add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Escalation with Iran

526christian
  • 3 months ago

So...

If you've seen pretty much any news outlet lately, you'd see that:

  • Donald Trump (the man himself) ordered an air strike on Qassem Soleimani, the leader of the Iranian Quds Force and a Major General in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.

  • This was done shortly after the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, which featured many militia (and even a few of their leaders and an Iraqi Member of Parliament) from the Popular Mobilization Forces, a loosely-organized group of primarily Shia Muslim militias — supported and effectively controlled by Iran. Until now, they mostly just fought the Islamic State.

  • Soleimani was essentially the second most important person in Iran. It'd be like if our vice president was assassinated if he was also one of the most important and effective military leaders. Despite Trump's claims that Soleimani was hated and feared, Iran has since had large protests across multiple cities against the assassination.

  • Iran, of course, is not taking this well. The Foreign Minister of Iran describes the strike as an "extremely dangerous & a foolish escalation." Iraq (which is heavily influenced by Iran) isn't taking it well either.

  • Among the others killed in the air strike include Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the Deputy Chief of the PMF and leader of Kata'ib Hezbollah (the militia that started this whole mess by firing missiles and killing an American contractor), Mohamed Reda, the Director of Protocols of the PMF, IRGC General Hussein Jaafari Naya, IRGC Major Hadi Tarmi, IRGC Colonel Shahroud Muzaffari Niya, IRGC Captain Waheed Zamanian, Mohammad Reza Al-Jabri, Director of Public Relations in the U.S. for the PMF, Qassem Soleimani's son in-law, and Imad Mughniyeh's (once second place leader of Hezbollah) son in-law.

  • Trump is also being criticized for being hypocritical after previously saying Obama would likely start a war with Iran to get re-elected... Something he very well might have just done not long before the next election. At first glance, some will also think this move was illegal without congress' approval, but we must remember that the National Security Council designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization back in April, so Trump was fully within legal right to order the air strike.

  • A few hours ago, another air strike was performed north of Baghdad targeting the Imam Ali Battalions' (another PMF militia) leader Shubul al-Zaidi, killing six PMF members. The bodies are too badly burnt for identification. Don't worry, they too were designated as terrorists earlier so that move was also legal. The PMF are currently claiming the leader was not in the convoy and that medics were hit instead, though that could easily be disinformation for all we know. At least 3 people are also critically wounded.

Now, things likely won't escalate into a big boots-on-the-ground fight. But, Iran can still retaliate. The militias under their thumb are fairly well-armed, and have access to plenty of missiles. Proxy war isn't out of the question whatsoever in Iraq and potentially even Lebanon given Hezbollah's (who are also fairly well-armed) ties to Iran, nor is missile attacks on American bases, soldiers, interests, and allies, naval operations in the Strait of Hormuz, and cyber attacks. They'll likely start having their militia allies attack American troops, and of course Israel and Saudi Arabia are at heavy risk of attacks given their alliance with the U.S. and operations against Iran. Imagine punching someone in the face and they punch your friends instead.

Thoughts and observations?

Comments

  • 3 months ago
  • 7 points

Chances are, this is not WWIII. Even if the two countries go to war, which is not unthinkable, the odds of their allies joining is very low, simply because USA is a world superpower, and, uh, nukes.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 3 months ago
  • 4 points

Oh no, I'm not brave enough for politics.

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

Dude seriously. I get that this is the “off topic” forum, but do people honestly think a politics discussion is gonna go anywhere? Do people think it’s going to change someone’s mind on anything?

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

I guess it's a point of interest with current developments. If it's brought you here it's evident enough :P

The good old USA vs IRAN finale has been on the drawing boards since the Iranian revolution in the late 70s (or was it early 80s). For me it's not about people persuasion but the deadly repurcussions that will follow if the poop hit the fan. The recent scuffle, if I can call it that, had my balls sweating lol

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

I’m only here because I was stalking the mod, ThoughtA, and reading all his recent comments lol. He removed a thread on here, so that’s how I found this. I didn’t do it in a creepy way, just trying to get a sense of what mods do on this site.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 3 months ago
  • 4 points

I can't believe anyone is surprised, it looks to me that intel actually got it right and someone pulled the trigger. We been bombing and shooting stuff there for decades, I don't see this as any different. What really irritates me is how news coverage has gone to single story coverage now, and all other news stops. I have to look at other news outlets to find any news. Its to the point I am about to toss cable/major news outlets they are so political and lacking in news selection. All weekend they talk about this and after 3 minutes of showing a burned up truck, why should I miss the rest of the world doing news stuff? I don't get it. Its not that I don't care, its that they are not telling me anything more but still wasting my time.

  • 2 months ago
  • 5 points

Its to the point I am about to toss cable/major news outlets they are so political and lacking in news selection.

Honestly you should toss them. Cable news in particular, stopped being useful around the early 90s.

  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

i'm betting this thread will be civil for about 3 hours

  • 3 months ago
  • 6 points

2 Hours, take it or leave it.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

I'm glad you're not Rick Harrison and this isn't Pawn Stars.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

tree fiddy

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

... If only you knew how shifty Tom looks irl

  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

This is just a guess, but I suspect this was done with information you would not simply find while listening to Fox News or MSNBC...

In all seriousness, when I spoke to my buddy, who is Marine and US Embassy guard, he said "This was absolutely deliberate. The attacks were the lesser of a few different situations that could have unfolded. The embassy's have had some trouble over there lately and this was a response to that. I can't go into details, but it had to be done. The US public gets about 25% of the true story, but that is many times for their own protection. Things can get bad very easily if the right info gets into the wrong civilian hands or intercepted by outside groups."

  • 3 months ago
  • 0 points

Assuming Trump is acting intelligently due to potential access to information is a generosity he hasn't earned. Bush had more information than the general public at the time and we still went to Iraq for no good reason. Nearly two decades later, here we are.

I'm sure your friend is a good and well-meaning person, and of course it was "absolutely deliberate". The rest though is a lot of assumption that is based upon giving Trump the benefit of the doubt.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

On one hand yes this was someone importent to their government.

On the other this was done in Iraq, and this is one of the people involved with orchestrating too many attacks over the years on others through Iran backed militants, ISIS forces, and Unacknowledged Iranian attacks.

I think if Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Trump pre-almost impeachment had done this it likely wouldn't be nearly as controversial.

But its Trump post-almost impeached.

But also at the same time this is someone who waged war on Americans and their allies in the area.

Iran has been waging war any way they deniably and lately even admittingly can on people for decades, so I am not surprised someone finally pulled the trigger on someone like this when given the chance.

But was it the right thing to do may never be answered.

  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

I think if Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Trump pre-almost impeachment had done this it likely wouldn't be nearly as controversial.

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/17/world/attack-iraq-overview-impeachment-vote-house-delayed-clinton-launches-iraq-air.html

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

I remember those days all to well it wasn't as bad as this is being blown up.

But the first gulf war was much fresher in people's minds as was the threat on older Bush's life and overall the information overload was much less.

Edit: Remember Clinton was the one launching cruise missiles at training camps without congressional approval. So jumping to airstrikes wasn't really all that surprising after the first few dozen camps blew up.

  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

As has been noted many times, it isn't like his location hasn't been known before. If Bush or Obama had wanted to strike him they could have, and I think you (and Trump) are underplaying how big of a strike this was. There is really no way to twist this as anything but an escalation of conflict with Iran, and it would have been so no matter who did it.

The fact that impeached (not almost) president Trump did it just makes it worse because a) it eerily echoes his false conspiratory jabbering years ago that Obama was going to attack Iran to stay in power, b) Trump has had numerous Iran warmongers in his cabinet, and c) Trump routinely shows himself to be out of his depth, duplicitous, and generally unsteady as a leader.

  • 3 months ago
  • -3 points

Iran has been openly operating against both U.S. and neighboring countries unlike in the past so all sides have been escalating this.

And they haven't impeached yet since it hasn't left the house leaving it as an almost impeachment, or discarded impeachment if they add more witnesses and have to send it back to the house for new articles.

But if politicians did their jobs properly likely none of this would have happened.

  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

The impeachment is done, the House has done it. If nothing else, at least Donald Trump being impeached is on record. They just haven't done anything since then. Pelosi is sitting fecklessly on her hands, because she knows McConnell has openly forsaken his oaths of office by declaring fealty to the President. Banana Republic.

Iran has been openly operating against both U.S. and neighboring countries unlike in the past so all sides have been escalating this.

Even if this were true it doesn't change anything I said.

  • 3 months ago
  • -2 points

The impeachment is done, the House has done it. If nothing else, at least Donald Trump being impeached is on record. They just haven't done anything since then. Pelosi is sitting fecklessly on her hands

She asked for new witnesses to be called which haven't given testimony to the house saying they make or break the impeachment.

Admitting they impeached with full knowledge that it couldn't stand on it's own shows they didn't do their job properly and at best it's a mistrial by them.

Rush job and bad results, if they had done their job correctly then they wouldn't have to worry about a fair trial and would have Trump gone.

Or better yet if Biden had properly filed the paperwork for possible conflict of interest Trump wouldn't have had any dirt to dig for.

Even if this were true it doesn't change anything I said.

Under Bush and Obama the Iranians were not supplying NBC capable launch platforms and the people to train and man those which were used against U.S. allies.

They also were not attacking neighbors with drones shutting down oil production at one of the major production sites.

Or seizing others and their own oil tankers in international waters.

This isn't the same Iran that others faced and based their decisions on.

  • 3 months ago
  • 4 points

You're misrepresenting statements, unless I've missed something grand and you can show me where Pelosi said the impeachment couldn't stand on its own as is. Schumer and others are calling for new witnesses in the eventual Senate trial, because the White House illegally stonewalled the impeachment proceedings and several witnesses were prevented from giving information. That doesn't mean there wasn't enough to impeach. That just means there could be more (as we've seen with the recent email leaks).

Rush job and bad results, if they had done their job correctly then they wouldn't have to worry about a fair trial and would have Trump gone.

You're naive if you think there is any amount of evidence that would compel Senate Republicans to convict Trump. They've declared their allegiance to Trump over their oaths of office. People like Lindsay Graham are openly refusing to even consider any evidence. The entire opposition to the impeachment hearings was a partisan sham. Republicans were protesting not having access to "secret hearings" despite some of the members protesting being a part of the committees that were having the hearings. It's utter nonsense. The constant harping on "let's bring Hunter Biden in here" had no basis being involved in the House hearings, because the hearings weren't about him. Even if there was a legal case to be made against Biden, it wouldn't have had any place in the House hearings about Trump blackmailing Ukraine, and it wouldn't be Ukraine's job to start investigations for "us" (aka as a personal favor for Trump). We have our own agencies for investigations.

Or better yet if Biden had properly filed the paperwork for possible conflict of interest Trump wouldn't have had any dirt to dig for.

There isn't any. It's smoke to cover-up Trump's blackmail. It has, at a surface level, the perception of impropriety but that is it.

Under Bush and Obama the Iranians were not supplying NBC capable launch platforms and the people to train and man those which were used against U.S. allies.

Iran has been arming and training terrorists that have fought the US and US allies long before Trump's presidency. lmfao are you kidding me?? What am I even reading right now. IF Iran had tempered slightly during Obama's presidency, that was because of ongoing diplomacy; perhaps if Trump hadn't pulled out of the nuclear deal and reenacted economic sabotage (and then assassinated one of their leaders), they wouldn't be so pissy right now.

  • 2 months ago
  • 3 points

Just checking through the conversation you are having with others.

On the other this was done in Iraq, and this is one of the people involved with orchestrating too many attacks over the years on others through Iran backed militants, ISIS forces, and Unacknowledged Iranian attacks.

But its Trump post-almost impeached.

I think if Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Trump pre-almost impeachment had done this it likely wouldn't be nearly as controversial.

And they haven't impeached yet since it hasn't left the house leaving it as an almost impeachment, or discarded impeachment if they add more witnesses and have to send it back to the house for new articles.

if they had done their job correctly then they wouldn't have to worry about a fair trial and would have Trump gone.

Or better yet if Biden had properly filed the paperwork for possible conflict of interest Trump wouldn't have had any dirt to dig for.

Under Bush and Obama the Iranians were not supplying NBC capable launch platforms and the people to train and man those which were used against U.S. allies.

Iran never supplied ballistic weapons and the manpower to train, service, and man those weapons before, or allowed them to be used against other Arab nations.

This is the senate hearing testimony that the house hasn't though, and can't be added to the articles of impeachment which have already been drafted by the house.

Both violated oaths of office so they are much the same with different levels of severity.

This is all rubbish. You are just making things up as you go along and you have no idea what you are talking about.

  • 2 months ago
  • -3 points

This is all rubbish. You are just making things up as you go along and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Possible but much of it is also known to be true whether rubbish or not.

On the other this was done in Iraq,

Which it was.

and this is one of the people involved with orchestrating too many attacks over the years on others through Iran backed militants, ISIS forces, and Unacknowledged Iranian attacks.

Also known to be true.

But its Trump post-almost impeached.

He's still in office for the worse.

I think if Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Trump pre-almost impeachment had done this it likely wouldn't be nearly as controversial.

Which I do having been through Clinton's airstrikes during that impeachment.

And they haven't impeached yet since it hasn't left the house leaving it as an almost impeachment, or discarded impeachment if they add more witnesses and have to send it back to the house for new articles.

This is the senate hearing testimony that the house hasn't though, and can't be added to the articles of impeachment which have already been drafted by the house.

If they add new charges the entire process has to start over at the beginning which has been well established throughout this thread.

if they had done their job correctly then they wouldn't have to worry about a fair trial and would have Trump gone.

Very true, this is the single most scrutinized use of our form of justice and they have openly admitted to leaving out evidence.

This isn't the kind of thing "Gud Nuf to convict" should be an option, and they promised it wouldn't be, and didn't deliver on the promise of new evidence, and cut corners.

Or better yet if Biden had properly filed the paperwork for possible conflict of interest Trump wouldn't have had any dirt to dig for.

That is the law for anyone at that level of government for reasons such as this, it keeps people from digging for dirt on government officials and employees, and keeps others from using that dirt as leverage against those officials.

Under Bush and Obama the Iranians were not supplying NBC capable launch platforms and the people to train and man those which were used against U.S. allies.

Iran never supplied ballistic weapons and the manpower to train, service, and man those weapons before, or allowed them to be used against other Arab nations.

The Saudis have had short range ballistic missiles launched at them by Iranian backed militants.

The missiles were Iranian variants of the Soviet "SCUD" missiles designed for all manner of payloads conventional or otherwise, making this a massive step up in what manner of equipment is being supplied by Iran to militants.

Both violated oaths of office so they are much the same with different levels of severity.

Any members of the House or Senate or the president that side with party lines over the law violate their oaths of office to uphold the law.

  • 2 months ago
  • 4 points

This is all rubbish. You are just making things up as you go along and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Possible but

  • 2 months ago
  • -3 points

Rather then take out of context to troll finish the rest.

much of it is also known to be true whether rubbish or not.

If they want to believe I am making it up as they go it's there right to do so.

Just as it is yours to quote out of context.

So keep letting your hatred consume you just don't become what you hate in doing so.

  • 2 months ago
  • 5 points

Well it was pretty funny to read. Honestly even finishing it with "much of it is also known to be true" doesn't really help since "much of it" tells us that at least SOME of it is made up.

But now I'm needlessly nitpicking because we already know you're making **** up. Because, again, the Senate doesn't vote on the impeachment evidence, as you asserted. New evidence that corroborates an impeachment does not require going back to the House to redraft said impeachment, as you asserted. In regards to Senators wanting witnesses at the Senate trial, you also said "By law they don't get a say in that it is up to the house to gather all the evidence which they failed to do", which is also false.

So keep letting your hatred consume you just don't become what you hate in doing so.

Nice.

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

Possible but much of it is also known to be true whether rubbish or not.

Just stop. The margin of error is too big to suggest improbability.

Some of it is opinion which being opinion is only that.

Inquisitive opinions are acceptable which should be made very clear with a question mark. You are misrepresenting the facts, misleading the reader and then absolving yourself with disregard (not to mention, spewing more and more rubbish).

Just STOP!

