IRGC leader Soleimani has been killed in targeted assassination near Baghdad

a reply to: LSU2018

They've been on a limited flight schedule because of the holiday. Several bases were closed until the 6th, and a couple are going back to flying today.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Ohanka

*shrugs*

then haters gonna hate.

if you're right then it must really suck to be them.

Arrogance and pride come before fall.

I’m sure what America needs most of all is a harrowing asymmetric war followed by an enormously costly, decades long occupation that makes Iraq and Afghanistan combined look like a sunday paintball match.

a reply to: Ohanka

Well, I guess we could always surrender.

I mean, that's an option also.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: LSU2018

WWIII is the worst case scenario, depending on the reaction of Iran's biggest allies. What does look inevitable though is another pointless ME conflict, and one that will probably cost more lives than any of the ones Bush or Obama started.

We'll fight an inner war amongst ourselves before we get into another battle. In my opinion.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Ohanka

Well, I guess we could always surrender.

I mean, that's an option also.

Alternatively one can not start an idiotic futile war in the first place.

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Ohanka

Well, I guess we could always surrender.

I mean, that's an option also.

Alternatively one can not start an idiotic futile war in the first place.

Well, yeah.

When I'm in charge, I'll certainly take that under consideration.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Agit8dChop

It wouldn't be the first time he projected onto Obama what he himself would and does do.

It 's not like nobody warned us that Trump would start a war if he got desperate.

no one has to project a damn thing the facts are damning for Obama. Damning and will RUIN his legacy if it hasn't already.

Okay...I'm just going to leave this here.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'll keep an ear out. I wondered about the holidays because I don't remember my ex brother-in-law getting a full week during the holidays. I looked at the map and my building is literally in the center of their flight path, lol.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Agit8dChop

It wouldn't be the first time he projected onto Obama what he himself would and does do.

It 's not like nobody warned us that Trump would start a war if he got desperate.

no one has to project a damn thing the facts are damning for Obama. Damning and will RUIN his legacy if it hasn't already.

Okay...I'm just going to leave this here.

Are you just sitting there searcing the internet for all these Trump dissing Obama stuff. You keep 'just leaving stuff' in the thread. I think you've made your point now.

These empty suits in Congress whining that they didn't give authorization for the attack yesterday. Seriously? There's still an AUMF in place from 2001 that authorizes action like this. You've all been saying that needs to be revised. Guess whose job it is to revise it? CONGRESS! Don't cry that the President took action that YOU authorized because you haven't done your jobs to revise the authorization. This is our congressional leadership? Pathetic. And some of these losers wanna be President... laughable.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Why did the Right praise Trump's restraint when he bent over and spread his ample cheeks for Lil Kim after North Korea brutally tortured and essentially murdered a US citizen but with this Iran situation it's now right to risk WWIII?

He wasn't getting impeached when Kim made his move. Now he is. He needs a bold move to show what a strong leader he is.
You cant impeach me if we are at war!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Why did the Right praise Trump's restraint when he bent over and spread his ample cheeks for Lil Kim after North Korea brutally tortured and essentially murdered a US citizen but with this Iran situation it's now right to risk WWIII?

He wasn't getting impeached when Kim made his move. Now he is. He needs a bold move to show what a strong leader he is.
You cant impeach me if we are at war!

Factually bankrupt as always. War has exactly zero impact on impeachment. And war would hurt Trump's re-election chances. You've been lied to, as always, and now you're spreading those lies because you just regurgitate whatever you're told without thinking.

a reply to: LSU2018

It depends on mission requirements. They used to stand down alternating bases for the bombers. One would get Christmas, the other New Year's Eve. For years the ops tempo was so high they hardly stopped for the holidays.

a reply to: Justoneman

His legacy will not fall to dumb conspiracy theories.
He was a very good president. And he was well loved by the american people.

All our wars in the Mid East have turned out ok, what's the big deal about starting another one with Iran? Just more winning!!!

a reply to: Ohanka

Ohanka, how many times have we been in this exact situation before? Vietnam, Iraq two times, Iran two times, Libya, Syria...

From the time that I was born, the United States seems to be making one idiotic move after another. I thought that maybe with Trump it would be different; maybe we had dodged the bullet that was Hillary Clinton; maybe Trump was not part of the establishment. Oh boy, how wrong I was.
It's now clear more than ever, that what we are witnessing right now in the USA's internal politics is just a battle between two factions of the establishment battling for power, and whichever comes out at the top, it's going to be business as usual.

I wonder just how many more countries will the USA try to destroy in the name of money before it inevitably collapses.

a reply to: DBCowboy

And going to war for pointless reasons always works out for us as well.

By the way, where did I ever say anything about appeasement? I suggested aggressive economic retaliation. History shows that a populace is more likely to rise up against their government when they're struggling to afford food for their family as opposed to being bombed by a foreign power.

But hey, if you don't care if we sacrifice the lives of thousands of young men for...reasons, more power to you.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
Which has nothing to do with the recent attacks and response.
I get the issue with SA, but this is a a different incident.

This isn't 'combating terrorism', this is politics. We selectively fight terrorists.

I think the selection on this one appears to be very obvious - the guy who facilitated an attack on the US gets droned a couple of days later. Selective? Sure. Based on retaliation.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Spare me your bleeding heart.

The same people that soiled their tighty-whiteys over Trump leaving Syria are now soiling their panties over a retaliatory strike against a force that would harm us.

a reply to: face23785

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Last time I checked, Soleimani did not aid the terrorists in 9/11. In fact he was a key asset in helping the US' efforts in Afghanistan following that tragic day.