(01-03-2020 05:28 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]All the insults and ignorance and whataboutisms, as per the usual from this black hole of intellectual activity.
But here are the facts:
-Qassem Soleimani was not a terrorist, he was the General of Iran's elite Quds Force, which had a hand in fighting the Islamic State militant group. He was practically second in command, hence "a world leader". Calling him a terrorist is incorrect and reeks of Right Wing "Patriotic" propaganda.
-Iranian, Russian, and Chinese relations are well documented. They absolutely would support Iran, just as they have in the past. (Source) So before any of you all get huffy about my apparent lack of knowledge why don't you go sit your retired butts on that sofa and turn on the History channel that has replayed all of this for the past decade, as starters, then do your own research.
-All of this, and none of you can still come up with a rational excuse as to the 1 month complete 180 in policy. Are we leaving? Are we going? How many more troops are going to be sent there? For what purpose?
Oh that's right. None of you have an answer. You're too busy lathering your warmongering to actually use your brain and figure out exactly what Trump is doing. I'll quote the man himself. From 2011.
Our President order that the man who organized our embassy being attacked amongst other terroristic activities both having already occurred and in the planning process be killed and youre mad.
Trump didnt even do this in Iran. The terrorist was in Iraq despite being banned from travel outside of Iran by the UN outside. The same UN that Supreme Leader Karen announced they will be complaining to
(01-03-2020 05:28 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]All the insults and ignorance and whataboutisms, as per the usual from this black hole of intellectual activity.
But here are the facts:
-Qassem Soleimani was not a terrorist, he was the General of Iran's elite Quds Force, which had a hand in fighting the Islamic State militant group. He was practically second in command, hence "a world leader". Calling him a terrorist is incorrect and reeks of Right Wing "Patriotic" propaganda.
-Iranian, Russian, and Chinese relations are well documented. They absolutely would support Iran, just as they have in the past. (Source) So before any of you all get huffy about my apparent lack of knowledge why don't you go sit your retired butts on that sofa and turn on the History channel that has replayed all of this for the past decade, as starters, then do your own research.
-All of this, and none of you can still come up with a rational excuse as to the 1 month complete 180 in policy. Are we leaving? Are we going? How many more troops are going to be sent there? For what purpose?
Oh that's right. None of you have an answer. You're too busy lathering your warmongering to actually use your brain and figure out exactly what Trump is doing. I'll quote the man himself. From 2011.
Our President order that the man who organized our embassy being attacked amongst other terroristic activities both having already occurred and in the planning process be killed and youre mad.
Trump didnt even do this in Iran. The terrorist was in Iraq despite being banned from travel outside of Iran by the UN outside. The same UN that Supreme Leader Karen announced they will be complaining to
warming up the P&K tubes with the drill plugged in.....420 in the house with neighbors at home......
Well, one sent a hail of hell to Iraq and one sent a hail of dollars to Iran. But, the general was hands off it seems. Both were afraid of retaliation as if it has ever stopped. You tell that bed sheet wearer Khoumeni that if they want tit for tat, he might just become the next tat.
(01-03-2020 05:28 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]All the insults and ignorance and whataboutisms, as per the usual from this black hole of intellectual activity.
But here are the facts:
-Qassem Soleimani was not a terrorist, he was the General of Iran's elite Quds Force, which had a hand in fighting the Islamic State militant group. He was practically second in command, hence "a world leader". Calling him a terrorist is incorrect and reeks of Right Wing "Patriotic" propaganda.
-Iranian, Russian, and Chinese relations are well documented. They absolutely would support Iran, just as they have in the past. (Source) So before any of you all get huffy about my apparent lack of knowledge why don't you go sit your retired butts on that sofa and turn on the History channel that has replayed all of this for the past decade, as starters, then do your own research.
-All of this, and none of you can still come up with a rational excuse as to the 1 month complete 180 in policy. Are we leaving? Are we going? How many more troops are going to be sent there? For what purpose?
Oh that's right. None of you have an answer. You're too busy lathering your warmongering to actually use your brain and figure out exactly what Trump is doing. I'll quote the man himself. From 2011.
And libs like you supported Obama kissing the Iranian's azz and sending them billions of US dollars in cash in the middle of the night. You libs are the cancer in this country and if it were left up to idiots like you we would all just roll over and surrender to those that hate the freedoms we enjoy in this country. Many thousands of brave souls have given their lives so people like you can express your thoughts without fearing being silenced. You go ahead and hate this country. I have no doubt that leftists like you are hoping that there is a response by Iran that kills thousands of innocent Americans so you can say "we told you so". You are a cancer to this country, but you are free in this country to express your opinions, while those on the left work hard everyday to silence those that they disagree with.
(01-03-2020 05:28 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]All the insults and ignorance and whataboutisms, as per the usual from this black hole of intellectual activity.
