So it looks like the armchair warriors are back.

[HappyJoy]

I'm sure quite alot sounds strange to your addled mind.

$1.8 billion in cash to our enemy.....That doesn't sound strange to you?

It's not our money.

 

[Kosh]

Has WWIII started yet? Did I miss it?

After yesterday teh far left was saying this was WWIII, did we miss it?

 

[pknopp]

Bring them home where they belong and problem solved.

Well, one of the problems, but yes.


But leaving them out there to be killed and then whining when they fight back?

NO.

When you do stupid things, bad things will happen. It's sad that the bad things are happening to those who are simply doing as they are told and not to those directing the stupid things be done but we have a thread on that already.

Well, this guy was apparently one of the ones that directed people to do stupid things, so, there is that.


Should make you feel better.

As long as we accept that as the standard. If it happens to one of our idiots and we all are happy, then fine.

Define the standard.

Someone that directs people to do stupid things. We have a long list of people that meet that description.

 

[Correll]

An excellent question.


But, if they are going to be there, letting our enemies kill them, and not fighting back is not acceptable.

will it be acceptable to pay $5 a gallon of gas? how'z about yer kids going to war? yer grandkiddies?

If we have a nation that thinks that they can kill our soldiers and fully expect to be allowed to do so, in safety and comfort and they fully plan to do so,


then we are already at war. The only question is, do we fight back or just die like sheep.

Oddly you exclude the correct option. Bring them home.

No, you did. I've been for that for quite some time.


But if they are going to be there, then let them fight back against those killing them.

No..........stop the fighting.

Let them stay there, be killed but let those directing the killing be safe, fat and happy, while they gloat over the deaths of our men?

Fuck no.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yep. Iran will close up operations in Iraq now and go home.There will be no replacement. Mission accomplished!

No one said that, only you.

That is certainly what you alluded.

You're a dope if you believe the general was the "imminent threat" or killed Americans himself. Those operators are still there and still a threat. They probably have a new commander already.

Nothing accomplished!

 

[Kosh]

I'm sure quite alot sounds strange to your addled mind.

$1.8 billion in cash to our enemy.....That doesn't sound strange to you?

It's not our money.

Yes the far left often says that, it is not about the amount it is the fact the money would be used for terrorism!

The far left always misses that point!

 

[Correll]

Well, you had a high level Iranian Military leader inside of Iraq, so, there is that to consider.

It seems that maybe the Iraqis should have done something about it if they felt it was an issue

THe question was, do we have any evidence of his intent to do US harm.


My point, was he was a military person, in a war zone, on the other side of our forces.


YOur point, is not relevant to that.

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm sure quite alot sounds strange to your addled mind.

$1.8 billion in cash to our enemy.....That doesn't sound strange to you?

It's not our money.

Yes the far left often says that, it is not about the amount it is the fact the money would be used for terrorism!

The far left always misses that point!

It's still not our money and most likely we weren't going to get anywhere until that was out of the way.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I'm sure quite alot sounds strange to your addled mind.

$1.8 billion in cash to our enemy.....That doesn't sound strange to you?

$1.8 billion in cash to our enemy.....That doesn't sound strange to you?

Of course it sounds strange. That number is not real by any measure.

 

[Olde Europe]

You cannot, however, deny the element of tribalism that is evident in support for these actions. I know that Obama's continuation of any of Bush's policies made me think differently about Bush's decisions because I trusted Obama where I did not trust Bush. Obama's actions made me trust Bush's more.

Trump is in a different category.

Why would I deny tribalism? It's probably the most prominent feature here, aside from a ghastly lack of manners.

Now, there may be situations in which taking out a terrorist to prevent an attack is a justifiable matter of self-defense. However, since we are not privy to the information leading up to the drone strike, agreeing or not with it comes down to trust. Or rather, mendacity, as we see right now when they were obviously lying about the murder of Soleimani and the "imminent attack" they were not actually preventing.

That said, I understand the political perils of an allegedly underutilized tool, like drones, in the form of "he let that bad guy go" in case that bad guy launches an attack thereafter. That, I am convinced, had President Obama running scared, and overutilize drones. Hence my general rejection of his policies in this respect, and that's while he was in an entirely different universe as concerns trustworthiness.

