Israel/Iran Showdown

berbatrick

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
15,094
Neither the United States or Israel set out to target civilians. In contrast, Iran's proxies, like Hezbollah, target and justify targeting civilians.
Brig. Gen. (ret.) Zvika Fogel on the network here: Anyone who approaches the fence in order to check, for example, whether there are dead areas will be sentenced to death!
Ron Nisiel Interviewer: Even if it is an unarmed child? Vogel: Yes, even if it's a child.
There's tons of video corroboration of this mentality.




Bonus:

For the US:


Along the same lines, note that the report confirms what had already been previously documented: the Obama campaign's despicable (and likely criminal) targeting of rescuers who arrive to provide aid to the victims of the original strike. Noting that even funerals of drone victims have been targeted under Obama, the report documents that the US has "made family members afraid to attend funerals". The result of this tactic is as predictable as it is heinous:

"Secondary strikes have discouraged average civilians from coming to one another's rescue, and even inhibited the provision of emergency medical assistance from humanitarian workers."


In the hierarchy of war crimes, deliberately targeting rescuers and funerals - so that aid workers are petrified to treat the wounded and family members are intimidated out of mourning their loved ones - ranks rather high, to put that mildly. Indeed, the US itself has long maintained that such "secondary strikes" are a prime hallmark of some of the world's most despised terrorist groups.
Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
If by definition no-one is a civilian, then you can never kill civilians. That's the value of the Harvard law degree!
 

Synco

Lucio's #1 Fan
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
4,374
The correct assessment would be: Every armed force targets civilians in times of serious conflict.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
110,767
Location
Los Angeles
The correct assessment would be: Every armed force targets civilians in times of serious conflict.
More so in serious conflict but definitely not in low intensity conflicts. Most western militaries have clear rules of engagement on what defines a target.
 

2mufc0

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
13,629
No. The argument that Iran would actually use nuclear weapons to attack Israel rests on the idea that as a regime which celebrates the ideal of martyrdom in the cause of Islam above all other values, it would be to some degree less restrained by the prospect of annihilation than more conventional regimes. That is a view probably held by a good number of Israelis, whose history has conditioned them to believe that people who express hostility to Jews generally aim to hurt them.

However I doubt this view is too much on the minds of the Israelis responsible for understanding Iran and shaping policy, or at least not in the forefront of their thoughts. For these, the problem of a nuclear Iran poses a less dramatic but still extremely potent threat. The core doctrine of Israel's regional doctrine is the maintenance of military dominance over its rivals - this edge allows it to punch above its demographic and territorial weight which would otherwise condemn it, at best, to a fate such as Jordan or Lebanon, states which are not players but are rather played upon. And that would contradict the core goal of Zionism, which is to ensure that the Jews have the capability to shape their own destiny on their own terms, rather than to be one of history's perennial losers as they were for so long (that is the Zionist view).

A nuclear Iran would remove Israel's military dominance overnight, allowing Iran to act with a degree of freedom in the region (particularly through its proxies) which Israel would find impossible to restrict. Israel understands this instinctively since its own military dominance (symbolized by its nuclear capabilities) has allowed it a degree of freedom to act in the region which its rivals have been unable to counter. A nuclear Iran would make military parity between a nation with 7-8 million people on a narrow strip of the eastern Mediterranean and a nation of 80 million with a vast amount of strategic depth. It would provide an unacceptable (in the Israeli view) amount of cover for the Iranian-backed proxies which now surround Israel to wreak havoc and make life in Israeli cities intolerable. It would make the possibility of the destruction of Israel not just imaginable but very real in the minds of those who actually desire to see that happen, in turn emboldening them to never give up the struggle until the day when the twists and turns of history result in it actually happening.

That is, I believe, the dominant Israeli perspective on the matter.
But why have Israel been hell bent on destroying the Iran deal when it would result in end of nuclear weapons development. If what you are saying is accurate they would be on the forefront to make the deal.
 

2mufc0

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
13,629
The correct assessment would be: Every armed force targets civilians in times of serious conflict.
So that makes it justified?
 

Wengerscoat

New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
704
Supports
Arsenal
Neither the United States or Israel set out to target civilians. In contrast, Iran's proxies, like Hezbollah, target and justify targeting civilians.
Tell that to the tens of thousands dead and dying, I am sure it will be a comfort to them.

No. The argument that Iran would actually use nuclear weapons to attack Israel rests on the idea that as a regime which celebrates the ideal of martyrdom in the cause of Islam above all other values, it would be to some degree less restrained by the prospect of annihilation than more conventional regimes. That is a view probably held by a good number of Israelis, whose history has conditioned them to believe that people who express hostility to Jews generally aim to hurt them.

However I doubt this view is too much on the minds of the Israelis responsible for understanding Iran and shaping policy, or at least not in the forefront of their thoughts. For these, the problem of a nuclear Iran poses a less dramatic but still extremely potent threat. The core doctrine of Israel's regional doctrine is the maintenance of military dominance over its rivals - this edge allows it to punch above its demographic and territorial weight which would otherwise condemn it, at best, to a fate such as Jordan or Lebanon, states which are not players but are rather played upon. And that would contradict the core goal of Zionism, which is to ensure that the Jews have the capability to shape their own destiny on their own terms, rather than to be one of history's perennial losers as they were for so long (that is the Zionist view).

A nuclear Iran would remove Israel's military dominance overnight, allowing Iran to act with a degree of freedom in the region (particularly through its proxies) which Israel would find impossible to restrict. Israel understands this instinctively since its own military dominance (symbolized by its nuclear capabilities) has allowed it a degree of freedom to act in the region which its rivals have been unable to counter. A nuclear Iran would make military parity between a nation with 7-8 million people on a narrow strip of the eastern Mediterranean and a nation of 80 million with a vast amount of strategic depth. It would provide an unacceptable (in the Israeli view) amount of cover for the Iranian-backed proxies which now surround Israel to wreak havoc and make life in Israeli cities intolerable. It would make the possibility of the destruction of Israel not just imaginable but very real in the minds of those who actually desire to see that happen, in turn emboldening them to never give up the struggle until the day when the twists and turns of history result in it actually happening.

That is, I believe, the dominant Israeli perspective on the matter.
The deal was short term. The Iranians could easily resume once it expires.
I see this argument a lot and it's just naive. I'm not sure any nation should have the 'right' to weapons that can end the world, but given it's an imperfect world, and that some nations DO have them, we should recognise that's not ideal, we should de-nuclearise as much as possible, and stop nukes proliferating in general. It's not about 'rights'. It's about making the best of it.
I am not sure why I even posted in CE to be fair, any discourse on this subject whether its in the televised or social media or here both sides are set on their view so its a waste of time trying to change views. So I will agree to disagree here and go back to lurk mode. Though I like @2cents posts a lot usually so no hard feelings.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
110,767
Location
Los Angeles
But why have Israel been hell bent on destroying the Iran deal when it would result in end of nuclear weapons development. If what you are saying is accurate they would be on the forefront to make the deal.
Because they dont view it as a permanent solution to the Iran nuke issue. The deal is temporary and Iran could cheat behind the scenes, then simply resume development once it expires. In the interim they could get everything from sanctions relief to their frozen assets back.
 

2mufc0

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
13,629
Because they dont view it as a permanent solution to the Iran nuke issue. The deal is temporary and Iran could cheat behind the scenes, then simply resume development once it expires. In the interim they could get everything from sanctions relief to their frozen assets back.
That's not what they've been saying though. Or the other option is to negotiate a better deal, instead of trying to lure the US into bombing them.
 

2cents

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
11,350
But why have Israel been hell bent on destroying the Iran deal when it would result in end of nuclear weapons development. If what you are saying is accurate they would be on the forefront to make the deal.
Well first and foremost I think they genuinely believe that Iran is determined to become a nuclear power no matter what, and that the deal is/was dysfunctional and will grant Iran the ability to become a nuclear power in a moment's notice the second they feel like the international context makes it feasible. They believe that sanctions and continued pressure on the regime is a more promising means to prevent it.