But here are the facts:
-Qassem Soleimani was not a terrorist, he was the General of Iran's elite Quds Force, which had a hand in fighting the Islamic State militant group. He was practically second in command, hence "a world leader". Calling him a terrorist is incorrect and reeks of Right Wing "Patriotic" propaganda.
-Iranian, Russian, and Chinese relations are well documented. They absolutely would support Iran, just as they have in the past. (Source) So before any of you all get huffy about my apparent lack of knowledge why don't you go sit your retired butts on that sofa and turn on the History channel that has replayed all of this for the past decade, as starters, then do your own research.
-All of this, and none of you can still come up with a rational excuse as to the 1 month complete 180 in policy. Are we leaving? Are we going? How many more troops are going to be sent there? For what purpose?
Oh that's right. None of you have an answer. You're too busy lathering your warmongering to actually use your brain and figure out exactly what Trump is doing. I'll quote the man himself. From 2011.
To be fair----it seems like you never bothered to look up what the "Quds Force" actually is. The Quds Force "is a unit in Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) specializing in unconventional warfare and military intelligence operations. Responsible for extraterritorial operations,[5] the Quds Force supports non-state actors in many countries, including Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Yemeni Houthis, and Shia militias in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan."
Hezbollah? Islamic Jihad? Hamas? Sorry buddy---but your boy was the top general for an elite Terrorist Organization responsible for excuting attacks on US soldiers and diplomats. The fact is one of the biggest reasons Iran is a rogue nation is because they engage in state sponsored terrorism. He was in Iraq to organize killing US soldiers and diplomats. Pretty sure Americans are just fine with drone strikes on targets seeking to kill Americans. Apparently---we arent done yet. Maybe the Iranians need to stop roaming around Iraq causing trouble.....
It's bad enough they compared the Quds to the Navy Seals, Delta Force etc.
Quote:Suleimani, a flamboyant former construction worker and bodybuilder with snowy white hair, a dapper beard, and arching salt-and-pepper eyebrows, gained notice during the eight-year war with Iraq, in the nineteen eighties. He rose through the Revolutionary Guard to become head of the Quds Force—an Iranian unit of commandos comparable to the U.S. seals, Delta Force, and Rangers combined—in 1998..
The New Yorker has officially out-Onioned The Onion.
(01-02-2020 09:29 PM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]This is going to start WWIII.
Iran's side:
China
Syria
Iraq
Russia
North Korea
Cuba Venezuela
Turkey
US's side:
Israel + crickets
Nobody else would come to our defense.
Venezuela??? What the h*ll are they going to do .... throw some street garbage at us?
Dang Owl, you're not in the know. Don't you know that they own gas stations in the US? They'll put sugar in their gasoline. LOL
Not sure which Owl you are referring to.
I’ve stayed out of this and most frays lately because I am not informed enough on the subject to make an argument one way or the other.
One concern I have is with drone attacks in general. I am thinking that a foreign enemy of ours can’t attempt a strike like the one in Iraq (hopefully our defense systems can thwart it). But lone wolf attacks with drones seem much more plausible.
(01-03-2020 04:23 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]Wasn't this board literally just celebrating the abandonment of our Kurdish allies to slaughter because it meant the US was withdrawing from the region?
Now your orange boy is embedding the US in another war in the Middle East, and you're celebrating that too?
Can someone please explain this reasoning? Because the only common link I can find is that Republicans don't actually care for strategy or consistency, they just fall in line and support whatever the person in power decides in the moment.
You people are practically frothing at the mouth for a chance to send someone else's children to fight in a war no one wants, to kill brown people that didn't want us there anyway. For what?
So to sum up, since Trump pulled a small amount of US advisors and troops out of Syria, the leader of ISIS is dead and the #2 in Iran respinsible for exporting terror across the globe is dead.
The first action led fairly directly to the death of al-baghdadi, and the second is in response to Iranian backed aggression against US personnel and interests in Iraq.
The vast majority of America sees no problem with this.
(01-03-2020 04:23 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]Wasn't this board literally just celebrating the abandonment of our Kurdish allies to slaughter because it meant the US was withdrawing from the region?
Now your orange boy is embedding the US in another war in the Middle East, and you're celebrating that too?
Can someone please explain this reasoning? Because the only common link I can find is that Republicans don't actually care for strategy or consistency, they just fall in line and support whatever the person in power decides in the moment.
You people are practically frothing at the mouth for a chance to send someone else's children to fight in a war no one wants, to kill brown people that didn't want us there anyway. For what?
What war?
It's pretty simple. We don't want to be in the ME at all; however, we are there and if attacked we respond, as it should be. It really is that simple.
