Iran War V4: Jet Fuel Cant Melt Steel Beings

[Gunny]

Off the top of my head, DaLeftCross, DaRightCross, Wally Brando, The Wrath Of Crom, and a whole host of others.

I buy that. The gimmick isn’t even subtle. No one who’s not trolling would use that Chris Cuomo pic as an AV. Even Fredo himself is probably embarrassed he allowed it to be taken.

 

[Squall Leonhart]

What's the word on all this? We deescalating now? Seems that way, at least until they make the nuclearization an issue when they don't come to a new deal.

 

[luckyshot]

I will grant you all that, except the "illegal occupation". The U.S. is not occupying Iran. We are in another place altogether and it's called "Iraq". They end in a different letter.

The Iraqi Parliament voted on a non-biding resolution and they would still need concurrence with their Prime Minister if it were binding, which it is not.

With all that said, I would love for us to get out.

And, for consistency's sake, if Iran happened to illegally take over territory on our border with Canada or Mexico, I'm sure that you'd consider any actions we took against military targets in those locations to be "acts of terrorism."

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

Any mods more senior than Fogie I can go to for redress?

I'm sure dmf will take you seriously

 

[Aldo4Ever]

She's a horrible human being.

Yes, Kayleigh McEnany is a horrible human being.

 

[Whippy McGee]

And, for consistency's sake, if Iran happened to illegally take over territory on our border with Canada or Mexico, I'm sure that you'd consider any actions we took against military targets in those locations to be "acts of terrorism."

Not if Mexico / Canada invited them. If Iraq finally formally asks us to get out, then Iran would have legitimacy.

 

[luckyshot]

Not if Mexico / Canada invited them. If Iraq finally formally asks us to get out, then Iran would have legitimacy.

Hmm... remind me... how did we "get in" Iraq in the first place? It was formal invitation, right?

 

[Whippy McGee]

Hmm... remind me... how did we "get in" Iraq in the first place? It was formal invitation, right?

That has little to do with Iran or the price of ice. But, if you really want to talk about it, we can discuss the many violations of U.N. Resolution 1441 and I will think you will find that you were only considering a small part (MSM Propaganda) of the reason prior to reading it. It was a whole lot more and Iraq violated it huge.

 

[luckyshot]

That has little to do with Iran or the price of ice. But, if you really want to talk about it, we can discuss the many violations of U.N. Resolution 1441 and I will think you will find that you were only considering a small part (MSM Propaganda) of the reason prior to reading it. It was a whole lot more and Iraq violated it huge.

So, let's get this official, you are stating that our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified?

 

[Whippy McGee]

So, let's get this official, you are stating that our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified?

I am saying you need to read U.N. 1441 or you are just not informed at all. I am not a fan of foreign conflicts, occupations, etc. I fall in the Rand Paul category. But, I cannot deny the actual facts of the matter that Iraq screwed itself.

 

[The Merchant]

I am saying you need to read U.N. 1441 or you are just not informed at all. I am not a fan of foreign conflicts, occupations, etc. I fall in the Rand Paul category. But, I cannot deny the actual facts of the matter that Iraq screwed itself.

Why don't you read it?

"While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case"

[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.

 

[HockeyBjj]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c2295c-3260-11ea-971b-43bec3ff9860_story.html

Iranian officials saying "We did not intend to kill"

Confirmation they were looking for a show of force to not look pathetically week to their citizens, but don't want to escalate tensions to war over their general being taken out.

 

[Seano]

That has little to do with Iran or the price of ice. But, if you really want to talk about it, we can discuss the many violations of U.N. Resolution 1441 and I will think you will find that you were only considering a small part (MSM Propaganda) of the reason prior to reading it. It was a whole lot more and Iraq violated it huge.

Imagine thinking that us being in Iraq means we have to let Iran do what they want to us.

 

[luckyshot]

Imagine thinking that us being in Iraq means we have to let Iran do what they want to us.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I said that if the roles were reversed, (ie., Iran occupied a territory bordering us through force) we sure as shit wouldn't consider military intervention an "act of terrorism" on our part.

Which is absolutely true.

 

[The Diplomat]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/was-passenger-jet-shot-down-iran-935574/

The strike on Soleimani elicited a predictable counter strike by the Iranian government. It may have been intended to be surgical, but it appears to have caused created a collateral catastrophe. Amid the fog of war dozens of civilians are now now dead. The downed airliner reportedly killed 82 Iranians, 63 Canadians, 20 Ukrainians, 10 Swedes, 4 Afghans, and 3 citizens each of Germany and Great Britain. There were no survivors.

Look, I understand causality. There had to be a reaction on Iran's behalf towards America killing a top general. Even if for show, they had to do something to show strength. So that, I get.

But to somehow correlate Trump signing off on the attack that killed two terrorists, however unsubtle the move was, and Iran actually shooting missiles at a passenger jet, accidentally killing all on board, is ludicrous. This fuck up is on Iran. Not only did they incompetently kill 176 people, *somehow* hitting a passenger jet that would've been passed by air control, but they tried to bury it and hide it from the world. The base attack, sure, Iranian commanders are even admitting today that they never intended any casualties, and it was for show. But this? Nah.

 

[Falsedawn]

Don't put words in my mouth.

I said that if the roles were reversed, (ie., Iran occupied a territory bordering us through force) we sure as shit wouldn't consider military intervention an "act of terrorism" on our part.

Which is absolutely true.

Just look up the Rio Pact and be astounded.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Why can't some of you guys just say good job trump

Is it that painful lol

Good job for what? Killing one of the men most responsible for defeating ISIS and escalating tensions with the country best poised to help us stabilize the region? Yeah good job Trump for kowtowing to the warmongers in DC.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Grow up.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

Just look up the Rio Pact and be astounded.

Another interesting example: when the USSR entered Cuba after the U.S. rejected their denuclearization plan, the United States nearly started World War Three. The U.S. considered it totally unacceptable to have a hostile foreign power enter a neighbouring country, even via invitation. The U.S. committed, what Cuba called, “an act of terrorism” via the Bay of Pigs invasion in response to the fear that the USSR elicited by entering Cuba.

Meanwhile, the U.S. had nuclear weapons in Turkey and was using its resources to rebuild Germany, a country that nearly destroyed Russia twice inside 50 years.

There are more perspectives than just the American. That’s not to say America is automatically wrong, but I think we can all agree we should look at each sides perspective on their own terms in order to get a clear picture of what the truth is, no?

 

[ryan3434]

Good job for what? Killing one of the men most responsible for defeating ISIS and escalating tensions with the country best poised to help us stabilize the region? Yeah good job Trump for kowtowing to the warmongers in DC.

Wouldn't the warmongers also want Trump to attack Iran after they dropped missiles on US base?


Or are the warmongers not really into war?