Secondly I think they believe that Iran received a massive financial windfall through sanctions relief with the deal which has been spent on strengthening its anti-Israel proxies and its position in Syria.

I am not sure why I even posted in CE to be fair, any discourse on this subject whether its in the televised or social media or here both sides are set on their view so its a waste of time trying to change views. So I will agree to disagree here and go back to lurk mode. Though I like @2cents posts a lot usually so no hard feelings.
You should stick around, we're having a discussion and your input is as valuable as anybody else's.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
110,767
Location
Los Angeles
That's not what they've been saying though. Or the other option is to negotiate a better deal, instead of trying to lure the US into bombing them.
That's precisely what Trump is attempting here. A permanent deal that gets rid of their program.
 

Synco

Lucio's #1 Fan
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
4,374
So that makes it justified?
No. One user implied Iran/Hezbollah are much more humane in their conduct of warfare than others, while another said USA and Israel flat-out don't target civilians. My point was that no one needs to pretend the forces one favors over others (for whatever reason) are unblemished in that regard. Discussions would be much less irritating if this was generally acknowledged. Possible differences may still be discussed then, of course.

More so in serious conflict but definitely not in low intensity conflicts. Most western militaries havre clear rules of engagement on what defines a target.
I'm not familiar with exact military terminology. But in my understanding, the distinction between low intensity and high intensity conflict is blurred in asymmetric/guerilla/terrorism type of conflicts (which probably most conflicts are today). Combatants and non-combatants also get mixed up frequently. Drone strikes - and the way civilian deaths are calculated with from the start - seem a perfect example for this.
 

Chairman Woodie

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
1,001
Location
Ireland
There's tons of video corroboration of this mentality.




Bonus:

For the US:






If by definition no-one is a civilian, then you can never kill civilians. That's the value of the Harvard law degree!
1. I was talking about State policy, not the opinion of a retired B-G. Liberman's warning on Twitter is not the mark of a State who target civilians. If you are stupid enough to ignore the warning, you only have yourself to blame.


2. I can't comment on unverified, context free videos.

3. I was talking about State policy, not the opinion of an individual MK with a history of controversial opinions.

4. Your screenshot of highlighted text doesn't show the U.S intentionally targets civilians. Neither do the links. The targets are the insurgents.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
110,767
Location
Los Angeles
No. One user implied Iran/Hezbollah are much more humane in their conduct of warfare than others, while another said USA and Israel flat-out don't target civilians. My point was that no one needs to pretend the forces one favors over others (for whatever reason) are unblemished in that regard. Discussions would be much less irritating if this was generally acknowledged. Possible differences may still be discussed then, of course.


I'm not familiar with exact military terminology. But in my understanding, the distinction between low intensity and high intensity conflict is blurred in asymmetric/guerilla/terrorism type of conflicts (which probably most conflicts are today). Combatants and non-combatants also get mixed up frequently. Drone strikes - and the way civilian deaths are calculated with from the start - seem a perfect example for this.
Low intensity is generally the absence of bombing campaigns and ground troops and focuses more on small special forces teams, drones, etc. They still have CONOPS and ROEs.
 
Last edited:

Synco

Lucio's #1 Fan
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
4,374
Low intensity is generally the absence of bombing campaign and ground troops and focuses more on small special forces teams, drones, etc. They still have CONOPS and ROEs.
All right, then a lot of what was talked about here wasn't low intensity anyway. Rest of my post is self-explanatory as a statement, I guess.
 

Chairman Woodie

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
1,001
Location
Ireland
The snipers used to police 'The great return march' proves otherwise. Israel murders civilians on a regular basis
Thirty-two out of 40 Palestinians killed during 'The Great March of Return' were operatives of, or individuals affiliated with, terror groups.
 

Mozza

It’s Carrick you know
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
23,352
Location
Let Rooney be Rooney
Thirty-two out of 40 Palestinians killed during 'The Great March of Return' were operatives of, or individuals affiliated with, terror groups.
There are Hamas teachers, Dr's, nurses, welfare officers. Being a member of Hamas does not make it ok for Israel to murder them
 

oneniltothearsenal

Caf's Milton Friedman (and Arse aficionado)
Scout
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
8,597
Supports
Brazil, Arsenal,LA Aztecs
That's precisely what Trump is attempting here. A permanent deal that gets rid of their program.
Which is extremely naive thinking.

Iran has no rational choice but to pursue a nuclear program in the current climate considering Saudi and Israeli cooperating to undermine Iran at every opportunity. They've been backed into a corner, surrounded with no powerful allies. What other option do they have? Bolton's hardball with Iran is just going to make them more determined to pursue nuclear program because they have no other options.
 

Nikhil

New Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
2,348
Location
Form is temporary, bans are permanent.
Iran will not attack Israel with a nuclear bomb though. They don't care about Jews, but Israel has Arabs as well. They wouldn't want to kill Arabs which is what would happen if they bombed Israel. That, and mutual assured destruction would mean the end of Iran.
 

Florida Man

Cartoon expert and crap superhero
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
12,710
Location
Florida, man
Iran will not attack Israel with a nuclear bomb though. They don't care about Jews, but Israel has Arabs as well. They wouldn't want to kill Arabs which is what would happen if they bombed Israel. That, and mutual assured destruction would mean the end of Iran.
Arabs and Persians + Sunni and Shia don't have a great history of getting along, though.
 

Florida Man

Cartoon expert and crap superhero
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
12,710
Location
Florida, man
That's precisely what Trump is attempting here. A permanent deal that gets rid of their program.
If that's the case, I don't get why we can't proceed with this deal as it is, and then renegotiate a permanent one later? Isn't it about compromise anyway? And doesn't the bad PR surrounding the pulling out make it harder to negotiate this permanent deal?
 

Nikhil

New Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
2,348
Location
Form is temporary, bans are permanent.
These neocons like John Bolton and Pompeo have close to zero judgement. They are doing a pretty goof job with the peace talk with North Korea (so far) but seem to be on the path to causing mayhem in Syria and Iran.

Awful people, these neocons like Rumsfeld, Bolton, Pompeo, Cheney.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
110,767
Location
Los Angeles
Which is extremely naive thinking.

Iran has no rational choice but to pursue a nuclear program in the current climate considering Saudi and Israeli cooperating to undermine Iran at every opportunity. They've been backed into a corner, surrounded with no powerful allies. What other option do they have? Bolton's hardball with Iran is just going to make them more determined to pursue nuclear program because they have no other options.
They do have a rational choice, which is eliminate their program and sign a long term deal in exchange for a lifting of sanctions and avoiding a hot war on their territory. That's a pretty good deal for Khamenai when contrasted to the alternative.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
110,767
Location
Los Angeles
If that's the case, I don't get why we can't proceed with this deal as it is, and then renegotiate a permanent one later? Isn't it about compromise anyway? And doesn't the bad PR surrounding the pulling out make it harder to negotiate this permanent deal?
That would be fine, but since Trump ran on getting out of the deal, he will perceive this as an easy win to keep his base in line.
 

Florida Man

Cartoon expert and crap superhero
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
12,710
Location
Florida, man
That would be fine, but since Trump ran on getting out of the deal, he will perceive this as an easy win to keep his base in line.
Well hopefully, he didn't feck it up for the future. Broken international relationships are much harder to repair than your hardcore base's perception, I'd assume.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
40,574
Location
CA
They do have a rational choice, which is eliminate their program and sign a long term deal in exchange for a lifting of sanctions and avoiding a hot war on their territory. That's a pretty good deal for Khamenai when contrasted to the alternative.
A hot war is not desirable for US though, and is quite possible that Russia will offer similar (or more) help to Iran as it did to Syria, in which case, it becomes extremely difficult for US.

Israel doesn't have the means for a conventional war against Iran. They can bomb it, but hardly send the army there, despite having a more powerful army. Iran in turn can bomb Israel too.

