U.S. air strike kills top Iranian military general and Iraqi commander at Baghdad’s international airport

[inane]

17 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

They likely could have taken him out with a bullet but there were other targets in the group as well. The deterrence aspect could not be minimalized. The Americans have been after this guy for years so mission accomplished. Once again the failed Democrat policy in the ME is exposed. Syria was no different. 

It's so funny seeing people play the left right republican democrat bs. Like the middle East hasn't been a failure politically for decades if not centuries. 

 

So easy to just go tribalism I guess. 

[RUPERTKBD]

49 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

They likely could have taken him out with a bullet but there were other targets in the group as well. The deterrence aspect could not be minimalized. The Americans have been after this guy for years so mission accomplished. Once again the failed Democrat policy in the ME is exposed. Syria was no different. 

Yes. Things are so much better now than they were when the US and Iran had a signed nuclear agreement.

[Boudrias]

40 minutes ago, inane said:

It's so funny seeing people play the left right republican democrat bs. Like the middle East hasn't been a failure politically for decades if not centuries. 

 

So easy to just go tribalism I guess. 

Your right. 

[Boudrias]

6 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Yes. Things are so much better now than they were when the US and Iran had a signed nuclear agreement.

I am assuming that the nuclear deal was not stopping the Iranians from developing weapons. I can certainly understand why they would want that deterrence against the Saudis. IMHO the Saudis are no more trustworthy.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

5 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

I am assuming that the nuclear deal was not stopping the Iranians from developing weapons. I can certainly understand why they would want that deterrence against the Saudis. IMHO the Saudis are no more trustworthy.

Ask the Ukraine (as a deterrent against Poutine).

[RUPERTKBD]

6 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

I am assuming that the nuclear deal was not stopping the Iranians from developing weapons. I can certainly understand why they would want that deterrence against the Saudis. IMHO the Saudis are no more trustworthy.

You certainly are. Unfortunately, everyone except Donald Trump and his sycophantic supporters disagrees with you...

 

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-04/news/iaea-says-iran-abiding-nuclear-deal

 

Edit: Further to that, Iran stopped complying with the Nuclear deal, after the US backed out of it. This, despite the efforts of the other signatories, ( UK, France, Russia, China, Germany and the EU) who urged them to continue compliance, even in the face of US sanctions.

 

So I'll ask again: How is the situation "better" now than it was during the previous administration?

Edited January 9, 2020 by RUPERTKBD

[JM_]

14 hours ago, SabreFan1 said:

 

Name a modern US president that hasn't directly or indirectly assassinated a foreign figure.  You'll have a tougher time than you think you will.

 

It's just much easier to do these days with drones and real-time spy satellites.

I suppose thats why many countries scoff at the US when it tells others to follow the rule of law. 

 

Sulemani was a total p.o.s., no doubt. But its hard not to look at it, given the weak-ass attempt at justification by Trumps admin, as something done for political gain. We'll see if that came at the cost of a plane load of innocent people. 

[BPA]

All this shows is that the old adage is true.  Might makes Right.

 

It's time for Canada to beef up its military.  Cuz when push comes to shove, who's gonna have our backs?

[HI5]

Ukrainian jet that crashed in Tehran 'WAS hit by an Iranian missile in what was likely an accident, Pentagon and US intelligence officials say' 
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7868035/Ukrainian-airliner-TURNED-crashed-near-Tehran-killing-176.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead
 

[SabreFan1]

5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I suppose thats why many countries scoff at the US when it tells others to follow the rule of law. 

 

Sulemani was a total p.o.s., no doubt. But its hard not to look at it, given the weak-ass attempt at justification by Trumps admin, as something done for political gain. We'll see if that came at the cost of a plane load of innocent people. 

I'd think Trump did it so in the open for political reasons.  I think it was carried out because the Iranian general was an evil person and the highest level person in Iran that could be assassinated without actually breaking international law.

 

Trump wanted to send a message to Iran to stop f***ing around with US interests and the US embassy in Iraq and he got that message across loud and clear.  He at least accomplished what he set out to do.

Edited January 9, 2020 by SabreFan1

[SabreFan1]

4 hours ago, HI5 said:

Ukrainian jet that crashed in Tehran 'WAS hit by an Iranian missile in what was likely an accident, Pentagon and US intelligence officials say' 
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7868035/Ukrainian-airliner-TURNED-crashed-near-Tehran-killing-176.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead

I'll bet my initial suspicions were correct.  An Iranian soldier with a hair trigger finger manning a missile battery thought he heard a US warplane and fired before realizing it was a 737.  All the missile had to do is clip a wing and set the fuel stored in the wing on fire and the plane would have come down ablaze.

[JM_]

56 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

I'd think Trump did it so in the open for political reasons.  I think it was carried out because the Iranian general was an evil person and the highest level person in Iran that could be assassinated without actually breaking international law.

 

Trump wanted to send a message to Iran to stop f***ing around with US interests and the US embassy in Iraq and he got that message across loud and clear.  He at least accomplished what he set out to do.

but the US &^@#s with other countries interests, so what message does that send? you guys are above the law? (and we're not arguing about Sulemani, hes garbage).

[SabreFan1]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

but the US &^@#s with other countries interests, so what message does that send? you guys are above the law? (and we're not arguing about Sulemani, hes garbage).

 

I've said it before on here, the US is for all intents and purposes an empire.  For the most part, the US is very benevolent, especially when compared to every other empire that existed before.

 

You don't always get "fair" when dealing with nations that are stronger than you.  The US isn't interested in "fair".  The US is interested in what's best for the US.  That's how it should be.  It's not up to the US to try and turn the world into a happy utopia where everyone gets along and has an equal say in everything.  That's fantasy and against human nature.

 

Add to that the western world has ceded it's security to the US military umbrella so they can have nice domestic programs like universal healthcare and generous public social programs.  That more or less forces the US into a "police" role. 

 

Now add in a new leader with new agendas and beliefs on how to get things done gets elected every 4-8 years.

[JM_]

47 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

 

I've said it before on here, the US is for all intents and purposes an empire.  For the most part, the US is very benevolent, especially when compared to every other empire that existed before.

 

You don't always get "fair" when dealing with nations that are stronger than you.  The US isn't interested in "fair".  The US is interested in what's best for the US.  That's how it should be.  It's not up to the US to try and turn the world into a happy utopia where everyone gets along and has an equal say in everything.  That's fantasy and against human nature.

 

Add to that the western world has ceded it's security to the US military umbrella so they can have nice domestic programs like universal healthcare and generous public social programs.  That more or less forces the US into a "police" role. 

 

Now add in a new leader with new agendas and beliefs on how to get things done gets elected every 4-8 years.

what say would any country have had in that? the US was going to build its military machine out of scale of everyone else no matter what. 

 

You guys could have come to your senses and had similar social programs btw. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[SabreFan1]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

what say would any country have had in that?

That's a silly way of looking at it. 

 

Post WW2, much of the rest of the western world went on cruise control with what they had militarily while incrementally upgrading.  Then in the early 90's, post Cold War, much of the rest of the western world began to actively let their militaries deteriorate over time.  That wasn't happenstance, it was their active choice.  At that point the western world put itself in position to mostly watch what the US does on the world stage rather than actively participate.

 

Most people in the US want the rest of the west to beef their militaries back up and join in defending the West's way of life.  Even Trump has been pounding the table about everyone else modernizing their armed forces and upping their military spending.

 

Quote

the US was going to build its military machine out of scale of everyone else no matter what.

Absolutely, and why wouldn't the US have done that?  The US was once a manufacturing powerhouse with a population that worked their butts off and doggedly pursued technological advances while competing with the USSR.  Nowadays the US competes to stay ahead of both Russia and China technologically and militarily.

 

Quote

You guys could have come to your senses and had similar social programs btw. 

As a country the US still works hard.  Our GDP is over 21 Trillion dollars.  We easily still could have very similar social programs as others without giving up our military advantage if we stopped giving out trillion dollar tax cuts every so often.

[Boudrias]

11 hours ago, SabreFan1 said:

That's a silly way of looking at it. 

 

Post WW2, much of the rest of the western world went on cruise control with what they had militarily while incrementally upgrading.  Then in the early 90's, post Cold War, much of the rest of the western world began to actively let their militaries deteriorate over time.  That wasn't happenstance, it was their active choice.  At that point the western world put itself in position to mostly watch what the US does on the world stage rather than actively participate.

 

Most people in the US want the rest of the west to beef their militaries back up and join in defending the West's way of life.  Even Trump has been pounding the table about everyone else modernizing their armed forces and upping their military spending.

 

Absolutely, and why wouldn't the US have done that?  The US was once a manufacturing powerhouse with a population that worked their butts off and doggedly pursued technological advances while competing with the USSR.  Nowadays the US competes to stay ahead of both Russia and China technologically and militarily.

 

As a country the US still works hard.  Our GDP is over 21 Trillion dollars.  We easily still could have very similar social programs as others without giving up our military advantage if we stopped giving out trillion dollar tax cuts every so often.

I agree with your assessment. To an extent I think the USA has let their allies off from their deteriorating militaries for the sake of geographic proximity and access. Technological improvements have to a large degree nullified that need. The American advantage continues to grow. POTUS Trump has moved away from the globalist approach that past administrations had, both GOP and Dem. His America first approach threatens the globalist ideals of world government and a massive transfer of wealth. 

Globalism in itself is not necessarily a bad goal but the method is what has caused division.

 

Sulaimani killing:

1) The Democrats have truly shown how low they can go in an effort to defeat Trump. They and their MSM allies have once again shown the American people what they are. 

2) SAM rocket takes out Ukraine airliner: You have to ask why? a) Was there someone on that plane the Iranian government wanted to eliminate? A lot of the passengers were Iranian intellectual ex-pats. Were there leaders in the anti government forces on that plane? b) Was the Iranian government sending a message to the Americans about how far they would go? c) A trigger happy SAM crew? A SAM base next to Bagdad airport sees dozens of planes a day. Why did this one become a perceived threat?

3) Stability of the Iranian government: Suggestions now that the Iranian government deliberately 'delivered' Sulaimani to the Americans. Suggested that Sulaimani was plotting a coup with his IRGC. Over 170 IRGC commanders have been arrested over the past few months and 56 were arrested the day Sulaimani was killed. Iran has faced numerous freedom riots over the past 10 years. This predates Trump but the Trump economic blockade has seriously weakened the existing government.   

 

[JM_]

12 hours ago, SabreFan1 said:

That's a silly way of looking at it. 

 

Post WW2, much of the rest of the western world went on cruise control with what they had militarily while incrementally upgrading.  Then in the early 90's, post Cold War, much of the rest of the western world began to actively let their militaries deteriorate over time.  That wasn't happenstance, it was their active choice.  At that point the western world put itself in position to mostly watch what the US does on the world stage rather than actively participate.

 

Most people in the US want the rest of the west to beef their militaries back up and join in defending the West's way of life.  Even Trump has been pounding the table about everyone else modernizing their armed forces and upping their military spending.

 

Absolutely, and why wouldn't the US have done that?  The US was once a manufacturing powerhouse with a population that worked their butts off and doggedly pursued technological advances while competing with the USSR.  Nowadays the US competes to stay ahead of both Russia and China technologically and militarily.

 

As a country the US still works hard.  Our GDP is over 21 Trillion dollars.  We easily still could have very similar social programs as others without giving up our military advantage if we stopped giving out trillion dollar tax cuts every so often.

the 'wests way of life'? most of your country's military activities in the last 20 years has been wasting 100s of billions moving sand in the middle east, which contributed nothing to preserving the wests way of life.

 

Most people work hard, its not unique to the US in any way whatsoever. 

[SabreFan1]

18 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the 'wests way of life'? most of your country's military activities in the last 20 years has been wasting 100s of billions moving sand in the middle east, which contributed nothing to preserving the wests way of life.

It's the mere existence and willingness to use the US military that helps preserve the West's way of life.  If it didn't exist, the world would be a very different place.

 

Quote

Most people work hard, its not unique to the US in any way whatsoever. 

Sure. 

 

The USA set itself up to be great on the world stage when it was mostly just a bunch of outcast immigrants.  People came here to give their children and descendants a better life.  The children and descendants then picked up the ball and ran with it and created an empire.  When you create an empire, that usually means you worked smarter and harder than everyone else.

[JM_]

15 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

It's the mere existence and willingness to use the US military that helps preserve the West's way of life.  If it didn't exist, the world would be a very different place.

 

Sure. 

 

The USA set itself up to be great on the world stage when it was mostly just a bunch of outcast immigrants.  People came here to give their children and descendants a better life.  The children and descendants then picked up the ball and ran with it and created an empire.  When you create an empire, that usually means you worked smarter and harder than everyone else.

immigrants do that everywhere buddy. Wow you really are on an arrogant streak these days. 

 

Go ahead and believe that the 6+trillion the US spent killing nearly a million people in the middle east was a good idea and somehow preserved the world, but nothing good has come from it.

[Tortorella's Rant]

If this aggression was being dealt towards the Saudis I would be more in favor of it. Those scumbags need to be taught a lesson.