When the US bombs Russia's allies, do you think that will somehow turn them against Russia? Seems to me it's a win for Putin - I doubt Putin really cares about the loss of life among his allies.

The US bombing a key Russian ally is a win for Putin?

For students of bad rhetoric, unsupported argument, vacuity, and cliche, please see the above. Or try the "America fuck yeah" video in the Iran thread.

Said without irony, too.

Yes. When the US bombs a Russian ally, Russia comes out ahead, in terms of influence and with trade, particularly arms sales. Is there any downside for Russia?

I think it's pretty sad that NOS4A2 is too old for a draft because imagine being that stupid and jingoistic and being over 30, rather than just some 14 year old that would hopefully grow out of it.

Yes. When the US bombs a Russian ally, Russia comes out ahead, in terms of influence and with trade, particularly arms sales. Is there any downside for Russia?

That might happen.

But then again Soleimani was a direct link between Khomeini and the Kremlin, and worked with Putin in Syria. He just lost a key ally. I do not think more trade and influence with Iran is worth risking further alienation from America and her allies, with the recent massive arms deals and good relations with Iran's biggest enemies. Putin will not benefit from anything that might further destabilize that region.

I think it's pretty sad that NOS4A2 is too old for a draft because imagine being that stupid and jingoistic and being over 30, rather than just some 14 year old that would hopefully grow out of it.

There is no draft, genius.

Misspoke, meant enlist, but the point remains the same

Why do you think Iran would bet on American strength and bow down? — Baden

Because Trump looks unpredictable, destructive, not concerned with proportionality, and egotistical.. I'd be scared shitless if I lived in Iran. Americans are tired of the financial burden of war sure, which is an annoyance, but nothing like the chaos, disruption, and death its enemies have endured. Trump didn't screw up America. He screwed up Iran. They now have to weigh saving face by doing something ultimately suicidal against accepting this kick in the nuts from their arch nemesis.

The more irrational you behave, the greater you effectiveness of destruction in a war scenario.

Thing is, in this case the decision seems entirely irrational, and that's scary.

But then again Soleimani was a direct link between Khomeini and the Kremlin, and worked with Putin in Syria. He just lost a key ally. — NOS4A2

Surely you don't really believe killing Soleimani somehow severs the link between Iran and the Kremlin. At worst, it's an inconvenience.

I do not think more trade and influence with Iran is worth risking further alienation from America and her allies

Are you suggesting this alienates Russia from the U.S.? What makes you think that? How does this change anything- Russia was already their ally and arms supplier, and we already didn't like that they were doing this. What changes?

with the recent massive arms deals and good relations with Iran's biggest enemies. Putin will not benefit from anything that might further destabilize that region.

Putin benefits from bad perceptions of the US. Russian oil benefits from supply constraints from the middle east. Major instability would hurt them, but it hurts the US more, and this makes it a win for Russia.

Surely you don't really believe killing Soleimani somehow severs the link between Iran and the Kremlin. At worst, it's an inconvenience.

Someone Putin directly worked with in military operations in Syria is blown to pieces, and at worst it’s an inconvenience? Even if I was to grant that, an inconvenience isn’t a benefit.

Are you suggesting this alienates Russia from the U.S.? What makes you think that? How does this change anything- Russia was already their ally and arms supplier, and we already didn't like that they were doing this. What changes?

No, I’m suggesting Trump just blew up Putin’s Iranian military ally and he cannot do anything about it. If he did, it would put His country at odds with Iran’s enemies: US, Israel, UAE and Saudi Arabia, relationships Russia has been cultivating in recent decades.

Putin benefits from bad perceptions of the US. Russian oil benefits from supply constraints from the middle east. Major instability would hurt them, but it hurts the US more, and this makes it a win for Russia.

It’s a big loss for Russia. It was the Iran deal which allowed Putin to continue selling arms to Iran. If the UN sanctions Iran again Putin can say bye bye to his arms deals there.

The more irrational you behave, the greater you effectiveness of destruction in a war scenario.

Thing is, in this case the decision seems entirely irrational, and that's scary.

I'm curious, but what do you think is irrational about it? I ask because Iran's been poking this bear for a while now and it finally bit back. Trump took a risk Obama and Bush refused to, that's for certain. But upon seeing the middle east after their administrations I'm not so sure they're the epitome of rationality, or rationality has done little for the middle east. I'm of the opinion that a leader should stand by his red line.

Well, didn't Iran give up its nuclear program with the help of Obama's promise of funds and technology regarding nuclear reactors, with Russia supporting this effort by enriching Iran's uranium reserves and sending it back to Iran to be used as fuel for nuclear reactors?

I’m not too sure, to tell you the truth.

I’m not too sure, to tell you the truth. — NOS4A2

Truth is, Trump desecrated many years of effort by Obama's administration to convince Iran not to pursue nuclear capability. Quite sad, I think.

The US is more a leader now than it ever was. Number one economy, number one energy producer, number one military force on the globe. — NOS4A2

Wrong.

Number one energy producer is China. The US has been before number one, but isn't anymore.

And with the other rankings, if you mean by "more a leader now" at least in the post WW2 era there hasn't been any change other than the US has lost part of it's dominance.

But in the typical American fashion, these facts are somehow "forgotten" only to be rediscovered when a favourable President is in Office. As if during Obama somehow the US wasn't the biggest economy. Everything is just a commentary on the present domestic politics. Just choose the facts or falsehoods.

And any way, to make America GREAT AGAIN was only to elect Trump as President. Nothing else had to be done.

The US has effectively defended the West while Europe had to rebuild itself from its disastrous century of wars. It’s pretty clear the US is still the world leader, if not by choice, then at least because no one else has stepped up to the plate. — NOS4A2

And this shows how illogical and incoherent this is. Isn't that 'defence of the West' that you are supposed to be so tired of? And why would there even have to be a Leader country? Still, other countries would be just fine if the US would show leadership. But no. You won't do that.

The US especially under Trump has done the uttermost to vacate this leadership position. It's not surprising that the French President called NATO braindead. It is that. NATO still would have the smart agenda of the past: that is keep the Russians out, keep the US in and keep Germany down. but this administration surely doesn't want that. Yet of course, Trump supporters like this. They love that the US doesn't form alliances but goes alone. They don't see ANY reason for there being a NATO. These same people don't even know that there were two defunct similar organizations (CENTO and SEATO) which were replaced by simply NOTHING. Or with previous allies being now threats to the US.

As I've stated, I think US foreign policy is dead for now. The hubris of the Bush neocons is replaced by the total confusion of the Trump era. Hopefully adults in Washington will take it over sometime in the future. But I'm not hopeful. The biggest failure has been that the foreign policy establishment has totally failed in making the past US policy to be understood by the voters.

Are you suggesting this alienates Russia from the U.S.? quote]
— Relativist

No, I’m suggesting Trump just blew up Putin’s Iranian military ally and he cannot do anything about it. If he did, it would put His country at odds with Iran’s enemies: US, Israel, UAE and Saudi Arabia, relationships Russia has been cultivating in recent decades. — NOS4A2

No, Putin can't do anything about it, but why would he need or want to? Putin respected Soleimani, but I see no reason to think it's critical to Russia'a relationship with Iran. I agree that Putin would have preferred Soleimani remain alive, but it's minor compared to the overall benefit he gets from Trump being in office.

I’m not too sure, to tell you the truth. — NOS4A2

Now you can be sure.

I'm against all nuclear armaments, but I can't say I blame any country with tensions with the US that thinks they should have one of those in their back pocket. We don't have a great track record about that stuff.

Wrong

I meant oil production, but you’re right. I’ll concede that point because I did say “energy”.

But other than that you’re putting words in my mouth and forgetting your own point, about how some time ago the US was really a leader in the World. You posted a video from the 50’s to give force to it. I assumed you knew I was comparing then and now, not Trump and Obama. But no, in typical anti-Trump fashion we’re right back to anti-Trumpism.

And this shows how illogical and incoherent this is. Isn't that 'defence of the West' that you are supposed to be so tired of? And why would there even have to be a Leader country? Still, other countries would be just fine if the US would show leadership. But no. You won't do that.

The US especially under Trump has done the uttermost to vacate this leadership position. It's not surprising that the French President called NATO braindead. It is that. NATO still would have the smart agenda of the past: that is keep the Russians out, keep the US in and keep Germany down. but this administration surely doesn't want that. Yet of course, Trump supporters like this. They love that the US doesn't form alliances but goes alone. They don't see ANY reason for there being a NATO. These same people don't even know that there were two defunct similar organizations (CENTO and SEATO) which were replaced by simply NOTHING. Or with previous allies being now threats to the US.

As I've stated, I think US foreign policy is dead for now. The hubris of the Bush neocons is replaced by the total confusion of the Trump era. Hopefully adults in Washington will take it over sometime in the future. But I'm not hopeful. The biggest failure has been that the foreign policy establishment has totally failed in making the past US policy to be understood by the voters.