After the Iraq fiasco, does US really want a war in Iran, which at the very best case for US will be significantly worse than the Iraq war, and can go to become as bad as Vietnam war. I doubt so.

So, I guess it is sanctions (this time only from US), with Iran continuing now their nuclear program, and Israel occasionally attacking their scientists and centrifuges. Essentially, how it was before the deal Kerry made.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
110,767
Location
Los Angeles
A hot war is not desirable for US though, and is quite possible that Russia will offer similar (or more) help to Iran as it did to Syria, in which case, it becomes extremely difficult for US.

Israel doesn't have the means for a conventional war against Iran. They can bomb it, but hardly send the army there, despite having a more powerful army. Iran in turn can bomb Israel too.

After the Iraq fiasco, does US really want a war in Iran, which at the very best case for US will be significantly worse than the Iraq war, and can go to become as bad as Vietnam war. I doubt so.

So, I guess it is sanctions (this time only from US), with Iran continuing now their nuclear program, and Israel occasionally attacking their scientists and centrifuges. Essentially, how it was before the deal Kerry made.
Iran is actually pretty isolated. They need economic relief and can't really afford to get into a military confrontation against a much more powerful military.
 

oneniltothearsenal

Caf's Milton Friedman (and Arse aficionado)
Scout
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
8,597
Supports
Brazil, Arsenal,LA Aztecs
They do have a rational choice, which is eliminate their program and sign a long term deal in exchange for a lifting of sanctions and avoiding a hot war on their territory. That's a pretty good deal for Khamenai when contrasted to the alternative.
I know that's the pie in the sky neo-con idealism but thats not a realistic option from an Iranian perspective because Trump lost all trust. There is no reason to make a long term deal if you have no trust in the other party to actually hold to the deal. When the US just breaks any deal whenever it suits them as Trump is showing, why should any other nation trust what they say to even make a deal? Its naive if anyone thinks Iran is going to give up their nuclear goals now regardless of what they say. Also there is really nothing the US even gains from all this. Its all to benefit Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Iran is actually pretty isolated. They need economic relief and can't really afford to get into a military confrontation against a much more powerful military.
If Trumps leads the US into an expensive pointless war in Iran his approval ratings will drop below that 35% barrier you talk about frequently
 

Mr H

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2014
Messages
2,487
Iran will not attack Israel with a nuclear bomb though. They don't care about Jews, but Israel has Arabs as well. They wouldn't want to kill Arabs which is what would happen if they bombed Israel. That, and mutual assured destruction would mean the end of Iran.
I think people often forget to make the distinction between Israel as a countries, and Jews.

In a September 2008 sermon for Friday prayers in Tehran, Khamenei stated that "it is incorrect, irrational, pointless and nonsense to say that we are friends of Israeli people", because he believed that the occupation is done by the means of them. "...usurpation of houses, lands, and business [of Palestinian people] are carried out using these people. They are the background actors of Zionist elements," said Khamenei in his speech. "...we have no problem with Jews and Christians...we have problem with the usurpers of Palestine land," he added. Also, he said that he had raised the issue "to spell an end to any debates". In 2013, Khamenei accused France of "kneeling" before Israel, while saying that Israel was led by people unworthy of the "title human".
This part is souced, there's a ref for it if you want it.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
110,767
Location
Los Angeles
I know that's the pie in the sky neo-con idealism but thats not a realistic option from an Iranian perspective because Trump lost all trust. There is no reason to make a long term deal if you have no trust in the other party to actually hold to the deal. When the US just breaks any deal whenever it suits them as Trump is showing, why should any other nation trust what they say to even make a deal? Its naive if anyone thinks Iran is going to give up their nuclear goals now regardless of what they say. Also there is really nothing the US even gains from all this. Its all to benefit Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The Iranians don't have any power in any this. They can either negotiate a new deal involving a complete cessation of their program in exchange for economic concessions or deal with Trump and the military and economic weapons he wields. Trump himself will feel especially emboldened in all of this since he likely views that his tough talk against Kim worked nicely. The difficult part of Trump will be dealing with the various European states in the JCPOA (France, UK, & Germany) and how they would react to the US pulling out, whether they would continue doing business with Iran, and whether the US would be in the odd position of sanctioning them to do it.


If Trumps leads the US into an expensive pointless war in Iran his approval ratings will drop below that 35% barrier you talk about frequently
Hard to say since his base are pretty tight with him and wars generally make Presidential numbers go up in the beginning. Since Trump isn't likely to get involved in a ground war, it would be a relatively short conflict.
 

oneniltothearsenal

Caf's Milton Friedman (and Arse aficionado)
Scout
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
8,597
Supports
Brazil, Arsenal,LA Aztecs
The Iranians don't have any power in any this. They can either negotiate a new deal involving a complete cessation of their program in exchange for economic concessions or deal with Trump and the military and economic weapons he wields. Trump himself will feel especially emboldened in all of this since he likely views that his tough talk against Kim worked nicely. The difficult part of Trump will be dealing with the various European states in the JCPOA (France, UK, & Germany) and how they would react to the US pulling out, whether they would continue doing business with Iran, and whether the US would be in the odd position of sanctioning them to do it.
Do you think Obama's deal was not working at all?
Why would Iran comply with Trump's deal if they were not complying with Obama's deal?
What does the US gain from tearing up Obama's deal just because, only to try to re-negotiate now?

Even if we assume Trump's "tough talk" is this magical remedy that has been missing in the Middle East all these years, why would Iran comply if they can just wait 2 years until no more Trump, since Trump has already proven no administration needs to adhere to any prior administration's deals?
 

2cents

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
11,350
I think people often forget to make the distinction between Israel as a countries, and Jews.



This part is souced, there's a ref for it if you want it.
I posted these quotes by the founder of the Islamic Republic Khomeini earlier:

"From the very beginning, the historical movement of Islam has had to contend with the Jews, for it was they who first established anti-Islamic propaganda and engaged in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to the present. Later they were joined by other groups, who were in certain respects, more satanic than they."

(I believe he's referring to the Baha'is here)

"We must protest and make the people aware that the Jews and their foreign backers are opposed to the very foundations of Islam and wish to establish Jewish domination throughout the world. Since they are a cunning and resourceful group of people, I fear that—God forbid!—they may one day achieve their goal, and that the apathy shown by some of us may allow a Jew to rule over us one day. May God never let us see such a day!"

https://www.al-islam.org/printpdf/book/export/html/12118

There's also the fact that Iran has hosted a Holocaust-denying competition and had a Holocaust-denying President. Khamenei himself is a Holocaust-denier. Much of his anti-Israel rhetoric is blatantly antisemitic. Oh and here's a lovely recent tweet from him:

 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
110,767
Location
Los Angeles
Do you think Obama's deal was not working at all?
Why would Iran comply with Trump's deal if they were not complying with Obama's deal?
What does the US gain from tearing up Obama's deal just because, only to try to re-negotiate now?

Even if we assume Trump's "tough talk" is this magical remedy that has been missing in the Middle East all these years, why would Iran comply if they can just wait 2 years until no more Trump, since Trump has already proven no administration needs to adhere to any prior administration's deals?
I definitely think the deal was working - in fact we know it was working since the Iranians had been getting periodically recertified. On the other hand, Trump did campaign on repealing the entire deal and negotiating a new one so I'm not entirely shocked that he has followed through.
 

Member 5225

Guest
How are Israel justifying a secret Iran nuclear capability despite having exactly that themselves?
 

The Firestarter

Full Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
10,677
If the US allies show Trump a big middle finger regarding sanctions, he will be the one ending up isolated. US sanctioning Germany or France, now that will be unprecedented since WW II . But I actually think he may double down and do it. Again, nobody will be happy except one man in the Kremlin.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
24,475
Location
South Carolina
If the US allies show Trump a big middle finger regarding sanctions, he will be the one ending up isolated. US sanctioning Germany or France, now that will be unprecedented since WW II . But I actually think he may double down and do it. Again, nobody will be happy except one man in the Kremlin.
Legit, the only country I can see benefiting from any of this is Russia.