IRAN / USA

[remake it + 288]

7 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

It's not a pre-emptive war. Embassy already attacked. 

It was classified as a low level mob protest and was not carried out by Iranians but instead by Iraqis so maybe Trump cannot spell IRAN.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 minutes ago, remake it said:

It's not a pre-emptive war. Embassy already attacked. By Hezbollah backed by Iran

Fixed it for you

[Otis11 + 551]

4 minutes ago, remake it said:

It was classified as a low level mob protest and was not carried out by Iranians but instead by Iraqis so maybe Trump cannot spell IRAN.

Iraqi soil? Perhaps.

But likely driven by Iran. (Look, public evidence isn't going to prove this either direction, we'll have to agree to disagree, but by understanding that I believe this was perpetrated by Iran, you can then understand the basis I'm coming from. I understand you disagree, and therefore arrive at a different conclusion.)

[BigJets + 87]

1 hour ago, DayTrader said:

Like every nation on the planet puts themselves first LOL?

Love it when Americans say this like it's some grand statement. 

''Make America Great Again'' - translation = you are not great?

Thought so   

[remake it + 288]

5 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Iraqi soil? Perhaps.

But likely driven by Iran. (Look, public evidence isn't going to prove this either direction, we'll have to agree to disagree, but by understanding that I believe this was perpetrated by Iran, you can then understand the basis I'm coming from. I understand you disagree, and therefore arrive at a different conclusion.)

You are claiming "war" based on a mob protest by citizens of a different country and that gets to be rather laughable in the context of world events especially seeing the Iraqis have been blessed by Iranian leadership in ridding the country of ISIS.

[remake it + 288]

Even the Iraqis were able to work this out

"Soleimani played a key role in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq"

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 minutes ago, remake it said:

You are claiming "war" based on a mob protest by citizens of a different country and that gets to be rather laughable in the context of world events especially seeing the Iraqis have been blessed by Iranian leadership in ridding the country of ISIS.

 

" the Iraqis have been blessed by Iranian leadership "

 

 

Hoo boy.

 

You've lost the plot completely.

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

4 minutes ago, remake it said:

You are claiming "war" based on a mob protest by citizens of a different country and that gets to be rather laughable in the context of world events especially seeing the Iraqis have been blessed by Iranian leadership in ridding the country of ISIS.

Shiite's against Sunni's with US in the middle. National boundaries have little to do with it, but it's well known that Iran has been funding Hezbollah for years and ordering them around. Here's a test for you (you've Failed at all others): Who was killed with Solemeini and what group did he lead? 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

" the Iraqis have been blessed by Iranian leadership "

 

 

Hoo boy.

 

You've lost the plot completely.

 

Apparently the bot can't click on Links within its own posted links (see its link above).

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Look, I'm not a fan of all President Trump does, and definitely not a fan of many of the things he says - but if you can't admit that he's done an impressive job facing the obstacles that have been thrown at him, honestly, I don't know how anyone can say that and still claim to be unbiased. You don't have to agree with him - or even like him - but the man has done an impressive job

You know I've ended about 500 posts with #DT2020 yeah? 

41 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Gotta say DT - you comment on DT an awful lot to not care

True and I don't even live there right, so shouldn't even have an opinion LOL. What I 'don't care' for is the generalisations that you've just accused me of, of the idea that ANY criticism of Trump in any form, and wherever you live in the world, suggests you must have liked Obama and stuff like this. That's not a sweeping generalisation to you?

I'm not saying all Americans and making sweeping statements, that wasn't the idea if it came across that way and in post to Bob I said this. I said in essence from my experience of admittedly few Americans here, the majority of which are pro Trump, the sense I get is this 'us and them' shit, constantly. If that's a sweeping statement amount Americans here as a whole then fine. It's true LOL. 

41 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

And that's how it should be... drop this hyper-polarization (not directed at DT - whole thread). Sometimes I agree with Jabbar, often with Jan (Even if not initially, he's reasonably persuasive), many times with DT, and reasonably often with Tom . But I've even agreed with Papillon a few times, and many other international users. If we can't get in the nuance and discuss the topic more than Trump Bad, Trump Good, Obama whatever, Xi whatever... etc - then what's the point of being here???

I agree and think this all the time. This is the 'us and them' dynamic that I keep mentioning. It's one or the other, and no middle ground is ever possible. This'll sound weird but honestly it's like I have this image of Obama and Trump with some people sometimes, and they each have a rating that goes from 0-100, with 0 being the feet and 100 being their heads. 

Both of them start at 50, and I feel a slightly anti Trump comment makes Trump go from 50 to 30, and Obama from 50 to 70. Does that make sense? Like it's one or the other. And after 2 or 3 comments you must be 100% one of them and 0% the other. That's how it feels man. No middle ground. No consideration one or both have pros and cons, it's just 'No you thought this, so that must mean this' and that's it. 

I'm not saying this as a dig, I genuinely want to know if this is how it is there, as it comes across this way to me a lot seriously. If it's at all true, it explains the divisions there, that have now reached a point you're trying to remove your own president. If this is a sweeping statement then fine, but you're just all pissed off coz we are more intelligent than you lol   ... generalise that   😅

40 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

And that's how it should be... drop this hyper-polarization (not directed at DT - whole thread).

Make that whole 'forum' and I agree. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

 And to be fair on that - there have been a lot of criticism of Trump that are unfounded here - as SERWIN and others have pointed out. I took this screenshot yesterday for something else:

The guy can do no right in the eyes of the media (And many here apparently).

I agree, but it proves the 'us and them' of your own press yes? (or am I wrongly assuming the NYT article is seen as a positive, and it's actually a dig at Trump?). Either way, your fake news and press is a joke, like your TV channels, presumably radio and so on. See a pattern? Us and them mate. The USA is anything but 'U' from what I can tell.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Guest

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Quote

The Jurf al-Sakhar operation and other bloody actions led by Iran’s proxies and directed by Tehran further alienated Iraq’s Sunni population, according to one report, which notes that “destroying villages and houses, looting the Sunnis’ property and livestock turned the sweetness of these successes” against ISIS into “bitterness.” One of the Jurf al-Sakhar cables cast the impact of Shia militias in particularly stark terms: “In all the areas where the Popular Mobilization Forces go into action, the Sunnis flee, abandoning their homes and property, and prefer to live in tents as refugees or reside in camps.”

The intelligence ministry feared that Iran’s gains in Iraq were being squandered because Iraqis so resented the Shia militias and the Quds Force that sponsored them. Above all, its officers blamed Suleimani, whom they saw as a dangerous self-promoter using the anti-ISIS campaign as a launching pad for a political career back home in Iran. One report, which states at the top that it is not to be shared with the Quds Force, criticizes the general personally for publicizing his leading role in the military campaign in Iraq by “publishing pictures of himself on different social media sites.”

Doing that had made it obvious that Iran controlled the dreaded Shia militias — a potential gift to its rivals. “This policy of Iran in Iraq,” the report said, “has allowed the Americans to return to Iraq with greater legitimacy. And groups and individuals who had been fighting against the Americans among the Sunnis are now wishing that not only America, but even Israel, would enter Iraq and save Iraq from Iran’s clutches.”

Too bad the bot can't read, nor understand what is said IN its own links

[PE Scott + 563]

Just an embassy attack by itself might gave been tolerated. Killing an American during the attack was the real tipping point in my opinion.

But that's just splitting hairs if we cant even admit Iran likely orchestrated the attack via sponsored militants. 

I think the U.S. leadership has shown more restraint than they have under previous administrations for the most part. Since the killing of their general, Iran has launched a missile barrage at a U.S. coalition base AND allegedly shot down a commercial flight on accident with no real response from the U.S. besides Trump saying "All is well" and "iran is standing down"

That seems like restraint to me, but I see where some would prefer the U.S. be toothless all together.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

the U.S. leadership has shown more restraint than they have under previous administrations for the most part.

There it is   

I agree man, but it should be about right or wrong, not past and present to me. I'm gonna maybe point out the 'previous presidents' or the 'us and them' stuff whenever I can LOL, though I would spend an hour a day just doing it with Ron's posts maybe? 

[remake it + 288]

22 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

Just an embassy attack by itself might gave been tolerated. Killing an American during the attack was the real tipping point in my opinion.

Maybe there is a difference between your opinions and facts?

[PE Scott + 563]

6 minutes ago, remake it said:

Maybe there is a difference between your opinions and facts?

Awww, I'll admit I had the order of events mixed up a bit there. So then, attacking the embassy seems to have in fact been the last straw and my opinion was misguided. Kudos to you for a win.

If that article is accurate, telling President Trump "you cant do a damn thing" is probably also a sure way to illicit a response. 

[PE Scott + 563]

27 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

There it is   

I agree man, but it should be about right or wrong, not past and present to me. I'm gonna maybe point out the 'previous presidents' or the 'us and them' stuff whenever I can LOL, though I would spend an hour a day just doing it with Ron's posts maybe? 

I guess that's fair, I wasn't really trying to use them as an excuse for behavior today as much as to illustrate a slow shift throughout the years to disengage from the ME as it's become costly in many ways to the U.S. with limited results. All though the recent bombing would say otherwise, it seems like both sides have been shying away from inflicting casualties, in most cases, focusing instead on infrastructure and more symbolic attacks as opposed to inflicting the most pain.

I'll prepare myself to proven wrong though. Take it away @remake it

[Papillon + 485]

10 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

 @Otis11 , I cannot help but notice that you laughed at this post and indeed were the only person to do so. When you misread a 'joke' about the 9/11 attacks and commented on myself rewarding the comment with a trophy, you were outraged that someone could make a joke about such a thing yes?

So would you care to re-evaluate your position with regard to bias and hypocrisy here, when it appears fine and amusing to you to imagine the deaths of thousands of innocent people by nuclear bombs? Presumably, as always, as I need to keep pointing out, it is one rule for some and another rule for others? Or is death only amusing when it occurs to other nation's citizens?

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

58 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

Just an embassy attack by itself might gave been tolerated. Killing an American during the attack was the real tipping point in my opinion.

But that's just splitting hairs if we cant even admit Iran likely orchestrated the attack via sponsored militants. 

I think the U.S. leadership has shown more restraint than they have under previous administrations for the most part. Since the killing of their general, Iran has launched a missile barrage at a U.S. coalition base AND allegedly shot down a commercial flight on accident with no real response from the U.S. besides Trump saying "All is well" and "iran is standing down"

That seems like restraint to me, but I see where some would prefer the U.S. be toothless all together.

Trump probably has a few Generals in his ear right now preaching logic. I'm certain a General who has actually seen war can intimidate the silver spoon orange man in a private meeting.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

I guess that's fair, I wasn't really trying to use them as an excuse for behavior today as much as to illustrate a slow shift throughout the years to disengage from the ME as it's become costly in many ways to the U.S. with limited results. All though the recent bombing would say otherwise, it seems like both sides have been shying away from inflicting casualties, in most cases, focusing instead on infrastructure and more symbolic attacks as opposed to inflicting the most pain.

Haha I know you weren't, that was nothing to some of the 'yeah but what about those guys?' shit I read here. Honestly I may point it out more and more, whenever I see a reference or comparison. Honestly I was gonna start a thread about America's lack of self reflection as Papi would put it. I notice it so much here, and the best bit is that if the thread got no comments, it would prove my point. I wanna see if you guys can discuss anything ever without bringing the other party into it LOL. If you can't it speaks volumes to me honestly, especially about why you're so divided.

26 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

I'll prepare myself to proven wrong though. Take it away @remake it

😅

[PE Scott + 563]

8 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Trump probably has a few Generals in his ear right now preaching logic. I'm certain a General who has actually seen war can intimidate the silver spoon orange man in a private meeting.

I wonder which way military advisors are pushing? I guess I kind of thought they would lean towards a more aggressive stance all though I agree having seen war should make you take pause before suggesting anything like that. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in one of those meetings.

Edit: perhaps I'm not picking up what you're putting down here though. I assumed "logic" to you meant restraint, lol. There might have been a sarcastic element there I missed.

Edited January 10, 2020 by PE Scott

[Guest]

1 minute ago, PE Scott said:

I wonder which way military advisors are pushing?

Well it's only coz of Trump that you didn't attack over an unmanned drone months ago, so I know what I'd guess.

[PE Scott + 563]

Just now, DayTrader said:

Well it's only coz of Trump that you didn't attack over an unmanned drone months ago, so I know what I'd guess.

That was my thought at the time too. So I tend to agree with you and it's why I was kind of shocked by recent actions.

[remake it + 288]

29 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

Awww, I'll admit I had the order of events mixed up a bit there. So then, attacking the embassy seems to have in fact been the last straw and my opinion was misguided. Kudos to you for a win.

If that article is accurate, telling President Trump "you cant do a damn thing" is probably also a sure way to illicit a response. 

With utmost respect, this is not a competition, and we who post here are probably going to be too far away from the action to get directly hurt.  The Middle East is a tinderbox of tyranny and tensions and setting it alight as Trump did is likely to have repercussions well into the future.

[PE Scott + 563]

5 minutes ago, remake it said:

With utmost respect, this is not a competition, and we who post here are probably going to be too far away from the action to get directly hurt.  The Middle East is a tinderbox of tyranny and tensions and setting it alight as Trump did is likely to have repercussions well into the future.

Just a little friendly jab. Admittedly, you do refute almost everything I say. If you agree at all, I think you just ignore me I'm not sure that's ever happened though. Perhaps I've agreed with you on a couple occasions. 

And yes, none of us have any real skin in the game so the impact of any of this is almost meaningless by comparison to people living in the region.

Trump might have stoke a fire a little, but he certainly didn't light it.

Edit: isnt there a Billy Joel song that goes something like that "we didnt start the fire....lalalala....it benn burning since the world was turning"

Edited January 10, 2020 by PE Scott