Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
For an official war, I don't think there exists the desire in Congress to actually do that. We don't have anything to gain, and Iran hasn't done anything to us. And even as presidential powers to command military action go, I don't know how he would justify it. Iran hasn't attacked any of our assets at all.
It won't be like Iraq at all. Iran is a much bigger country, it actually has a functioning army which is perfectly capable to defend the country, and the US would have to go in without the help of any allies, which means, among other things, no access to strategic important military bases. Last time they had the coalition of the willing in their back and everyone else allowed the US free passage. This won't happen this time around.
![]()
He has to think up some reason to try and convince the public. I'm asking what that would be.
And again, presidential powers to order military action only go so far. I don't think there's currently anything that lets him just roll up on Iran at the moment. And unless Iran decides to do something like impede the traffic that carries the oil US companies are bringing out of there, I can't think of anything else Trump could use as justification. Seriously, what could he use? Let's just say we're going to war because he wants to do it, he's required to have a reason at this point.
This probably isn't the thread to debate military strategy, but that war would not go in Iran's favor whatsoever. Their military is large but very dated, and even with just the forces in the region (the "strategic envelope") we compare favorably in a conventional fight. We have ground access through a permissive Afghanistan, and a ring of airbases along the Persian Gulf. They don't really have any meaningful way to resist our Air Force, and surging a second CSG to the area would close them out as far as naval warfare, given that their navy is built primarily around brown-water operations. It wouldn't take 21 days, but it also wouldn't take months.
The real problem is that their population is huge, at around 80 million, and the terrain in Iran is significantly more rugged than anywhere else in the ME. That makes for a potent and long-lasing insurgency. They also have a much more robust governmental structure, though not to a degree where it couldn't be compromised eventually.
It would be messy, but we could probably wrap up the conventional portion of the conflict in 3 or 4 months. The insurgency afterwards would be wrapped up never, and would continue to bleed money until the sun died out.
As pointed out, we can't just go to war because. The justification would almost certainly be something to do with their nuclear program or Israel, but we'd need some more concrete goings on for that.
edited 8th May '18 8:07:11 PM by archonspeaks
They should have sent a poet.We could fight Iran and maybe destroy it.
But there's no military advantage to so and it would grossly destabilize the region further.
It would be monumentally stupid and have not even the thin justification of Iraq.
edited 8th May '18 8:16:40 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.![]()
![]()
I'll just copy a quote from Politico which spells it out nicely:
edited 8th May '18 8:50:24 PM by TheRoguePenguin
He also used to be an extremely powerful baptist minister and the leader of a large baptist group, and was instrumental in getting North Carolina's amedment to ban same-sex marriage. Which probably means he is also involved with NC's treatment of trans people in more recent years.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Should I be panicking because of this: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
? Even if it mostly fearmongering, I hate hot weather.
edited 8th May '18 10:16:25 PM by Wariolander
Wario, you panic over everything and come here seeking psychiatric help we can't give you.
In any case, one single article is never a reason to panic. And panicking won't help with this particular problem anyway, since it requires deep and careful thought and implementation of plans to reduce pollution and the like. Which, while not nearly as fast as I think anyone here would like, is happening. Because that's where the money is, and it's where most of the major world governments are. And it's hopefully where we'll be as a country again in two years.
Also, "hate hot weather" is a petty complaint, and I say this as someone from Texas who gets it yearly regardless of other factors. It also doesn't even begin to cover what climate change is.
edited 8th May '18 10:29:21 PM by AceofSpades
Unrelated but hilarious.
Apparently Trump once cashed a check for 13 cents that was sent to him as a Prank, to see how cheap some of New Yorjs Wealthiest were.
That's Scrooge Mc Duck levels of Petty.

As if Iraq wasn't enough of a shitstorm even with our allies. And a conflict with Iran would be on a much larger scale.
Disgusted, but not surprised