What War? You don't think assassinating a world leader isn't an act of war? Sending 3500 troops isn't mobilizing for war? Russia and China aligned with Iran and sharing interests eager to take advantage of an increasingly weak and ally-less US isn't mobilizing for war?
But that ignores my original point. I'm asking how do Republicans swallow the hypocrisy of abandoning the region in the name of "withdrawal" only to further entrench the US in that very region (regardless of what you want to call it) a month later? It makes absolutely zero sense.
There's no hypocrisy. We were in Syria to eliminate ISIS. Check.
Sending 3500 troops as a temporary show of force is hardly 'mobilizing for war'. Would you rather this had been another Benghazi?
(01-03-2020 04:23 PM)Kruciff Wrote: [ -> ]Wasn't this board literally just celebrating the abandonment of our Kurdish allies to slaughter because it meant the US was withdrawing from the region?
Now your orange boy is embedding the US in another war in the Middle East, and you're celebrating that too?
Can someone please explain this reasoning? Because the only common link I can find is that Republicans don't actually care for strategy or consistency, they just fall in line and support whatever the person in power decides in the moment.
You people are practically frothing at the mouth for a chance to send someone else's children to fight in a war no one wants, to kill brown people that didn't want us there anyway. For what?
What war?
It's pretty simple. We don't want to be in the ME at all; however, we are there and if attacked we respond, as it should be. It really is that simple.
What War? You don't think assassinating a world leader isn't an act of war? Sending 3500 troops isn't mobilizing for war? Russia and China aligned with Iran and sharing interests eager to take advantage of an increasingly weak and ally-less US isn't mobilizing for war?
But that ignores my original point. I'm asking how do Republicans swallow the hypocrisy of abandoning the region in the name of "withdrawal" only to further entrench the US in that very region (regardless of what you want to call it) a month later? It makes absolutely zero sense.
Do you even know what you're talking about? What world leader did America kill?
Believe me if America was "mobilizing for war" you'll see a lot more than 3500 troops. Get your brain out of your ass and stop throwing a hissy fit, like a cuck little man who doesnt want America to protect those we put in harms way. I dont think you realize This ******* that got his brains splatted all over the ground was behind the attack of the American embassy? But that's OK to you...how many Americans are you willing to let die before you think Trump should try and take out the person responsible for the killing?
Quote:Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a noted Iran hawk, is circulating a resolution in the Senate that would commend the Trump administration for killing Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, aides told Fox News on Friday.
An aide said the resolution is “structured and worded the same way as a 2011 resolution that commended the Obama administration for killing Bin Laden, which received unanimous support in the Senate.” Cruz is trying to get Democrats on the record supporting the mission.
Quote:Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg balked at fellow 2020 candidate and Sen. Bernie Sanders' suggestion that President Trump carried out an "assassination" when he ordered a lethal strike on Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
When asked about the descriptor, Bloomberg said: "If he was talking about killing the general ... this is a guy who had an awful amount of American blood on his hands. I think that's an outrageous thing to say."
"Nobody that I know of would think that we did something wrong in getting the general," he said, before adding the U.S. had a "right" and "obligation" to pursue Soleimani.
So he is okay drone striking people, but allowing US citizens to have guns.
Quote:A retired U.S. military general took issue Friday with Democrats' quick criticism of President Trump's decision to order an airstrike in Iraq that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.
Major Gen. James A. "Spider" Marks [Ret.], who serves as a military analyst for CNN, pushed back against Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who tweeted late Thursday that the strike did not have authorization from Congress and could set off a "potentially massive regional war."
Marks (Ret.) scolded Murphy for his rush to criticize Trump's decision, pointing out that Soleimani was "brazenly" traveling around Baghdad Thursday just after attacks - blamed on Iran-backed militias - that killed an American contractor and threatened personnel at the U.S. embassy.
“What I would say to Senator Murphy is, why don’t you just be quiet,” Marks said, questioning the notion that the strike has made the world "more dangerous."
"Look, when has Iran ever demonstrated self-restraint? I mean, that’s the question I have. So, is the world more dangerous today? Maybe it’s more dangerous, but when has it not been dangerous? When have we not been a target of a regime like exists in Tehran? I mean, it happens as a matter of routine," said Marks.
Marks said it was “amazingly brazen" that Soleimani felt comfortable enough to go to Baghdad just after the attack on the American embassy.
“This opportunity presented itself and I’m certain what happened was the president made the determination ‘let’s pull the trigger now,'” Marks said, calling it "naive" for Soleimani to think he could move around Iraq in the open after the past week of Iran-backed aggression.
“And I would say it’s not causally linked to what occurred at the U.S. Embassy a few days before, other than he happened to be there checking up on what was taking place.”
![[Image: hnqu7hgjkk841.jpg]](https://i.redd.it/hnqu7hgjkk841.jpg)