1. #561
    Quote Originally Posted by Dadwen View Post
    Just out of curiosity is that bolded part suppose to be normal for over there?
    They were Iranian backed Iraqi militia members. Unless there was another strike that I haven't seen news about.

  2. #562
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    They were Iranian backed Iraqi militia members. Unless there was another strike that I haven't seen news about.
    so they were still by proxy fighting for Iran?

    *seems Iraq should not be too happy about a Iran backed (especially Iran giving their history) militia operation inside their borders.
    Last edited by Dadwen; 2020-01-04 at 01:50 AM. Reason: *added

  3. #563
    Quote Originally Posted by Dadwen View Post
    so they were still by proxy fighting for Iran?
    IIRC yes, it was the same group that was involved in the attack. But this is still fresh, so there's not a ton of info out about it yet.

  4. #564
    I am Murloc! Thepersona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    5,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Because there is no strategy. Trump is reactive, not proactive, and doesn't have the mental capability or patience to participate in broader planning sessions for something like a strategy in the Middle East.
    Does he have any strategy for the ME? because Objectively it's a fucking quagmire, and it seems that he's only pouring fuel for the ongoing fire(s)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I think that's the biggest criticism of the assassination. And I'm itching to agree because it's Trump. But as a policy, it has sound roots. And in some arenas is considered long overdue.
    My gripe with the assassination is the method used. With that airstrike (done by drones in a public area) how many civilians died?
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



  5. #565
    Quote Originally Posted by Thepersona View Post
    Does he have any strategy for the ME? because Objectively it's a fucking quagmire, and it seems that he's only pouring fuel for the ongoing fire(s)
    If there is, it's to protect his own self interests - his businesses (Turkey), his re-election (these strikes), and his friends (MBS and co). Not necessarily in that order, but not necessarily not in that order.

  6. #566
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    25,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Deja Thoris View Post
    Once again, I didn't say thats what they did, I said "If I did...", wow, reading comprehension.
    So you don't understand your own example as it applies to the thread...? Wow, not sure where to start there. Can anyone else help him out here?


    Quote Originally Posted by Deja Thoris View Post
    Ok, If I went there and burned some shit, chanted some Death to America slogans and smashed some doors down....act of war?
    No. Not you. Are you confused about even the basic facts of this event? Maybe you should tell us what you think happened, and then we can correct any big mistakes you make and work forward from there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deja Thoris View Post
    Tell me again how non nation state actors can perpetrate acts of war?

    Serious policy discussion from you? Don't make me laugh. Skroe can hold serious policy discussions because he understands whats happening there, who the actors are and what the implications and nuances are. I'm not confident you could point out most of the countries involved on a map.

    And lol, just saw the post above, you don't even know who did what. "Serious policy discussion" Rofl.
    Your entire response was just an ad hominem attack. If you're up to speed on the issues, please elaborate. But so far all you've done is mention nation state actors and then more about how you think you were right, while still being so wrong.

    We'll keep laughing while you keep treading water. Or have you made even one salient point yet?

    Didn't think so. Great conversation (am I doing that right? )
    No one is above the law!

  7. #567
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I think that's the biggest criticism of the assassination. And I'm itching to agree because it's Trump. But as a policy, it has sound roots. And in some arenas is considered long overdue.
    I will not mourn his death for sure. But ask yourself this about the policy. Is the U.S. safer today than it was yesterday before this attack? Is Europe? Is the middle east?

  8. #568
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    25,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Thepersona View Post
    My gripe with the assassination is the method used. With that airstrike (done by drones in a public area) how many civilians died?
    I would agree with that gripe. Unfortunately, there usually isn't a good way to get at these guys.
    No one is above the law!

  9. #569
    Quote Originally Posted by Thepersona View Post
    My gripe with the assassination is the method used. With that airstrike (done by drones in a public area) how many civilians died?
    From what I've seen, no civilians were injured or killed. It was Sulemain and some of the Iraqi militia folks that were targeted.

  10. #570
    Quote Originally Posted by Thepersona View Post
    Does he have any strategy for the ME? because Objectively it's a fucking quagmire, and it seems that he's only pouring fuel for the ongoing fire(s)
    Something tells me that a lot of qualified people are surrounding Trump on this, and I do sort of lean towards trusting the United States government's top military officials to have a general understanding of what this strike would entail, what the fallout could possibly be, and how to plan for what follows. I have the sense that this won't be badly handled. I could be wrong.

  11. #571
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    25,970
    Quote Originally Posted by beanman12345 View Post
    I will not mourn his death for sure. But ask yourself this about the policy. Is the U.S. safer today than it was yesterday before this attack? Is Europe? Is the middle east?
    So, that is certainly a longer policy discussion, but at first blush, we killed the guy who ordered and organized the attack. To me that's a good policy, overall, because it makes leaders think twice about ordering such attacks in the future. Will it stop them? Of course not. But it might give some of them pause. That is a win.

    Now, the fallout of us assassinating a high ranking official from Iran. That will definitely have repercussions throughout the area - obviously as a recruiting tool and of course as more "Death to the Great Satan".
    No one is above the law!

  12. #572
    Quote Originally Posted by ParanoiD84 View Post
    Think everyone can agree that the piece of shit deserved it, perhaps not the best time to do it though with all the tension.

