is that it now game over no chance of POTUS

 

Rayguns out

8 minutes ago, Morizio said:

Bizarre course of action. The organisation he headed is still there and now will be led by someone else. 
 

They’ll be some shit to fall out falling this.
 

Trump's a cock.  

Surely that's the case with any military conflict. You take out a number of people who will eventually be replaced.

If intelligence did point towards an imminent attack on US or allied targets I'd say the person in charge of the attackers is a legitimate target. The problem is, if, as has been suggested, the attack goes ahead anyway they can say that their attack was an equally legitimate response to the assassination. 

I have a feeling that at least one of the sides cares little for any Geneva Conventions which is worrying because any target becomes acceptable in the eyes of Iranians and probably most of the Islamic world. 

2 hours ago, royal white said:

Seriously what do you suggest when attacks are taking place on the American Embassey? 
 

 

He expects prayers and candles.

3 hours ago, royal white said:

Seriously what do you suggest when attacks are taking place on the American Embassey? 

Weren't you saying the other day that it's one of the most heavily defended buildings in the Middle East and they hadn't really had to break much of a sweat to defend it?

In answer to your question - I'd take proportional action of the type that wouldn't make future attacks on more American Embassies more likely in the future. 

 

1 hour ago, miamiwhite said:

He expects prayers and candles.

I'm an atheist. 

6 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Weren't you saying the other day that it's one of the most heavily defended buildings in the Middle East and they hadn't really had to break much of a sweat to defend it?

In answer to your question - I'd take proportional action of the type that wouldn't make future attacks on more American Embassies more likely in the future. 

 

Yes, it is.

 

What would that be then? 

13 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I'm an atheist. 

Shalom

13 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Weren't you saying the other day that it's one of the most heavily defended buildings in the Middle East and they hadn't really had to break much of a sweat to defend it?

In answer to your question - I'd take proportional action of the type that wouldn't make future attacks on more American Embassies more likely in the future. 

 

Best will in the world, it's not happening. Iran been upping the ante for some time.

Either pull out and leave them to it, or give them a bloody nose.

Pointless just waiting around whilst they pick folk off all over the middle East. Achieving nothing.

9 minutes ago, royal white said:

Yes, it is.

 

What would that be then? 

Further sanctions. More pressure on international partners not to trade with Iran. Disrupt a supply route. Something along those lines.

It really wouldn't surprise me if what he really wants is for Iraq to demand US troop withdrawals. So that he can do it without looking weak.

World Cup looking dodgy.

11 minutes ago, MalcolmW said:

World Cup looking dodgy.

Always was 

Why would attacking Iranian culture sites be a good thing?

i'd still like Putin's take. 

praises Trump for helping stop attack in russia , then some iranian military higher up get droned in iraq. 

few days ago folk were pissing their pants saying "its trumps bengazi" , but he fucked that up big style by acting like general sherman or major general sleeman wouldve.

must be an effort to stop a "Vacuum" and the the next isis/alkaeda walking in..

that the dead dudes daughter called on the leader of hezbollah to get revenge was unwittingly telling. 

russia and america are not bombing each others runways over this, like in syria, is also summat. 

all interesting

 

Trump said he will look to destroy Iran’s culture.

Destroying any cultural sites Is against the Geneva convention, therefore a war crime.

Remember when ISIS did it?

Yes its a threat and hasn’t actually done that, yet but again can someone explain to me how the leader of the free world can threaten to carry out a war crime?

And before anyone says well this is only if Iran respond with an attack on the U.S, even if Iran did attack back the Geneva convention can’t be broken especially not by the POTUS, 

What Trump doesn’t understand is going to war is to be better than that country not stoop to their level.

He doesn’t understand politics, he doesn’t understand war, or history, he should not be on fuckin Twitter. The man is a dangerous individual and the defenders of him genuinely scare me.

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

Further sanctions. More pressure on international partners not to trade with Iran. Disrupt a supply route. Something along those lines.

It really wouldn't surprise me if what he really wants is for Iraq to demand US troop withdrawals. So that he can do it without looking weak.

That's what America did. Pulled out of the deal and imposed greater sanctions. They're working.

However, more proxy attacks have occured since.

Sooner or later, I can see a rather significant piece of Iranian military hardware being taken out; maybe a boat in the gulf that's sabre rattling too near a tanker.

54 minutes ago, Rudy’s Message said:

Trump said he will look to destroy Iran’s culture.

Destroying any cultural sites Is against the Geneva convention, therefore a war crime.

Remember when ISIS did it?

Yes its a threat and hasn’t actually done that, yet but again can someone explain to me how the leader of the free world can threaten to carry out a war crime?

And before anyone says well this is only if Iran respond with an attack on the U.S, even if Iran did attack back the Geneva convention can’t be broken especially not by the POTUS, 

What Trump doesn’t understand is going to war is to be better than that country not stoop to their level.

He doesn’t understand politics, he doesn’t understand war, or history, he should not be on fuckin Twitter. The man is a dangerous individual and the defenders of him genuinely scare me.

Culture not cultural sites. There’s a difference. 

2 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Culture not cultural sites. There’s a difference. 

Please expand. 

8 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Culture not cultural sites. There’s a difference. 

Go on 

Oh and that’s alright then

Edited January 5, 20206 yr by Rudy’s Message

21 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Culture not cultural sites. There’s a difference. 

So genocide then? 

3 minutes ago, kent_white said:

So genocide then? 

Depends on how “culture” is defined

Unlikely to be genocide, I expect

 

Edited January 5, 20206 yr by boltondiver

5 minutes ago, kent_white said:

So genocide then? 

Don’t be ridiculous. 

52 targets 

He will attack Iranian Culture.
Cultural sites, Culture.

whats the difference Mounts?

36 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Please expand. 

Think he’s alluding to the Iranian psyche not cultural sites as some folk have leapt to that conclusion on twitter. 

Just now, Mounts Kipper said:

Think he’s alluding to the Iranian psyche not cultural sites as some folk have leapt to that conclusion on twitter. 

Expansion in the Middle East, isolationism, supporting terror etc

 

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Think he’s alluding to the Iranian psyche not cultural sites as some folk have leapt to that conclusion on twitter. 

The bloke is thick as mince. He won’t even know what allude means never mind doing it