Deadly Drone Attack in Jordan Three US Soldiers Killed 30+ Injured

[goyim583210087]

Silence Goyim! War is Good Business!

[goyim583210087]

It's all about greed and power of the Globalist Bankers. Iran with it's own central bank is non-compliant.

 

Get it now?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, goyim583210087 said:

Silence Goyim! War is Good Business!

 

1 hour ago, goyim583210087 said:

It's all about greed and power of the Globalist Bankers. Iran with it's own central bank is non-compliant.

 

Get it now?

 

Oh, look - a wannabe troll. And an antisemitic one too.

Plus a 'new' addition....wonder (but not much) which one of the usual suspects this was.

[FritsSikkink]

5 hours ago, candide said:

You may be right, however superpowers, as well  as not so super, always exert power. If the U.S. would stop exerting power, it would soon be replaced by others. Choose your pick: China, Russia, India, Turkey.....

If we finally want to evolve as human beings, we shouldn't have superpowers who want to dictate the world but try to get along.

We would like morons to any intelligent life outside our world to start with. Reminder of the bible belt people, " thou shall not kill."

 

Edited January 31 by FritsSikkink

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Didn't Trump raise the US defense budget every year?

Perhaps he was following the advice of a previous POTUS who said "walk softly and carry a big stick".

It's better to deter a war than to start one.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

If we finally want to evolve as human beings, we shouldn't have superpowers who want to dictate the world but try to get along.

We would like morons to any intelligent life outside our world to start with. Reminder of the bible belt people, " thou shall not kill."

 

 

How does this work? How do we 'not have' superpowers?

[Morch]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps he was following the advice of a previous POTUS who said "walk softly and carry a big stick".

It's better to deter a war than to start one.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

 

Trump spoke softly? When was that?

More like the opposite - talk bigly and pack a twig.

[Hawaiian]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

 

Trump spoke softly? When was that?

More like the opposite - talk bigly and pack a twig.

So Soleimani was killed with a twig?

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

So Soleimani was killed with a twig?

 

No.

But to claim Trump was engaging in much 'big stick' (never mind 'speak softly') is off.

[beautifulthailand99]

On 1/30/2024 at 11:04 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

What are US soldiers doing in Jordan?

There is an easy way to avoid that US soldiers get killed in Jordan. Make sure there are no US soldier in that country - or any other country accept the US. 

Defending US interests I.e. those of big capital plus the normal psyopathic/sociopathic bloodlusts of a wounded and dying hegemon,comrade !

[placeholder]

14 hours ago, goyim583210087 said:

It's all about greed and power of the Globalist Bankers. Iran with it's own central bank is non-compliant.

 

Get it now?

Most countries have their own central bank. Not sure why you think this is relevant in this case. What does having a central bank have to do with having access to the world's major financial system?

[OneMoreFarang]

27 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

More baseless loon talk.

Sure, the USA only has their soldiers all over the world to protect piece and all those peaceful people. They do it because they have such a great heart and want to bring democracy to the rest of the world - American style. Winning hearts and minds and all that. Correct?

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

On 1/29/2024 at 10:34 AM, Tropicalevo said:

Who started this one ?

What nationality was bombed and it's soldiers killed or injured?

Your preference is for non terrorist nations to do nothing and slowly get killed off?

The Gaza Hamas war - started by Hamas.

The Red Sea conflict - started by Iranian backed terrorist

The bombing of Jordan - started by terrorists

There are more but you will still blame Biden.

 

 

Who started this one depend on which date you set?

I don't know the details about Jordan. But look at Gaza. Some people look at the 7th of October and say: Look at those Hamas terrorists, now Israel has to defend themselves and retaliate.

Other people look at the years since Israel occupied the land where the Palestinians used to live more and more. Palestinians are thrown out of their homes in Jerusalem so that Israelis can more in. And all those settlers.

All that happens since many many years. So, did Hamas start that attack out of the blue? Or did they fight back against what Israel did to them since decades.

 

I don't want to pretend one side is all good and the other all bad. Many on both sides don't want to compromise. And many on both sides can point at the others and say: They killed my family.

 

Getting back to above: If there would be no US soldiers in that area, then nobody could kill them. I understand when people fight intruders in their country.

 

[Hawaiian]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

No.

But to claim Trump was engaging in much 'big stick' (never mind 'speak softly') is off.

 

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

No.

But to claim Trump was engaging in much 'big stick' (never mind 'speak softly') is off.

What is your definition of a "big stick" vs. a "twig"?

[metisdead]

Some baiting posts contravening our Community Standards have been removed.

[Arindos]

The idea that the US can simply avoid using its military is silly because only the US will defend US shipping and other assets in the Middle East. It's alliances with other countries were about projecting US military power overseas and therefore most other countries are not going to be sympathetic. The only positive is that countries such as India are putting a lot of military into the Middle East as a consequence, and the US should push China to put its military assets in the Middle East as well.

And I do consider the mess in the Middle East to be part of a world war. You've got a lot of controversy on the western side of the Middle East due to the Migration Crisis and Israel-Palestine, and you have also drawn in the Chinese and Indians through the war between Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan on the eastern side of the Middle East (the Chinese are widely believed to be funding the Taliban). It now waits to be seen what the Russians will do.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Defending US interests I.e. those of big capital plus the normal psyopathic/sociopathic bloodlusts of a wounded and dying hegemon,comrade !

 

Incoherent ramblings.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Sure, the USA only has their soldiers all over the world to protect piece and all those peaceful people. They do it because they have such a great heart and want to bring democracy to the rest of the world - American style. Winning hearts and minds and all that. Correct?

 

 

 

Read the post I was responding to. Figure out the context. Not what you're on about.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Who started this one depend on which date you set?

I don't know the details about Jordan. But look at Gaza. Some people look at the 7th of October and say: Look at those Hamas terrorists, now Israel has to defend themselves and retaliate.

Other people look at the years since Israel occupied the land where the Palestinians used to live more and more. Palestinians are thrown out of their homes in Jerusalem so that Israelis can more in. And all those settlers.

All that happens since many many years. So, did Hamas start that attack out of the blue? Or did they fight back against what Israel did to them since decades.

 

I don't want to pretend one side is all good and the other all bad. Many on both sides don't want to compromise. And many on both sides can point at the others and say: They killed my family.

 

Getting back to above: If there would be no US soldiers in that area, then nobody could kill them. I understand when people fight intruders in their country.

 

 

The attack was on a base in Jordan. It was not carried out by Jordanians. How is it the attackers' 'home'?

[beautifulthailand99]

You're not allowed to criticise the guards @Morch

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

 

What is your definition of a "big stick" vs. a "twig"?

 

A credible response when such is required. And a consistent policy regarding such responses.

And let's not forget the other part, because trash talking doesn't really impress anyone but the voter base.

[Morch]

Just now, beautifulthailand99 said:

You're not allowed to criticise the guards @Morch

 

I'm sure you thought you meant something by that.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Arindos said:

and the US should push China to put its military assets in the Middle East as well.

Do you imagine that China will be on America's side in a Middle East conflict?

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you imagine that China will be on America's side in a Middle East conflict?

 

The US has been in talks with China to do just that.

 

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/27/us-china-middle-east-houthis

Edited February 1 by ozimoron

[Hawaiian]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

A credible response when such is required. And a consistent policy regarding such responses.

And let's not forget the other part, because trash talking doesn't really impress anyone but the voter base.

Consistency sounds good, but who determines when such a response is required?

Trump's inconsistency is what kept our foes guessing and less inclined to be more aggressive. Of course, you will more than likely disagree.

Edited February 1 by Hawaiian
clarification

[Hawaiian]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

The US has been in talks with China to do just that.

 

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/27/us-china-middle-east-houthis

It is in China's best interest to have stability in the Middle East as any disruption in the oil supply chain is very bad for the Chinese.  After all, China is the number one buyer of Iranian oil.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

Consistency sounds good, but who determines when such a response is required?

Trump's inconsistency is what kept our foes guessing and less inclined to be more aggressive. Of course, you will more than likely disagree.

 

Less inclined to be more aggressive how? I gave two examples of rather high profile incidents which went unanswered. There were others. And, of course, the same inconsistency tends to make allies skittish. Introducing more uncertainty to volatile areas and situations is not a good thing.

[Hawaiian]

19 hours ago, Morch said:

 

A credible response when such is required. And a consistent policy regarding such responses.

And let's not forget the other part, because trash talking doesn't really impress anyone but the voter base.

Everyone talks trash, but you.  Many of your rebuttals are as clear as mud, except to you.

[Morch]

20 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Everyone talks trash, but you.  Many of your rebuttals are as clear as mud, except to you.

 

The 'trash talk' comment was not directed at you, or any other poster. It was a reference to Trump's style.

But hey...you just demonstrated your own point.

[Arindos]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you imagine that China will be on America's side in a Middle East conflict?

 

China wants to keep the United States away from its border regions (which is why the Chinese have been funding the Taliban to keep the US out of Afghanistan and prop up North Korea), but they also want to secure the trade routes out of China (which is why the Chinese have been building military facilities in places such as Sri Lanka).

 

While I assume that the Chinese will continue to fund anti-American interests in the Middle East, I also envisage a situation where the Chinese move military assets into the Middle East to fight against terrorism and piracy (similar to how the contradictory policy of supporting Afghanistan while fighting Xinjiang works).