US Deploying to Gulf

I don't think the US will invade Iran. They just want to protect their bases in the region, in the event of Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz.
US is not going to invade Iran

Not when we can stand off and bomb the living shit out of Iranian mil/IRGC units and bases and facilities. Sink their navy and generally phuck their day up at will
 
The top British general in the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS says there is not an increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq or Syria, despite claims to the contrary by the U.S. to justify increasing its presence in the region.

Oddly enough, the septics aren't chuffed.

It is all very well the White House citing 'credible intelligence' but they have been proved to be ... liberal with the truth ... more than once on that score.

http://time.com
 
US is not going to invade Iran

Not when we can stand off and bomb the living shit out of Iranian mil/IRGC units and bases and facilities. Sink their navy and generally phuck their day up at will
Good. Was the British general right when he said that the IRGC do not pose a serious threat in Syria and Iraq?
 
US is not going to invade Iran

Not when we can stand off and bomb the living shit out of Iranian mil/IRGC units and bases and facilities. Sink their navy and generally phuck their day up at will
The US undoubtedly could do this and Iran, like the rest of the world, knows it. It’s obvious that the current administration has understandably lost patience with Iran’s meddling in regional conflicts, support for terrorism and general buffoonery.

The US response, however, fails to take into account how the rest of the world now perceives them (rightly or wrongly) following multiple military interventions over the last two decades. There seems to be a worrying lack of US diplomatic and military ability to send messages in any way other than the threat or straight application of blunt military might.

There is a danger of the US being seen as the slightly stupid school bully who’s ever willing to flail at others with his bigger fists and reach but fails to see the sneaky, clever little sod who slips a banana skin under his feet unnoticed. A little introspection and self-examination by US leaders, political and military, would be beneficial to their overall strategy and enhance their, shall we say slightly tarnished, reputation in many countries.
 
So (just to annoy some) you invite (not you personally, you understand) a country to come along on a training exercise some two years ago. When they rock up you then say, "OK, we might turn this into a real war and attack a foreign country on our own recognisance, no need to ask your senate if that's OK. And, no, we don't need any UN approval cos we is Americans, you see and we have this here dossier to prove it. Just come along and you might be able to fire a few shots yourself if we let you".

Nope, I think people might be getting a bit pissed off with the new Empire building by the US. It didn't work in the Far East so trying to coerce others to help after the previous excursions into the area, the increase in terrorist activity and a pretty effed up ending to it all hasn't helped.

(Again, apologies, but what was "You realize that America has been in the longest era of not peace in our short punchy history? " supposed to mean?)

I gave you a like, only for the last sentence.
 
Not quite sure why people are on about Trump starting wars and being a crazy POTUS?

Since Reagan:
Reagan: Grenada/ Panama
G H Bush: Iraq GW1 (justified)
Clinton: Bosnia (peace ops)/ Iraq bashing
G W Bush: Afghan/ Iraq GW2
Obama: Libya/ inherited and expanded ops of Bush
Trump: None. But inherited and drew down ops. Has been a bit pokey in Syria.

And if we go back further with POTUS of past, they've all mostly been quite war'ry. So if Trump does start one, he's actually no different to the others.
So far he's different in trying to either find peace (The North Koreans), or diplomatically put some regimes back in their box (Iran and its proxy wars).

This doesn't mean I like the syrup wearing perma tan loon but, have I missed something? People keep saying he's crazy and is gonna hit the red button! Yet, apart from not yet starting a war, what has he done crazy that the other POTUSs haven't?
 
The US undoubtedly could do this and Iran, like the rest of the world, knows it. It’s obvious that the current administration has understandably lost patience with Iran’s meddling in regional conflicts, support for terrorism and general buffoonery.

The US response, however, fails to take into account how the rest of the world now perceives them (rightly or wrongly) following multiple military interventions over the last two decades. There seems to be a worrying lack of US diplomatic and military ability to send messages in any way other than the threat or straight application of blunt military might.

There is a danger of the US being seen as the slightly stupid school bully who’s ever willing to flail at others with his bigger fists and reach but fails to see the sneaky, clever little sod who slips a banana skin under his feet unnoticed. A little introspection and self-examination by US leaders, political and military, would be beneficial to their overall strategy and enhance their, shall we say slightly tarnished, reputation in many countries.
How does America feel about NATO? Support for alliance falls across key Western nations | YouGov

A good chunk of America gives no fucks for many of the countries that don't like us anymore. IT is a rather mutual feeling. When only 38% of GOP voters think NATO is relevant, you have a problem. When most of the support comes from the Boomers you have a bigger problem, as they remember what NATO was before the wall fell. When only 1/3 of my generation views NATO as an organization that is worth a damn, Europe has problems.
 
How does America feel about NATO? Support for alliance falls across key Western nations | YouGov

A good chunk of America gives no fucks for many of the countries that don't like us anymore. IT is a rather mutual feeling. When only 38% of GOP voters think NATO is relevant, you have a problem. When most of the support comes from the Boomers you have a bigger problem, as they remember what NATO was before the wall fell. When only 1/3 of my generation views NATO as an organization that is worth a damn, Europe has problems.
I never once mentioned NATO.

If you (the US) truly wish Isolationism as your foreign policy, then practice what you preach and stay out of other countries’ business.
 
Oh and for clarity, I like America and Americans. As do, I think, most Brits at a base level.

We’re just cynical of your motives over the last number of years/campaigns.
 
I never once mentioned NATO.

If you (the US) truly wish Isolationism as your foreign policy, then practice what you preach and stay out of other countries’ business.
Well a good chunk of Americans are more worried our interests first and foremost and the world can come later if ever. But Iran is our business.
 
Not quite sure why people are on about Trump starting wars and being a crazy POTUS?

Since Reagan:
Reagan: Grenada/ Panama
G H Bush: Iraq GW1 (justified)
Clinton: Bosnia (peace ops)/ Iraq bashing
G W Bush: Afghan/ Iraq GW2
Obama: Libya/ inherited and expanded ops of Bush
Trump: None. But inherited and drew down ops. Has been a bit pokey in Syria.

And if we go back further with POTUS of past, they've all mostly been quite war'ry. So if Trump does start one, he's actually no different to the others.
So far he's different in trying to either find peace (The North Koreans), or diplomatically put some regimes back in their box (Iran and its proxy wars).

This doesn't mean I like the syrup wearing perma tan loon but, have I missed something? People keep saying he's crazy and is gonna hit the red button! Yet, apart from not yet starting a war, what has he done crazy that the other POTUSs haven't?
Meh. It's just the usual hysterical hyperbole from the kind and gentle folks who don't understand democracy so they set fire to their cities when they didn't get the result they wanted.
 
Britain says shares same assessment of Iran as the United States - Reuters
Looks like Jeremy HUNT, Foreign Secretary disagrees with Major General Ghika Deputy Commander-Strategy and Information:
“We share the same assessment of the heightened threat posed by Iran,” Hunt said on Twitter. “As always we work closely with the US
E2A: UK raises threat level to personnel in Iraq due to Iran risk - Sky news - Reuters
Threat level to British military and diplomatic personnel in Iraq has been raised. Same for those in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar reportedly:
Britain has raised the threat level for military forces and diplomats in Iraq because of a heightened security risk from Iran, Sky News said on Thursday.

A spokeswoman for Britain’s Foreign Office declined to immediately comment on the report.

Britain also put its personnel and their families in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar on an increased state of alert, Sky said.
 
How does America feel about NATO? Support for alliance falls across key Western nations | YouGov

A good chunk of America gives no fucks for many of the countries that don't like us anymore. IT is a rather mutual feeling. When only 38% of GOP voters think NATO is relevant, you have a problem. When most of the support comes from the Boomers you have a bigger problem, as they remember what NATO was before the wall fell. When only 1/3 of my generation views NATO as an organization that is worth a damn, Europe has problems.
Let's have a more detailed look at those statistics.

Let's ignore the "somewhat support" and "somewhat oppose" figures as we don't have a good way of accounting for how different cultures may account for feelings of ambivalence as compared to "haven't really thought about it much". Let's just look at the "strongly support" and "strongly oppose" numbers as those people seem to be more sure of what they feel.

A higher proportaion of Americans strongly support NATO than all of the countries listed except for Denmark and Norway. A smaller proportion of Americans strongly oppose NATO than all countries other than the UK or Denmark. Or to put it another way, NATO appears to be more popular in the US than it is in most of the rest of NATO.


Now let's look at commitment to actual collective defence, which is the core of NATO's reason for existing. US feelings in favour of this seem to be nearly identical to those of Germany and higher than those of France. In terms of feeling it is no longer necessary, the US ranks roughly in the middle. Note that nearly twice as many Germans feel that collective defence is no longer necessary than Americans do.


In terms of who they would be willing to defend, both NATO and non-NATO, the US are more willing to defend countries in eastern Europe and the near east than the British (don't care about Turkey), French or Germans (don't care about Ukraine, Romania, or Turkey).


According your own source, it is mainly the US who want NATO, not the major European countries. It is the US, not western Europe, who want to defend eastern Europe and Turkey.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is "Europe" who want NATO. Your source says its the US who are keener on it.
 
Let's have a more detailed look at those statistics.

Let's ignore the "somewhat support" and "somewhat oppose" figures as we don't have a good way of accounting for how different cultures may account for feelings of ambivalence as compared to "haven't really thought about it much". Let's just look at the "strongly support" and "strongly oppose" numbers as those people seem to be more sure of what they feel.

A higher proportaion of Americans strongly support NATO than all of the countries listed except for Denmark and Norway. A smaller proportion of Americans strongly oppose NATO than all countries other than the UK or Denmark. Or to put it another way, NATO appears to be more popular in the US than it is in most of the rest of NATO.


Now let's look at commitment to actual collective defence, which is the core of NATO's reason for existing. US feelings in favour of this seem to be nearly identical to those of Germany and higher than those of France. In terms of feeling it is no longer necessary, the US ranks roughly in the middle. Note that nearly twice as many Germans feel that collective defence is no longer necessary than Americans do.


In terms of who they would be willing to defend, both NATO and non-NATO, the US are more willing to defend countries in eastern Europe and the near east than the British (don't care about Turkey), French or Germans (don't care about Ukraine, Romania, or Turkey).


According your own source, it is mainly the US who want NATO, not the major European countries. It is the US, not western Europe, who want to defend eastern Europe and Turkey.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is "Europe" who want NATO. Your source says its the US who are keener on it.
You are not taking the partisan divide in the US into account. The Dems and GOP have very different world views.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top