Trump says US to strike 52 Iranian sites 'VERY FAST and VERY HARD’

a reply to: wantsome

Hahaha, you think they won't?

Iraq is the key to Russia/Iran/Syria's aspirations. Follow the trail: Russia has oil, needs money. Pipeline through Georgia region connects to Iran. Iran has oil, needs money. Pipeline to Syria through Iraq. Syria has a Mediterranean port and wants money. Now Russian oil and Iranian oil can flow to Syria and they have an open port for shipping besides the Persian Gulf.

That's what Russia wants. Desperately. And that's the danger.

TheRedneck

lol another fake republican war in the middle east yayyy i hope we stay for 40 years this time!

a reply to: TheRedneck

Why would you not be expected to repeat the same modicum of precision if the intel is good?

Kind of sounds like if you cannot be in Iraq then you won't have a problem killing their civilians indiscriminately via airstrikes.

Why is the surgical precision of your weapons based on a nations disposition towards your presence there?

No point in becoming the thing that you wish to destroy after all.

And not exactly how to win hearts and minds nether.

Think you called it with taking your toys and going home accept oil the world bank and all that jazz.

originally posted by: IncessantOptimist
a reply to: trollz

Hmmmm.....

Have we attacked Iranian soil?

Cuz that general, that killed and tortured women from the recent protests, was not on Iranian soil.

a reply to: andy06shake

Why would you not be expected to repeat the same modicum of precision if the intel is good?

By definition, if we are on site we will have better intel than if we are gazing in from afar... unless you also agree with keeping CIA operatives in Iraq against their wishes? I don't.

It sounds like you are wanting to keep your cake and eat it too. If we are stationed in Iraq, we have direct intel and can pinpoint where someone is. Did you see the blast that killed Soleimani? It looked to cover maybe a 20-foot radius to me. We took out one car, and maybe damaged two more. That's it... no civilian casualties. Only bad guys.

If we are not stationed in Iraq, we do not have that kind of intel to rely on. We might find out our target is traveling down a particular road. OK, we can see the convoy that should be him, but which car? We have to take them all out with a larger fireball. Good chance that larger fireball might get a passer-by. Sorry, too bad.

That's the way it works. With a definite, hard target, casualties can be minimized; with a softer, less definite target they cannot. That's not calling for casualties; it is accepting reality. You can't have both perfect aim and longer distance.

And all of that is predicated on someone in Iran/Iraq/etc. attacking Americans. If they don't start it, we won't be in it. If you have a problem with that, I'll just say it's a good thing you're not participating.

ETA: Just saw who I was replying to... my bad. Check out my reply to Sillyolme above. Maybe that will help you understand as well.

TheRedneck

a reply to: trollz

Iran won't do anything. They don't even have their own people's support. And can't fund a war especially when their refineries are most likely on that list of 52 sites. Plus, according to Dems Trump works for Putin, so Russia is on our side. hahah

Personally I think that Iran will just fund terrorist organisations to do their fighting for them and just say it’s nothing to do with them.

originally posted by: Stu112
Personally I think that Iran will just fund terrorist organisations to do their fighting for them and just say it’s nothing to do with them.

Yeah we will most prob see a rise in terror attacks because of this. Very dark times ahead!

I don’t know... But I have this sickening feeling the UK is about to get hit with something nasty.

America’s oldest ally, potentially easier to attack the UK then the US, I would imagine every ally of the US is now fair game.

I for one don’t want to be in London currently which is exactly where I am

a reply to: TheRedneck

If there was any kind of understanding to be had there would not be so much nonsensical Sabre rattling going on.

Perfectly plain Trump wants war over there for his own political kudos back home.

The way it works is the way the World Bank tell you so, plain as day really.

And Iran is on the hit list.

Now be a good little America and do as your masters tells you will be the colour of the day, so nothing new on that score.

a reply to: Jay-morris
a reply to: JPtruther

Yeah, expect terror attempts to go up. They probably already have. It's a good thing Trump has some control over our southern border and has restrictions in place on VISAs. If we are not hit by a major terrorist attack a'la 911, it will be due to that.

As for the UK... yeah, they're wide open. Brexit would have helped a lot, probably, but too many distractions has made that a moot point.

The prophesy of Daniel 8 has not yet come to pass. I have studied it intensely, and it appears that Europe, not the USA, will be the goat (many acting as one) to stop the ram, under a Greek leader. I have been watching signs for some time to see why the USA would not be the one to end the war, since history is rife with us doing exactly that. I never could figure out why Europe would be forced into war, nor why the US would not be. I have considered natural disaster, civil war, and several other possibilities.

Now consider this: The EU has opened their borders wide to Islamic immigration. They are also seen as the US's allies, with many in NATO. Iran likely does not have missiles that can reach the US, but they certainly can reach Europe. With a large Islamic presence already in place, the stage is set for both terrorist and direct attacks from Iran. At the same time, the US will likely either be in a standoff with Russia or in such political turmoil that we cannot effectively defend Europe. The Congress must declare war; as it stands right now, the House would never do so with Trump at the helm, even if the entire country was burning.

All I can say to comfort you is that, in the end, Europe wins. I know that's not much. There really is no winner in war.

May my interpretation be wrong. I do not claim any divine inspiration.

TheRedneck

a reply to: andy06shake

Perfectly plain Trump wants war over there for his own political kudos back home.

Here we go again... if Trump wanted war, why not lob a couple of MOABs at Iran itself? We've got plenty, and we'll make more.

You are quite blinded by your own biases, as usual. This is no game. Time to wake up before the missiles start landing.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Well, apparently the insane can shoot you up left right and center but you continue to arm them and do nothing about their psychological problems, in light of the clear and present danger those problems pose.

I'd say we cured Soleimani's psychological problems just fine, thank you.

TheRedneck

Are you suggesting that the methodology should be applied to all threats to citizens of the US? (Like those posed by people showing paranoia, who post online their fantasies of killings of pacifists and who leave loaded weapons around 'just in case'?)

31 rockets (it has been confirmed that the air strike was rockets, launched from F-15's, and at five separate sites, one of them in Syria) does not sound like an ideal way of solving people's psychological problems to me.

It also doesn't sound just like they were taking out a single guy. The narrative breaks down when you get more information.

And have you asked yourself, where the intel came from that said the general was planning more attacks? You do know the execrable history of US intelligence reports, and particularly about Iraq (remember the non-existent WMD's used to justify another war there?).

It actually looks like a revenge killing to me, with the added motivation that the US is showing how desperately it needs Iraqi oil.

Remember how Trump has committed to a fossil fuel future, and openly denigrates alternative energies? He has, therefore, critically tied the economy to oil supplies, which Iraq will obviously cut if the occupying force is removed.

In the game of international brinkmanship, I think that Iraq will expel the occupier, cut the oil, and not even declare war, and it will be a massive loss for the US, on many levels.

Using a metaphor from the game of chess, it isn't checkmate yet but Trump has definitely just moved into check.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Plenty of airstrikes and embassies overrun.

The game is afoot, and then some, im afraid.

And it never ends, we don't get to just stop playing.

Its always been a game, just not one the average Joe can ever hope to win.

But think as you wish, its not like you have any real control over what transpires any more than myself.

a reply to: chr0naut

The US does not need Iraqi oil. We produce enormous amounts of our own oil, and are a leading exporter. We certainly would like to control Iraqi oil, im sure.

You know who needs Iraqi oil? Iran. To sell on the black market.

The conflict with Iran, as has been pointed out, is based solely in Reserve Banking. They are one of the few nations left that do not participate in the IMF scam. And if they'd stop using violence (and threatening violence) against the US and our allies, i'd not support any form of action against them.

The old saying goes....play stupid games, win stupid prizes. That is what happened here. And to be honest, its long overdue. Iranian rockets have been fired into Israel by Iranian proxies for far too long. Im not a huge supporter of Israel or anything, but provocation is provocation. And lords knows i've punched bullies in the nose a few times in my life when I tired of their provocations.

a reply to: JPtruther
Can’t see it myself, they won’t want to attack another Nuclear capable country.

There will be more terror attacks, that’s for sure

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Does not mean they don't want Iraqi oil, or at least a modicum of control over where it goes.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: Bigburgh

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TzarChasm
I still don't quite comprehend what gives American military the right to execute a decorated officer of high rank on foreign soil without UN support.

Self defense.

So he was executed while actively threatening citizens with a deadly weapon?

Does this look like a threat? This is what he did to the U.S. embassy in iraq.
www.usatoday.com...

Are you trying to suggest that since the damage was already done that we had no right to strike back?

wow

The images have to be put into context. This wasn't deep inside the US Embassy compound but those destroyed and burned areas are the reception building and the guard post at the entrance wall.



Link showing damage at compound wall

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Does not mean they don't want Iraqi oil, or at least a modicum of control over where it goes.

Exactly what i said....we don't need iraqi oil. We just want to control it. Because not controlling it means that Iran will. And thats really all that we want with Iraqi oil....to keep Iran from profiting from it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There is also Irans entrance into the nuclear weapons game to consider.

Canny very well ignore that big elephant in the room.

It's all about control really, always has been, always will be, and the best way to maintain control is to promote division amongst the people aka the better part of the Middle East right now.