Trump Threatens To Sanction Iraq -- Why The F'k Are We Still There??

[Crixus]

Trump Pushes Iraq, Threatens Sanctions After Vote to Expel U.S. Troops

I should have known most Trumpers were full of shit when it came to genuinely wanting to stop being policemen of the world.....I really thought Trump was serious when he said he wanted to get out of Iraq....but if this is true, why is he threatening to sanction Iraq just because they voted for US troops to leave their country?? We been in Iraq for 18 years and they ain't free yet?? Why are we there then??

"President Trump threatened Iraq with sanctions and a bill for billions of dollars if the U.S. is forced to withdraw its troops from the nation after the Iraqi parliament, responding to a U.S. airstrike that killed a powerful Iranian general on its soil, voted in favor of expelling American forces."

It was bad enough that the Iraqi Prime Minister objected to the strike at his airport, claiming Qassem Soleimani was a guest of his country -- why would the number 1 terrorist in the history of the world be invited as a guest in Iraq?? Now the Iraqi parliament voted to kick our US troops out of their country?? Like I said, why are we still there then??

And what is Trump's reaction?? "In response, Trump has threatened to sanction Baghdad "like they've never seen before ever," if Iraq were to expel US troops. 'It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame," he added, a reference to over 1,000 rounds of economic penalties imposed by the US on Tehran after the Trump administration pulled out of the multilateral Iran nuclear deal in 2018."

The last time we threatened to sanction Iraq -- Saddam Hussein was president -- what the fuck did we spend 18 years in Iraq for?? Why are we still there?? You can still have fun attacking Iran from bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc etc etc -- so using Iran as an excuse to stay in Iraq for another 18 years is not an excuse....I want Trumpers to really step back from their sycophancy and acknowledge the fact that Trump is actually trying to force Iraq to allow our troops to stay there -- after all of this talk of leaving Iraq and brining our troops home......why are we there??

We saved the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein and now we are saving them from Iran.

That's not how it was sold to us. Let Iran have Iraq. Who cares.

We have two concerns in matter. One is to keep oil flowing in the Gulf because while we are oil independent much of the global economy still depends on ME oil and as the global economy goes so goes our economy. The second reason is to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes. We are also there to prevent a resurgent ISIS since it was only our air support that allowed Iraqis to defeat ISIS last time.

We can do all that without the presence we have now. It's time to leave now.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How do you know that he had done those things?

lol Because I am not living in the Matrix and you clearly think you are.

All you know is what the government tells you. You believe them without question and I do not

So you never believe what the government says? They have a treatment for that.

I am a skeptic. When an individual/organization has a history of lying, the smart thing to do is not blindly accept what they tell you. But sadly there is no treatment for your blind obedience to the government.

lol I would say there is hope for you since there is treatment for your paranoia.

but there is no treatment for willful ignorance so you are shit out of luck

 

[pknopp]

They are not that dismal, the really dismal part is how few others want to see it.

There is no proof that could ever exist to prove they were wrong about the imminent attack, which of course is why you asked that way.

Why do you automatically believe the government when they tell you these things?

Our government has a long history of lying to us, yet you act like it has never happened.

Why cannot they not give us more information so we have more than just "because we said so"?

Your posts are getting more and more bizarre. Soleimani had been directing increasingly escalating attacks against US personnel and property, so why would you doubt he was planning more?

Saddam had a nuclear program near ready to produce weapons to destroy us.

All you know is what the government tells you. You believe them without question and I do not

So you never believe what the government says? They have a treatment for that.

How exactly do you determine when they are lying or telling the truth? How if affects your politics?

If we are talking about the intelligence services I assume they are telling the truth unless I have some reason to doubt it. So when Obama said he was pulling out of Iraq because the Iraqis no longer needed us, I was sure he was lying because I had read of the extensive network of support the US was supplying to Iraq, and it was not plausible that suddenly removing them would not lead to dire consequences. On the other hand, I believe Soleimani was directing the attacks against US bases in Iraq because his position as directing the network of Iranian backed militia was widely reported around the world and he was cited as a terrorist in both the US and Europe and I had no knowledge of my own to contradict it. Was he planning more attacks? That seemed plausible since he had directed the previous attacks.

So we are told. Maybe it was about a video.

