is now officially against the rules. Let's
avoid rapped knuckles & locked threads.
==================================


Disclaimer:
I am not staff.
Just one of the masses.
But I want a peaceful forum with a low mortality rate.

 

[Shaul]

Did you attack Trump for the blood on his hands and call him reprehensible on a thread? If not, then your comment is partisan propaganda and I'll treat it as such.

So you agree that Biden has blood on his hands.

 

[Shaul]

Killing foreign nationals whose government opposes American intervention in their affairs seems to be part of the us presidential job description. Your excusing trump for his bloody hands in the name of "my hero can do no wrong" is really quite sad

Biden killing people has nothing to do with what Trump or anybody else has done. Biden is killing people.

 

[Stevicus]

Maybe all along it was the right decision then and is a right decision now. Trump ordered a strike against an Iranian general that murdered a lot of people in Iraq. Biden ordered strikes against an Iranian backed militia in Syria.


The intelligence seems bipartisan givin the strikes ordered by Biden. I can only guess the reasons are still classified.

Something is up with Iran necessitating and making these strikes necessary.

Maybe there is something up with Iran. The current regime has been a sworn enemy of America from day one, back in 1979 when they attacked our embassy and held our people hostage. They burned America's flag and continually shouted their national slogan "Death to America!" The Iranians supported Reagan over Carter, which would indicate that their regime actually wanted America to become more warlike and aggressive. Later on, Reagan even traded arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair, thus emboldening the Iranians even more.

I think this is one of those "poop or get off the pot" moments. If Iran is truly as dangerous as some of our leaders would have us believe, then we should have declared war on them a long time ago.

If our leaders are unwilling to declare war, then they're either cowards, or they're lying about how "dangerous" Iran is. Either way, these half-measures don't amount to squat.

 

[epronovost]

That was true but this is against the Iranian regime this time. Not Syria specifically in light the militias are Iranian backed elements.

But those militias are still composed of Syrians and they are allies of the Assad Regime in Syria. It's not such a departure from previous actions in Syria. They are also suspected in launching rocket attacks on the US embassy in Iraq too.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe there is something up with Iran. The current regime has been a sworn enemy of America from day one, back in 1979 when they attacked our embassy and held our people hostage. They burned America's flag and continually shouted their national slogan "Death to America!" The Iranians supported Reagan over Carter, which would indicate that their regime actually wanted America to become more warlike and aggressive. Later on, Reagan even traded arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair, thus emboldening the Iranians even more.

I think this is one of those "poop or get off the pot" moments. If Iran is truly as dangerous as some of our leaders would have us believe, then we should have declared war on them a long time ago.

If our leaders are unwilling to declare war, then they're either cowards, or they're lying about how "dangerous" Iran is. Either way, these half-measures don't amount to squat.

I'll add some important history about Iran vs USA animosity....
- In 1953 the CIA staged a coup to remove a democratically
elected leader of Iran, in order to install the Shah.
- Ameristan attacked Iran by proxy, using Iraq in their war.
We supplied Iraq with military assistance, which included
WMDs, eg, biological & chemical weapons. Nearly 1M
Iranians died as a result of our proxy war.
- During that war, the US Navy shot down Iran Air 655 over
Iranian waters, killing all 290 people in that Airbus A300.
We gave them some coin, but never formally apologized.

Iran has good reason to see us as the enemy. We've made
it clear that without nuclear weapons, they face a powerful
existential threat....from us, Israel, & Saudi Arabia.

 

[ChristineM]

Biden killing people has nothing to do with what Trump or anybody else has done. Biden is killing people.

So what you are saying is that when buddy trump ordered killing that was fine and not worthy of comment but because your arch enemy biden does precisely the same thing its wrong.


Kind of a hypocritical attitude don't you think given the job description?

 

[Regiomontanus]

Maybe there is something up with Iran. The current regime has been a sworn enemy of America from day one, back in 1979 when they attacked our embassy and held our people hostage. They burned America's flag and continually shouted their national slogan "Death to America!" The Iranians supported Reagan over Carter, which would indicate that their regime actually wanted America to become more warlike and aggressive. Later on, Reagan even traded arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair, thus emboldening the Iranians even more.

I think this is one of those "poop or get off the pot" moments. If Iran is truly as dangerous as some of our leaders would have us believe, then we should have declared war on them a long time ago.

If our leaders are unwilling to declare war, then they're either cowards, or they're lying about how "dangerous" Iran is. Either way, these half-measures don't amount to squat.

I can't help add that many of the Iranian people view things a bit differently and would say that you are leaving out the 'backstory' - the UK and US led a coup against their democratically elected government in '53. Memories can be long.

 

[Regiomontanus]

I'll add some important history about Iran vs USA animosity....
- In 1953 the CIA staged a coup to remove a democratically
elected leader of Iran, in order to install the Shah.
- Ameristan attacked Iran by proxy, using Iraq in their war.
We supplied Iraq with military assistance, which included
WMDs, eg, biological & chemical weapons. Nearly 1M
Iranians died as a result of our proxy war.
- During that war, the US Navy shot down Iran Air 655 over
Iranian waters, killing all 290 people in that Airbus A300.
We gave them some coin, but never formally apologized.

