Trump avoids escalating crisis after Iranian missile attacks

[elmrfudd]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Nice try. Trump threatened not to leave Iraq unless the US got paid. So now the US is potentially an occupying power. Good way to rile up the Iraqis and add to the danger to troops stationed there.

And how exactly does Iraq win by paying for that infrastructure? Will the limit on its credit cards be upped?

You seem quite emotionally triggered by this problem. Trump didn't start the mess, Obama did nothing but make it much worse as well as the Washington DC elites. somehow you think the man you hate with such unbridled emotion 

Who wants out permanently is the bad guy here. It is truly laughable how you twist everything to the orange man bad routine. 

 

You also seem to think the other Iran backed militia people killed in the attack were somehow legitimate military officials. They were proxies. They helped to kill some isis people with overwhelming air power from the usa. They would and did turn straight back to attacking the us. 

 

 

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

Such nonsense? What planet are you living on? Why is that Qassem Soleimani could come and go at Baghdad airport so freely? Why was he with a high ranking Iraqi official when he was taken out? 

Many reasons for that, he could have been there to discuss the next action against ISIS e.g. You remember ISIS, I'm betting they're the ones that are laughing loudest now.

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

You seem quite emotionally triggered by this problem. Trump didn't start the mess, Obama did nothing but make it much worse as well as the Washington DC elites. somehow you think the man you hate with such unbridled emotion 

Who wants out permanently is the bad guy here. It is truly laughable how you twist everything to the orange man bad routine. 

 

You also seem to think the other Iran backed militia people killed in the attack were somehow legitimate military officials. They were proxies. They helped to kill some isis people with overwhelming air power from the usa. They would and did turn straight back to attacking the us. 

 

 

Unfortunately you go totally wrong in your second line, 'Trump didn't start the mess,', making the rest of your post redundant.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

Such nonsense? What planet are you living on? Why is that Qassem Soleimani could come and go at Baghdad airport so freely? Why was he with a high ranking Iraqi official when he was taken out? 

As I pointed out, you claimed Iran controlled Iraq. So, if that's the case, why haven't they already carried out their nefarious plans for petroleum?

And because Soleimani could travel freely and met with a high ranking official, therefore Iran controls Iraq? That is your standard of proof? More nonsense.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

You also seem to think the other Iran backed militia people killed in the attack were somehow legitimate military officials. They were proxies. They helped to kill some isis people with overwhelming air power from the usa. They would and did turn straight back to attacking the us. 

 

 

They were official members of the Iraqi government. How much more legitimate could they be?

[Eric Loh]

11 minutes ago, chokrai said:

Or he is a tactical genius.

That’s the worrisome part when he think he is a genius in everything from climate change to military. If someone was to tell me that he is a smart and stable genius, I will send him straight to a mental hospital. Lordy he is POTUS! ????

[PhonThong]

10 minutes ago, chokrai said:

If and when the US leaves Iraq there will be a civil war that will last years. 

I agree.

[PhonThong]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

As I pointed out, you claimed Iran controlled Iraq. So, if that's the case, why haven't they already carried out their nefarious plans for petroleum?

And because Soleimani could travel freely and met with a high ranking official, therefore Iran controls Iraq? That is your standard of proof? More nonsense.

Since the U.S. is oil independant and doesn't need Mid East oil, who is going to assure the rest of the world gets the oil they need if and when the U.S. leaves the Middle East? Because as soon as the U.S. leaves Iraq, it is a sure bet that Iran will take over and control the Iraqi oil. They will then be in a position to upset the Saudi oil production. Those dependant on Mid East oil will have to pay the price that Iran dictates from then on. 

 

 

 

Can you show me where I stated that Iran controlled Iraq? I said, they will control Iraqi Oil fields if and when the U.S. leaves Iraq.

 

But, nice try.

[elmrfudd]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

They were official members of the Iraqi government. How much more legitimate could they be?

The pmf is not a legitimate government office. If they want to associate with designated terrorists, perhaps take a separate vehicle next time. I can't find the official list of casualties that list these Iraqi officials, do you have it? 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

Since the U.S. is oil independant and doesn't need Mid East oil, who is going to assure the rest of the world gets the oil they need if and when the U.S. leaves the Middle East? Because as soon as the U.S. leaves Iraq, it is a sure bet that Iran will take over and control the Iraqi oil. They will then be in a position to upset the Saudi oil production. Those dependant on Mid East oil will have to pay the price that Iran dictates from then on. 

 

 

 

Can you show me where I stated that Iran controlled Iraq? I said, they will control Iraqi Oil fields if and when the U.S. leaves Iraq.

 

But, nice try.

I asked you how Iran was going to take control of Iraqi oil. By invasion? Here was your reply:

"Iran doesn't need to invade Iraq. Iraq is pretty much a satellite country for Iran now."

So, if Iraq is "pretty much a satellite country" why hasn't Iran already taken control of the Iraqi oil fields? For that matter, why hasn't Iraq long since asked the US to leave?

[allen303]

18 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Yours is the typical hubris that characterized the US invasion of Iraq. There's a lot of damage Iran could do. And for the US to launch its attacks it's going to need bases to do it from. I doubt that any Mideast country is going to want to play host to that. And US aircraft carriers are in a very vulnerable position. The Persian Gulf is one of the worst places for an aircraft carrier to be.

Obviously, you know nothing about the US military capabilities or just like to talk. But you can bet the Iranians know.

[Enoon]

3 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Should we airlift them some more pallets of cash?

 

Trump won. No wonder the left are hurting. BTW wanting the US to lose a war because you are so overcome with hatred for the democratically elected president is not healthy IMHO.

 

Quds and the Shia militia have new leaders.

 

Nobody wants to join any war that Trump has in mind.

 

All the pieces are back in the same place on the board.

 

Nothing has changed.

 

 

 

 

[Rimmer]

Flame and reply removed

[PhonThong]

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I asked you how Iran was going to take control of Iraqi oil. By invasion? Here was your reply:

"Iran doesn't need to invade Iraq. Iraq is pretty much a satellite country for Iran now."

So, if Iraq is "pretty much a satellite country" why hasn't Iran already taken control of the Iraqi oil fields? For that matter, why hasn't Iraq long since asked the US to leave?

It's pretty plain to see that Iran has not taken control of the Iraqi oil fields because the U.S. is there. Under an agreement between the U.S. and Iraq. The oil revenue is to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. So, in this case, as of right now the U.S. isn't about to let Iran take control as long as U.S. troops are stationed there. Also, don't forget. The majority of the holdings are companies from the UK. 

 I believe the U.S. will leave Iraq if the government so demands. That does not include the Iraqi prime minister. Since he has no power to tell the Americans to leave.

[Bluespunk]

59 minutes ago, chokrai said:

Or he is a tactical genius.

No.

[stevenl]

10 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

It's pretty plain to see that Iran has not taken control of the Iraqi oil fields because the U.S. is there. Under an agreement between the U.S. and Iraq. The oil revenue is to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. So, in this case, as of right now the U.S. isn't about to let Iran take control as long as U.S. troops are stationed there. Also, don't forget. The majority of the holdings are companies from the UK. 

 I believe the U.S. will leave Iraq if the government so demands. That does not include the Iraqi prime minister. Since he has no power to tell the Americans to leave.

First of all you're avoiding the point made. You claimed ' Iran doesn't need to invade Iraq. Iraq is pretty much a satellite country for Iran now. ', then you said ' Can you show me where I stated that Iran controlled Iraq? '.  See your first quote.

 

Secondly, you think it is ok for the US to stay in a country if the country tells the US to go away? Because the Iraqi PM certainly has the power to tell that to the US.

 

But at least you're honest and open about one thing: this is about control of the oil.

Edited January 9, 2020 by stevenl

[PhonThong]

12 minutes ago, stevenl said:

First of all you're avoiding the point made. You claimed ' Iran doesn't need to invade Iraq. Iraq is pretty much a satellite country for Iran now. ', then you said ' Can you show me where I stated that Iran controlled Iraq? '.  See your first quote.

 

Secondly, you think it is ok for the US to stay in a country if the country tells the US to go away? Because the Iraqi PM certainly has the power to tell that to the US.

 

But at least you're honest and open about one thing: this is about control of the oil.

According to the 2005 Iraqi constitution, there is question if the interim Prime Minister has the authority to expel U.S. troops. 

Plus under the 2014 agreement, the Iraqi government requested the U.S. remain in country for security measures. Again, the Prime Minister does not overrule the Iraqi parliament. Plus, since most of the Iraqi parliament is controlled by one factional group, the Kurds and other minority religious and ethnic groups are not included in any votes. The U.S. doesn't put any credence on their rulings. 

 You may not agree with it, but that is the way it is.

Being a "pretty much" a satellite country doesn't make one part of a country. You can deny all you want that their are not proxy groups in Iraq that answer to Iran. But that would be naive. 

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

According to the 2005 Iraqi constitution, there is question if the interim Prime Minister has the authority to expel U.S. troops. 

Plus under the 2014 agreement, the Iraqi government requested the U.S. remain in country for security measures. Again, the Prime Minister does not overrule the Iraqi parliament. Plus, since most of the Iraqi parliament is controlled by one factional group, the Kurds and other minority religious and ethnic groups are not included in any votes. The U.S. doesn't put any credence on their rulings. 

 You may not agree with it, but that is the way it is.

Being a "pretty much" a satellite country doesn't make one part of a country. You can deny all you want that their are not proxy groups in Iraq that answer to Iran. But that would be naive. 

Your distorting the words of others and your own.

 

You're also referring to the Iraqi parliament that has unanimously accepted a motion to ask all foreign troops to leave the country? In one sentence you're saying PM can not overrule the Iraqi parliament, to then continue and claim Iraqi parliament has not mandate from the population. It really is not up to the US to put credence on the rulings of a foreign parliament because they don't like it.

[JHolmesJr]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Iran is winning the long game. 

Takeover of Iraq (largely done).

The U.S. public (both parties) wants to leave Iraq anyway.

Excellent missiles.

Nuclear program progressing much faster than if under the nuclear deal which 45 irrationally trashed.

Proxy wars continue in many places.

Iran knows it's advantage is not conventional warfare. 

They have the power to do serious damage inside the U.S. anytime they want. They don't want to because it wouldn't be worth the cost, but again, they're winning the long game, and it's not really that long.

For 45, the game is about the daily news cycle and creating propaganda for his reelection.

You will look rather nice in a chador, my dear.

[JHolmesJr]

He was mighty <deleted> as he made that speech....I noticed a few anger stutters.

One can only speculate...but Im glad he showed (or was advised to show) restraint.

The Dems as usual got blindsided again. Pathetic bunch of people openly siding 

with Iran. 2020 seems like a hurtful year for them.

[Jingthing]

18 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

You will look rather nice in a chador, my dear.

Can the sick personal attacks, OK?

Is that the level you need to debate at? That is seriously messed up. 

[Nyezhov]

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

He was offered a menu of action to take against Iran but chose the extreme which shocked his aides. He really has no thoughts of an overall strategy and most importantly the consequences. He just bulldozed his thinking through and his close aides don’t have the fortitude to cross him. He didn’t consult the Pentagon nor Congress for an evaluation.

How do you know this? Were you there?

 

Or just speculating, assuming and making stuff up?

[JHolmesJr]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Can the sick personal attacks, OK?

Is that the level you need to debate at? That is seriously messed up. 

It seems you are a fan of all things Iran.

Saying you would lovely in a chador is not a personal attack.

It is a humorous expression of the sentiment...the French call this

a bon mot. Man up and grow a thicker skin.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

It seems you are a fan of all things Iran.

Saying you would lovely in a chador is not a personal attack.

It is a humorous expression of the sentiment...the French call this

a bon mot. Man up and grow a thicker skin.

Yes it is especially said to a MAN. Don't try to act innocent when your post is out in the open. You're not fooling anyone with such games. 

 

It's also seriously messed up to accuse me of having any sympathy for the Iranian regime. I certainly and obviously don't.

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Jingthing

[xylophone]

22 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

The Dems as usual got blindsided again.

trump is that dumb, he blindsides himself!!!

[Phoenix Rising]

3 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

It seems you are a fan of all things Iran.

Saying you would lovely in a chador is not a personal attack.

It is a humorous expression of the sentiment...the French call this

a bon mot.

Seeing as the overwhelming majority of the French are against Trump they'd probably classify your post as "connerie".

[JHolmesJr]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's also seriously messed up to accuse me of having any sympathy for the Iranian regime. I certainly and obviously don't.

 

In your never-ending quest to put down your President, you are quoting Iran's 'accomplishments' like a proud father ...what else is one supposed to deduce from that? 

[Eric Loh]

8 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

How do you know this? Were you there?

 

Or just speculating, assuming and making stuff up?

Neither was you; yet you vehemently pretend that you know. As for me, the investigative journalists that I linked were my source. Those that you called fakes like Trump. 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

In your never-ending quest to put down your President, you are quoting Iran's 'accomplishments' like a proud father ...what else is one supposed to deduce from that? 

It's called critical thinking. You might want to try it sometime. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Jingthing

[Eric Loh]

5 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Seeing as the overwhelming majority of the French are against Trump they'd probably classify your post as "connerie".

So is the rest of the world except for Russia and Israel and a bunch here.