That’s right, and now the other members have to pay their fair share, because thankless Europeans have been benefitting from American defense and money for the past 70 years and have hardly anything to show for it. Yes, a leader would rethink these alliances, especially if they prove to be a waste of time, resources and money. You guys weren’t paying your fair share and act surprised when someone shows you otherwise. God forbid Europe pays its way in its own defense.

Truth is, Trump desecrated many years of effort by Obama's administration to convince Iran not to pursue nuclear capability. Quite sad, I think.

It turns out Obama’s pallets of cash directly funded state terrorism and opened up Iran to arm sales from Russia and elsewhere. Now they are using those weapons.

But other than that you’re putting words in my mouth and forgetting your own point, about how some time ago the US was really a leader in the World. — NOS4A2

The US has been the biggest economy for a long time. The only thing is that it isn't as dominant as it was in the 1950's, when Europe was still rebuilding and China was destroying itself with Communism. I'm not forgetting my own point. US foreign policy has morphed to unilateral bullying without any kind of long term thinking behind it. It doesn't care a shit about it's own allies or bother creating alliances. Now with the Trump yesmen alongside Trump, it's just one disaster lead by tweets. I have no clue what they are doing...and likely the Trump administration hasn't either. It's just reactions to things that happen.

That’s right, and now the other members have to pay their fair share, because thankless Europeans have been benefitting from American defense and money for the past 70 years and have hardly anything to show for it. — NOS4A2

This is actually a myth.

a) European NATO members have vowed themselves to put more money in defence and some even have done that.

b) During the Cold War the other NATO nations they did their part: they had large armed forces. Once Soviet Union collapsed and the Russian tanks weren't anymore roaming around parts of Germany, things changed. It's totally natural that the defence budgets were cut. The US with the neocons chose a path to invade countries, which is the reason for the high US defence expenditure.

c) So let's think about that "fair share". That the US has continued huge defence spending has happened because of the WARS it started itself. So you tell me, NOS4A2, what has the US gained with it's 2,3 trillion dollar war and over 3 000 dead soldiers in Iraq? Because that is actually what makes the huge difference in spending.

And tell me just why NATO members would have to go along with another stupid war now with Iran, when there already was a gameplan how to handle Iran accepted by everyone, which Trump then decided to throw into the garbage. The only logical thing for Iran is to build as quickly a nuclear weapons deterrence as it can. It seems to be the only way to stop US Presidents from bombing their country once they are on the list of bad guys. You have great example of what will happen if you do it (North Korea) and another examples if you choose to stop your WMD projects and go along with the US demands (Libya and Iraq). So without WMD's = utter chaos, with WMD's = photo-ops with US President.

Yes, a leader would rethink these alliances, especially if they prove to be a waste of time, resources and money. — NOS4A2

Leaders ought to think how they can get their team to work for the common objective. A leader isn't someone who unilaterally decides to do something and bullies others that if they don't oblige, they will be working with the enemy. That simply isn't leadership.

And if you don't want to be a leader, then don't be. As I've said, countries would be OK with the US being a leader, but if opts not to be one, it's not the end of the World.

Look. Nobody will take your place. China will just have a bigger say in Eurasia and Africa, Russia in Europe and Middle East. That's it. There's just going to be this shit storm for a while when you go back home to eat your apple pie and the regional powers adapt to the new reality and sort it out themselves.

Hey, ssu... is the state of affairs beyond recourse or is there some logic behind this?

So, Trump is committed to bombing Iranian cultural sites which leads to undeniable proof of committing preemptively war crimes.

Wow...

The US has been the biggest economy for a long time. The only thing is that it isn't as dominant as it was in the 1950's, when Europe was still rebuilding and China was destroying itself with Communism. I'm not forgetting my own point. US foreign policy has morphed to unilateral bullying without any kind of long term thinking behind it. It doesn't care a shit about it's own allies or bother creating alliances. Now with the Trump yesmen alongside Trump, it's just one disaster lead by tweets. I have no clue what they are doing...and likely the Trump administration hasn't either. It's just reactions to things that happen.

I appreciate your opinion, ssu. You are a far better historian than I. But when your bureaucrats and globalists told us they created the end of history, they gave us the clash of civilizations instead. Trump is left to clean up their mess and he’s doing a damn good job of it.

Leaders ought to think how they can get their team to work for the common objective. A leader isn't someone who unilaterally decides to do something and bullies others that if they don't oblige, they will be working with the enemy. That simply isn't leadership.

