Information still unfolding. This is just..."wow" right now!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/worl ... ttack.html

Let's see how things unfold. Things are ratcheting up quickly!

Just heard on CNN that the Pentagon allegedly released a statement that the POTUS authorized the attack.

Nothing in writing yet but this is going to be a mess to say the least if confirmed

EDIT: good Lord here we go... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/oil-pri ... trike.html

1989worstyear wrote:

EDIT: good Lord here we go... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/oil-pri ... trike.html

Agreed! I have a feeling when I wake up in the morning, this are going to be even more crazy!

Let the speculation begin on how Iran will retaliate.

All levels of crazy and stupid. Tucker Carlson gets this one right:

https://youtu.be/sthVmGSFwhQ

QXatFAT wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

EDIT: good Lord here we go... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/oil-pri ... trike.html

Agreed! I have a feeling when I wake up in the morning, this are going to be even more crazy!

Let the speculation begin on how Iran will retaliate.

They know any retaliation will result in ten fold damage from the US. Their state sponsored terrorism has gone unchecked for years with attempts made at appeasement, deal with them the only way they understand.

dmg626 wrote:

QXatFAT wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

EDIT: good Lord here we go... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/oil-pri ... trike.html

Agreed! I have a feeling when I wake up in the morning, this are going to be even more crazy!

Let the speculation begin on how Iran will retaliate.

They know any retaliation will result in ten fold damage from the US. Their state sponsored terrorism has gone unchecked for years with attempts made at appeasement, deal with them the only way they understand.

If it's true that Soleimani & co were planning more attacks on U.S. personnel in the coming days, what the Trump Administration ought to have done was to significantly, and quietly, beef up security in the areas suspected to be targets. Wait for Iran to make the first move; then enjoy broad multilateral support for any retaliatory action.

dmg626 wrote:

QXatFAT wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

EDIT: good Lord here we go... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/oil-pri ... trike.html

Agreed! I have a feeling when I wake up in the morning, this are going to be even more crazy!

Let the speculation begin on how Iran will retaliate.

They know any retaliation will result in ten fold damage from the US. Their state sponsored terrorism has gone unchecked for years with attempts made at appeasement, deal with them the only way they understand.

Agreed. They were given every opportunity to play nice. Their recent stunts are what brought this upon them.

Trump need to show off his 'manhood' as President by calling for this assassination. Yes, there was a need prevent another attack on US/and Iraq forces, but all it will do is tick off Iran even more. Where does it go to next, bombing of Iran's nuke facilities ? I am quite sure Israel will love it. Another reason why Trump is too dangerous to be President.

Airstud wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

QXatFAT wrote:

Agreed! I have a feeling when I wake up in the morning, this are going to be even more crazy!

Let the speculation begin on how Iran will retaliate.

They know any retaliation will result in ten fold damage from the US. Their state sponsored terrorism has gone unchecked for years with attempts made at appeasement, deal with them the only way they understand.

If it's true that Soleimani & co were planning more attacks on U.S. personnel in the coming days, what the Trump Administration ought to have done was to significantly, and quietly, beef up security in the areas suspected to be targets. Wait for Iran to make the first move; then enjoy broad multilateral support for any retaliatory action.

Agreed - the 2001 AUMF does not extend to Iran as they had zero to do with 9/11. Congress was not even consulted, this action can hardly be considered legal. If done by any other nation, we’d be calling it egregious.

Airstud wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

QXatFAT wrote:

Agreed! I have a feeling when I wake up in the morning, this are going to be even more crazy!

Let the speculation begin on how Iran will retaliate.

They know any retaliation will result in ten fold damage from the US. Their state sponsored terrorism has gone unchecked for years with attempts made at appeasement, deal with them the only way they understand.

If it's true that Soleimani & co were planning more attacks on U.S. personnel in the coming days, what the Trump Administration ought to have done was to significantly, and quietly, beef up security in the areas suspected to be targets. Wait for Iran to make the first move; then enjoy broad multilateral support for any retaliatory action.

Agreed.

In the meantime, I think I'm going to buy a Chevy Volt...

Aaron747 wrote:

Airstud wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

They know any retaliation will result in ten fold damage from the US. Their state sponsored terrorism has gone unchecked for years with attempts made at appeasement, deal with them the only way they understand.

If it's true that Soleimani & co were planning more attacks on U.S. personnel in the coming days, what the Trump Administration ought to have done was to significantly, and quietly, beef up security in the areas suspected to be targets. Wait for Iran to make the first move; then enjoy broad multilateral support for any retaliatory action.

Agreed - the 2001 AUMF does not extend to Iran as they had zero to do with 9/11. Congress was not even consulted, this action can hardly be considered legal. If done by any other nation, we’d be calling it egregious.

Trump is the commander of the military. This was not a declaration of war. He doesn't need Pelosi's permission. It wasn't even his idea. He just approved it. Had a Democrat president taken out an individual on multiple terrorist watch lists I think you'd be singing a different tune.

TTailedTiger wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

QXatFAT wrote:

Agreed! I have a feeling when I wake up in the morning, this are going to be even more crazy!

Let the speculation begin on how Iran will retaliate.

They know any retaliation will result in ten fold damage from the US. Their state sponsored terrorism has gone unchecked for years with attempts made at appeasement, deal with them the only way they understand.

Agreed. They were given every opportunity to play nice. Their recent stunts are what brought this upon them.

This is not a playground game dude. It’s exactly what Tucker’s guest said - a superpower getting involved with a middle power backed by other large powers. It makes absolutely zero sense to keep at this before setting the entire region off - which would play right into the wannabe Gulf hegemon’s hands. Not to mention this will curry no favor in Shia-majority Iraq.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Airstud wrote:

If it's true that Soleimani & co were planning more attacks on U.S. personnel in the coming days, what the Trump Administration ought to have done was to significantly, and quietly, beef up security in the areas suspected to be targets. Wait for Iran to make the first move; then enjoy broad multilateral support for any retaliatory action.

Agreed - the 2001 AUMF does not extend to Iran as they had zero to do with 9/11. Congress was not even consulted, this action can hardly be considered legal. If done by any other nation, we’d be calling it egregious.

Trump is the commander of the military. This was not a declaration of war. He doesn't need Pelosi's permission. It wasn't even his idea. He just approved it. Had a Democrat president taken out an individual on multiple terrorist watch lists I think you'd be singing a different tune.

Again you’re wrong - I criticized 44 all the way through for his endless collateral damage heavy drone campaigns - and even that was at least ostensibly covered under the AUMF.

Aaron747 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

They know any retaliation will result in ten fold damage from the US. Their state sponsored terrorism has gone unchecked for years with attempts made at appeasement, deal with them the only way they understand.

Agreed. They were given every opportunity to play nice. Their recent stunts are what brought this upon them.

This is not a playground game dude. It’s exactly what Tucker’s guest said - a superpower getting involved with a middle power backed by other large powers. It makes absolutely zero sense to keep at this before setting the entire region off - which would play right into the wannabe Gulf hegemon’s hands. Not to mention this will curry no favor in Shia-majority Iraq.

But it is indeed the playground to this non-skilled US prez getting something he really wants...to play Army soldier Leader and actually launch nukes.
Which by default may make his approval ratings soar (becomes bombing other countries guarantees this) and its quells Impeachment Fever.

As of now, newly released emails are powering Impeachment numbers further along, start a war..reverses the process.

And if you think for a second that Sean Hannity Laura Inghram & Rush Limbaugh are calling every hour yelling "Bomb the F*krs Now'....you're delusional. That's math a 3rd grader could do.

BN747

dmg626 wrote:

QXatFAT wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

EDIT: good Lord here we go... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/oil-pri ... trike.html

Agreed! I have a feeling when I wake up in the morning, this are going to be even more crazy!

Let the speculation begin on how Iran will retaliate.

They know any retaliation will result in ten fold damage from the US. Their state sponsored terrorism has gone unchecked for years with attempts made at appeasement, deal with them the only way they understand.

Remind us which country Iran has invaded and how many tens of thousands of people they have killed in the process....?
Oh... that’ll be USA that did that.
Fucking about with Iran is ridiculous... the USA should be invading Saudi and wiping out that regime if they want to do something useful.

BN747 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Agreed. They were given every opportunity to play nice. Their recent stunts are what brought this upon them.

This is not a playground game dude. It’s exactly what Tucker’s guest said - a superpower getting involved with a middle power backed by other large powers. It makes absolutely zero sense to keep at this before setting the entire region off - which would play right into the wannabe Gulf hegemon’s hands. Not to mention this will curry no favor in Shia-majority Iraq.

But it is indeed the playground to this non-skilled US prez getting something he really wants...to play Army soldier Leader and actually launch nukes.
Which by default may make his approval ratings soar (becomes bombing other countries guarantees this) and its quells Impeachment Fever.

As of now, newly released emails are powering Impeachment numbers further along, start a war..reverses the process.

And if you think for a second that Sean Hannity Laura Inghram & Rush Limbaugh are calling every hour yelling "Bomb the F*krs Now'....you're delusional. That's math a 3rd grader could do.

BN747

BN I’m curious to know what you would do if you were still in the military? You may not like the government... but they are the elected power by your country... this is not a go at you... I am genuinely interested what you would do right now.

Airstud wrote:

If it's true that Soleimani & co were planning more attacks on U.S. personnel in the coming days, what the Trump Administration ought to have done was to significantly, and quietly, beef up security in the areas suspected to be targets. Wait for Iran to make the first move; then enjoy broad multilateral support for any retaliatory action.

That plan is so fraught with risk it becomes stupid to even attempt. You are essentially using the deaths of American soldiers to win international support for retaliation and don't doubt for a second that someone would die. I doubt the fathers and mothers of American soldiers would be happy with your suggestion...

