06-22-2019, 10:19 AM
Pages: 1 2
06-22-2019, 10:24 AM
(06-22-2019, 10:19 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't it obvious the Iranians want us to carry out a military strike on them?
That way they can get sympathy from the rest of the world. They would release footage of all the dead and dying and we'd look like the bad guys for an unprovoked attack which killed people. We can't play into that trap. We can do a ton of other things which wouldn't involve the loss of lives. Cyber attacks would be perfect. Hopefully, that is what we do.
06-22-2019, 11:06 AM
I wish I had Donald Trump's comb over. It would save the effort of wearing a ball cap while golfing.
06-22-2019, 11:59 AM
(06-21-2019, 11:33 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ](06-21-2019, 08:56 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]I'm old enough to remember when presidents would bomb pill factories to distract from bad press.
I hate to scare you about the reality of it all, but our military prepares to kill our enemies around the clock. It's only decisions like this that keep them from happening.
I know governments often "kill at will" but that still doesn't make it right. If someone destroys your car with a sledge hammer, you don't blow them away with a shotgun. You get even some other way, where no one gets hurt.
I'd consider a shotgun justifiable homicide in that case.
06-22-2019, 12:48 PM
(06-22-2019, 09:53 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ](06-22-2019, 09:15 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Various things in their gas tank while they're not seated in the vehicle will make your point clearly, and possibly very loudly.
Someone comes at me or mine with a sledge and we aren't playing little games.
There's a difference between someone destroying your car with a sledgehammer and someone racing towards you with a sledgehammer intending to destroy your car. One of those calls for practical revenge followed by a call to the police and your insurance company. The other involves turning the other person into Swiss cheese. You'll get no argument from me on that.
06-22-2019, 03:11 PM
(06-22-2019, 12:48 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ](06-22-2019, 09:53 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Someone comes at me or mine with a sledge and we aren't playing little games.
There's a difference between someone destroying your car with a sledgehammer and someone racing towards you with a sledgehammer intending to destroy your car. One of those calls for practical revenge followed by a call to the police and your insurance company. The other involves turning the other person into Swiss cheese. You'll get no argument from me on that.
Agreed. Two entirely different things with two entirely different, yet reasonable responses.
06-22-2019, 06:10 PM
(06-22-2019, 12:48 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ](06-22-2019, 09:53 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Someone comes at me or mine with a sledge and we aren't playing little games.
There's a difference between someone destroying your car with a sledgehammer and someone racing towards you with a sledgehammer intending to destroy your car. One of those calls for practical revenge followed by a call to the police and your insurance company. The other involves turning the other person into Swiss cheese. You'll get no argument from me on that.
(06-22-2019, 03:11 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ](06-22-2019, 12:48 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]There's a difference between someone destroying your car with a sledgehammer and someone racing towards you with a sledgehammer intending to destroy your car. One of those calls for practical revenge followed by a call to the police and your insurance company. The other involves turning the other person into Swiss cheese. You'll get no argument from me on that.
Agreed. Two entirely different things with two entirely different, yet reasonable responses.
One fact that seems to elude you both is that an attack on a military asset operating in international waters is an act of war. As has been pointed out already, sanctions are hurting Iran and they are looking for a way to get support from the international community. It's not much different than when North Korea decides to launch missiles into the Pacific, only this time Iran took out a U.S. Military Asset. They wanted a retaliatory strike and wanted casualties so that they could use it as propaganda and make the U.S. "the bad guy" in all of this. Ask yourself. Why would the air fake footage of the drone attack?
A strike against certain targets such as RADAR sites or Anti-Aircraft sites would have been justified. The casualties not so much.
Face it. The President made yet another good decision.
06-22-2019, 07:34 PM
(06-22-2019, 06:10 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ](06-22-2019, 12:48 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]There's a difference between someone destroying your car with a sledgehammer and someone racing towards you with a sledgehammer intending to destroy your car. One of those calls for practical revenge followed by a call to the police and your insurance company. The other involves turning the other person into Swiss cheese. You'll get no argument from me on that.
(06-22-2019, 03:11 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed. Two entirely different things with two entirely different, yet reasonable responses.