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

You are misrepresenting the facts, misleading the reader and then absolving yourself with disregard

Where in that list of things you made or the answers I responded with did I do that?

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

I did not make a list of things. Each of those points were made by you which were then compiled together without distortion.

As for misrepresenting, misleading and absolving yourself with disregard, you have to be kidding. m52nickerson and gorkti200 have been charitable enough with their time and effort in rectifying your blunders. If you haven't made sense of their efforts already, this is considered borderline stupidity.

Just STOP! should be clear enough not to feed the disingenuous ambiguity any further.

  • 2 months ago
  • -2 points

oh not you again... lmao

Captain Gilroar of the blue armies. What mischief are you spreading now? I recall looking for you at some point but on the wrong hardware forums.

On the other this was done in Iraq, and this is one of the people involved with orchestrating too many attacks over the years on others through Iran backed militants, ISIS forces, and Unacknowledged Iranian attacks.

The deceased orchestrated attacks through ISIS forces? LMAO. You should have stuck with your Intel incentive day job. When did Unacknowledged Iranian attacks become Iranian attacks. Its like saying "we don't know if she ate my apple but she ate my apple".

I gotto shoot but keep me in the loop.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Trump has information we don't have. Maybe just maybe if we had that information we might understand why he ordered the attack. All the rest is pure speculation.

  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

Maybe just maybe if we had that information we might understand why he ordered the attack.

-speculates that we may agree with the acts if we had more info

All the rest is pure speculation.

-dismisses everything else beyond his own speculation, for being merely speculation

good job well played

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

Common folk don't need to know these petty details Gork... but we will need you in the upcoming conflict to absorb some bullets.

  • 2 months ago
  • 3 points

I'm too old for this ****!

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

Which is correct. He is the President of the most powerful info vault and intelligence service turf in the world.

The problem is #individual competency. For short/long term American interests will he make the right decisions. I'm a cynic.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

See Y'all At The Draft

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

To be fair, it’s not very likely there would be a draft even if we went to war. The US military has been entirely volunteer since the war in Vietnam. During Nixon’s presidency, the whole law expired and the government chose not to create an extension because of how unpopular the Vietnam War was.

  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

I know. I just like playing along with the memes. I turn 18 today and registered for the draft about 2 weeks ago, so it's still relevant to me.

Happy birthday to me

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Hey, congratulations on turning 18! I remember a couple days ago when this whole thing started, and the memes were the first thing I saw when I woke up. It was a little bit terrifying, not going to lie.

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

Gracias

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

laughs in 16

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

There are several situations where if we went to war, a draft would be likely. War with China, being the most likely.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Hard to imagine a draft being likely in any situation. Why do you think a war with China would likely necessitate or cause a draft?

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

War with China would likely necessitate a draft due to its probable severity. In less than a week we would have casualties exceed that of the Vietnam war due to China's anti-ship ballistic missile tactics. Our Navy would certainly suffer high loss of life, even though we would still hold a strong advantage.

Total manpower involved would be similar to that of WWII. While we do have a large standing military and reserves, I see it unlikely being sufficient to combat China with a high probability of success. Now, a draft is far from certain, depending on how the cards fall. It could be that between us and India, we'd win that war far sooner and with less overall casualties that if we didn't have that key support.

  • 2 months ago
  • 3 points

I think that an open war with China (or any nuclear nation) would involve far less troops and much more mass death for the entire world lol. Let's hope it never comes to it. (Idk why you were downvoted for this post so I upvoted you.)

  • 3 months ago
  • -1 points

laughs in vietnamese since we've already stroke y'all down

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

I want to take the bait but I know anything I want to respond with will get deleted by staff/

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

The reason why he did this was because he got impeached. The was actually a very smart move. Leaders of other countries would take President Trump's impeachment as a sign of weakness in power. He had to show that we have no weakness as a country, so he made this move. This is why he merely prevented a war - not caused it.

  • 3 months ago
  • 4 points

Escalating tensions with Iran by blowing up an international airport to kill one of their top government officials and then threatening them multiple times on twitter and sending more troops to the Middle East is preventing a war? Sounds like he’s starting one to me.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

he merely prevented a war

Gonna have to explain who was about to declare a war that he prevented.

  • 3 months ago
  • -1 points

Iran and the US were sketchy for a period of time. Iranian people were coming up to the border, they shot down a US drone etc. Then, on December 27, Kataib Hezbollah ( who is in contact and has ties with Iran ) killed an American contractor and wounded many Americans. Trump responded to this, and sent an airstrike to Iran. After this, on December 31, Iran attacked the US Embassy in Iraq. Then President Trump sent another airstrike, this time killing Suleimani. It was confirmed by the US Intelligence Agency that Suleimani was planning attacks on the US.

Iran was going to attack us. They were building up to it. The airstrike was to show not to mess with America- a warning. Trump is a very aggressive president, but all of his action are to protect us.

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

Your facts are all messed up. For starters, Iran and the US have been sketchy for over 40 years. We've dabbled in toppling their government at least twice, and were part of installing their current government.

Iranian people were coming up to the border, they shot down a US drone etc.

What "border", this is so ambiguous. Do you mean the US drone that was shot down on their border? That was six months ago and has nothing to do with recent events.

Then, on December 27, Kataib Hezbollah ( who is in contact and has ties with Iran ) killed an American contractor and wounded many Americans. Trump responded to this, and sent an airstrike to Iran.

Trump did not airstrike Iran. The airstrike was on compounds in Iraq, and Syria, that were affiliated with terrorist groups such as Kataib Hezbollah.

After this, on December 31, Iran attacked the US Embassy in Iraq.

"Iran" did not attack the US Embassy. Iraqi militiamen and protesters who support Kataib Hezbollah "attacked" it (note that this was NOT a military strike).

Then President Trump sent another airstrike, this time killing Suleimani. It was confirmed by the US Intelligence Agency that Suleimani was planning attacks on the US.

Iran was going to attack us. They were building up to it.

Now let's consider why this is ********. Why would Iran openly attack us, now? They have no hope of winning an open conflict with us and nothing to gain with bringing that heat down on them. And it doesn't fit their MO, which is plausible deniability and sowing discord and chaos by letting proxies do the fighting. Kataib Hezbollah has attacked the US in the past many times; why would we decide that this time we must airstrike one of Iran's top generals? This group is an Iraqi group. We've targeted its own leadership before.

There is no other way to read this than to be trying to bait Iran into a retaliatory strike. Trump has been trying to dump hundreds of billions onto the DoD budget since he first took office. He's removed all the cooler heads from his cabinet and has several Iran warmongers on board. But we struck them first, openly. If Iran assassinated our SecDef or one of the Joint Chiefs, we would be calling it an act of war.

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm no the smartest because I'm 13, but just because WW3 is trending on every social platform, when u think about it realistically I dont think it will happen because its just America and Iran going at it, and our allies such as Australia and Canada are not looking to go to war when you look at it.

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

Observations: two earth quakes and a Boeing aircraft crash AND they won't hand over the black box to Boeing!??!?! All in the past 24 hours!?!? Also the stampede resulting in 50 deaths?!?!

  • 3 months ago
  • 0 points

Trump's false bravado here will merely get more American soldiers killed and more foreign civilians killed. Even if a new war front doesn't open up, he just guaranteed our forever war keeps on keepin' on. Lockheed, Raytheon, and Northrop Gumman stocks are looking good tho.

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

Imagine buying in to them to profit off all of this.. Lives of your fellow brothers and sisters laid down for flash watches (and re-election campaigns)..

  • 3 months ago
  • -2 points

OK SO.... trump blew up some guys, they are going to launch a counterattack. then we destroy Iran, because the US has a large arsenal, then Russia gets involved and it turns into WW3. see you all after the nuclear fallout!

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

I would be far more worried if china gets involved. If this escalates between Iran and the US to where it completely stops oil and gas exports from Iran then it is possible (small chance) china may step in as they rely on Iran for those exports. Of course it would mean world leaders will need to swallow their pride and work things out (ideal outcome) to avoid making things worse. Though I cannot see Trump swallowing his ego/pride even for a brief moment.

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

Deleting this subthread since it's gone off topic, isn't really going anywhere, and perhaps isn't quite the discussion to have here.

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

Comments like this are not appropriate for this site.

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube