Upcoming War in Iran?

Right, without a thought. Iran has attacked and killed thousands of Americans since the fall of the Embassy in 1979.

Every time you see a legless or armless former combatant, it's almost 100% sure that the animal Soleimani was directly responsible for that attack.

Put down your weak sauce and put on your big boy pants. So many simpering LRC soy boys, traitorous cowards.

Sounds like at least 6 more people killed in another airstrike. How is this considered de-escalation?

https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/1213236004896825345?s=19

I haven't read all the comments in here but some are outstandingly stupid.

Trump has truly scrambled people's brains. They hate him so much that even when he does something good (like forever sleeping a murderous terrorist) all they see is Trump-- "Orange Man Bad!"

WW3 isn't happening. Iran is weaker now. That's good. A strong Iran would be more likely to engage in all out war. And if I'm wrong and Iran does some 9/11 style attack on the US... it's over for them. And they know it.

For the folks in here who hate Trump which all that burning rage, just pretend that it was Obama who ordered the strike... because, he used to do this all the time when he was president. Remember? He droned American citizens (who were terrorists) in the middle east. History didn't start in 2016 when Trump was elected. Calm down, sheesh.

SimperingCowards wrote:

Right, without a thought. Iran has attacked and killed thousands of Americans since the fall of the Embassy in 1979.

Every time you see a legless or armless former combatant, it's almost 100% sure that the animal Soleimani was directly responsible for that attack.

Put down your weak sauce and put on your big boy pants. So many simpering LRC soy boys, traitorous cowards.

SimperingCowards wrote:

Right, without a thought. Saudi Arabia attacked and killed thousands of Americans in New York in 2001.

Every time you see a legless or armless former combatant, it's almost 100% sure that the Saudi’s were directly responsible for that attack.

Put down your weak sauce and put on your big boy pants. So many simpering LRC soy boys, traitorous cowards.

crunchyinmilk wrote:

I haven't read all the comments in here but some are outstandingly stupid.

Trump has truly scrambled people's brains. They hate him so much that even when he does something good (like forever sleeping a murderous terrorist) all they see is Trump-- "Orange Man Bad!"

WW3 isn't happening. Iran is weaker now. That's good. A strong Iran would be more likely to engage in all out war. And if I'm wrong and Iran does some 9/11 style attack on the US... it's over for them. And they know it.

For the folks in here who hate Trump which all that burning rage, just pretend that it was Obama who ordered the strike... because, he used to do this all the time when he was president. Remember? He droned American citizens (who were terrorists) in the middle east. History didn't start in 2016 when Trump was elected. Calm down, sheesh.

Maybe you should read the comments then. No one is upset that he killed a terrorist, but some have questioned how sending 3,500 more troops to the region is bring our troops home and ending the endless Middle East wars as promised?

Bringing the fight to the bad guys wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I don't understand why people are so excited about a war. If you have a high school diploma (Or not, nowadays) you can walk into a recruiters office and join the military. Why fantasize about a war online when you can be part of one today.

We don’t need more soldiers, homie. We can fire 90% of our soldiers and sailors and still kick Iran’s ass. It’s a beautiful thing. Maybe we just use the coast guard reserve units.

War is not beautiful you idiot. You wish to see your countrymen go to a foreign land and be killed? Boys of 21? Why don't you go join up?

Death and destruction is only revelled in by the mentally ill and stupid. Which are you?

ex-runner wrote:

Bringing the fight to the bad guys wrote:

We don’t need more soldiers, homie. We can fire 90% of our soldiers and sailors and still kick Iran’s ass. It’s a beautiful thing. Maybe we just use the coast guard reserve units.

War is not beautiful you idiot. You wish to see your countrymen go to a foreign land and be killed? Boys of 21? Why don't you go join up?

Death and destruction is only revelled in by the mentally ill and stupid. Which are you?

Fighting evil is always good. Low IQ turds like you will never understand this. We are all glad your turd viewpoint is fringe at best.

Do you have any clue as to the nature and actions of this guy who was taken out? You are a traitor. Or just stupid. Or both.

? Nuance ?

☁️☁️☁️☁️☁️

??‍? You ?‍??

Troops are being sent to protect our embassies and our allies, yeah? One of our embassies was just attacked, no? It's hardly escalating an endless war to protect our own people and our allies.

We left Iraq and Liyba. Didn't work out so well lol. America constantly having to be involved in the Middle East sucks, but living in a world where we have no say in what goes on over there is not an option. America being over there, in even a limited capacity, makes WW3 much less likely.

crunchyinmilk wrote:

We left Iraq and Liyba. Didn't work out so well lol. America constantly having to be involved in the Middle East sucks, but living in a world where we have no say in what goes on over there is not an option. America being over there, in even a limited capacity, makes WW3 much less likely.

We exacerbated all those states just as much as we helped them. There's never been a master plan from any US pres. who's started anything in the ME. I'm fine blowing up a bad guy, whatever, but don't pretend like we are magically keeping peace there.

Let's not pretend like our intervention has produced anything other than decidedly mixed results.

Do your pushups and pullups, soy boys! Parris Island is calling! Give me 50, maggot!

To die for your country will be much more honorable than anything you were ever going to do on social media.

LRC, land of the weak and traitorous...

crunchyinmilk wrote:

Ciro wrote:

Maybe you should read the comments then. No one is upset that he killed a terrorist, but some have questioned how sending 3,500 more troops to the region is bring our troops home and ending the endless Middle East wars as promised?

Troops are being sent to protect our embassies and our allies, yeah? One of our embassies was just attacked, no? It's hardly escalating an endless war to protect our own people and our allies.

We left Iraq and Liyba. Didn't work out so well lol. America constantly having to be involved in the Middle East sucks, but living in a world where we have no say in what goes on over there is not an option. America being over there, in even a limited capacity, makes WW3 much less likely.

I cannot keep up with which version on Trumps foreign policy you all actually support.

Is it this one?

Or this one?

Or this one?

Or this one?

Or maybe it’s actually this one?

Impossible to know what any of you stand for other than wait until a New York elite acts and support him no matter how many promises he breaks.

Harambe wrote:

crunchyinmilk wrote:

We left Iraq and Liyba. Didn't work out so well lol. America constantly having to be involved in the Middle East sucks, but living in a world where we have no say in what goes on over there is not an option. America being over there, in even a limited capacity, makes WW3 much less likely.

We exacerbated all those states just as much as we helped them. There's never been a master plan from any US pres. who's started anything in the ME. I'm fine blowing up a bad guy, whatever, but don't pretend like we are magically keeping peace there.

Let's not pretend like our intervention has produced anything other than decidedly mixed results.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I agree that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a disaster. I agree that Obama overthrowing Gaddafi and then leaving Libya and also Iraq so something much more sinister could take their place was a disaster. I think Obama's Iran nuclear deal was a disaster. All those were serious errors.

Killing Soleimani after Iran attacked our embassy (and other things too)? Not a disaster. And putting Troops in vulnerable places in anticipation of more attacks is not entrenching us further over there like the Iraq invasion.

If Iran or one of their terrorist groups they fund got a nuke, it'd be bad times. Preventing that from happening is absolutely peace keeping. We just can't go back and change the past.

Do you?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasem_Soleimani

- Started as a soldier who fought in the Iranian civil war which saw Khomeini take power, supported by the USA

- He lead the fight against Sadaam Hussein, alongside the USA

- Fought against drug trafficking in Afghanistan

- Supported Khatami who tried to build bridges with the USA and received honorary awards from universities in Greece, Russia, Japan, India, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Sudan and the UK along with some awards from the UN.

- Lead the fight against the Taliban and gave the US key intelligence that resulted in the killing of Al-Qaida leaders following September 11th.

- Collaborated with the USA to destroy ISIS and ISIL in Iraq.

He was not a terrorist like you see on TV cutting off the heads of journalists.

Iran always maintained that it never supplied IEDs to Iraqi insurgents. Their story is that they are produced by rogue groups. Their is journalistic evidence to support both sides, but only one story is propagated by the US gov

https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/get_the_facts_straight_on_iran.php

Major groups also accused of helping to fund terrorism in Iraq without repercussions:

Barclays Plc.

BNP Paribas S.A.

Commerzbank A.G.

Credit Suisse AG and Credit Suisse Asset Management Limited

HSBC Holding Group Plc.

Standard Chartered Bank Plc.

Soleimani's big mistake was siding with the Syrian government to try and crush the Syrian rebels alongside Russia. The USA took the other side.

The US government have started a fad for branding all foreign enemies of the state 'terrorists', even if the CIA themselves doesn't agree: In April 2019, the U.S. made the unprecedented decision to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a foreign military, as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department under an immigration statute and their maximum pressure campaign. This designation was done over the opposition of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD).

It's all political. Right and wrong are blurred lines in war.

First of all, I don't "support Trump." I didn't even vote for him. I'm not even a republican.

Secondly, I could post all kinds of contradictory stuff from across the US political spectrum. Especially regarding Saudi Arabia.

But why do you limit your criticisms to just Trump? Why are you turning a blind eye to what presidents who came before him did? Were you this upset with Obama dropping bombs on weddings in Yemen? Do I need to go search your post history for your thoughts on Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal? Will I find anything?

Do you dislike him so much that you truly can't recognize that killing Soleimani was a good thing?

Again, sending Troops to protect our people, allies, and interests isn't "breaking a promise" or entangling us further in the middle east.

crunchyinmilk wrote:

Again, sending Troops to protect our people, allies, and interests isn't "breaking a promise" or entangling us further in the middle east.

It's 100% entangling us further. All we have ever done is send troops to protect our people, allies, and interests. Trump is just more of the same in terms of ME policy, when push came to shove.

Because we are discussing the here and now, a current affair. I haven’t posted here for long so probably not when Obama was president and definitely not when Bush was president.

So I’ll say now for you as clear as I can. I DID and still do oppose the ME policies of Obama and Bush.

I have no problem at all with this killing, but what do I have a problem with are 3,500 additional American troops that are been sent there. That absolutely IS a broken promise.

Harambe wrote:

crunchyinmilk wrote:

Again, sending Troops to protect our people, allies, and interests isn't "breaking a promise" or entangling us further in the middle east.

It's 100% entangling us further. All we have ever done is send troops to protect our people, allies, and interests. Trump is just more of the same in terms of ME policy, when push came to shove.

Exactly, even though he promised something different and his supporters touted that for a long time. Very quick to do a 180.

The killing the bad guy is a good thing argument only goes so far. Saddam Hussein being executed and his sons be killed were good things, but the cost was far, far too much. Killing Bin Laden was a great thing and it only cost the U.S. a helicopter.

Whether more people will die as a result of killing Soleimani or leaving him alive, is an unknown.