And if you don't want to be a leader, then don't be. As I've said, countries would be OK with the US being a leader, but if opts not to be one, it's not the end of the World.

Look. Nobody will take your place. China will just have a bigger say in Eurasia and Africa, Russia in Europe and Middle East. That's it. There's just going to be this shit storm for a while when you go back home to eat your apple pie and the regional powers adapt to the new reality and sort it out themselves.

That’s the way it should be, in my opinion. The US needs to step away from the world stage, and especially leave that pile of dust to its inhabitants. We no longer require their oil, their workers, their ancient tribalisms. The American tax-payer pays to build schools and facilities in Iraq. They pay to fund NATO, the UN, and train armies and peacekeepers around the world. No one in Eurasia wants us there, even if the US presided over the Long Peace. I’d love to see how long the Old World can last on it’s own two feet.

Anti-Trumpism leads one to reserve their finger-wagging for Trump while allowing them to remain silent on Iranian theocrats and terrorists. Trump is the Great Scapegoat of whatever happens next, so long as whatever happens makes things demonstrably worse.

Take some Xanax and/or Haldol.

No, I don't think so.

You see, the allies of the US are still waiting for the US to take the leadership role. Trump is still seen as an anomaly and things can be thought to change back to 'normal' (like in the times of older Bush, Clinton, Obama, even Dubya). It would be only serious if the French President wouldn't be talking about NATO being braindead, but "being dead". It's when nobody believes any more in any kind of Transatlantic Partnership. Once the new talk in Washington DC is about bilateral defence agreements with various European countries, then NATO is dead. If that happens, then Europeans in the EU will seriously start to talk about CSDP (Common Security and Defence Policy).

Now CENTO collapsed in revolutions, first with the Iraqi revolution and then with the Iranian revolution. Yet the collapse of SEATO is the example of how things can go differently. France and Pakistan weren't interested in fighting the Vietnam war with the US and Pakistan finally left in 1973 when it didn't get any support in it's war with India. The US simply failed to see any point of the organization with Thailand, Phillipines, Australia and New Zealand and opted for bilateral defence agreements.

Is there logic?

Is there logic with Trump?

The logic seems to be more from film or a television series: The President is doing something and then he's suddenly whisked away to Presidential Emergency Operations Center, briefed quickly with the facts on the ground and then he has some seconds to make his decision on the go-ahead or to call it off. And what better for "the decider" to show Presidential decisiveness than to show the green light. No allies or nobody else than present in the room are consulted. And if things are talked about before, perhaps the "Walk & Talks" of The West Wing TV-series, making decisions literally on the fly when walking from one meeting to another, is the way how things are handled. Even if people might actually be seated.

Then once the decision is made, then the next thing is how to deal with the response (which nobody has had the time think about).

Because how else can you find a strategy in the actions of the US when it comes to the Middle East?

Suddenly the US withdraws from Syria. Secretary of Defence resigns because of this decision. Turkish leader Erdogan calls Trump and Trump OK's Turkish involvement in Syria. Then Trump backtracks: the decision changes to only a partly withdrawal. Trump sends a letter to Erdoğan threatening him not to invade Syria, even though Trump was already pulling back US troops. Erdogan does it anyway. Then Trump is great friends with Erdogan. And so on and so on...

So now quite sidelined issue was the Iraqi Parliament's decision to kick foreign troops out. Now, did the Trump administration think that this would be the response? Hardly.

There simply isn't any long term thinking. It is "Leadership by tweets".

Anti-Trumpism leads one to reserve their finger-wagging for Trump while allowing them to remain silent on Iranian theocrats and terrorists. Trump is the Great Scapegoat of whatever happens next, so long as whatever happens makes things demonstrably worse. — NOS4A2

True.

Anti-Trumpism leads one to reserve their finger-wagging for Trump while allowing them to remain silent on Iranian theocrats and terrorists. Trump is the Great Scapegoat of whatever happens next, so long as whatever happens makes things demonstrably worse. — NOS4A2

Sometimes a Trump fuck-up is just a Trump fuck-up...

But for all the ways the anti-Trumpers contort their principles in order to condemn him in every possible way, Trump supporters put on a much more grotesque display of hypocrisy and ignorance.

Why do they scramble to defend everything Trump has ever done or said? Clearly, if anything, Trump has directly robbed America of what dignity and respect it had left. Are they just pot committed? Stubborn?

I thought you guys were "patriots", not Patriot's fan boys..