 

[Correll]

So, that is your position? We just let them kill our men?

we killed 25 of theirs.


WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS AN IMMINENT THREAT?

I don't care whether he was planning on killing Americans and Iraqis tomorrow, or next week, or next month.


He was planning on killing us. Indeed, if he was a director of operations, then he WAS killing us, the entire time he was there, and planning on continuing to do so.


Your point, such as it is, is utterly irrelevant.

& when you can't afford gassing up yer car, you'll care. not that our men & woman coming home in body bags though. how do you KNOW he was planning on killing us? what intel are you privvy to that the rest of us thinking bipeds don't know?

will you swallow everything you are told because donny said it without evidense? lol - but of course you will. that's what they count on.

Well, you had a high level Iranian Military leader inside of Iraq, so, there is that to consider.


But yes, I guess I am just accepting the information that he was a director. YOu got any evidence that he was just an innocent tourist?

did i say he was an innocent tourist? oh there is the FACT that he was inside IRAQ.... but guess what IRAQ knew & since IRAQ is a SOVEREIGN NATION ... i guess they should have had THE RIGHT to have him if they wanted him.... now try to follow the bouncing ball of logic there. we are not occupiers of IRAQ - nor do we have sovereinty over IRAQ - but we went after the dude without as much as telling the IRAQI gov'ment, let alone getting the A-OK to take him out kinda pissed them off & rightly so. so now they have voted to kick us out & it might not happen overnight - - - but donny is squawking that we won't leave any ways - - - thus in effect actually becoming occupiers? is that what we are now? you actually think all this is working out to our benefit?

there's much truth in the saying: the enemy of my enemy is now my friend.

THAT is what donny has accomplished.

I'm trying to follow your logic ball here.


Your question was, it WAS, demanding evidence that he was intending our forces harm.


I pointed out, that he was enemy military in a war zone, a leader of forces engaged in enmity with our forces, so, that is a strong evidence of intent.


Now you've dropped your previous complaint and moved on to something about Iraqi sovereignty.


It seems that you would like to see the forces come home, but barring that, you want them to just sit there and take their lumps like sheep while our enemies get to kill them in comfort and safety.


That is not a reasonable position.

 

[HappyJoy]

You cannot, however, deny the element of tribalism that is evident in support for these actions. I know that Obama's continuation of any of Bush's policies made me think differently about Bush's decisions because I trusted Obama where I did not trust Bush. Obama's actions made me trust Bush's more.

Trump is in a different category.

Why would I deny tribalism? It's probably the most prominent feature here, aside from a ghastly lack of manners.

Now, there may be situations in which taking out a terrorist to prevent an attack is a justifiable matter self-defense. However, since we are not privy to the information leading up to the drone strike, agreeing or not with it comes down to trust. Or rather, mendacity, as we see right now when they were obviously lying about the murder of Soleimani and the "imminent attack" they were not actually preventing.

That said, I understand the political perils of an allegedly underutilized tool, like drones, in the form of "he let that bad guy go" in case that bad guy launches an attack thereafter. That, I am convinced, had President Obama running scared, and overutilize drones. Hence my general rejection of his policies in this respect, and that's while he was in an entirely different universe as concerns trustworthiness.

They won't even inform the senate as to the reasons why.

 

[Kosh]

I'm sure quite alot sounds strange to your addled mind.

$1.8 billion in cash to our enemy.....That doesn't sound strange to you?

It's not our money.

Yes the far left often says that, it is not about the amount it is the fact the money would be used for terrorism!

The far left always misses that point!

It's still not our money and most likely we weren't going to get anywhere until that was out of the way.

Yes I know you support the failed policies of Obama, just like all of the far left does!

So look at the mess it created, Iran did not use the money for it's people but to fund terrorism!

The far left will never learn!

 

[pknopp]

will it be acceptable to pay $5 a gallon of gas? how'z about yer kids going to war? yer grandkiddies?

If we have a nation that thinks that they can kill our soldiers and fully expect to be allowed to do so, in safety and comfort and they fully plan to do so,


then we are already at war. The only question is, do we fight back or just die like sheep.

Oddly you exclude the correct option. Bring them home.

No, you did. I've been for that for quite some time.


