Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. If you become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Trumped


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Sure, but you know the cost will come out, the left will go into an uproar, and nothing will happen. And Trump's base will not give a single fuck. So he'll get away with it. 

I don't care what his base thinks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 49.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • UndertheHalo

    2962

  • Lou

    2898

  • Jason

    2758

  • Blarg

    2642

2 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

And it’s news to me that the Baghdad airport is a “combat” zone.   Sulimani was assassinated  by any reasonable definition of the word.   Eventually they’ll get their payback.   Unfortunately for whoever the poor bastard that gets it is. 

Everything in Iraq is and has been a warzone for previous two decades.

What defines a warzone? Soleimani was in Iraq for the direct purpose of killing others, no? (IS and offshoot sunni groups opposed to the current govt).

Iran is Iraq for the express purpose to turning it into part of its own.... this is exactly what people complain about us doing. They are doing exactly what Army SF has done from inception. "Foreign internal defense".

So reverse the question. If one of ours was killed, outside of the same airport, would anyone here be shocked our outraged? Or would we consider it an obvious hazard that comes with the territory of that job?

To be clear, Im not suggesting we should have droned him. Thats a totally different topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if the iranians had droned an American general at the Baghdad airport it would have rightly caused outrage and we would be justified in seeking retribution.  
 

also, I wholly do not accept that it was necessary to drone this guy in order to prevent some imminent attack.  In fact the Iraqis are saying that he was on some kind of diplomatic mission relaying messages between Tehran and Riyadh via the Iraqis. 
 

and as far as Iran seeking to influence Iraq and comparing that to what we’re doing.  Sorry I don’t accept that either.  Iran and Iraq have all sorts of cultural ties.  They are literally neighboring countries.  There was a regime that was hostile to Iran and guess what ! We got rid of them.  We opened the door to Iranian intervention in Iraq.  A country they are justified in having interests in.  At least a far more of justified claim to intervention then we have.

Does it make sense from the Iranian point of view that they should tolerate an American proxy government in Baghdad ? You know history TORS.  Why would that be acceptable to Tehran ? 
 

Edited by UndertheHalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Everything in Iraq is and has been a warzone for previous two decades.

What defines a warzone? Soleimani was in Iraq for the direct purpose of killing others, no? (IS and offshoot sunni groups opposed to the current govt).

Baghdad Airport.

tap-tap...hello? is this thing on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I think that if the iranians had droned an American general at the Baghdad airport it would have rightly caused outrage and we would be justified in seeking retribution.  
 

also, I wholly do not accept that it was necessary to drone this guy in order to prevent some imminent attack.  In fact the Iraqis are saying that he was on some kind of diplomatic mission relaying messages between Tehran and Riyadh via the Iraqis. 
 

and as far as Iran seeking to influence Iraq and comparing that to what we’re doing.  Sorry I don’t accept that either.  Iran and Iraq have all sorts of cultural ties.  They are literally neighboring countries.  There was a regime that was hostile to Iran and guess what ! We got rid of them.  We opened the door to Iranian intervention in Iraq.  A country they are justified in having interests in.  At least a far more of justified claim to intervention then we have.

Does it make sense from the Iranian point of view that they should tolerate an American proxy government in Baghdad ? You know history TORS.  Why would that be acceptable to Tehran ? 
 

Holy shit we are one step away from people posting tweets from @BaghdadBob's twitter account and acting like it's the New York fucking Times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

also, I wholly do not accept that it was necessary to drone this guy in order to prevent some imminent attack.  In fact the Iraqis are saying that he was on some kind of diplomatic mission relaying messages between Tehran and Riyadh via the Iraqis. 

That doesn't sound right to me. If that were the case why hasn't Riyadh chimed in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...