Social Question

SaganRitual's avatar

Are the US war hawks starting one of those narratives to hypnotize people to accept/approve war in the Middle East (details)

Asked by SaganRitual (2056points) 1 month ago

So, I’m just now reading two articles in NBC News relating to the bombed tankers in the Gulf of Oman. I don’t understand the lopsidedness of the conversation. Iran says they had nothing to do with it. The US seems like they’re ready to go to war. How come no one is talking about good old fashioned terrorism? Why would Iran do something that would put them at risk? They’re not stupid.

I can’t make any sense out of it. Anyone have any ideas? Below is what I’m talking about, in case anyone asks for examples. No need to read through the whole thing. Peace

From Iran:

“Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif angrily dismissed the claims”
“Iran denied any role in the attacks.”
“On Tuesday, Iran released a Lebanese businessman and U.S. legal resident who had been imprisoned since 2015”
“Iran also has so far refrained from entirely abandoning the nuclear agreement”

From the US (the following is just a sample, there’s a lot more):

Norman Roule, a former CIA officer who focused on Iran, said “the circumstantial evidence is vast and sufficiently significant that Iran was responsible for these attacks…We should be concerned that attacks represent the new normal for the foreseeable future in Iran’s campaign to conduct unconventional attacks to pressure the international community to push back on us sanctions.”

Retired U.S. Navy admiral James Stavridis, who served as NATO commander, “We’re on a collision course here,”

Secretary of State Pompeo described the incident as a “blatant assault” and said the U.S. had concluded Iran was responsible… “Taken as a whole these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace and security, a blatant assault on the freedom of navigation and an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension by Iran…Iran is lashing out because the regime wants our successful maximum pressure campaign lifted,”

“The United States has no interest in engaging in a new conflict in the Middle East. However, we will defend our interests,” said the spokesman, Capt. Bill Urban

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

14 Answers

kritiper's avatar

Any “war hawks” that are talking about war are probably only trying to keep people fired up about certain actions that must be done contrary to the antiwar doves who preach that all war must be avoided at all times no matter what the circumstances may be.

SaganRitual's avatar

@kritiper I meant nothing derogatory toward anyone, yourself included. I don’t know what “actions” you mean, so I don’t know whether they’re contrary to my feelings about war. I also don’t know these people who preach the extreme anti-war message you’re talking about. I’m not sure how they fit into the conversation.

There is no reason for us to be at odds. Surprising though it may seem, I guarantee you that we both want many, many of the same things. If we all could just work together on the things we all want, we’d get a lot done, and we’d probably forget to fight about the other stuff.

I hope you’ll go read my details again, knowing that it’s not all some leftist gotcha, or an intro to a GOP-bashing thread. The first two paragraphs are loaded with honest questions. Your understanding of the situation would be illuminating. Please consider revisiting and rethinking. Peace

Zaku's avatar

What reason would Iran have to attack ships?

Iran does not want war with the US, obviously.

What would attacking ships be other than an excuse to start a war that has been wanted by the corporate string-pullers and their minions in our government for many years now?

MrGrimm888's avatar

Yes. Well. That’s how I perceive the current way it’s being spun by the US.

Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the US, would all have something to gain by a “quick,” immobilizing blow dealt by a military conflict with Iran. Bolton wants 120,000 US troops on the ground. That would not be a way to handle this AT ALL…
Trump has been many bad things. But he hasn’t resorted to all out war, to strengthen his poles. I wouldn’t put it past him, but he has so far shown restraint. Hopefully, he continues to at least do that right…

But… The US has a carrier group, already there. US targets, and strategies, are already ready. There are many ways to deal with this situation.

Iran won’t be like Iraq. Iran is a different animal, and have some Russian military technologies, that would make things much more difficult.

In ANY military conflict, there will be terrible suffering for the innocent civilian population of Iran. I really hope it doesn’t come to further conflict.

Careful, well-sourced intelligence interpretation, and thoughts towards all ramifications of military action must be thoroughly considered. Diplomacy, as always, should be priority. This is a chance, IMO, for Trump to show he isn’t a total dumpster fire. I hope he disappoints his detractors, and makes the right calls here…

@kritiper . War is NEVER the answer. Not in this day, and age. Iran is not Nazi Germany, nor the imperialistic Japan of the early 1900’s. I concede that someone, will have to take some action, if Iran tries to stop shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. But I hope it is not an overreaction.

I also hope that Iranian leadership, realizes the full gravity of the situation they are in, and doesn’t give anyone a reason to make it worse.

I have read that the Iranian navy, could be annihilated in several days. That could mean two things. The Iranian military has a pathetic Navy. Or… That they have given up hope of strategic naval presence, and plan on simply striking their enemies from land based missile systems, if it comes to that.

A US carrier group, is about as formidable a foe as currently exists. Just that one group, could seriously fuck large portions of Iran up.
But China, and Russia, already boast weapons capable of potentially destroying US carriers, with advanced missiles designed for one purpose. US carrier groups, are becoming more vulnerable, than they were 10 years ago. Hopefully, the “war hawks,” don’t underestimate their opponents either…

It’s a messy situation. Who caused the mess, and who could have done what, will be inconsequential, after any large scale conflict. The only thing we know, is that lots of people will suffer. How many, depends on the powers that be…

kritiper's avatar

@MrGrimm888 War is something Man will be forever involved in, and it will be forever thus. It cannot be denied.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Why not? Our (US) society requires us to control other human/animal traits. Most of us can maintain restraint, of our animal impulses…

Demosthenes's avatar

Yes, to some extent this feels like “grooming” the public for war.

That doesn’t mean I believe this was a false flag, but even if Iran did carry out these attacks, I’m convinced we need a war.

kritiper's avatar

@MrGrimm888 It isn’t in our nature. Basically and instinctively, it’s who we are as human beings.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Don’t get me wrong, I agree. But so are so many other things, that many people just don’t do anymore. Why play a game, where there are no winners?..

kritiper's avatar

^ That might be a question as old as time itself. And, obviously, people are still doing it.
Some people in the world may be civilized, but not all of them are. FAR too few!

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Yeah. But war is SO costly now. If we get into nukes, that complicates thongs worse.

kritiper's avatar

^ I don’t think money will be any deterrent. Nukes do complicate things but we haven’t seen the end (or the beginning) of that story just yet. Let North Korea and/or Iran get nukes, then see what REALLY happens! It will be ugly. And I predict that it will happen, between two countries, and in my lifetime. I’ve thought so for many years.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Well. I didn’t mean costly, as in economically. But it is relevant.
I agree, it would be potentially dangerous for Iran to develop nukes…

kritiper's avatar

@SaganRitual It’s not about me and what I might understand about what you say. It’s about what people do and have done, historically.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther