Aramco facilities on fire in Saudi Arabia

[Setton]

44 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

HUH ? I'm talking about Iran, not Syria ? 

Alright, Iran led much of the fight against ISIS. You wouldn't read about it in our news of course but they pretty much turned the tide in Iraq. 

By your logic, as you oppose Iran, you must support their enemies. 

Why are you supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation that has killed dozens of our countrymen?

Or will you admit your logic is full of holes? 

[Only_]

2 hours ago, and then said:

I think he will resist going to war until Americans are actually killed in theater. 

 

Terrorist attacks have already been made in the U.S. and Europe but they come a group funded by Saudi Arabia, not Iran.

Edited September 22, 2019 by crookedspiral

[Only_]

2 hours ago, crookedspiral said:

Terrorist attacks have already been made in the U.S. and Europe but they came a group funded by Saudi Arabia, not Iran.

 

[+joc]

6 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

That's what your support of attempts to destabilize Syria and turn it into another failed country like Libya amounts to.

Hey!  WAKE UP!

it was inherently, totally, HILLARY CLINTON

[+and-then]

5 hours ago, crookedspiral said:

Terrorist attacks have already been made in the U.S. and Europe but they come a group funded by Saudi Arabia, not Iran.

Did a Saudi hurt one of your dogs or insult your sister?  Man, SA does what they do but they aren't threatening to remove a member nation of the UN or calling for the death of America - at least not their government.  I think you like to equivocate because Iran's actions cannot be defended rationally or honestly.  If you believe that a radical, terror financing, fundamentalist Theocratic government with nukes is no problem then I'd have to wonder about your priorities.

You are essentially arguing that because we have dealings one Islamic regime, we must accept all others no matter their actions or threats.  That isn't rational.  Why not explain why you believe Iran should get a pass when they have been proven (to everyone NOT prone to believing CTs) to be attacking global energy access rather than deflecting back to another bad actor, instead.  

[+and-then]

18 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Some places have a :jawdrop: emoticon. This would be just the place for one here.

Maybe you could find one and get UM to adopt it.  Do you honestly believe that the use of nukes won't be a part of our future?  Nukes played a role in keeping the two biggest alpha predators on the planet on a leash because neither of those populations were suicidal by nature.  This has all changed with the ascendency of Islamic fundamentalism in the world.  I guess you are too uncomfortable to admit even the possibility that Iran or Pakistan would ever do something as insane or suicidal as using a nuke on their enemies.

I don't labor under such fears.  I actually expect someone in the M.E. to cause them to be used or to use them first.  Of course, considering your apparent unwavering support for Islamists, regardless of their actions, I shouldn't be surprised.  It's difficult to deal with truth bumping up against firmly held prejudices.  

I'll repeat my stance.  Even if we had to RISK a nuke exchange with Russia to get rid of Iran's nuke program it would be acceptable.  The alternative is to allow yet another fanatical regime to hold a deadly threat over America and the rest of the west - including your little patch of paradise.

[+and-then]

7 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

And meanwhile, more idiotic propaganda, this time from the Wall Street Journal:

The Houthis have held SA to a stalemate only because Arabs tend to be sub-par war-fighters.  Even so, I'm sure they'd love to stop the dying and they may well realize that Iran's moves could bring the U.S. into the fray and on the ground CLOSE enough to finish them.  I wouldn't call the reported move idiotic at all.  

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

14 hours ago, and then said:

I think he will resist going to war until Americans are actually killed in theater. 

You have a lot of faith in the warmongers in Washington that re itching for war. That's all I can say.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

13 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

they where IRANIAN forces within Iraq. Remind me again.. what right does Iran have to insert military forces into Iraq ? 

No more or less right for USA to have troops in Syria. It's all the same crap. certain people want WAR. 

[RoofGardener]

11 hours ago, Setton said:

Alright, Iran led much of the fight against ISIS. You wouldn't read about it in our news of course but they pretty much turned the tide in Iraq. 

By your logic, as you oppose Iran, you must support their enemies. 

Why are you supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation that has killed dozens of our countrymen?

Or will you admit your logic is full of holes? 

It is WAY more complex and nuanced than that, @Setton. As for "....as you oppose Iran, you must support their enemies..", may I remind you of an old Arab saying ? 

"The enemy of my enemy is my enemies enemy, and nothing more".  

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

13 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

the Houthis themselves are blowing the whistle on their biggest supporters because they're so horrified and appalled at what they're planning to do? Even to the most undiscriminating among you, you must surely pause to wonder how daft that sounds.  

^{Absolutely. Look at how they falsely painted Hussein in Iraq. Same crap here.}

[RoofGardener]

10 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

No more or less right for USA to have troops in Syria. It's all the same crap. certain people want WAR. 

Hmmm... true of course. However, bear in mind that they where working alongside  the United Kingdom,  France,  Jordan,  Turkey,  Canada,  Australia,   Bahrain,  Jordan,  Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. So it's not as though the US went in unilaterally. There WAS a considerable degree of international sanction for their actions. 

That does not NECESSARILY make it right, but it's not as  though they just rolled in like Iran has. 

Edited September 23, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmmm... true of course. However, bear in mind that they where working alongside  the United Kingdom, France, Jordan, Turkey, Canada, Australia,  Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. So it's not as though the US went in unilaterally. 

Let's look at historically, speaking of Iraq... What right did the US have to invade Iraq and totally destabilize it by taking out their leader? Now that Iran goes into Iraq with a few troops, it's Armageddon.    Really!?

And what right does the US have to be in Afghanistan?  When the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, the US led a boycott in the Moscow Olympics.

Make sense?

[RoofGardener]

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Let's look at historically, speaking of Iraq... What right did the US have to invade Iraq and totally destabilize it by taking out their leader? Now that Iran goes into Iraq with a few troops, it's Armageddon.    Really!?

And what right does the US have to be in Afghanistan?  When the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, the US led a boycott in the Moscow Olympics.

Make sense?

Well, Iraq's leader invaded Kuwait. The international community kicked him out by military force, and then imposed terms on him. He didn't uphold those terms, so he was removed from power. 

As for Afghanistan; it was ruled by the Taliban, a VERY nasty government. They refused to surrender Bin Laden, so the marines went in. 

If it had been almost anybody else, I would have objected. However, at the time I was more than happy to see the Taliban removed from power, if only temporarily. 

[Space Commander Travis]

"Saudi Arabia Drone Attacks: Johnson Refuses to Rule Out Military Action", says a headline. So not only is he anxious to be the US President's Best Buddy (understandably perhaps), now he wants to be Saudi Arabia's loyal poodle as well? 

[Space Commander Travis]

18 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, Iraq's leader invaded Kuwait. The international community kicked him out by military force, and then imposed terms on him. He didn't uphold those terms, so he was removed from power. 

As for Afghanistan; it was ruled by the Taliban, a VERY nasty government. They refused to surrender Bin Laden, so the marines went in. 

If it had been almost anybody else, I would have objected. However, at the time I was more than happy to see the Taliban removed from power, if only temporarily. 

but all those, whatever (thin) justification may have been to begin with, they all show that the most confident predictions (that once the Regime^TM is removed, the population will be so happy that they'll welcome the overthrowers with flowers and chocolates) never happens as predicted, does it. The people always seem, entirely unreasonably, to resent their country being attacked and resist those who've attacked it. It's exactly - exactly - the same with Iran now. People are so suavely saying that "we just need to overthrow the Regime^TM , i don't think the people will resent it too much"; it's never happened yet, but people are still confident that it will happen this time?

 

[Space Commander Travis]

35 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmmm... true of course. However, bear in mind that they where working alongside  the United Kingdom,  France,  Jordan,  Turkey,  Canada,  Australia,   Bahrain,  Jordan,  Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. So it's not as though the US went in unilaterally. There WAS a considerable degree of international sanction for their actions. 

That does not NECESSARILY make it right, but it's not as  though they just rolled in like Iran has. 

so you don't believe that Iran's assistance was welcomed by the government of Syria ? Or are the opinions of the government of Syria irrelevant, since Assad: Dictator! therefore his opinions don't count? 

[Space Commander Travis]

14 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

In regards Iraq... they where IRANIAN forces within Iraq. Remind me again.. what right does Iran have to insert military forces into Iraq ? 

You do know that Iran, thanks to the incompetence of the current US Administration, which really does make Bush II look like Franklin D, Roosevelt, is now friendly towards Iraq, and its forces are in fact cooperating with the Iraqis to fight the US/Saudi/Israel-backed terrorist forces? 

[RAyMO]

32 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

"Saudi Arabia Drone Attacks: Johnson Refuses to Rule Out Military Action", says a headline. So not only is he anxious to be the US President's Best Buddy (understandably perhaps), now he wants to be Saudi Arabia's loyal poodle as well? 

UK has no choice - it needs friends and the quicker the better - direct result of its own policies means it will get involved where previously involvement could have been avoided.

[RoofGardener]

37 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

You do know that Iran, thanks to the incompetence of the current US Administration, which really does make Bush II look like Franklin D, Roosevelt, is now friendly towards Iraq, and its forces are in fact cooperating with the Iraqis to fight the US/Saudi/Israel-backed terrorist forces? 

Hmm.. well that makes sense. Iraq is composed of a Sunni elite controlling a Shia majority. That is perfect fertile ground for Iranian insurrection. It wouldn't surprise me if - in a few years - the two countries merge to become Greater Iran, or perhaps Persia ? 

[RoofGardener]

51 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

so you don't believe that Iran's assistance was welcomed by the government of Syria ? Or are the opinions of the government of Syria irrelevant, since Assad: Dictator! therefore his opinions don't count? 

Yup.. that's about the size of it. Evil Bad Dictator, therefore opinions don't count. 

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Or are the opinions of the government of Syria irrelevant,

I agree that Iran was invited into Syria.  Assad was facing the end of his regime in short order when Russia and Iran came to the rescue.  Now he's a puppet to both of them and since Iran is flying armed drones around in Syria without the courtesy of telling their good friends in Damascus (The Syrians shot one down a couple of days ago) I'd say Iran's leaders don't care much what Assad wants.  They, like America, Britain and every other sovereign nation, don't have friends, they have interests and their help was to pave the way for a bridgehead on Israel's border.  Soleimani figured he would duplicate the Hizballah success in Lebanon to Syrian territory.  Those pesky Jews kept breaking his stuff and killing his experts though.  He finally had to decamp and move his operations farther away into Iraq.  Apparently, Israeli aircraft are causing much of THAT plan to go BOOM! as well.  

 

2 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

People are so suavely saying that "we just need to overthrow the Regime^TM , i don't think the people will resent it too much"; it's never happened yet, but people are still confident that it will happen this time?

Some of the Hawks may be trying that tired old line but most of the commentary I've seen points to having very limited, achievable goals that do not include any kind of invasion of Iran.  The first rule of air dominance and the application of air power in general is that you cannot control territory unless you have "boots on the ground".  The only significant threat Iran poses to the U.S. is its nuclear ambitions.  They won't be stopped forever but they can damned well be slowed.  Air power CAN accomplish that goal.  

If Iran chooses to try to launch on our troops in theater, they'll experience their own version of mission-creep.  Let's just say it will be a bad day to be IRGC.  If they really go all in and start launching at the Little Satan as well, I expect Israel will launch an air campaign of their own and concentrate on eradicating the Hizballah along with a generous portion of southern Lebanon.  Gaza may not escape, either.

[DarkHunter]

Earlier today at the UN general assembly the UK, France, and Germany issued a joint statement saying that it's clear Iran is responsible for the attack on Saudi Arabia.  Tomorrow Trump is expected to mention Iran during his speech and if rumors hold true America and Saudi Arabia will be presenting their evidence of the attack at some point during this general assembly.

[Only_]

4 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Earlier today at the UN general assembly the UK, France, and Germany issued a joint statement saying that it's clear Iran is responsible for the attack on Saudi Arabia.  Tomorrow Trump is expected to mention Iran during his speech and if rumors hold true America and Saudi Arabia will be presenting their evidence of the attack at some point during this general assembly.

Not surprising. The UK, France and Germany are the lap-dogs of the U.S.

Edited September 24, 2019 by crookedspiral

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, crookedspiral said:

Not surprising. The UK, France and Germany are the lap-dogs of the U.S.

No... that is what we call ALLIES.  Support goes both ways.  Except for the world you inhabit, I guess.