To do what you're suggesting requires 100% confidence in the intelligence, know all the details of each attack plan as well as each of the primary and almost certainly the secondary targets. What happens if any of the above is out and a US target is attacked with significant casualties? To add the President is then blamed because it was found out the location of the mastermind of the attack was known before the event but he decided not to prosecute. The same people who are blaming the preemptive strike would be claiming the same for not preventing the loss...

I don't care for Trump at all but he, and US Presidents before him, have the ability and right to make these decisions.

chimborazo wrote:

BN747 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

This is not a playground game dude. It’s exactly what Tucker’s guest said - a superpower getting involved with a middle power backed by other large powers. It makes absolutely zero sense to keep at this before setting the entire region off - which would play right into the wannabe Gulf hegemon’s hands. Not to mention this will curry no favor in Shia-majority Iraq.

But it is indeed the playground to this non-skilled US prez getting something he really wants...to play Army soldier Leader and actually launch nukes.
Which by default may make his approval ratings soar (becomes bombing other countries guarantees this) and its quells Impeachment Fever.

As of now, newly released emails are powering Impeachment numbers further along, start a war..reverses the process.

And if you think for a second that Sean Hannity Laura Inghram & Rush Limbaugh are calling every hour yelling "Bomb the F*krs Now'....you're delusional. That's math a 3rd grader could do.

BN747

BN I’m curious to know what you would do if you were still in the military? You may not like the government... but they are the elected power by your country... this is not a go at you... I am genuinely interested what you would do right now.

That would kill any notion of a being a lifer for certain.

But in truth I did exactly what I did do when faced with that very situation, I went in under a intelligent dove prez came in and exited when a warhawk took over.

Were I in under a fool like this current president I'd be on trial for disrespect to the Criminal-in-Chief.

Being a sacrifice for a nation led by a fool president is not the same as sacrificing for a leader looking out for America vs one looking out only for himself...like now.

BN747

dmg626 wrote:

QXatFAT wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

EDIT: good Lord here we go... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/oil-pri ... trike.html

Agreed! I have a feeling when I wake up in the morning, this are going to be even more crazy!

Let the speculation begin on how Iran will retaliate.

They know any retaliation will result in ten fold damage from the US.

You just committed an open act of war against a foreign country.

Their state sponsored terrorism has gone unchecked for years with attempts made at appeasement, deal with them the only way they understand.

Show us your evidence. US courts certainly haven´t seen any, as they ruled consistently that Iran doesn´t control terrorists when they ruled that Iran has to pay damages to victims of terror strikes because some Iranian money is it. Quite slippery position for the US.

Qassem Soleimani was a guy that offered the US government help to after 9/11 and supposedly did so until Bush branded Iran as member of the axis of evil......

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013 ... rentPage=1

Killing the more moderate folks in Iran certainly is good idea, seems like Trump had to finish empowering the Iranian Hardliners, which seems to be his goal with regards to Iran.

best regards
Thomas

chimborazo wrote:

BN I’m curious to know what you would do if you were still in the military? You may not like the government... but they are the elected power by your country... this is not a go at you... I am genuinely interested what you would do right now.

If I was still in the Navy I would continue to obey orders - just like in the Viet Nam Era.


I am not too impressed with my government these days - the level of greed and ignorance in the Oval Office is shameful.

And we need to remember that Trump was NOT elected by the voters - he LOST by some 3,000,000 voted. The Electoral College put him in, demonstrating that the Constitution needs to be fixed - just like it was for Slavery and allowing Women to actually vote. BTW, IIRC the Constitution indicated that only land owners were allowed to vote. If you don't wan land you, like women, are obviously not smart enough to help pick a President.

Right now. I wouldn't start another "short" GOP war that may last for 15 or more years. Three years ago I wouldn't have torn up the Nuclear agreement with Iran.

Ken777 wrote:

And we need to remember that Trump was NOT elected by the voters - he LOST by some 3,000,000 voted. The Electoral College put him i.

That is nonsense. He was elected under the rules that where set out for your democracy, and that includes the EC. You may not like it, you may think that needs changing, i would think how the Senate works is a much, much bigger problem for example, but that is the way it is and under the current rules he was elected. He didn´t win the irrelevant popular vote, and won with ridiculous few votes, other have lost Presidential elections getting more votes, but he was elected.

best regards
Thomas

To give you an idea of how bad a move this was, the General who was assassinated is viewed amongst the Shia population in the region as the hero who saved them from ISIS.

For a comparison imagine a third party assassinating George Washington after the Revolutionary War and how angry Americans would be. That’s what Trump has just done to Iranians. Any hope of capitalising on an anti-regime movement in Iran has just evaporated.

This is not going to end well....

TTailedTiger wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Airstud wrote:

If it's true that Soleimani & co were planning more attacks on U.S. personnel in the coming days, what the Trump Administration ought to have done was to significantly, and quietly, beef up security in the areas suspected to be targets. Wait for Iran to make the first move; then enjoy broad multilateral support for any retaliatory action.

Agreed - the 2001 AUMF does not extend to Iran as they had zero to do with 9/11. Congress was not even consulted, this action can hardly be considered legal. If done by any other nation, we’d be calling it egregious.

