[EnergyUnlimited]

Well, Bolton have been (rather unexpectedly) "trumped".
So war with Iran is now unlikely.
Or do you think otherwise?

[Cog]

Good firing. Bolton never saw a war he didn't want to jump into feet first. A war with Iran was never likely with or without Bolton around.

[Plantagenet]

Well, Bolton have been (rather unexpectedly) "trumped".
So war with Iran is now unlikely.
Or do you think otherwise?

War is as close as the Iranians blowing up or seizing more oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz. Or the Iranians could trigger off a war with Israel by firing more missiles into Israel, either directly or through their proxies in Hezbollah and Syria. Or the Saudis could go nuclear to counteract the Iranians going nuclear, and that could trigger off conflict.

Trump removing Bolton does nothing to diminish the terrorism and worse coming from the Islamic fanatics in Iran.

Cheers!

[dissident]

Well, Bolton have been (rather unexpectedly) "trumped".
So war with Iran is now unlikely.
Or do you think otherwise?

War is as close as the Iranians blowing up or seizing more oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz. Or the Iranians could trigger off a war with Israel by firing more missiles into Israel, either directly or through their proxies in Hezbollah and Syria. Or the Saudis could go nuclear to counteract the Iranians going nuclear, and that could trigger off conflict.

Trump removing Bolton does nothing to diminish the terrorism and worse coming from the Islamic fanatics in Iran.

Cheers!

Demented nonsense. Iran is not blowing up and seizing oil tankers. It is the UK that is acting like a collection of pirates for hire. That Iran retaliates is fully legitimate. Bitchy UK hypocrites should learn how to act like civilized people.

[Plantagenet]

Iran is not blowing up and seizing oil tankers.

Of course they are.

iran-oil-tanker-attacks-in-the-strait-of-hormuz

Get it now?

Cheers!

[asg70]

Get it now?

What I "get" is you running defense for the republicans as always. International relations are a result of a series of interactions, just like any relationship, and the Trump administration has been part and parcel of facilitating Iran's shift to a further hardline stance.

[Plantagenet]

What I "get" is you running defense for the republicans as always.

???????

I think you are confused again. Geography is hard, I know, but lets see if we can sort this out.

Criticizing the Iranians for seizing oil tankers and setting limpet mines to explode and damage others is not "running defense for the republicans."

The Iranians are ruled by Islamic fundamentalists and live in Iran.

The Republicans are your fellow American citizens and live here in the United States.

The Republicans and the Iranians are totally different groups of people who live in different countries thousands of miles apart.

Do you get it now?

CHEERS!

[Outcast_Searcher]

Good firing. Bolton never saw a war he didn't want to jump into feet first. A war with Iran was never likely with or without Bolton around.

If Bolton is indeed a chicken hawk, as was reported in Newsweek today, then that's for sure. (I'm sure there will be disagreements about semantics like legal deferments, etc).

https://www.newsweek.com/draft-dodging- ... ar-1441548

...

One thing Ross Perot sure had right was that IF the US feels the need to get into a real war, it should be important enough that everyone's taxes go up meaningfully to pay for it. That alone should mostly prevent US politicians from pushing for unneeded wars.

And then if something serious like 9-11 or Pearl Harbor comes along and the need is serious, the people will see it is serious and back it, at least for a "reasonable" period of time. If not, successful politicians don't win or help their party by pissing off the entire electorate for no good reason.