Iran has good reason to see us as the enemy. We've made
it clear that without nuclear weapons, they face a powerful
existential threat....from us, Israel, & Saudi Arabia.

I should have read this post of yours before making the one above, just now.

 

[Stevicus]

I'll add some important history about Iran vs USA animosity....
- In 1953 the CIA staged a coup to remove a democratically
elected leader of Iran, in order to install the Shah.

Yes, this is true. It was part of the overall US policy of containment with the intention of encircling the Soviet Union, keeping them bottled up, and supposedly acting to prevent what they believed to be "Soviet Expansionism." The Shah was one of many tinpot puppet dictators set up at the behest of the US ruling class - all justified by the overall policy of anti-Soviet containment, from South Vietnam to Chile to Cuba and all across the globe.

For them, it was a real big deal. For us, Iran was just another far-flung country that most Americans couldn't find on a map (or they might get it mixed up with Iraq, which is a common mistake).

- Ameristan attacked Iran by proxy, using Iraq in their war.
We supplied Iraq with military assistance, which included
WMDs, eg, biological & chemical weapons. Nearly 1M
Iranians died as a result of our proxy war.

And during that time, the US government traded arms for hostages with Iran.

I don't know if I would consider the Iran-Iraq war to be a proxy war, unless you're saying that Saddam Hussein was a US puppet. Sure, the US was angry with Iran, and it was a matter of convenience for us to send aid to the regime which just happened to be fighting them at the time. However, Reagan's administration was more focused on the Soviet Union, supporting the Contras, and dealing with more significant threats to US security, such as Grenada. He also sent aid to the Afghan guerillas who were fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and they would also later become a serious problem for us.

But strictly speaking, if your assessment here is correct, then our own government should have gone to war directly with Iran, without using a proxy. I think that attacking our embassy and holding our people hostage for more than a year would present a valid casus belli for war. The public surely would have supported it at the time, as a war fever had generated quite a bit of momentum. If we had used nuclear weapons against Iran at the time, the American public would have cheered wildly. That's what Iran had awakened in America.

- During that war, the US Navy shot down Iran Air 655 over
Iranian waters, killing all 290 people in that Airbus A300.
We gave them some coin, but never formally apologized.

I think the government said it was an accident. Unless you're alleging it was a deliberate act, I don't see how it would be relevant here.

Interestingly, our "proxy" at the time attacked the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf. That was supposedly an accident, too.

Iran has good reason to see us as the enemy. We've made
it clear that without nuclear weapons, they face a powerful
existential threat....from us, Israel, & Saudi Arabia.

I'm not arguing that Iran doesn't have good reason to see us as the enemy. I agree with that they do - and not just for the reasons you've cited. In fact, there are a lot of countries around the world which have reason to see us as the enemy, which is why we have such a large, global military force and a bunch of warmongers in power. For much of my life, I've heard our leaders talk endlessly about all the dangerous threats all over the world, which whips the masses up into a frenzy and has been a major driver in US foreign policy since WW2.

The thing is, though, if Iran sees us as the enemy, then why has neither country declared war?

 

[Revoltingest]

I should have read this post of yours before making the one above, just now.

Meh...tis good to reinforce knowledge of this critical history.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, this is true. It was part of the overall US policy of containment with the intention of encircling the Soviet Union, keeping them bottled up, and supposedly acting to prevent what they believed to be "Soviet Expansionism." The Shah was one of many tinpot puppet dictators set up at the behest of the US ruling class - all justified by the overall policy of anti-Soviet containment, from South Vietnam to Chile to Cuba and all across the globe.

For them, it was a real big deal. For us, Iran was just another far-flung country that most Americans couldn't find on a map (or they might get it mixed up with Iraq, which is a common mistake).



And during that time, the US government traded arms for hostages with Iran.

I don't know if I would consider the Iran-Iraq war to be a proxy war, unless you're saying that Saddam Hussein was a US puppet. Sure, the US was angry with Iran, and it was a matter of convenience for us to send aid to the regime which just happened to be fighting them at the time. However, Reagan's administration was more focused on the Soviet Union, supporting the Contras, and dealing with more significant threats to US security, such as Grenada. He also sent aid to the Afghan guerillas who were fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and they would also later become a serious problem for us.

But strictly speaking, if your assessment here is correct, then our own government should have gone to war directly with Iran, without using a proxy. I think that attacking our embassy and holding our people hostage for more than a year would present a valid casus belli for war. The public surely would have supported it at the time, as a war fever had generated quite a bit of momentum. If we had used nuclear weapons against Iran at the time, the American public would have cheered wildly. That's what Iran had awakened in America.



I think the government said it was an accident. Unless you're alleging it was a deliberate act, I don't see how it would be relevant here.

Interestingly, our "proxy" at the time attacked the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf. That was supposedly an accident, too.



I'm not arguing that Iran doesn't have good reason to see us as the enemy. I agree with that they do - and not just for the reasons you've cited. In fact, there are a lot of countries around the world which have reason to see us as the enemy, which is why we have such a large, global military force and a bunch of warmongers in power. For much of my life, I've heard our leaders talk endlessly about all the dangerous threats all over the world, which whips the masses up into a frenzy and has been a major driver in US foreign policy since WW2.

The thing is, though, if Iran sees us as the enemy, then why has neither country declared war?

I say that we had no reason ever to make war with Iran.
We've attacked them continually, causing great death,
destruction, & governmental chaos.
We create enemies by attacking them. And they we
get angry because they retaliate far less than in kind.
Ameristanian foreign policy should change to be more
peaceful...peace seeking.

 

[Stevicus]

I can't help add that many of the Iranian people view things a bit differently and would say that you are leaving out the 'backstory' - the UK and US led a coup against their democratically elected government in '53. Memories can be long.

Yes, as I told @Revoltingest, this is true. We did a lot of things like that to many countries, although most Americans neither knew about it or cared about it at the time.

If the Iranians thought that attacking the US embassy or shouting "death to America" was going to get Americans to become self-reflective and think "Gee, maybe we shouldn't have interfered in the internal affairs of other nations," then they really didn't understand or know America very well.

They also didn't understand US politics very well. Carter was not president in 1953, and America had made great strides and reforms in the intervening years up to 1979. We were starting to change our ways and move in a different direction. But all that changed in 1979. In less than a decade we went from "Give Peace a Chance" to "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." They also ostensibly supported the election of Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter, which was a curious stance to take under the circumstances. Did the Iranians want America to become more militaristic and warlike at a time when much of the US population supported peace and anti-militarism? It would seem so.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, as I told @Revoltingest, this is true. We did a lot of things like that to many countries, although most Americans neither knew about it or cared about it at the time.

If the Iranians thought that attacking the US embassy or shouting "death to America" was going to get Americans to become self-reflective and think "Gee, maybe we shouldn't have interfered in the internal affairs of other nations," then they really didn't understand or know America very well.

They also didn't understand US politics very well. Carter was not president in 1953, and America had made great strides and reforms in the intervening years up to 1979. We were starting to change our ways and move in a different direction. But all that changed in 1979. In less than a decade we went from "Give Peace a Chance" to "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." They also ostensibly supported the election of Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter, which was a curious stance to take under the circumstances. Did the Iranians want America to become more militaristic and warlike at a time when much of the US population supported peace and anti-militarism? It would seem so.

I've never heard from any of the many Iranian ex-pats
I know that they wanted a more militaristic Ameristan.
Anger often results in dysfunctional reactions, eg, our
attacking Iraq & Afghanistan after 9/11. We never
thought that thru....we just reacted out of thoughtless
vengeance....which both Hillary & Biden supported.

 

[Stevicus]

I say that we had no reason ever to make war with Iran.
We've attacked them continually, causing great death,
destruction, & governmental chaos.
We create enemies by attacking them. And they we
get angry because they retaliate far less than in kind.
Ameristanian foreign policy should change to be more
peaceful...peace seeking.

Yes, we could and should change to be more peaceful.

A large part of the problem has to do with how Americans see the world, along with how well they're informed about other countries and the overall world situation.

 

[Stevicus]

I've never heard from any of the many Iranian ex-pats
I know that they wanted a more militaristic Ameristan.

If they're ex-pats, then it's doubtful that they were speaking on behalf of the regime they fled from.

Anger often results in dysfunctional reactions, eg, our
attacking Iraq & Afghanistan after 9/11. We never
thought that thru....we just reacted out of thoughtless
vengeance....which both Hillary & Biden supported.

The reaction to 9/11 could have just as easily gone in another direction and a potential upheaval within America. At that time, Americans were like an angry mob out for blood, so the government had to do something to keep them under positive control and assure them that "justice will be done."

 

[Revoltingest]

If they're ex-pats, then it's doubtful that they were speaking on behalf of the regime they fled from.

Wrongo pongo.
They had no love for that regime. Secular folk, draft dodgers
(who didn't want to die from poison gas on the front). And
they still have family & property back in the old country.

The reaction to 9/11 could have just as easily gone in another direction and a potential upheaval within America. At that time, Americans were like an angry mob out for blood, so the government had to do something to keep them under positive control and assure them that "justice will be done."

We "had to" launch 2 wars?
To keep the populace under control?
Pish posh.
Politicians did what felt good & served re-election.

 

[Stevicus]

Wrongo pongo.
They had no love for that regime. Secular folk, draft dodgers
(who didn't want to die from poison gas on the front). And
they still have family & property back in the old country.

So, you're saying that makes them qualified to speak for the regime they had no love for? Would Hillary Clinton make a good spokesperson for the Trump Administration?

We "had to" launch 2 wars?
To keep the populace under control?
Pish posh.
Politicians did what felt good & served re-election.

Appeasing a public gripped by war fever seems a good way to get re-elected.

 

[Quetzal]

I was optimistic (my first mistake) that Biden wouldn't take this route, especially so soon.