Trump is the commander of the military. This was not a declaration of war. He doesn't need Pelosi's permission. It wasn't even his idea. He just approved it. Had a Democrat president taken out an individual on multiple terrorist watch lists I think you'd be singing a different tune.

Semantics. There are a lot of ways to “eliminate” someone. By using the big toys, you want to escalate and we all know Trump wants to frame Iran as the number 1 enemy. It’s almost election time...

marcelh wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Agreed - the 2001 AUMF does not extend to Iran as they had zero to do with 9/11. Congress was not even consulted, this action can hardly be considered legal. If done by any other nation, we’d be calling it egregious.

Trump is the commander of the military. This was not a declaration of war. He doesn't need Pelosi's permission. It wasn't even his idea. He just approved it. Had a Democrat president taken out an individual on multiple terrorist watch lists I think you'd be singing a different tune.

Semantics. There are a lot of ways to “eliminate” someone. By using the big toys, you want to escalate and we all know Trump wants to frame Iran as the number 1 enemy. It’s almost election time...

I'm pretty sure this had everything to do with Iran's recent stunts. A warning to cut it out. Trump is someone that likes matters resolved quickly. A drawn out war with American troop casualties wouldn't be his style. Should there be anymore trouble out of them I'm guessing a package will arrive via overnight air to the people of Iran.

marcelh wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Agreed - the 2001 AUMF does not extend to Iran as they had zero to do with 9/11. Congress was not even consulted, this action can hardly be considered legal. If done by any other nation, we’d be calling it egregious.

Trump is the commander of the military. This was not a declaration of war. He doesn't need Pelosi's permission. It wasn't even his idea. He just approved it. Had a Democrat president taken out an individual on multiple terrorist watch lists I think you'd be singing a different tune.

Semantics. There are a lot of ways to “eliminate” someone. By using the big toys, you want to escalate and we all know Trump wants to frame Iran as the number 1 enemy. It’s almost election time...

Aside of that what TTailedTiger is saying is just his assumption, As far as i can tell those limits have never been tested in court and covering assassinations under "national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." is a bit of a stretch.

Also of course, an act of war is a declaration of war, regardless of openly declaring it. Trump managed to engage in an Act of war against two countries at once, at least he has an accomplishment now. If the Iranians put some explosives into an US Navy ship no one can go and say "Wait, you can´t do that, we haven´t declared war yet". Anyone in US Uniform and anyone giving aid and comfort to US troops is now a legal, valid target. Its a strange world where you can only hope for the Iranians to show restraint. Mullahs being more sane than the US government. That is new.

Its irrelevant in any case, as the GOP used to say Obama stretched the AUMF when committing his drone strikes, so obviously the same rules apply to Trump.

Its quite obvious that Trump wants a war against Iran, he just assumes that being in an active war will secure his reelection.

best regards
Thomas

sierrakilo44 wrote:

To give you an idea of how bad a move this was, the General who was assassinated is viewed amongst the Shia population in the region as the hero who saved them from ISIS. For a comparison imagine a third party assassinating George Washington after the Revolutionary War and how angry Americans would be. That’s what Trump has just done to Iranians. Any hope of capitalising on an anti-regime movement in Iran has just evaporated. This is not going to end well....

This. After all the huffing and puffing and beating of chests, this was a desperate move by an administration who saw its "strategy" - i.e., tearing-up a carefully-composed international agreement and expecting Iran to come crawling on its knees to to beg for a new one - fail miserably. It is also a failure of this administration, which has lost uncountable senior diplomats - and which shows no interest in diplomacy anyway.

Once the American people realize just how far our standing, reputation, and support throughout the world has fallen... it will be too late. Like the ill-reasoned Iraq war, some things just cannot be fixed after they are broken. I fear this is another harbinger of disaster.

TTailedTiger wrote:

marcelh wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Trump is the commander of the military. This was not a declaration of war. He doesn't need Pelosi's permission. It wasn't even his idea. He just approved it. Had a Democrat president taken out an individual on multiple terrorist watch lists I think you'd be singing a different tune.

Semantics. There are a lot of ways to “eliminate” someone. By using the big toys, you want to escalate and we all know Trump wants to frame Iran as the number 1 enemy. It’s almost election time...

I'm pretty sure this had everything to do with Iran's recent stunts. A warning to cut it out. Trump is someone that likes matters resolved quickly. A drawn out war with American troop casualties wouldn't be his style. Should there be anymore trouble out of them I'm guessing a package will arrive via overnight air to the people of Iran.

So the people of Iran, already suffering under years of sanctions, should suffer further because of right wingers in the IRGC? That’s some damned twisted logic.

TTailedTiger wrote:

marcelh wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Trump is the commander of the military. This was not a declaration of war. He doesn't need Pelosi's permission. It wasn't even his idea. He just approved it. Had a Democrat president taken out an individual on multiple terrorist watch lists I think you'd be singing a different tune.

Semantics. There are a lot of ways to “eliminate” someone. By using the big toys, you want to escalate and we all know Trump wants to frame Iran as the number 1 enemy. It’s almost election time...