One fact that seems to elude you both is that an attack on a military asset operating in international waters is an act of war. As has been pointed out already, sanctions are hurting Iran and they are looking for a way to get support from the international community. It's not much different than when North Korea decides to launch missiles into the Pacific, only this time Iran took out a U.S. Military Asset. They wanted a retaliatory strike and wanted casualties so that they could use it as propaganda and make the U.S. "the bad guy" in all of this. Ask yourself. Why would the air fake footage of the drone attack?
A strike against certain targets such as RADAR sites or Anti-Aircraft sites would have been justified. The casualties not so much.
Face it. The President made yet another good decision.
That's already been established. As far as the president making a good decision. Yes, he finally did, but the fact that he even considered an air strike is alarming. Whether or not the downed drone was an act of war or not, it did not justify an air strike which would've almost certainly caused casualties. Retaliating with cyber attacks is the right thing to do.
06-22-2019, 08:33 PM
(06-22-2019, 06:10 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]One fact that seems to elude you both is that an attack on a military asset operating in international waters is an act of war.
No international waters in the Straits of Oman; they are too close to Iran and UAE to qualify as open waters.
06-22-2019, 10:42 PM
(06-22-2019, 06:10 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ](06-22-2019, 12:48 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]There's a difference between someone destroying your car with a sledgehammer and someone racing towards you with a sledgehammer intending to destroy your car. One of those calls for practical revenge followed by a call to the police and your insurance company. The other involves turning the other person into Swiss cheese. You'll get no argument from me on that.
(06-22-2019, 03:11 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed. Two entirely different things with two entirely different, yet reasonable responses.
One fact that seems to elude you both is that an attack on a military asset operating in international waters is an act of war. As has been pointed out already, sanctions are hurting Iran and they are looking for a way to get support from the international community. It's not much different than when North Korea decides to launch missiles into the Pacific, only this time Iran took out a U.S. Military Asset. They wanted a retaliatory strike and wanted casualties so that they could use it as propaganda and make the U.S. "the bad guy" in all of this. Ask yourself. Why would the air fake footage of the drone attack?
A strike against certain targets such as RADAR sites or Anti-Aircraft sites would have been justified. The casualties not so much.
Face it. The President made yet another good decision.
Hey, we should just put sand in their camels.
06-22-2019, 10:58 PM
(06-22-2019, 08:33 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ](06-22-2019, 06:10 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]One fact that seems to elude you both is that an attack on a military asset operating in international waters is an act of war.
No international waters in the Straits of Oman; they are too close to Iran and UAE to qualify as open waters.
The United States does not recognize those claims.
06-24-2019, 11:43 AM
(06-22-2019, 06:10 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]One fact that seems to elude you both is that an attack on a military asset operating in international waters is an act of war. As has been pointed out already, sanctions are hurting Iran and they are looking for a way to get support from the international community. It's not much different than when North Korea decides to launch missiles into the Pacific, only this time Iran took out a U.S. Military Asset. They wanted a retaliatory strike and wanted casualties so that they could use it as propaganda and make the U.S. "the bad guy" in all of this. Ask yourself. Why would the air fake footage of the drone attack?
A strike against certain targets such as RADAR sites or Anti-Aircraft sites would have been justified. The casualties not so much.
Face it. The President made yet another good decision.
Giving up Bolton's quest for WWIII is always a good idea, yes. Don't worry, Bolton will find a creative way to get it done, just like he found a creative way to dodge the draft in the '60s.
If Iran is developing nuclear weapons, let our lapdogs in Israel handle it. The US has no business maintaining the presence we do in the region.
06-24-2019, 12:24 PM
Trump just put 150B in cash on pallets and sent it over to Iran..... Oh, wait....
06-24-2019, 01:43 PM
(06-24-2019, 11:43 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ](06-22-2019, 06:10 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]One fact that seems to elude you both is that an attack on a military asset operating in international waters is an act of war. As has been pointed out already, sanctions are hurting Iran and they are looking for a way to get support from the international community. It's not much different than when North Korea decides to launch missiles into the Pacific, only this time Iran took out a U.S. Military Asset. They wanted a retaliatory strike and wanted casualties so that they could use it as propaganda and make the U.S. "the bad guy" in all of this. Ask yourself. Why would the air fake footage of the drone attack?
A strike against certain targets such as RADAR sites or Anti-Aircraft sites would have been justified. The casualties not so much.
Face it. The President made yet another good decision.
Giving up Bolton's quest for WWIII is always a good idea, yes. Don't worry, Bolton will find a creative way to get it done, just like he found a creative way to dodge the draft in the '60s.
If Iran is developing nuclear weapons, let our lapdogs in Israel handle it. The US has no business maintaining the presence we do in the region.
Deep breaths...
06-24-2019, 02:10 PM
(06-24-2019, 11:43 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ](06-22-2019, 06:10 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]One fact that seems to elude you both is that an attack on a military asset operating in international waters is an act of war. As has been pointed out already, sanctions are hurting Iran and they are looking for a way to get support from the international community. It's not much different than when North Korea decides to launch missiles into the Pacific, only this time Iran took out a U.S. Military Asset. They wanted a retaliatory strike and wanted casualties so that they could use it as propaganda and make the U.S. "the bad guy" in all of this. Ask yourself. Why would the air fake footage of the drone attack?
A strike against certain targets such as RADAR sites or Anti-Aircraft sites would have been justified. The casualties not so much.
Face it. The President made yet another good decision.
Giving up Bolton's quest for WWIII is always a good idea, yes. Don't worry, Bolton will find a creative way to get it done, just like he found a creative way to dodge the draft in the '60s.
If Iran is developing nuclear weapons, let our lapdogs in Israel handle it. The US has no business maintaining the presence we do in the region.
Agreed.
06-24-2019, 03:00 PM
(06-24-2019, 01:43 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ](06-24-2019, 11:43 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Giving up Bolton's quest for WWIII is always a good idea, yes. Don't worry, Bolton will find a creative way to get it done, just like he found a creative way to dodge the draft in the '60s.
If Iran is developing nuclear weapons, let our lapdogs in Israel handle it. The US has no business maintaining the presence we do in the region.
Deep breaths...
Have you got a better idea? I don't know about you, but I would consider starting a war in Iran to be as good an of an idea as starting a war in Iraq (also John Bolton's handiwork). We'll win the "war" in a matter of weeks. We'll just take ten years to lose the occupation.
06-24-2019, 03:04 PM
(06-24-2019, 03:00 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ](06-24-2019, 01:43 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Deep breaths...
Have you got a better idea? I don't know about you, but I would consider starting a war in Iran to be as good an of an idea as starting a war in Iraq (also John Bolton's handiwork). We'll win the "war" in a matter of weeks. We'll just take ten years to lose the occupation.
You know how to win an occupation?
Tell them they either do as they're told or their entire family will be executed.
06-24-2019, 03:05 PM
(06-24-2019, 11:43 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ](06-22-2019, 06:10 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]One fact that seems to elude you both is that an attack on a military asset operating in international waters is an act of war. As has been pointed out already, sanctions are hurting Iran and they are looking for a way to get support from the international community. It's not much different than when North Korea decides to launch missiles into the Pacific, only this time Iran took out a U.S. Military Asset. They wanted a retaliatory strike and wanted casualties so that they could use it as propaganda and make the U.S. "the bad guy" in all of this. Ask yourself. Why would the air fake footage of the drone attack?
A strike against certain targets such as RADAR sites or Anti-Aircraft sites would have been justified. The casualties not so much.
Face it. The President made yet another good decision.
Giving up Bolton's quest for WWIII is always a good idea, yes. Don't worry, Bolton will find a creative way to get it done, just like he found a creative way to dodge the draft in the '60s.
If Iran is developing nuclear weapons, let our lapdogs in Israel handle it. The US has no business maintaining the presence we do in the region.
Regarding the part in bold. The U.S. has a lot of business maintaining the presence we do in the region. For starters we do have allies in the region, but more importantly the strait needs to remain open and safe for travel.
For lefties that think that it's "all about the oil" well that's partially true, but not in the sense that some people think. While we import very little if any oil from the region it's still very important for our interests that the strait is safe. Imagine if Iran was able to shut it down. The cost of a barrel of oil would quickly skyrocket affecting not only our economy, but the world economy. I don't know about you but I certainly don't want to see $5.00 per gallon gas prices. I don't want to see my electric/gas bill double.
That doesn't even address Iran's nuclear program.
People need to put their phones down for a change and look at the big picture.
Pages: 1 2