CSNbbs

Now Reuters reporting the 6 newly minted martyrs were Iraqi not Iranian, but were members of the Popular Mobilization Front another one of the terrorist militias run by our dearly departed Iranian General Nice Guy.

(01-03-2020 08:41 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Now Reuters reporting the 6 newly minted martyrs were Iraqi not Iranian, but were members of the Popular Mobilization Front another one of the terrorist militias run by our dearly departed Iranian General Nice Guy.

I've noticed Iraq doesn't seem to mind our actions too much.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

(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.

Just when you thought the DavidSt post was going to be the height of leftist stupidity in this thread Kruciff comes in with this gem.

(01-03-2020 06:15 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]

(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

And of course, the Obama administration labelled him a terrorist and thought about killing him. Democrats who didn't like this are calling him a terrorist. But Kuciff? Its like Joe Biden posting.

(01-03-2020 07:09 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2020 07:00 PM)olliebaba Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2020 01:59 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

Any nut for any reason. Not too concerned about foreigners. We have an ocean.

There are basically two truths expressed in these series of posts that reflect the essence of our current political struggles:

The 2 Truths:

1. The Democrats think diplomacy comes from appeasement because they operate out of a basis of fear. They make people at home fear a world that they see filled with the hostility of America.

2. The Republicans think diplomacy is reason backed up by the force that being a superpower projects. They operate from a position of reasonableness and strength that presupposes that third world countries who threaten the preeminent world superpower should have the common sense to know their limitations.

Points about the truths:

3. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists respect the projection of power and run roughshod over those they don't respect and that means fearful appeasers who apologize for their position and their country.

4. President Trump handled it perfectly. He gave the go ahead and went on about his business as if to say we don't give camel jockeys who threaten a super power the time of day. Why make a piss ant feel powerful?

5. What Americans have to decide is if they are going to let fear govern their lives, or reason seasoned with a healthy self awareness of our power and position which we do not apologize for and appreciate because it keeps us safe.

(01-03-2020 11:05 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]

An Iranian escalation will lead to the destruction of Kharg Island effectively removing Iranian oil from the world market.... and making oil very expensive in China as a side effect.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using CSNbbs mobile app

If this lead to a war (it wont) as long as China stayed out of it I think the US would assure them we would do everything in our power not to damage the oil supplies. And help cover their shortish in the short time

There's nothing to gain for China or Russia doing anything more than selling Iran weapons. Both have a lot to lose (especially China) and neither are in a position go against America unless they believe 100% they can win. Not only defeat America in a war against Iran but bring the US to its knees.

That is not going to happen

But watch out, DavidSt has included Cuba and Venezuela as part of the coalition of the damned. Guess it will be just like "Wolverines", with the invasion through Mexico.

(01-04-2020 12:51 AM)ODUsmitty Wrote: [ -> ]But watch out, DavidSt has included Cuba and Venezuela as part of the coalition of the damned. Guess it will be just like "Wolverines", with the invasion through Mexico.

It must already be underway. Could David be a foreign intelligence operative? Hmm...… What a magnificent cover he has!

(01-04-2020 12:41 AM)WKUYG Wrote: [ -> ]If this lead to a war (it wont) as long as China stayed out of it I think the US would assure them we would do everything in our power not to damage the oil supplies. And help cover their shortish in the short time

There's nothing to gain for China or Russia doing anything more than selling Iran weapons. Both have a lot to lose (especially China) and neither are in a position go against America unless they believe 100% they can win. Not only defeat America in a war against Iran but bring the US to its knees.

That is not going to happen

China is a formidable foe when the strategic battlefield is in their own backyard. They are much less formidable if they want to cause trouble in a play ground thousands of miles away in the Middle East. You really need a big azz blue water navy. a worldwide network of military bases, and aircraft carriers to really project power over those kinds of distances. China doesn’t have that. We can cut off the oil spigot to China anytime if they cause too many problems.

Interesting that only far leftist and Muslim extremists are upset about this.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

(01-03-2020 07:00 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2020 04:47 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote: [ -> ]At what point do we let the ME fight their own wars? While I’m not bothered he died, this creates more headaches we don’t need. Between W and Obama we ****** up enough recently we don’t need this. Wag the ******* dog...worked for the last 2...

Yeah right. We orchestrated the attack on our own embassy by asking this terrorist to carry it out and then blew him back to hell just to wag the dog. SMH....

Lmao wag the dog is ******* right. If this were a dem president you would be ok? Please be honest...haha

(01-04-2020 07:24 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2020 07:00 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2020 04:47 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote: [ -> ]At what point do we let the ME fight their own wars? While I’m not bothered he died, this creates more headaches we don’t need. Between W and Obama we ****** up enough recently we don’t need this. Wag the ******* dog...worked for the last 2...

Yeah right. We orchestrated the attack on our own embassy by asking this terrorist to carry it out and then blew him back to hell just to wag the dog. SMH....

Lmao wag the dog is ******* right. If this were a dem president you would be ok? Please be honest...haha

I would not be upset if a Dem president killed a terrorist who masterminded an attack on an American embassy among other atrocities especially if, as was the case here, the terrorist was in violation of his UN travel ban and in a country where the government asked us to assist due to that terrorist's actions

(01-04-2020 07:45 AM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2020 07:24 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2020 07:00 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2020 04:47 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote: [ -> ]At what point do we let the ME fight their own wars? While I’m not bothered he died, this creates more headaches we don’t need. Between W and Obama we ****** up enough recently we don’t need this. Wag the ******* dog...worked for the last 2...

Yeah right. We orchestrated the attack on our own embassy by asking this terrorist to carry it out and then blew him back to hell just to wag the dog. SMH....

Lmao wag the dog is ******* right. If this were a dem president you would be ok? Please be honest...haha

I would not be upset if a Dem president killed a terrorist who masterminded an attack on an American embassy among other atrocities especially if, as was the case here, the terrorist was in violation of his UN travel ban and in a country where the government asked us to assist due to that terrorist's actions

Lmao you said the same when OBL was killed?

The shadowy Iranian spy chief who helped plan Benghazi
By Kenneth R. Timmerman June 20, 2014

As a radical Islamic army marches across Iraq, America is making a deal with the devil. Qassem Suleymani, the head of Iran’s secretive Quds Force, is allied with us in Baghdad — but he’s plotted to kill Americans elsewhere.

As Kenneth R. Timmerman reveals in his new book, “Dark Forces,” Suleymani was even the shadowy figure behind the killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, Libya.

He’s the Wizard of Oz of Iranian terror, the most dreaded and most effective terrorist alive.

He is Qassem Suleymani, the head of the Quds Force, an organization that acts as a combination CIA and Green Berets for Iran, and a man who has orchestrated a campaign of chaos against the United States around the world.

Today, the Obama Administration has allied itself with Suleymani to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

In this case, Iran’s goals — a Shi’ite-friendly government in Iraq — coincides with America’s hope that the country doesn’t fall apart.

But don’t be fooled: It’s only a partnership of convenience, and one that won’t last.

https://nypost.com/2014/06/20/how-irans-...zi-attack/