    Still there is pretty much nothing iran can do about it so well see what happens probably not much.

    This is also a country that still hangs homosexuals in public, stones women and executes minors among other things, also the biggest terrorist sponsor in the middleast.

    Think they need to get into that modern mindset abit.
    Ofcourse not much Iran can do to the "USA" But they will probably escalate attacks by proxies. Also what do Trump think he will accomplish with this? My guess is he hopes Iran will attack one of the Warships the US have in the gulf or some other "big" target so he "will be forced to go to war to defend agains Iranian aggression"

    Also there is the bigger issue, namely that about the US president unabashedly goes on national TV saying he killed the highest Military General in a foreign nation on another countries soil! What will Trump do when he realises he will get away with this?

    Also to the suckers saying "This guy killed Americans and planned to kill more" What a bunch of bollocks if this was the case then Muhammed Bin Salman of the Saudis would be dead along time ago, and any number Saudi higher ups for the attacks on 9/11.

  13. #573
    Quote Originally Posted by Dadwen View Post
    Just out of curiosity is that bolded part suppose to be normal for over there?
    Its not as those are Iraqis. They are Iraqi shia who were funded by Iran to fight ISIL in Iraq.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popula...ization_Forces

    The US just killed the Iraqi version of the Kurds!
    You can't fix stupid. But damn it you can troll it!

  14. #574
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Something tells me that a lot of qualified people are surrounding Trump on this, and I do sort of lean towards trusting the United States government's top military officials to have a general understanding of what this strike would entail, what the fallout could possibly be, and how to plan for what follows. I have the sense that this won't be badly handled. I could be wrong.
    3 years ago, I might, *HUGE MIGHT* have agreed with you. Trump has since fired all the "qualified" people, and is now surrounded by yes men. I trust not 1 person in Trump's orbit. Even his Chief's.

  15. #575
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Something tells me that a lot of qualified people are surrounding Trump on this, and I do sort of lean towards trusting the United States government's top military officials to have a general understanding of what this strike would entail, what the fallout could possibly be, and how to plan for what follows. I have the sense that this won't be badly handled. I could be wrong.
    For killing the people that fought against the Islamic State in Iraq? Seriously. Its like the US bombing the SDF and kurds.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popula...ization_Forces
    You can't fix stupid. But damn it you can troll it!

  16. #576
    I am Murloc! Thepersona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    5,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    From what I've seen, no civilians were injured or killed. It was Sulemain and some of the Iraqi militia folks that were targeted.
    Well... then. it is.. good?
    i mean, it's still a massive fuckup, but at the very least no civilians were harmed.
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



  17. #577
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Something tells me that a lot of qualified people are surrounding Trump on this
    https://twitter.com/kellymagsamen/st...14369912332289

    This aside, when was the last time Trump surrounded himself with qualified people? I mean, the guy who was his "Ukraine expert" know fuckall about the country and was tapped to advise Trump over Vindman, the actual Ukraine expert, initially.

    Trump has surrounded himself with clowns from the get-go. It's rare that he has an actually qualified, intelligent person working for him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    and I do sort of lean towards trusting the United States government's top military officials to have a general understanding of what this strike would entail
    They may, that doesn't mean Trump does. Or that Trump cares about warnings from them. He's made it a habit to reject key advise his presidency and go with "his gut".

    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    I have the sense that this won't be badly handled.
    Because Trump has been racking up the foreign policy wins since taking office? Because surely this further escalation following his unilateral withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal (which was working) didn't contribute towards these higher tensions?

    You always seem to take the rosiest, most optimistic view on Trump. And always seemingly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

  18. #578
    Quote Originally Posted by beanman12345 View Post
    3 years ago, I might, *HUGE MIGHT* have agreed with you. Trump has since fired all the "qualified" people, and is now surrounded by yes men. I trust not 1 person in Trump's orbit. Even his Chief's.
    There's also the unknown quality. What will Iran do? How do we respond to that? There are a lot of ways this can turn into a real problem for everyone involved, including citizens caught in the middle of it. I still think that it was appropriate to take action. People talk about "escalation", but at some point you press the button when the terrorist who's killed hundreds is sitting on the tarmac. Especially when he's plotting more.

  19. #579
    I am Murloc! Thepersona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    5,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Something tells me that a lot of qualified people are surrounding Trump on this, and I do sort of lean towards trusting the United States government's top military officials to have a general understanding of what this strike would entail, what the fallout could possibly be, and how to plan for what follows. I have the sense that this won't be badly handled. I could be wrong.
    Well... He's working with a skeleton crew right now, comprised mostly of yes men, and people who actually wants to bring in the armaggedon... so please forgive me for not having the same level of faith as you have.
    From my POV this is a massive fuckup, done by a man with a fragile ego, who's trying to change the media narrative on something, anything else than the impeachment story
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



  20. #580
    Quote Originally Posted by Thepersona View Post
    Well... He's working with a skeleton crew right now, comprised mostly of yes men
    This is the most dangerous part. Almost all the qualified advisers (even those we may disagree with) have departed or been pressured out, and they've largely been replaced with sycophants that largely only know how to tell Trump how brilliant he is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •