dazed
Based
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 1,757
|
Post by dazed on Jan 3, 2020 15:06:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Jan 3, 2020 15:10:16 GMT
What the fuck have you done?
But hey if we killed their top warmonger maybe their “vengeance” can be killing our top warmonger, John Bolton? It would surely make this strike without congressional approval worth it.
|
|
|
Post by Kirk-Picard on Jan 3, 2020 15:41:03 GMT
World War 3 trending on twitter
|
|
|
Post by getclutch on Jan 3, 2020 16:59:22 GMT
Suleimani had been planning terror attacks for a long time. It might or could escalate tensions. However, people on social media tweeting WWIII is just dumb.
|
|
LaraQ
Badass
English Rose
Posts: 2,284
Likes: 2,819
|
Post by LaraQ on Jan 3, 2020 17:54:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jan 3, 2020 19:03:35 GMT
This should be fun. Suleimani was practically top dog in Iran, clear links with Hezbollah, launched a campaign in the Syrian civil war.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 3, 2020 23:02:33 GMT
And Trump tweeted about it to confirm we did it shortly after it happened. What kind of south park alternate reality am I living in where we have a president that OKs a huge assassination and then just brags about it online?
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jan 3, 2020 23:30:37 GMT
And Trump tweeted about it to confirm we did it shortly after it happened. What kind of south park alternate reality am I living in where we have a president that OKs a huge assassination and then just brags about it online? Didn't Obama go on the news about assassinating Bin Laden hours after?
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jan 3, 2020 23:36:59 GMT
And Trump tweeted about it to confirm we did it shortly after it happened. What kind of south park alternate reality am I living in where we have a president that OKs a huge assassination and then just brags about it online? I wonder if this one died like a dog.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2020 15:26:53 GMT
I'm still trying to understand the reasoning behind this... I don't believe a single word that comes out of the Trump administration's mouths. It's an incredibly dangerous and frightening time.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jan 4, 2020 15:48:42 GMT
I'm still trying to understand the reasoning behind this... I don't believe a single word that comes out of the Trump administration's mouths. It's an incredibly dangerous and frightening time. Suleimani was behind the attack on the American embassy in Iraq. His death squads and militias went around the Middle East to create more chaos so the vacuum could be filled by Iranian interests. He killed hundreds of American soldiers and some journalists and diplomats. He controls Hezbollah and has Hamas on a tight leash. Now you can question if there's a long term strategy in the Trump administration regarding Iran and I'd probably agree but to say there isn't reason for it is nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 4, 2020 15:59:58 GMT
I'm still trying to understand the reasoning behind this... I don't believe a single word that comes out of the Trump administration's mouths. It's an incredibly dangerous and frightening time. Suleimani was behind the attack on the American embassy in Iraq. His death squads and militias went around the Middle East to create more chaos so the vacuum could be filled by Iranian interests. He killed hundreds of American soldiers and some journalists and diplomats. He controls Hezbollah and has Hamas on a tight leash. Now you can question if there's a long term strategy in the Trump administration regarding Iran and I'd probably agree but to say there isn't reason for it is nonsensical. ^ This, so much this............ and with the killing of Baghdadi less than 3 months ago if this situation doesn't spiral out of control this makes Trump look awfully hard to beat in 2020 I'm afraid. With the economy being so strong and the foreign policy looking so almost cliched/surreal bad-ass tough on terror he's going to appeal to a lot of people who think (rightly imo) that he didn't get any credit for Baghdadi at all. Now he can turn to Joe Biden in a debate and say something like "you didn't have the guts to do what I did, you and Obama appeased for 8 years".......but then again that big "if this situation doesn't spin out of control" thing looms .....
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jan 4, 2020 17:05:00 GMT
What the fuck have you done? But hey if we killed their top warmonger maybe their “vengeance” can be killing our top warmonger, John Bolton? It would surely make this strike without congressional approval worth it. You don't need congressional approval for this attack. You will for a full scale war.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jan 4, 2020 17:07:52 GMT
Suleimani was behind the attack on the American embassy in Iraq. His death squads and militias went around the Middle East to create more chaos so the vacuum could be filled by Iranian interests. He killed hundreds of American soldiers and some journalists and diplomats. He controls Hezbollah and has Hamas on a tight leash. Now you can question if there's a long term strategy in the Trump administration regarding Iran and I'd probably agree but to say there isn't reason for it is nonsensical. ^ This, so much this............ and with the killing of Baghdadi less than 3 months ago if this situation doesn't spiral out of control this makes Trump look awfully hard to beat in 2020 I'm afraid. With the economy being so strong and the foreign policy looking so almost cliched/surreal bad-ass tough on terror he's going to appeal to a lot of people who think (rightly imo) that he didn't get any credit for Baghdadi at all. Now he can turn to Joe Biden in a debate and say something like "you didn't have the guts to do what I did, you and Obama appeased for 8 years".......but then again that big "if this situation doesn't spin out of control" thing looms ..... The economy will eventually tank. I would never count on Trump for anything.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 4, 2020 21:08:09 GMT
Suleimani had been planning terror attacks for a long time. It might or could escalate tensions. However, people on social media tweeting WWIII is just dumb. Any armed conflict at all is now considered a "world war" in our hyperbolic age where no one is capable of discerning any kind of nuance. A modern world war would be NATO vs Russia and China.
|
|
|
Post by getclutch on Jan 4, 2020 21:42:44 GMT
Suleimani had been planning terror attacks for a long time. It might or could escalate tensions. However, people on social media tweeting WWIII is just dumb. Any armed conflict at all is now considered a "world war" in our hyperbolic age where no one is capable of discerning any kind of nuance. A modern world war would be NATO vs Russia and China. Yeah, sounds like an accurate assessment.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Jan 5, 2020 5:02:45 GMT
Suleimani had been planning terror attacks for a long time. It might or could escalate tensions. However, people on social media tweeting WWIII is just dumb. Any armed conflict at all is now considered a "world war" in our hyperbolic age where no one is capable of discerning any kind of nuance. A modern world war would be NATO vs Russia and China. Yeah this is nowhere near "World War 3" situation. Iran won't do shit. They'll talk big but won't do much.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Jan 5, 2020 5:04:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 5, 2020 5:05:12 GMT
Any armed conflict at all is now considered a "world war" in our hyperbolic age where no one is capable of discerning any kind of nuance. A modern world war would be NATO vs Russia and China. Yeah this is nowhere near "World War 3" situation. Iran won't do shit. They'll talk big but won't do much. Well they're launching some small scale rocket attacks to save face. It will likely stay at that unless Trump does something dumb and retaliates. (EDIT: Which he is talking about doing in the tweets you just posted) Killing this guy was ultimately a good move unless the endgame gets screwed up.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,594
Likes: 2,069
|
Post by cherry68 on Jan 5, 2020 6:58:17 GMT
Any armed conflict at all is now considered a "world war" in our hyperbolic age where no one is capable of discerning any kind of nuance. A modern world war would be NATO vs Russia and China. Yeah this is nowhere near "World War 3" situation. Iran won't do shit. They'll talk big but won't do much. Besides, Iran isn't able to win a war against the US. They have no chances even against Israel alone. Remember what happened to the well equipped (by the USSR) 3Rd Egyptian army during Yom Kippur war. On 4 November 1973, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev said: We have offered them (the Arabs) a sensible way for so many years. But no, they wanted to fight. Fine! We gave them technology, the latest, the kind even Vietnam didn't have. They had double superiority in tanks and aircraft, triple in artillery, and in air defense and anti-tank weapons they had absolute supremacy. And what? Once again they were beaten. Once again they scrammed [sic]. Once again they screamed for us to come save them. Sadat woke me up in the middle of the night twice over the phone, "Save me!" He demanded to send Soviet troops, and immediately! No! We are not going to fight for them. If Brezhnev didn't want to fight for them in the middle of cold war, I seriously doubt Putin will start a world conflict for Iran nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Jan 5, 2020 8:03:16 GMT
Plz no. This is not Iraq or Afghanistan where you can just waltz in and fuck around.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 1,757
|
Post by dazed on Jan 5, 2020 14:28:40 GMT
Seems like nothing has been learnt from 2003.
I’m hearing the exact same rhetoric from then and now. U.S would love Iran to respond (which I think is inevitable at this point seeing as their top general has been assassinated), which will then give the U.S an excuse to topple/or get closer to toppling Iran like they’ve clearly wanted to.
Like Joaquim said too, if a war breaks out, it will be worse than Iraq and/or Afghanistan. It doesn’t have to be WWIII to have major repercussions.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jan 5, 2020 18:07:22 GMT
Seems like nothing has been learnt from 2003. I’m hearing the exact same rhetoric from then and now. U.S would love Iran to respond (which I think is inevitable at this point seeing as their top general has been assassinated), which will then give the U.S an excuse to topple/or get closer to toppling Iran like they’ve clearly wanted to. Like Joaquim said too, if a war breaks out, it will be worse than Iraq and/or Afghanistan. It doesn’t have to be WWIII to have major repercussions. No the reason Iraq was a catastrophe was for political reasons and not letting the Iraqis form their own government earlier. The civil war broke out in large part because of it.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Jan 5, 2020 20:47:50 GMT
It's not necessarily a bad move, but it's a very risky one. Depends really how much power Suleimani's sucessor will have and how much of his policies he will continue. But it won't lead to WWIII, not by a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Jan 8, 2020 1:05:17 GMT
Iran struck back.
And you know what? I feel nothing
|
|