Trump takes a calculated risk

neverfail
Posts: 5424
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: No "calculated risk", but "going all-in"

Post by neverfail » Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:15 pm

Doc wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:41 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:08 am



If you spend time in a place like that and are unaware that you are placing your own life at risk by doing so then you must be incredibly stupid.
Something like that On the other hand, what was Suleimani doing in Iraq?
There by invitation of the Iraq government. As their guest it was the duty of the Iraq government to protect his life. Trump has shamed and humiliated the Iraq government by sanctioning that assassination.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4447
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: No "calculated risk", but "going all-in"

Post by Doc » Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:50 pm

neverfail wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:15 pm
Doc wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:41 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:08 am



If you spend time in a place like that and are unaware that you are placing your own life at risk by doing so then you must be incredibly stupid.
Something like that On the other hand, what was Suleimani doing in Iraq?
There by invitation of the Iraq government. As their guest it was the duty of the Iraq government to protect his life. Trump has shamed and humiliated the Iraq government by sanctioning that assassination.
So was the American Suleimani killed so are the US diplomats in the embassy Suleimani was attacking.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

Re: No "calculated risk", but "going all-in"

Post by Alexis » Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:12 am

Doc wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:05 pm
The leadership of the Iranian regime is desperate.
They are now supported by a majority of their people, while a few weeks ago many demonstrations and tensions were organized against them.

They don't look so desperate to me.

The same people that hated Suleimani
I didn't see very many Suleimani-haters in videos of his funeral.

Which attracted the largest crowd in Iran since the demise of Islamic republic founder Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989, to the tune of millions.

Consequences?? REALLY? So what were the consequence of Suleimani being **allowed** to live for 20 plus years?
Suleimani Died as He Had Killed.
Consequences are indeed the glaringly open question.

If a foreign military assassinated such a person as George W Bush, or Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld, then openly bragged about it saying they had only targeted a terrorist leader, the important question would not be whether the deceased had killed innocent people - incidentally, these people killed orders of magnitude many more innocent people than Suleimani did.

The important question would be consequences, as in whether the US would exert reprisal - a damn certainty - which kind of reprisal or even full scale war it would be. And the follow-up to that reprisal.

Now of course, if Iran was a very weak country, that question would not arise. Really weak countries just shut up. They are not really a factor.

The fact however is that Iran is not a really weak country.

neverfail
Posts: 5424
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: No "calculated risk", but "going all-in"

Post by neverfail » Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:51 am

Alexis wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:12 am
Doc wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:05 pm
The leadership of the Iranian regime is desperate.
They are now supported by a majority of their people, while a few weeks ago many demonstrations and tensions were organized against them.

They don't look so desperate to me.
Nor to me Alexis!

If Tehran does not retaliate on the US for this unpardonable outrage, it will lose the respect of all of its proxies abroad not to mention the respect of its own public.

Were I the man with the authority to make the decision I would act sooner (while the country is still unified in grief and outrage) rather than later when enough time may have elapsed to allow the anger to somewhat ebb away and for public grievances against the regime to prompt further public street protest demonstrations.

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

Re: No "calculated risk", but "going all-in"

Post by Alexis » Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:25 pm

neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:51 am
If Tehran does not retaliate on the US for this unpardonable outrage, it will lose the respect of all of its proxies abroad not to mention the respect of its own public.

Were I the man with the authority to make the decision I would act sooner (while the country is still unified in grief and outrage) rather than later when enough time may have elapsed to allow the anger to somewhat ebb away and for public grievances against the regime to prompt further public street protest demonstrations.
Iran will almost certainly retaliate.

Khamenei has a number of options, some less prudent than others, none without any risk: Trump has made a convincing threat of disproportionate attack in case of retaliation against US forces or assets.

The best option, that is US withdrawal from Iraq then Iranian leadership choosing to consider this as appropriate and sufficient reprisal for January 3d US act of war, appears unfortunately to be closing.
So at some point we want to get out. But this isn’t the right point," Trump told reporters during an Oval Office meeting with the Greek prime minister.

Trump said an impending U.S. withdrawal would be "the worst thing that could happen to Iraq,"
It would have been the best option, because it was the most prudent. However it doesn't seem to exist any more. Trump has also said that "at some point we want to get out"... but he is not the first US president to say that, Bush and Obama already did.

Other options are less prudent.

Khamenei might have ordered an attack on Saudi Arabia, either its leadership or its oil production facilities. Assassination e.g. of the Saudi ruler, or new bombing of Alqaiq oil refinery, would be quite spectacular, at the same time as less dangerous than attack against US forces, which clearly trigger Trump.

However, an advisor to Khamenei has clearly announced that the response will target US "military sites"

Performing such an attack would be slightly less risky through a proxy. However the same advisor has said it would be "direct action" by Iran itself.

The only - small - limitation of risk is that the answer is announced to be "wise, well considered and in time, with decisive deterrent effect." Meaning that the reprisal shouldn't be for the very near future. Possibly, by that time, Trump will have calmed down a tad bit?

Yes, it's only a very small hope.

If Trump then decides to strike "52 targets" in Iran, well that will mean a deflagration with open and extended US-Iran warfare.

It will also very probably mean 2020 will be a year of global recession. As a result of troubled oil supply.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4447
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: No "calculated risk", but "going all-in"

Post by Doc » Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:11 pm

Alexis wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:12 am
Doc wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:05 pm
The leadership of the Iranian regime is desperate.
They are now supported by a majority of their people, while a few weeks ago many demonstrations and tensions were organized against them.

They don't look so desperate to me.
Have you ever played in a serious poker game?

The same people that hated Suleimani
I didn't see very many Suleimani-haters in videos of his funeral.

Which attracted the largest crowd in Iran since the demise of Islamic republic founder Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989, to the tune of millions.
Businesses were closed free busing and the implication that anyone not attending would be watched


Consequences?? REALLY? So what were the consequence of Suleimani being **allowed** to live for 20 plus years?
Suleimani Died as He Had Killed.
Consequences are indeed the glaringly open question.

If a foreign military assassinated such a person as George W Bush, or Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld, then openly bragged about it saying they had only targeted a terrorist leader, the important question would not be whether the deceased had killed innocent people - incidentally, these people killed orders of magnitude many more innocent people than Suleimani did.

{/quote]
Doubtful . The higher estimate of number of civilians killed by Suleimani's forces in well over 100 thousand.

The important question would be consequences, as in whether the US would exert reprisal - a damn certainty - which kind of reprisal or even full scale war it would be. And the follow-up to that reprisal.

Now of course, if Iran was a very weak country, that question would not arise. Really weak countries just shut up. They are not really a factor.

The fact however is that Iran is not a really weak country.
After Reagan sank 2/3rds of the Iranian navy in the 80's the Iranians were quiet for a decade.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

Re: No "calculated risk", but "going all-in"

Post by Alexis » Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:54 pm

Alexis wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:25 pm
The only - small - limitation of risk is that the answer is announced to be "wise, well considered and in time, with decisive deterrent effect." Meaning that the reprisal shouldn't be for the very near future. Possibly, by that time, Trump will have calmed down a tad bit?
Well, I was wrong about the part in blue.

"Tens" of missiles attack Al-Asad US base in Iraq.

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1858
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: No "calculated risk", but "going all-in"

Post by Jim the Moron » Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:23 pm

Alexis wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:54 pm
Alexis wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:25 pm
The only - small - limitation of risk is that the answer is announced to be "wise, well considered and in time, with decisive deterrent effect." Meaning that the reprisal shouldn't be for the very near future. Possibly, by that time, Trump will have calmed down a tad bit?
Well, I was wrong about the part in blue.

"Tens" of missiles attack Al-Asad US base in Iraq.


And the US response? It should be withdrawal of all US ground forces from Islamic lands. Let the Islamic interests declare victory.

Awhile back Iran took out a major part of Saudi oil production capabilities. Saudi response? None, in spite of having well over a hundred F-15s (not state-of-the-art, but still potent). The US response? It should be to take out all of Iran's oil production facilities. Disproportionate? Hell, yes. Wake me up when its over.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4447
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: No "calculated risk", but "going all-in"

Post by Doc » Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:58 pm

Jim the Moron wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:23 pm
Alexis wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:54 pm
Alexis wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:25 pm
The only - small - limitation of risk is that the answer is announced to be "wise, well considered and in time, with decisive deterrent effect." Meaning that the reprisal shouldn't be for the very near future. Possibly, by that time, Trump will have calmed down a tad bit?
Well, I was wrong about the part in blue.

"Tens" of missiles attack Al-Asad US base in Iraq.


And the US response? It should be withdrawal of all US ground forces from Islamic lands. Let the Islamic interests declare victory.

Awhile back Iran took out a major part of Saudi oil production capabilities. Saudi response? None, in spite of having well over a hundred F-15s (not state-of-the-art, but still potent). The US response? It should be to take out all of Iran's oil production facilities. Disproportionate? Hell, yes. Wake me up when its over.
I how the US should retaliate. Give the Mullahs another $150 billion to help finance more bad behavior.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4447
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Trump takes a calculated risk

Post by Doc » Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:05 pm

“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

Post Reply