Red Defence
Full Member
Wonder what trouble this will cause? He did it by EO too.Sounds like the more viable alternative to hitting them kinetically, and probably far more painful to them in the end.
Wonder what trouble this will cause? He did it by EO too.Sounds like the more viable alternative to hitting them kinetically, and probably far more painful to them in the end.
Getting into a military campaign against Iran.sorry, what does 'hitting them kinetically' mean? blowing them up?
Well they are (at least at first glance) sanctions, so Congress should feel relieved there is no military conflict, at least for now.Wonder what trouble this will cause? He did it by EO too.
Depends from whose POV. Trump needs something to distract from so much adverse publicity and to excite his base.the sad part is it was not necessary.
Was more meaning trouble from Iran.Well they are (at least at first glance) sanctions, so Congress should feel relieved there is no military conflict, at least for now.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He's reading itTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Someone in the WH wrote that statement.
Straight..? Jesus christ..Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That Wharton education.Straight..? Jesus christ..
He's run Denald out of business
A part of me wishes this was a Denald post instead of reality.
The best grades.Straight..? Jesus christ..
Exactly this.He's run Denald out of business
The LGBT community is making a killing selling oil to Japan, apparently.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So trump is cool if China just rocks up with a few nuclear subs and places a few figher wings on iranain airbases then to protect their own shipping... then the usa can bugger off from the region... win win win I think... crack on
And you think Russia would let China setting bases in the area?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So trump is cool if China just rocks up with a few nuclear subs and places a few figher wings on iranain airbases then to protect their own shipping... then the usa can bugger off from the region... win win win I think... crack on
Objectively speaking, if the US were to pick up sticks out of that region, who would actually be worse off? Saudi Arabia and Israel probably, but anyone else? Wouldn’t it be American interests in the region that suffer the most from that?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So trump is cool if China just rocks up with a few nuclear subs and places a few figher wings on iranain airbases then to protect their own shipping... then the usa can bugger off from the region... win win win I think... crack on
Probably add Jordan to the list. Then you have the countless dictators in the Middle East and Africa who might fancy a pop at more power. Whether the US is there or not, in those regions they will still kill each other. It's been that way for centuries and will be that way until long after we're all dead. For all the trouble America causes their presence is still a mighty big deterrent to any would be Gaddafis, Milosevics or Konys who feel like attacking their own people.Objectively speaking, if the US were to pick up sticks out of that region, who would actually be worse off? Saudi Arabia and Israel probably, but anyone else? Wouldn’t it be American interests in the region that suffer the most from that?
Probably add Jordan to the list. Then you have the countless dictators in the Middle East and Africa who might fancy a pop at more power. Whether the US is there or not, in those regions they will still kill each other. It's been that way for centuries and will be that way until long after we're all dead. For all the trouble America causes their presence is still a mighty big deterrent to any would be Gaddafis, Milosevics or Konys who feel like attacking their own people.
America and its allys delusions never fails to surprise me.Probably add Jordan to the list. Then you have the countless dictators in the Middle East and Africa who might fancy a pop at more power. Whether the US is there or not, in those regions they will still kill each other. It's been that way for centuries and will be that way until long after we're all dead. For all the trouble America causes their presence is still a mighty big deterrent to any would be Gaddafis, Milosevics or Konys who feel like attacking their own people.
I dont think bolton trumps and those incharge today would care. They just want to cash in on the war. What happens after isnt their concern. I even think they profit from occupations as well with all those private contractors contracts.Objectively speaking, if the US were to pick up sticks out of that region, who would actually be worse off? Saudi Arabia and Israel probably, but anyone else? Wouldn’t it be American interests in the region that suffer the most from that?
Oh I fully agree with all of that, my thoughts were independent of trump and co. I was really trying to think of who would be worse off, and it’s really just SA and Israel. Every single other country they’ve intervened in has come out the other end worse than they were before.I dont think bolton trumps and those incharge today would care. They just want to cash in on the war. What happens after isnt their concern. I even think they profit from occupations as well with all those private contractors contracts.
The congress should ban military outsourcing. It's a clusterfeck of conflict of interest
If you take a little step back from the present moment and look at the broad sweep of history, I think you’ll find this statement applies to pretty much everywhere to some degree, but probably best describes Europe better than anywhere else.in those regions they will still kill each other. It's been that way for centuries and will be that way until long after we're all dead
It absolutely does, but for the most part Europe (certainly Western Europe) has finished with its internal squabbling. The MEA and Africa still in many areas identifies itself by tribe, religion and culture ahead of actual country, just as we used to do in Europe. Until they move on from that there will always be conflict. People would still get killed if the US left them all alone, it would just be a different set of people. It's extremely naive to think if the US never got involved all things would be rosy.If you take a little step back from the present moment and look at the broad sweep of history, I think you’ll find this statement applies to pretty much everywhere to some degree, but probably best describes Europe better than anywhere else.
What happened
2 posts up broWhat happened
Tagline checks out.The USA is Babylon the great and will be destroyed in 1 hour. Strange that the name of the Iranian President spelt backwards is inahour
Instead the US and Europe fight wars to maintain artificial national boundaries that they themselves created and which often aren’t a particularly good fit for the people who actually live there, continuing an inevitable cycle of violence to supposedly prevent future outbreaks of violence.It absolutely does, but for the most part Europe (certainly Western Europe) has finished with its internal squabbling. The MEA and Africa still in many areas identifies itself by tribe, religion and culture ahead of actual country, just as we used to do in Europe. Until they move on from that there will always be conflict. People would still get killed if the US left them all alone, it would just be a different set of people. It's extremely naive to think if the US never got involved all things would be rosy.