I'm pretty sure this had everything to do with Iran's recent stunts. A warning to cut it out. Trump is someone that likes matters resolved quickly. A drawn out war with American troop casualties wouldn't be his style. Should there be anymore trouble out of them I'm guessing a package will arrive via overnight air to the people of Iran

.

Everything to make Iran the number 1 enemy. And they are only considered as enemy because they threaten “US interests”. It’s ironic to understand that the 9/11 attackers - who are responsible for the execution of the biggest terrorist attack in the USA - all came from countries which are US allies.

marcelh wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Semantics. There are a lot of ways to “eliminate” someone. By using the big toys, you want to escalate and we all know Trump wants to frame Iran as the number 1 enemy. It’s almost election time...

I'm pretty sure this had everything to do with Iran's recent stunts. A warning to cut it out. Trump is someone that likes matters resolved quickly. A drawn out war with American troop casualties wouldn't be his style. Should there be anymore trouble out of them I'm guessing a package will arrive via overnight air to the people of Iran

.

Everything to make Iran the number 1 enemy. And they are only considered as enemy because they threaten “US interests”. It’s ironic to understand that the 9/11 attackers - who are responsible for the execution of the biggest terrorist attack in the USA - all came from countries which are US allies.

Many ‘conservative’ Americans don’t even recognize that fact anymore, some amongst the very posters here.

marcelh wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Semantics. There are a lot of ways to “eliminate” someone. By using the big toys, you want to escalate and we all know Trump wants to frame Iran as the number 1 enemy. It’s almost election time...

I'm pretty sure this had everything to do with Iran's recent stunts. A warning to cut it out. Trump is someone that likes matters resolved quickly. A drawn out war with American troop casualties wouldn't be his style. Should there be anymore trouble out of them I'm guessing a package will arrive via overnight air to the people of Iran

.

Everything to make Iran the number 1 enemy. And they are only considered as enemy because they threaten “US interests”. It’s ironic to understand that the 9/11 attackers - who are responsible for the execution of the biggest terrorist attack in the USA - all came from countries which are US allies.

Great, another war of distraction. The whole Iran thing is a created thing in the first place. Iran and western relations were heading in the right direction with the Iran deal, now hardliners are in power again thanks to the actions of Trump.

Aaron747 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Semantics. There are a lot of ways to “eliminate” someone. By using the big toys, you want to escalate and we all know Trump wants to frame Iran as the number 1 enemy. It’s almost election time...

I'm pretty sure this had everything to do with Iran's recent stunts. A warning to cut it out. Trump is someone that likes matters resolved quickly. A drawn out war with American troop casualties wouldn't be his style. Should there be anymore trouble out of them I'm guessing a package will arrive via overnight air to the people of Iran.

So the people of Iran, already suffering under years of sanctions, should suffer further because of right wingers in the IRGC? That’s some damned twisted logic.

Well Trump with this action just proved to those in doubt what those right wingers were saying about the sanctions and the U.S. He just did more to convince them than the Ayatollah ever could.

marcelh wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Semantics. There are a lot of ways to “eliminate” someone. By using the big toys, you want to escalate and we all know Trump wants to frame Iran as the number 1 enemy. It’s almost election time...

I'm pretty sure this had everything to do with Iran's recent stunts. A warning to cut it out. Trump is someone that likes matters resolved quickly. A drawn out war with American troop casualties wouldn't be his style. Should there be anymore trouble out of them I'm guessing a package will arrive via overnight air to the people of Iran

.

Everything to make Iran the number 1 enemy. And they are only considered as enemy because they threaten “US interests”. It’s ironic to understand that the 9/11 attackers - who are responsible for the execution of the biggest terrorist attack in the USA - all came from countries which are US allies.

I don't think they are the biggest enemy but that doesn't mean I have to think highly of them or that we have to tolerate their attacks. The "let them attack us again and then retaliate" approach is just nonsense. You don't put your people at risk if you can take preventative action.

If they would agree to keep to themselves I would love to just pull out of the region entirely and let them rot. The entire region is just sickening. You all cry about separating families that illegally cross our border but seem to have no issues with the human rights viations in places like Iran. I read a recent news article that a woman was shot in her wedding dress because she supposedly cheated on her husband. And apparently that's pretty routine. Like I said if that's the way they want to live, fine, leave them alone and let them rot. So long as they stay put and don't bother us. Do you think you could talk them into that?

TTailedTiger wrote:

You don't put your people at risk if you can take preventative action.

Yeah, that was about as preventative as shooting Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was...

You all cry about separating families that illegally cross our border but seem to have no issues with the human rights viations in places like Iran.

obvious strawman, there is no one on this forum that thinks that is ok, and separating families is a crime under international law.

Do you think you could talk them into that?

Giving them a perfectly, even legally, valid reason to kill US soldiers wherever they find them, is going to help Iranian women how exactly?

best regards
Thomas

TTailedTiger wrote:

marcelh wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I'm pretty sure this had everything to do with Iran's recent stunts. A warning to cut it out. Trump is someone that likes matters resolved quickly. A drawn out war with American troop casualties wouldn't be his style. Should there be anymore trouble out of them I'm guessing a package will arrive via overnight air to the people of Iran

.

Everything to make Iran the number 1 enemy. And they are only considered as enemy because they threaten “US interests”. It’s ironic to understand that the 9/11 attackers - who are responsible for the execution of the biggest terrorist attack in the USA - all came from countries which are US allies.

I don't think they are the biggest enemy but that doesn't mean I have to think highly of them or that we have to tolerate their attacks. The "let them attack us again and then retaliate" approach is just nonsense. You don't put your people at risk if you can take preventative action.

If they would agree to keep to themselves I would love to just pull out of the region entirely and let them rot. The entire region is just sickening. You all cry about separating families that illegally cross our border but seem to have no issues with the human rights viations in places like Iran. I read a recent news article that a woman was shot in her wedding dress because she supposedly cheated on her husband. And apparently that's pretty routine. Like I said if that's the way they want to live, fine, leave them alone and let them rot. So long as they stay put and don't bother us. Do you think you could talk them into that?

Preventative action need not include taking out someone who is a hero to Shia everywhere for taking out IS - that’s just idiotic and makes everything worse.

There is no existential threat to the US - the threat is to facilities and materiel we have put over there. We are largely only still there because KSA needs (and pays for) it. They have done far worse than Iran, so why are you okay with taking their money? 9/11 families are still waiting for justice and the last three POTUSes have all screwed them by protecting the royals. That’s pretty ‘sickening’.

Aaron747 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

marcelh wrote:

.

Everything to make Iran the number 1 enemy. And they are only considered as enemy because they threaten “US interests”. It’s ironic to understand that the 9/11 attackers - who are responsible for the execution of the biggest terrorist attack in the USA - all came from countries which are US allies.

I don't think they are the biggest enemy but that doesn't mean I have to think highly of them or that we have to tolerate their attacks. The "let them attack us again and then retaliate" approach is just nonsense. You don't put your people at risk if you can take preventative action.

If they would agree to keep to themselves I would love to just pull out of the region entirely and let them rot. The entire region is just sickening. You all cry about separating families that illegally cross our border but seem to have no issues with the human rights viations in places like Iran. I read a recent news article that a woman was shot in her wedding dress because she supposedly cheated on her husband. And apparently that's pretty routine. Like I said if that's the way they want to live, fine, leave them alone and let them rot. So long as they stay put and don't bother us. Do you think you could talk them into that?

Preventative action need not include taking out someone who is a hero to Shia everywhere for taking out IS - that’s just idiotic and makes everything worse.

There is no existential threat to the US - the threat is to facilities and materiel we have put over there. We are largely only still there because KSA needs (and pays for) it. They have done far worse than Iran, so why are you okay with taking their money? 9/11 families are still waiting for justice and the last three POTUSes have all screwed them by protecting the royals. That’s pretty ‘sickening’.

I agree. That's why I said I'd like to leave the region entirely and let them rot. If we did that do you think they would keep to themselves and leave the civilized world alone?

Aaron747 wrote:

marcelh wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I'm pretty sure this had everything to do with Iran's recent stunts. A warning to cut it out. Trump is someone that likes matters resolved quickly. A drawn out war with American troop casualties wouldn't be his style. Should there be anymore trouble out of them I'm guessing a package will arrive via overnight air to the people of Iran

.

Everything to make Iran the number 1 enemy. And they are only considered as enemy because they threaten “US interests”. It’s ironic to understand that the 9/11 attackers - who are responsible for the execution of the biggest terrorist attack in the USA - all came from countries which are US allies.

Many ‘conservative’ Americans don’t even recognize that fact anymore, some amongst the very posters here.

Even more ironic to know that Al Queda has his roots in the US supported Mudjaheddin and that it has been financed predominantly by Saudis.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I don't think they are the biggest enemy but that doesn't mean I have to think highly of them or that we have to tolerate their attacks. The "let them attack us again and then retaliate" approach is just nonsense. You don't put your people at risk if you can take preventative action.

If they would agree to keep to themselves I would love to just pull out of the region entirely and let them rot. The entire region is just sickening. You all cry about separating families that illegally cross our border but seem to have no issues with the human rights viations in places like Iran. I read a recent news article that a woman was shot in her wedding dress because she supposedly cheated on her husband. And apparently that's pretty routine. Like I said if that's the way they want to live, fine, leave them alone and let them rot. So long as they stay put and don't bother us. Do you think you could talk them into that?

Preventative action need not include taking out someone who is a hero to Shia everywhere for taking out IS - that’s just idiotic and makes everything worse.

There is no existential threat to the US - the threat is to facilities and materiel we have put over there. We are largely only still there because KSA needs (and pays for) it. They have done far worse than Iran, so why are you okay with taking their money? 9/11 families are still waiting for justice and the last three POTUSes have all screwed them by protecting the royals. That’s pretty ‘sickening’.

I agree. That's why I said I'd like to leave the region entirely and let them rot. If we did that do you think they would keep to themselves and leave the civilized world alone?

So that’s why the “civilised” world is attacking Iranian targets.....
It is the same “civilized” world which “organized “ and supported a repressive government back in the 1970s which lead to the Iranian Revolution.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I don't think they are the biggest enemy but that doesn't mean I have to think highly of them or that we have to tolerate their attacks. The "let them attack us again and then retaliate" approach is just nonsense. You don't put your people at risk if you can take preventative action.

If they would agree to keep to themselves I would love to just pull out of the region entirely and let them rot. The entire region is just sickening. You all cry about separating families that illegally cross our border but seem to have no issues with the human rights viations in places like Iran. I read a recent news article that a woman was shot in her wedding dress because she supposedly cheated on her husband. And apparently that's pretty routine. Like I said if that's the way they want to live, fine, leave them alone and let them rot. So long as they stay put and don't bother us. Do you think you could talk them into that?

Preventative action need not include taking out someone who is a hero to Shia everywhere for taking out IS - that’s just idiotic and makes everything worse.

There is no existential threat to the US - the threat is to facilities and materiel we have put over there. We are largely only still there because KSA needs (and pays for) it. They have done far worse than Iran, so why are you okay with taking their money? 9/11 families are still waiting for justice and the last three POTUSes have all screwed them by protecting the royals. That’s pretty ‘sickening’.

I agree. That's why I said I'd like to leave the region entirely and let them rot.

Ah, i might say you are conveying that very well by supporting an act of war in the region.

If we did that do you think they would keep to themselves and leave the civilized world alone?

Oh, that is so cute. They are already leaving pretty much all of the civilized world alone. That they don´t leave you alone may have something to do with US continued presence and interference in the region. So it is rather disingenuous for you to ask if they leave you alone given the history between your two nations the question is will you ever leave them alone, because in the last 70 odd years you certainly didn´t.

Let us recap why Ayatollah Chomeini got to be in Charge in Iran? Because you (und Germany, France and the UK) decided so, asked the Shah to leave, and Chomeini to take over. Keep in mind you also but the Shah in charge by removing the democratically elected government. Let the Iranians kill a US president and station troops in Canada an Mexico and see how long it takes until you leave them alone. Maybe they can also drone strike Richard D. Clarke out of existence when visiting Germany or somewhere ......

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Preventative action need not include taking out someone who is a hero to Shia everywhere for taking out IS - that’s just idiotic and makes everything worse.

There is no existential threat to the US - the threat is to facilities and materiel we have put over there. We are largely only still there because KSA needs (and pays for) it. They have done far worse than Iran, so why are you okay with taking their money? 9/11 families are still waiting for justice and the last three POTUSes have all screwed them by protecting the royals. That’s pretty ‘sickening’.

I agree. That's why I said I'd like to leave the region entirely and let them rot.

Ah, i might say you are conveying that very well by supporting an act of war in the region.

If we did that do you think they would keep to themselves and leave the civilized world alone?

Oh, that is so cute. They are already leaving pretty much all of the civilized world alone. That they don´t leave you alone may have something to do with US continued presence and interference in the region. So it is rather disingenuous for you to ask if they leave you alone given the history between your two nations the question is will you ever leave them alone, because in the last 70 odd years you certainly didn´t.

Let us recap why Ayatollah Chomeini got to be in Charge in Iran? Because you (und Germany, France and the UK) decided so, asked the Shah to leave, and Chomeini to take over. Keep in mind you also but the Shah in charge by removing the democratically elected government. Let the Iranians kill a US president and station troops in Canada an Mexico and see how long it takes until you leave them alone. Maybe they can also drone strike Richard D. Clarke out of existence when visiting Germany or somewhere ......

best regards
Thomas

No use continuing this conversation. You seem to think the guy we took out was a saint. He wasn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. And that you can't see any difference between human rights in the US vs Iranis just mind blowing. See ya.

tommy1808 wrote:

You just committed an open act of war against a foreign country.

He wasn't attacked on Iranian soil. Iran has American blood on its hands for a variety of incidents. They want to be a player on the mideast stage, play with the big dogs, you're going to get bit.

tommy1808 wrote:

Show us your evidence.

Now you want evidence? Funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Ever since Carter decided to play with Iranian affairs, it has been downhill since then. (Don't forget the crap he created in Nicaragua as well).

Iran is dangerous, no doubt about it. Obama sure let them go unchecked and even gave them money and access to the Oval Office. But Iran has also committed acts of aggression, even war; time to pay the piper.

Let me get this straight. The US is in Iraq helping the Iraqis fight ISIS. Iran is also helping the Iraqis fight ISIS, which is why this Iranian general was welcome in Iraq. The US then decides to turn on Iraq to kill that general in the middle of the capital of Iraq.

How will the US be allowed to stay in Iraq after that ? Wasn't the US presence already problematic ?

extender wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

You just committed an open act of war against a foreign country.

He wasn't attacked on Iranian soil. Iran has American blood on its hands for a variety of incidents. They want to be a player on the mideast stage, play with the big dogs, you're going to get bit.

tommy1808 wrote:

Show us your evidence.

Now you want evidence? Funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Ever since Carter decided to play with Iranian affairs, it has been downhill since then. (Don't forget the crap he created in Nicaragua as well).

Iran is dangerous, no doubt about it. Obama sure let them go unchecked and even gave them money and access to the Oval Office. But Iran has also committed acts of aggression, even war; time to pay the piper.

Iran is only ‘dangerous’ if you are a KSA apologist. Doing work for the royals we should know about?

extender wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

You just committed an open act of war against a foreign country.

He wasn't attacked on Iranian soil. Iran has American blood on its hands for a variety of incidents. They want to be a player on the mideast stage, play with the big dogs, you're going to get bit.

Iran didn't kill anyone on US soil either, it's all good then ? If Iran kills Trump while he's visiting Japan or Germany, that won't be an act of war ?

Aesma wrote:

Let me get this straight. The US is in Iraq helping the Iraqis fight ISIS. Iran is also helping the Iraqis fight ISIS, which is why this Iranian general was welcome in Iraq. The US then decides to turn on Iraq to kill that general in the middle of the capital of Iraq.

How will the US be allowed to stay in Iraq after that ? Wasn't the US presence already problematic ?

You errantly presume there is a strategy at all. Well, there was but it failed so now things are going tits-up. The original strategy was to cancel JPCOA, put on the squeeze, and get Rouhani to come crawling back to the table, but Khamenei didn’t allow that (predictably) so here we are. Asinine.

TTailedTiger wrote:

No use continuing this conversation. You seem to think the guy we took out was a saint. He wasn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. And that you can't see any difference between human rights in the US vs Iranis just mind blowing. See ya.

Ha, human rights. Ever been in the friendly countries in the Middle East?

extender wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

You just committed an open act of war against a foreign country.

He wasn't attacked on Iranian soil.

I guess that means Japan didn´t attack you and you started the war in the pacific then.....

Iran has American blood on its hands for a variety of incidents.

So? If you want to play a numbers game, the US will lose. You overthrew their government, effectively twice, supported a war of aggression against them, shot down a passenger aircraft and so on and so forth....

They want to be a player on the mideast stage, play with the big dogs, you're going to get bit.

They are locals, you are not. When they wanted to join you guys in taking care of the Problem Bush created, ISIS, you should have done that instead of driving them onto the side of Assad and Russia.

tommy1808 wrote:

Show us your evidence.

Now you want evidence?

I always want evidence.

Iran is dangerous, no doubt about it.

Very doubt about it. They are not exactly a lamb, but they don´t stand out at all.

Obama sure let them go unchecked

He stopped them from getting nukes, Trump is pushing them to get those.

and even gave them money

yes, their money. Money you have stolen.

But Iran has also committed acts of aggression, even war; time to pay the piper.

Your courts have consistently ruled they haven´t, so you are just making shit up.

But humor us, which countries have Iranian armed forces attacked.

best regards
Thomas

TTailedTiger wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I agree. That's why I said I'd like to leave the region entirely and let them rot.

Ah, i might say you are conveying that very well by supporting an act of war in the region.

If we did that do you think they would keep to themselves and leave the civilized world alone?

Oh, that is so cute. They are already leaving pretty much all of the civilized world alone. That they don´t leave you alone may have something to do with US continued presence and interference in the region. So it is rather disingenuous for you to ask if they leave you alone given the history between your two nations the question is will you ever leave them alone, because in the last 70 odd years you certainly didn´t.

Let us recap why Ayatollah Chomeini got to be in Charge in Iran? Because you (und Germany, France and the UK) decided so, asked the Shah to leave, and Chomeini to take over. Keep in mind you also but the Shah in charge by removing the democratically elected government. Let the Iranians kill a US president and station troops in Canada an Mexico and see how long it takes until you leave them alone. Maybe they can also drone strike Richard D. Clarke out of existence when visiting Germany or somewhere ......

best regards
Thomas

No use continuing this conversation. You seem to think the guy we took out was a saint. He wasn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

another straw man. How surprising.....
He is about as much a Saint as any special forces commander is in countries that use their special forces. I am just glad you never, ever use your drones outside of declared wars.....

I think you would talk the exact same "he deserves it and wasn´t a saint" line if someone takes our SOCOM commanders or alike. If it is right for you to just kill people they decide need killing for, well, reasons, it is absolutely the other sides right to do exactly the same.

And that you can't see any difference between human rights in the US vs Iranis just mind blowing. See ya.

Oh, i can see the difference. Amazing how you fail to notice that you have been bombing people out of existence in foreign lands for about 20 years and/or pretend that isn´t a human rights violation.

best regards
Thomas

Please keep this thread on topic or it will be locked. Thanks.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Agreed. They were given every opportunity to play nice. Their recent stunts are what brought this upon them.

Good thing you've got the Saudis on your side.....

Aaron747 wrote:

POTUSes

I wonder if maybe that ought to be "P'sOTUS"