Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Possible War with Iran

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Here we go with thousands of additional troops to be deployed to the Middle East...

    The US will deploy thousands of additional troops to the Middle East as tensions with Iran mount following the airstrike that killed Qasem Soleimani, a US defense official told CNN.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by b-fly View Post
      here we go with thousands of additional troops to be deployed to the middle east...

      https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-...83b7556454b8d4
      usa, usa....
      ---------------------------------------------
      Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
      ---------------------------------------------
      The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
      George Orwell, 1984

      Comment


      • #18
        Aren't we there at the request of the Iraqi government?

        Is Soleimani responsible for unprovoked attacks on American forces?

        There are and should be consequences for that.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Gregg View Post
          Aren't we there at the request of the Iraqi government?

          Is Soleimani responsible for unprovoked attacks on American forces?

          There are and should be consequences for that.
          Wow, that is an amazingly naive viewpoint.
          ---------------------------------------------
          Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
          ---------------------------------------------
          The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
          George Orwell, 1984

          Comment


          • #20
            Didn't iran attack the u.s. embassy first, which lead to djt okaying the retaliation?

            and if iran did attack first, would those condemning the retaliation prefer djt left the American's to defend themselves in the same way hillary left American's to defend themselves in the benghazi attack?

            interesting headline I read which called the terrorist sympathizers who attacked the u.s. embassy "mourners". lol. mourners.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Gregg View Post
              Aren't we there at the request of the Iraqi government?

              Is Soleimani responsible for unprovoked attacks on American forces?

              There are and should be consequences for that.
              "Unprovoked" is quite a take. We've effectively been enemies of Iran since we and the British started the 1953 coup to oust the democratically elected government in Iran in favor of the Shah. Who's responsible for the tit for tat attacks that have been going on between our nations ever since then? This is a case where legitimately both sides have a lot of blood on their hands.
              "Jesus said to them, 'Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.'"

              Comment


              • #22
                And to ignore that we're doing the bidding of the Saudis in confronting their regional rival Iran is also to put one's head in the sand.
                "Jesus said to them, 'Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.'"

                Comment


                • #23
                  All the reckless civilian casualties that the Saudis have inflicted with U.S.-supplied weapons on the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen? That's just collateral damage in a war we have nothing to do with. But when the Iranian-backed militias attack our forces in Iraq? Why, that's completely unprovoked and unreasonable!
                  "Jesus said to them, 'Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.'"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Kevin Seitzer View Post
                    All the reckless civilian casualties that the Saudis have inflicted with U.S.-supplied weapons on the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen? That's just collateral damage in a war we have nothing to do with. But when the Iranian-backed militias attack our forces in Iraq? Why, that's completely unprovoked and unreasonable!
                    I'm sure Gregg thinks that Saudi and US leadership should pay the consequences for that !
                    ---------------------------------------------
                    Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
                    ---------------------------------------------
                    The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
                    George Orwell, 1984

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      There may be strategic reasons (read: oil) for us to side with the Saudis rather than the Iranians, but let's not act like this is a conflict of the righteous versus the evil.
                      "Jesus said to them, 'Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.'"

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Kevin Seitzer View Post
                        There may be strategic reasons (read: oil) for us to side with the Saudis rather than the Iranians, but let's not act like this is a conflict of the righteous versus the evil.
                        of course it is good vs. evil, I'm just glad we are always the good guys
                        ---------------------------------------------
                        Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
                        ---------------------------------------------
                        The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
                        George Orwell, 1984

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Art Vandelay View Post
                          Didn't iran attack the u.s. embassy first, which lead to djt okaying the retaliation?

                          and if iran did attack first, would those condemning the retaliation prefer djt left the American's to defend themselves in the same way hillary left American's to defend themselves in the benghazi attack?

                          interesting headline I read which called the terrorist sympathizers who attacked the u.s. embassy "mourners". lol. mourners.
                          looking for who acted first or were the instigators of US-Iran hostilities would require going back a bit further than that
                          It certainly feels that way. But I'm distrustful of that feeling and am curious about evidence.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Gregg View Post
                            Aren't we there at the request of the Iraqi government?

                            Is Soleimani responsible for unprovoked attacks on American forces?

                            There are and should be consequences for that.
                            So do you believe all military and political leaders are fair game ? For example Bush or Cheney ? Would it be just for an Iraqi or Afghan to kill them ?
                            ---------------------------------------------
                            Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
                            ---------------------------------------------
                            The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
                            George Orwell, 1984

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              aside from whether the guy deserved to die or not, are we going to be better off having killed him ? Do we think that will stop Iran from whatever they were doing ? Could it potentially lead to some disastrous consequences ? I'd like to hear someone explain how we come out ahead
                              ---------------------------------------------
                              Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
                              ---------------------------------------------
                              The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
                              George Orwell, 1984

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by The Feral Slasher View Post
                                aside from whether the guy deserved to die or not, are we going to be better off having killed him ? Do we think that will stop Iran from whatever they were doing ? Could it potentially lead to some disastrous consequences ? I'd like to hear someone explain how we come out ahead
                                Because wartime presidents get reelected, duh!
                                If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
                                - Terence McKenna

                                Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)

                                How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X