But if they are going to be there, then let them fight back against those killing them.

No..........stop the fighting.

Let them stay there, be killed but let those directing the killing be safe, fat and happy, while they gloat over the deaths of our men?

Fuck no.

A lot of men in a 5 sided building in D.C. are doing just that.

 

[Kosh]

You cannot, however, deny the element of tribalism that is evident in support for these actions. I know that Obama's continuation of any of Bush's policies made me think differently about Bush's decisions because I trusted Obama where I did not trust Bush. Obama's actions made me trust Bush's more.

Trump is in a different category.

Why would I deny tribalism? It's probably the most prominent feature here, aside from a ghastly lack of manners.

Now, there may be situations in which taking out a terrorist to prevent an attack is a justifiable matter self-defense. However, since we are not privy to the information leading up to the drone strike, agreeing or not with it comes down to trust. Or rather, mendacity, as we see right now when they were obviously lying about the murder of Soleimani and the "imminent attack" they were not actually preventing.

That said, I understand the political perils of an allegedly underutilized tool, like drones, in the form of "he let that bad guy go" in case that bad guy launches an attack thereafter. That, I am convinced, had President Obama running scared, and overutilize drones. Hence my general rejection of his policies in this respect, and that's while he was in an entirely different universe as concerns trustworthiness.

They won't even inform the senate as to the reasons why.

Another far left lie!

White House informs Congress of Soleimani strike, Trump warns U.S. will hit Iran if attacked

 

[playtime]

we killed 25 of theirs.


WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS AN IMMINENT THREAT?

I don't care whether he was planning on killing Americans and Iraqis tomorrow, or next week, or next month.


He was planning on killing us. Indeed, if he was a director of operations, then he WAS killing us, the entire time he was there, and planning on continuing to do so.


Your point, such as it is, is utterly irrelevant.

& when you can't afford gassing up yer car, you'll care. not that our men & woman coming home in body bags though. how do you KNOW he was planning on killing us? what intel are you privvy to that the rest of us thinking bipeds don't know?

will you swallow everything you are told because donny said it without evidense? lol - but of course you will. that's what they count on.

Well, you had a high level Iranian Military leader inside of Iraq, so, there is that to consider.


But yes, I guess I am just accepting the information that he was a director. YOu got any evidence that he was just an innocent tourist?

did i say he was an innocent tourist? oh there is the FACT that he was inside IRAQ.... but guess what IRAQ knew & since IRAQ is a SOVEREIGN NATION ... i guess they should have had THE RIGHT to have him if they wanted him.... now try to follow the bouncing ball of logic there. we are not occupiers of IRAQ - nor do we have sovereinty over IRAQ - but we went after the dude without as much as telling the IRAQI gov'ment, let alone getting the A-OK to take him out kinda pissed them off & rightly so. so now they have voted to kick us out & it might not happen overnight - - - but donny is squawking that we won't leave any ways - - - thus in effect actually becoming occupiers? is that what we are now? you actually think all this is working out to our benefit?

there's much truth in the saying: the enemy of my enemy is now my friend.

THAT is what donny has accomplished.

I'm trying to follow your logic ball here.


Your question was, it WAS, demanding evidence that he was intending our forces harm.


I pointed out, that he was enemy military in a war zone, a leader of forces engaged in enmity with our forces, so, that is a strong evidence of intent.


Now you've dropped your previous complaint and moved on to something about Iraqi sovereignty.


It seems that you would like to see the forces come home, but barring that, you want them to just sit there and take their lumps like sheep while our enemies get to kill them in comfort and safety.


That is not a reasonable position.

i'm not even sure how to dissect that. it's all the same logic. we retaliated by killing 25 of their men & what we did with the general was way more than needed without him being an imminent threat & we steamrolled over the sovereignty of the nation that we are in. we gave no heads up to any pertinent people that should have been informed.

 

[basquebromance]

can y'all name an Iranian city other than Tehran without googling? i bet you cant! i bet Trump cant!

 

[White 6]

Reports of rockets fired at Green Zone in Baghdad
also reported on CNN, which cause me to look it up.

Reports of rockets fired at Green Zone in Baghdad
by Zachary Halaschak
| January 08, 2020 04:22 PM
| Updated Jan 08, 2020, 04:46 PM

Print this article
Current Time 0:05
Duration 3:02

Trump says Iran 'standing down' after strike



Loud explosions believed to be from rockets fired at the Green Zone in Baghdad erupted a day after Iran launched missiles at two bases in Iraq housing U.S. troops.

There are reports that at least two projectiles were fired toward the Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, late Wednesday night local time.

Fox News reporter Trey Yingst posted a video near the area of the attacks, which has sirens blaring in the background.



Authorities in Iraq are reporting that two Katyusha rockets hit the heavily fortified area. There have not yet been reports of damage or casualties. It is also not clear who fired the rockets, although Iran-affiliated militia groups have carried out attacks in the region in recent weeks.



A Kurdish journalist released photos purporting to be from one of the rockets that were fired.

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm sure quite alot sounds strange to your addled mind.

$1.8 billion in cash to our enemy.....That doesn't sound strange to you?

It's not our money.

Yes the far left often says that, it is not about the amount it is the fact the money would be used for terrorism!

The far left always misses that point!

It's still not our money and most likely we weren't going to get anywhere until that was out of the way.

Yes I know you support the failed policies of Obama, just like all of the far left does!

So look at the mess it created, Iran did not use the money for it's people but to fund terrorism!

The far left will never learn!

For starters you don't know how the money was spent.

Secondly, we've never had Iran directly attack the United States since 1979. We didn't have an Iran pulling out of the deal and now ready to start that nuclear program again until Trump.

The 'far left' that you repeat like a brain addled parrot also stretches to other countries that agreed to this deal, an agreement among countries about Iran that we may never see again. Iran, thanks to Bush and now Trump is only going to end up stronger after we leave Iraq. Russia has got to be loving this shit.

 

[B. Kidd]

I don't care whether he was planning on killing Americans and Iraqis tomorrow, or next week, or next month.


He was planning on killing us. Indeed, if he was a director of operations, then he WAS killing us, the entire time he was there, and planning on continuing to do so.


Your point, such as it is, is utterly irrelevant.

& when you can't afford gassing up yer car, you'll care. not that our men & woman coming home in body bags though. how do you KNOW he was planning on killing us? what intel are you privvy to that the rest of us thinking bipeds don't know?

will you swallow everything you are told because donny said it without evidense? lol - but of course you will. that's what they count on.

Well, you had a high level Iranian Military leader inside of Iraq, so, there is that to consider.


But yes, I guess I am just accepting the information that he was a director. YOu got any evidence that he was just an innocent tourist?

did i say he was an innocent tourist? oh there is the FACT that he was inside IRAQ.... but guess what IRAQ knew & since IRAQ is a SOVEREIGN NATION ... i guess they should have had THE RIGHT to have him if they wanted him.... now try to follow the bouncing ball of logic there. we are not occupiers of IRAQ - nor do we have sovereinty over IRAQ - but we went after the dude without as much as telling the IRAQI gov'ment, let alone getting the A-OK to take him out kinda pissed them off & rightly so. so now they have voted to kick us out & it might not happen overnight - - - but donny is squawking that we won't leave any ways - - - thus in effect actually becoming occupiers? is that what we are now? you actually think all this is working out to our benefit?

there's much truth in the saying: the enemy of my enemy is now my friend.

THAT is what donny has accomplished.

I'm trying to follow your logic ball here.


Your question was, it WAS, demanding evidence that he was intending our forces harm.


I pointed out, that he was enemy military in a war zone, a leader of forces engaged in enmity with our forces, so, that is a strong evidence of intent.


Now you've dropped your previous complaint and moved on to something about Iraqi sovereignty.


It seems that you would like to see the forces come home, but barring that, you want them to just sit there and take their lumps like sheep while our enemies get to kill them in comfort and safety.


That is not a reasonable position.

i'm not even sure how to dissect that. it's all the same logic. we retaliated by killing 25 of their men & what we did with the general was way more than needed without him being an imminent threat & we steamrolled over the sovereignty of the nation that we are in. we gave no heads up to any pertinent people that should have been informed.

Democrats are no longer pertinent. They're leakers who put party over Country!

You haven't gotten the memo yet.