'Murica! (197 Viewers)

[Bjerknes]

Would have, could have is BS, but whatever makes you sleep better at night.

I'm just illustrating the hypocrisy of it all through historical trend analysis. Nobody is happy with this shit.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Kopanja]

what's the casius beli in this one?

Damn, when I was younger, the US war was a big deal, like a dining in a great restaurant – you'd get an appetizers, some starters, wine and the main meal with cover bombing. Now it's like a fast-food, one and done. That's not a proper war experience.

 

[Bjerknes]

Pompeo just said on national TV that they basically took him out because Iranian attacks on US interests across the globe were imminent and that the risk was too high not to take out Soleimani. Who the hell knows if that's true or not.

 

[-=DJANGO=-]

Would have, could have is BS, but whatever makes you sleep better at night.

Well, actually it could have been much worse. Hillary was certain she could deter Russia by force. At the best case, I suspect, she would have tried to blackmail them.

Trump ran on nonintervention and withdrawal from ME. This is it - according to the MIC.

- - - Updated - - -

what's the casius beli in this one?

Damn, when I was younger, the US war was a big deal, like a dining in a great restaurant – you'd get an appetizers, some starters, wine and the main meal with cover bombing. Now it's like a fast-food, one and done. That's not a proper war experience.

Technologies man, they ruin everything. I suspect WW3 would be a blink-and-miss experience.

 

[Kopanja]

Well, actually it could have been much worse. Hillary was certain she could deter Russia by force. At the best case, I suspect, she would have tried to blackmail them.

Trump ran on nonintervention and withdrawal from ME. This is it - according to the MIC.

lol like deterring Russia by force is something bad.

Fuck Russia, here is hoping they are next after Iran.

 

[-=DJANGO=-]

lol like deterring Russia by force is something bad.

Fuck Russia, here is hoping they are next after Iran.

No, actually its a great idea. They need a liberation real bad, plus got a lot of resources suffering under oppression.

On the flipside we might miss the moment if we blink.

 

[Hust]

Pompeo just said on national TV that they basically took him out because Iranian attacks on US interests across the globe were imminent and that the risk was too high not to take out Soleimani. Who the hell knows if that's true or not.

It is, that's what I'm telling you. It would have been ugly if they went through with it.

 

[Enron]

It is, that's what I'm telling you. It would have been ugly if they went through with it.

they can’t go through with the attacks with one guy dead?

 

[Hust]

they can’t go through with the attacks with one guy dead?

Of course. Next guy in line can. The goal was to deter HIM because reports were saying he was going to give the green light.

 

[Enron]

Of course. Next guy in line can. The goal was to deter HIM because reports were saying he was going to give the green light.

Seems off. Like only one guy would be able to give the green light with no contingency? Can't imagine a military that operates in foreign theaters under so many proxies, all seemingly independent of the other would fall to shambles or decide not to go through with their plan.

Then again, the Trump administration does lie a lot.

 

[Ronn]

I'm just illustrating the hypocrisy of it all through historical trend analysis. Nobody is happy with this shit.

I’m very well aware of that “both sides” argument, but there were many reasons to believe that in this case it doesn’t apply. Every administration relies on an army of advisors to carry out their policies. Clinton would’ve relied on Obama people, as well as old veterans from Bill’s admin. As stupid as Obama’s Iran deal was from policy standpoint, it wasn’t a threat of war crimes. On the other hand Trump has changes advisors like changing shirts, and it is pretty obvious that they don’t really advise him, but try to justify his action after the fact. It’s been reported that both Obama and Bush had numerous chances to take out Soleimani, but they didn’t. So evidence really does not support that argument.

- - - Updated - - -

It is, that's what I'm telling you. It would have been ugly if they went through with it.

So they attacked US embassy, breached the walls, set fire to a guard tower, and then retreated without killing anyone only to do it later? That doesn’t make much sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Pompeo just said on national TV that they basically took him out because Iranian attacks on US interests across the globe were imminent and that the risk was too high not to take out Soleimani. Who the hell knows if that's true or not.

But did he elaborate on what kind of attacks? Did the journo asked him on the nature of the attacks? That’s just too easy. Also, why taking out one general would stop such attacks?

 

[Hust]

I’m very well aware of that “both sides” argument, but there were many reasons to believe that in this case it doesn’t apply. Every administration relies on an army of advisors to carry out their policies. Clinton would’ve relied on Obama people, as well as old veterans from Bill’s admin. As stupid as Obama’s Iran deal was from policy standpoint, it wasn’t a threat of war crimes. On the other hand Trump has changes advisors like changing shirts, and it is pretty obvious that they don’t really advise him, but try to justify his action after the fact. It’s been reported that both Obama and Bush had numerous chances to take out Soleimani, but they didn’t. So evidence really does not support that argument.

- - - Updated - - -


So they attacked US embassy, breached the walls, set fire to a guard tower, and then retreated without killing anyone only to do it later? That doesn’t make much sense.

- - - Updated - - -


But did he elaborate on what kind of attacks? Did the journo asked him on the nature of the attacks? That’s just too easy. Also, why taking out one general would stop such attacks?

I know the kind of attacks. Same info Pompeo was referencing. That’s what I’m telling you nerds.

taking him out was to send a message essentially saying we know what you’re planing and we are willing to go that high to prevent it.

 

[Post Ironic]

Iraqi parliament votes to expel US troops

- - - Updated - - -


Defacing a museum website is not a threat. Most of the ancient Iran artifacts are kept in museums of France, UK, and US. Museums in Iran are much smaller in comparison, and with crashing economy and looming war I’m not sure if anybody cares about museums let alone checking their website for information. Also even though logically nobody in the US should seek another war, Trump is not a rational person, and he listens to nobody. So I’m not as optimistic as you in thinking he knows what he’s doing.

Wait, there are people that think that Trump meant 52 cyber attacks on cultural sites?

Everyone knows the US is engaged in continual cyber conflicts with these nations, but that has nothing to do with Trump’s threat here.

He pretty clearly meant real, physical strikes. Whether it’s just bluster and bravado as in other cases, is unknown. But lol that some think he meant anything besides what was obvious in that threat.

 

[Ronn]

I know the kind of attacks. Same info Pompeo was referencing. That’s what I’m telling you nerds.

taking him out was to send a message essentially saying we know what you’re planing and we are willing to go that high to prevent it.

Is Momblano your source? Or someone’s fratello? Seriously what kind of attack worse than attacking US embassy could’ve happened to justify taking out that guy? And If this a warning shot, then what the next action would be? I’m sorry but none of this makes any sense.

 

[Hust]

Is Momblano your source? Or someone’s fratello? Seriously what kind of attack worse than attacking US embassy could’ve happened to justify taking out that guy? And If this a warning shot, then what the next action would be? I’m sorry but none of this makes any sense.

I don’t have a source I read the reports. I can’t go into details.

what kind of attack is worse than a drone? Let me ask you, what kind of attack is so bad that armies in past wars agreed to never use them on each other and doesn’t involve splitting atoms?

- - - Updated - - -

So unless the intel is wrong, SoS wasn’t lying

- - - Updated - - -

Wait, there are people that think that Trump meant 52 cyber attacks on cultural sites?

Everyone knows the US is engaged in continual cyber conflicts with these nations, but that has nothing to do with Trump’s threat here.

He pretty clearly meant real, physical strikes. Whether it’s just bluster and bravado as in other cases, is unknown. But lol that some think he meant anything besides what was obvious in that threat.

I mean you can call me out if you want. I’m telling you guys all the options that are on the table. And I never said 52 cyber attacks.

 

[Post Ironic]

I don’t have a source I read the reports. I can’t go into details.

what kind of attack is worse than a drone? Let me ask you, what kind of attack is so bad that armies in past wars agreed to never use them on each other and doesn’t involve splitting atoms?

- - - Updated - - -

So unless the intel is wrong, SoS wasn’t lying

- - - Updated - - -


I mean you can call me out if you want. I’m telling you guys all the options that are on the table. And I never said 52 cyber attacks.

I don’t believe you do mean 52 cyber attacks. That would be pretty naive. I do agree with you that this could all just be bluster and bravado from Trump. It’s happened before, he makes these threats, they don’t come to fruition. Whether that is aides and cabinet members restraining his worst impulses or himself, we haven’t seen any of his worst threats pass.

But it’s also pretty clear he’s talking about drone strikes/bombing 52 cultural sites, which is threatening to behave like the Taliban for example.

And I’m not entirely sure I believe the intel since the last time there was “intel” on WMDs in the Middle East, America used that fake intel to illegally invade Iraq, the consequences of which we are still witnessing today. But Chemical and Nerve agents were used by a Reagan supported Iraq when they attacked Iran in the 80s. So there’s that.

 

[Enron]

I don’t believe you do mean 52 cyber attacks. That would be pretty naive. I do agree with you that this could all just be bluster and bravado from Trump. It’s happened before, he makes these threats, they don’t come to fruition. Whether that is aides and cabinet members restraining his worst impulses or himself, we haven’t seen any of his worst threats pass.

But it’s also pretty clear he’s talking about drone strikes/bombing 52 cultural sites, which is threatening to behave like the Taliban for example.

And I’m not entirely sure I believe the intel since the last time there was “intel” on WMDs in the Middle East, America used that fake intel to illegally invade Iraq, the consequences of which we are still witnessing today. But Chemical and Nerve agents were used by a Reagan supported Iraq when they attacked Iran in the 80s. So there’s that.

Most importantly, the president doesn’t know what a cyber attack is.

 

[Ronn]

I don’t have a source I read the reports. I can’t go into details.

what kind of attack is worse than a drone? Let me ask you, what kind of attack is so bad that armies in past wars agreed to never use them on each other and doesn’t involve splitting atoms?

This is not just a drone attack dude. This is taking out a top official of another country. You don’t seriously think a nuke attack was even considered do you?

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Hust]

I don’t believe you do mean 52 cyber attacks. That would be pretty naive. I do agree with you that this could all just be bluster and bravado from Trump. It’s happened before, he makes these threats, they don’t come to fruition. Whether that is aides and cabinet members restraining his worst impulses or himself, we haven’t seen any of his worst threats pass.

But it’s also pretty clear he’s talking about drone strikes/bombing 52 cultural sites, which is threatening to behave like the Taliban for example.

And I’m not entirely sure I believe the intel since the last time there was “intel” on WMDs in the Middle East, America used that fake intel to illegally invade Iraq, the consequences of which we are still witnessing today. But Chemical and Nerve agents were used by a Reagan supported Iraq when they attacked Iran in the 80s. So there’s that.

Yet you said it.

- - - Updated - - -

This is not just a drone attack dude. This is taking out a top official of another country. You don’t seriously think a nuke attack was even considered do you?

Holy shit do you guys read...like at all? I said that DOESN'T INVOLVE SPLITTING ATOMS...

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I'm getting called into work because shit is happening apparently. Later haters

 

[ALC]

Most importantly, the president doesn’t know what a cyber attack is.

"The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough." - During a televised debate with Hillary Clinton, Sept. 2016.
"I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly." Speaking to reports at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Dec. 2016.


"Today the computer and technology industries are hot, but that doesn't mean that they won't cool off quickly. It just seems to me that they are overheated, and competition is strong. When I read about all of the different companies producing new computers by the thousands, it seems like a very tough business to me. But then, I don't even know how to turn on a computer." Oct. 1997.

“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible.”