I know a guy who still thinks we never really landed on the moon. You'd get along great with him.

Do you still believe Benghazi was about a video?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Trump Pushes Iraq, Threatens Sanctions After Vote to Expel U.S. Troops

I should have known most Trumpers were full of shit when it came to genuinely wanting to stop being policemen of the world.....I really thought Trump was serious when he said he wanted to get out of Iraq....but if this is true, why is he threatening to sanction Iraq just because they voted for US troops to leave their country?? We been in Iraq for 18 years and they ain't free yet?? Why are we there then??

"President Trump threatened Iraq with sanctions and a bill for billions of dollars if the U.S. is forced to withdraw its troops from the nation after the Iraqi parliament, responding to a U.S. airstrike that killed a powerful Iranian general on its soil, voted in favor of expelling American forces."

It was bad enough that the Iraqi Prime Minister objected to the strike at his airport, claiming Qassem Soleimani was a guest of his country -- why would the number 1 terrorist in the history of the world be invited as a guest in Iraq?? Now the Iraqi parliament voted to kick our US troops out of their country?? Like I said, why are we still there then??

And what is Trump's reaction?? "In response, Trump has threatened to sanction Baghdad "like they've never seen before ever," if Iraq were to expel US troops. 'It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame," he added, a reference to over 1,000 rounds of economic penalties imposed by the US on Tehran after the Trump administration pulled out of the multilateral Iran nuclear deal in 2018."

The last time we threatened to sanction Iraq -- Saddam Hussein was president -- what the fuck did we spend 18 years in Iraq for?? Why are we still there?? You can still have fun attacking Iran from bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc etc etc -- so using Iran as an excuse to stay in Iraq for another 18 years is not an excuse....I want Trumpers to really step back from their sycophancy and acknowledge the fact that Trump is actually trying to force Iraq to allow our troops to stay there -- after all of this talk of leaving Iraq and brining our troops home......why are we there??

We saved the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein and now we are saving them from Iran.

That's not how it was sold to us. Let Iran have Iraq. Who cares.

We have two concerns in matter. One is to keep oil flowing in the Gulf because while we are oil independent much of the global economy still depends on ME oil and as the global economy goes so goes our economy. The second reason is to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes. We are also there to prevent a resurgent ISIS since it was only our air support that allowed Iraqis to defeat ISIS last time.

We can do all that without the presence we have now. It's time to leave now.

That's what Obama said in 2012 and two years later he had to send them back.

 

[pknopp]

Trump Pushes Iraq, Threatens Sanctions After Vote to Expel U.S. Troops

I should have known most Trumpers were full of shit when it came to genuinely wanting to stop being policemen of the world.....I really thought Trump was serious when he said he wanted to get out of Iraq....but if this is true, why is he threatening to sanction Iraq just because they voted for US troops to leave their country?? We been in Iraq for 18 years and they ain't free yet?? Why are we there then??

"President Trump threatened Iraq with sanctions and a bill for billions of dollars if the U.S. is forced to withdraw its troops from the nation after the Iraqi parliament, responding to a U.S. airstrike that killed a powerful Iranian general on its soil, voted in favor of expelling American forces."

It was bad enough that the Iraqi Prime Minister objected to the strike at his airport, claiming Qassem Soleimani was a guest of his country -- why would the number 1 terrorist in the history of the world be invited as a guest in Iraq?? Now the Iraqi parliament voted to kick our US troops out of their country?? Like I said, why are we still there then??

And what is Trump's reaction?? "In response, Trump has threatened to sanction Baghdad "like they've never seen before ever," if Iraq were to expel US troops. 'It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame," he added, a reference to over 1,000 rounds of economic penalties imposed by the US on Tehran after the Trump administration pulled out of the multilateral Iran nuclear deal in 2018."

The last time we threatened to sanction Iraq -- Saddam Hussein was president -- what the fuck did we spend 18 years in Iraq for?? Why are we still there?? You can still have fun attacking Iran from bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc etc etc -- so using Iran as an excuse to stay in Iraq for another 18 years is not an excuse....I want Trumpers to really step back from their sycophancy and acknowledge the fact that Trump is actually trying to force Iraq to allow our troops to stay there -- after all of this talk of leaving Iraq and brining our troops home......why are we there??

We saved the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein and now we are saving them from Iran.

That's not how it was sold to us. Let Iran have Iraq. Who cares.

We have two concerns in matter. One is to keep oil flowing in the Gulf because while we are oil independent much of the global economy still depends on ME oil and as the global economy goes so goes our economy. The second reason is to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes. We are also there to prevent a resurgent ISIS since it was only our air support that allowed Iraqis to defeat ISIS last time.

We can do all that without the presence we have now. It's time to leave now.

That's what Obama said in 2012 and two years later he had to send them back.

No he didn't have to do anything.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Your posts are getting more and more bizarre. Soleimani had been directing increasingly escalating attacks against US personnel and property, so why would you doubt he was planning more?

Saddam had a nuclear program near ready to produce weapons to destroy us.

So you never believe what the government says? They have a treatment for that.

How exactly do you determine when they are lying or telling the truth? How if affects your politics?

If we are talking about the intelligence services I assume they are telling the truth unless I have some reason to doubt it. So when Obama said he was pulling out of Iraq because the Iraqis no longer needed us, I was sure he was lying because I had read of the extensive network of support the US was supplying to Iraq, and it was not plausible that suddenly removing them would not lead to dire consequences. On the other hand, I believe Soleimani was directing the attacks against US bases in Iraq because his position as directing the network of Iranian backed militia was widely reported around the world and he was cited as a terrorist in both the US and Europe and I had no knowledge of my own to contradict it. Was he planning more attacks? That seemed plausible since he had directed the previous attacks.

So we are told. Maybe it was about a video.

I know a guy who still thinks we never really landed on the moon. You'd get along great with him.

Do you still believe Benghazi was about a video?

That was Clinton's explanation, wasn't it?

 

[pknopp]

Saddam had a nuclear program near ready to produce weapons to destroy us.

How exactly do you determine when they are lying or telling the truth? How if affects your politics?

If we are talking about the intelligence services I assume they are telling the truth unless I have some reason to doubt it. So when Obama said he was pulling out of Iraq because the Iraqis no longer needed us, I was sure he was lying because I had read of the extensive network of support the US was supplying to Iraq, and it was not plausible that suddenly removing them would not lead to dire consequences. On the other hand, I believe Soleimani was directing the attacks against US bases in Iraq because his position as directing the network of Iranian backed militia was widely reported around the world and he was cited as a terrorist in both the US and Europe and I had no knowledge of my own to contradict it. Was he planning more attacks? That seemed plausible since he had directed the previous attacks.

So we are told. Maybe it was about a video.

I know a guy who still thinks we never really landed on the moon. You'd get along great with him.

Do you still believe Benghazi was about a video?

That was Clinton's explanation, wasn't it?

That was the official governments explanation. Now, are you going to answer the question?

 

[toomuchtime_]

If we are talking about the intelligence services I assume they are telling the truth unless I have some reason to doubt it. So when Obama said he was pulling out of Iraq because the Iraqis no longer needed us, I was sure he was lying because I had read of the extensive network of support the US was supplying to Iraq, and it was not plausible that suddenly removing them would not lead to dire consequences. On the other hand, I believe Soleimani was directing the attacks against US bases in Iraq because his position as directing the network of Iranian backed militia was widely reported around the world and he was cited as a terrorist in both the US and Europe and I had no knowledge of my own to contradict it. Was he planning more attacks? That seemed plausible since he had directed the previous attacks.

So we are told. Maybe it was about a video.

I know a guy who still thinks we never really landed on the moon. You'd get along great with him.

Do you still believe Benghazi was about a video?

That was Clinton's explanation, wasn't it?

That was the official governments explanation. Now, are you going to answer the question?

No, this was a political statement not based on intelligence assessments. It was a ridiculous explanation, but then Clinton is a ridiculous person, as you are.

 

[pknopp]

So we are told. Maybe it was about a video.

I know a guy who still thinks we never really landed on the moon. You'd get along great with him.

Do you still believe Benghazi was about a video?

That was Clinton's explanation, wasn't it?

That was the official governments explanation. Now, are you going to answer the question?

No, this was a political statement not based on intelligence assessments. It was a ridiculous explanation, but then Clinton is a ridiculous person, as you are.

Do you still believe Clapper when he said the government doesnt spy on the people? Do you still believe Mexico may write a check for the wall? Do you still believe Saddam was an imminent threat to the US?

Do you still believe Epstein killed himself?

 

[toomuchtime_]

I know a guy who still thinks we never really landed on the moon. You'd get along great with him.

Do you still believe Benghazi was about a video?

That was Clinton's explanation, wasn't it?

That was the official governments explanation. Now, are you going to answer the question?

No, this was a political statement not based on intelligence assessments. It was a ridiculous explanation, but then Clinton is a ridiculous person, as you are.

Do you still believe Clapper when he said the government doesnt spy on the people? Do you still believe Mexico may write a check for the wall? Do you still believe Saddam was an imminent threat to the US?

I believe you are an annoying idiot who has never added anything of value to any discussion.

 

[pknopp]

Do you still believe Benghazi was about a video?

That was Clinton's explanation, wasn't it?

That was the official governments explanation. Now, are you going to answer the question?

No, this was a political statement not based on intelligence assessments. It was a ridiculous explanation, but then Clinton is a ridiculous person, as you are.

Do you still believe Clapper when he said the government doesnt spy on the people? Do you still believe Mexico may write a check for the wall? Do you still believe Saddam was an imminent threat to the US?

I believe you are an annoying idiot who has never added anything of value to any discussion.

How many times does the government get to lie to you before you start questioning what they say?

 

[satrebil]

How many Americans are you willing to sacrifice for this fantasy Iran campaign?

No sacrifice will be necessary. If the job cannot be done with sanctions, the Iran will be bombed out from the air. No invasion, no US casualties.

I have already been pointed out, via North Korea, that sanctions don't work. And if you think Iran is just going to stand idle while we drop bombs on them, you are an idiot. They have advanced weaponry and a ruthless military, and they WILL use them.

Your premise of "we'll bomb them so they don't bomb us" is juvenile and absurd.

Sanctions sometimes do work - South Africa, Libya, for example - and it is impossible to imagine the Iranian people would allow the government to starve them to death in order to be able to build nukes. The Iranians are already rioting in the streets about the price of gasoline and fresh meat. The Iranian military is not a threat. They have a negligible air force, minimal air defenses, and while they do have a fairly large number of short and medium range missiles, they have only a small number that can reach beyond Iraq. Iran might be able to launch some missile attacks against our bases in Iraq and Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Their regular army is poorly equipped but the Republican Guard is better equipped but has no means of projecting military power far beyond its borders. In short, there is very little Iran could do to retaliate against a US attack to destroy its nuclear program.

For fucks sake man...

Iran has sleeper cells all over the West. They have submarines that can torpedo anything coming in and out of the Strait of Hormuz. They have well armed proxies throughout the ME that do their bidding. They have an advanced cyber-warfare unit that can wreak havoc virtually anywhere on the planet - shutting down critical infrastructure and/or crashing economic markets. They've got enough missiles stockpiled to pose a significant threat to Israel. They have advanced anti aircraft weaponry and missile defense systems provided by Russia.

Bombing Iran would hardly be the cakewalk you're making it to be. This is the real world, not Call Of Duty.

Iran does not have a powerful military, but it can cause some problems in the Gulf and it can attack our bases in Iraq; beyond that there is little it can do to us. If it becomes necessary to bomb out Iran's nuclear weapons program, Iran will not be able to resist and it will not be able to retaliate significantly.

You're a fool. Do you have any idea what would happen to this country if the power went out?

 

[toomuchtime_]

That was Clinton's explanation, wasn't it?

That was the official governments explanation. Now, are you going to answer the question?

No, this was a political statement not based on intelligence assessments. It was a ridiculous explanation, but then Clinton is a ridiculous person, as you are.

Do you still believe Clapper when he said the government doesnt spy on the people? Do you still believe Mexico may write a check for the wall? Do you still believe Saddam was an imminent threat to the US?

I believe you are an annoying idiot who has never added anything of value to any discussion.

How many times does the government get to lie to you before you start questioning what they say?

lol I question everything you say because you have shown yourself to be such a prolific liar.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No sacrifice will be necessary. If the job cannot be done with sanctions, the Iran will be bombed out from the air. No invasion, no US casualties.

I have already been pointed out, via North Korea, that sanctions don't work. And if you think Iran is just going to stand idle while we drop bombs on them, you are an idiot. They have advanced weaponry and a ruthless military, and they WILL use them.

Your premise of "we'll bomb them so they don't bomb us" is juvenile and absurd.

Sanctions sometimes do work - South Africa, Libya, for example - and it is impossible to imagine the Iranian people would allow the government to starve them to death in order to be able to build nukes. The Iranians are already rioting in the streets about the price of gasoline and fresh meat. The Iranian military is not a threat. They have a negligible air force, minimal air defenses, and while they do have a fairly large number of short and medium range missiles, they have only a small number that can reach beyond Iraq. Iran might be able to launch some missile attacks against our bases in Iraq and Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Their regular army is poorly equipped but the Republican Guard is better equipped but has no means of projecting military power far beyond its borders. In short, there is very little Iran could do to retaliate against a US attack to destroy its nuclear program.

For fucks sake man...

Iran has sleeper cells all over the West. They have submarines that can torpedo anything coming in and out of the Strait of Hormuz. They have well armed proxies throughout the ME that do their bidding. They have an advanced cyber-warfare unit that can wreak havoc virtually anywhere on the planet - shutting down critical infrastructure and/or crashing economic markets. They've got enough missiles stockpiled to pose a significant threat to Israel. They have advanced anti aircraft weaponry and missile defense systems provided by Russia.

Bombing Iran would hardly be the cakewalk you're making it to be. This is the real world, not Call Of Duty.

Iran does not have a powerful military, but it can cause some problems in the Gulf and it can attack our bases in Iraq; beyond that there is little it can do to us. If it becomes necessary to bomb out Iran's nuclear weapons program, Iran will not be able to resist and it will not be able to retaliate significantly.

You're a fool. Do you have any idea what would happen to this country if the power went out?

Yes, I saw that TV show too. Are you really stupid enough to think that after all these years of preparing to counter terror attacks, we wouldn't be prepared for a third rate country like Iran? I understand that you want us to withdraw from the ME but stop making up bullshit to support you opinion. It only makes you look stupid.

 

[satrebil]

I have already been pointed out, via North Korea, that sanctions don't work. And if you think Iran is just going to stand idle while we drop bombs on them, you are an idiot. They have advanced weaponry and a ruthless military, and they WILL use them.

Your premise of "we'll bomb them so they don't bomb us" is juvenile and absurd.

Sanctions sometimes do work - South Africa, Libya, for example - and it is impossible to imagine the Iranian people would allow the government to starve them to death in order to be able to build nukes. The Iranians are already rioting in the streets about the price of gasoline and fresh meat. The Iranian military is not a threat. They have a negligible air force, minimal air defenses, and while they do have a fairly large number of short and medium range missiles, they have only a small number that can reach beyond Iraq. Iran might be able to launch some missile attacks against our bases in Iraq and Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Their regular army is poorly equipped but the Republican Guard is better equipped but has no means of projecting military power far beyond its borders. In short, there is very little Iran could do to retaliate against a US attack to destroy its nuclear program.

For fucks sake man...

Iran has sleeper cells all over the West. They have submarines that can torpedo anything coming in and out of the Strait of Hormuz. They have well armed proxies throughout the ME that do their bidding. They have an advanced cyber-warfare unit that can wreak havoc virtually anywhere on the planet - shutting down critical infrastructure and/or crashing economic markets. They've got enough missiles stockpiled to pose a significant threat to Israel. They have advanced anti aircraft weaponry and missile defense systems provided by Russia.

Bombing Iran would hardly be the cakewalk you're making it to be. This is the real world, not Call Of Duty.

Iran does not have a powerful military, but it can cause some problems in the Gulf and it can attack our bases in Iraq; beyond that there is little it can do to us. If it becomes necessary to bomb out Iran's nuclear weapons program, Iran will not be able to resist and it will not be able to retaliate significantly.

You're a fool. Do you have any idea what would happen to this country if the power went out?

Yes, I saw that TV show too. Are you really stupid enough to think that after all these years of preparing to counter terror attacks, we wouldn't be prepared for a third rate country like Iran? I understand that you want us to withdraw from the ME but stop making up bullshit to support you opinion. It only makes you look stupid.

Stupid?

You obviously haven't the foggiest fucking clue how ill-prepared our country is for a major electrical grid failure. There have been Congressional hearings on this for fucks sake. Iran is not and will not be a pushover. In a major conflict they will use everything at their disposal to hit back at us. Pull your head out of your ass.

 

[pknopp]

I have already been pointed out, via North Korea, that sanctions don't work. And if you think Iran is just going to stand idle while we drop bombs on them, you are an idiot. They have advanced weaponry and a ruthless military, and they WILL use them.

Your premise of "we'll bomb them so they don't bomb us" is juvenile and absurd.

Sanctions sometimes do work - South Africa, Libya, for example - and it is impossible to imagine the Iranian people would allow the government to starve them to death in order to be able to build nukes. The Iranians are already rioting in the streets about the price of gasoline and fresh meat. The Iranian military is not a threat. They have a negligible air force, minimal air defenses, and while they do have a fairly large number of short and medium range missiles, they have only a small number that can reach beyond Iraq. Iran might be able to launch some missile attacks against our bases in Iraq and Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Their regular army is poorly equipped but the Republican Guard is better equipped but has no means of projecting military power far beyond its borders. In short, there is very little Iran could do to retaliate against a US attack to destroy its nuclear program.

For fucks sake man...

Iran has sleeper cells all over the West. They have submarines that can torpedo anything coming in and out of the Strait of Hormuz. They have well armed proxies throughout the ME that do their bidding. They have an advanced cyber-warfare unit that can wreak havoc virtually anywhere on the planet - shutting down critical infrastructure and/or crashing economic markets. They've got enough missiles stockpiled to pose a significant threat to Israel. They have advanced anti aircraft weaponry and missile defense systems provided by Russia.

Bombing Iran would hardly be the cakewalk you're making it to be. This is the real world, not Call Of Duty.

Iran does not have a powerful military, but it can cause some problems in the Gulf and it can attack our bases in Iraq; beyond that there is little it can do to us. If it becomes necessary to bomb out Iran's nuclear weapons program, Iran will not be able to resist and it will not be able to retaliate significantly.

You're a fool. Do you have any idea what would happen to this country if the power went out?

Yes, I saw that TV show too. Are you really stupid enough to think that after all these years of preparing to counter terror attacks, we wouldn't be prepared for a third rate country like Iran? I understand that you want us to withdraw from the ME but stop making up bullshit to support you opinion. It only makes you look stupid.

We havent accomplished anything in Afghanistan and you think Iran would be easy? An Iran backed by China and Russia at that?

Its no wonder the government has found you so gullible.

 

[satrebil]

Sanctions sometimes do work - South Africa, Libya, for example - and it is impossible to imagine the Iranian people would allow the government to starve them to death in order to be able to build nukes. The Iranians are already rioting in the streets about the price of gasoline and fresh meat. The Iranian military is not a threat. They have a negligible air force, minimal air defenses, and while they do have a fairly large number of short and medium range missiles, they have only a small number that can reach beyond Iraq. Iran might be able to launch some missile attacks against our bases in Iraq and Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Their regular army is poorly equipped but the Republican Guard is better equipped but has no means of projecting military power far beyond its borders. In short, there is very little Iran could do to retaliate against a US attack to destroy its nuclear program.

For fucks sake man...

Iran has sleeper cells all over the West. They have submarines that can torpedo anything coming in and out of the Strait of Hormuz. They have well armed proxies throughout the ME that do their bidding. They have an advanced cyber-warfare unit that can wreak havoc virtually anywhere on the planet - shutting down critical infrastructure and/or crashing economic markets. They've got enough missiles stockpiled to pose a significant threat to Israel. They have advanced anti aircraft weaponry and missile defense systems provided by Russia.

Bombing Iran would hardly be the cakewalk you're making it to be. This is the real world, not Call Of Duty.

Iran does not have a powerful military, but it can cause some problems in the Gulf and it can attack our bases in Iraq; beyond that there is little it can do to us. If it becomes necessary to bomb out Iran's nuclear weapons program, Iran will not be able to resist and it will not be able to retaliate significantly.

You're a fool. Do you have any idea what would happen to this country if the power went out?

Yes, I saw that TV show too. Are you really stupid enough to think that after all these years of preparing to counter terror attacks, we wouldn't be prepared for a third rate country like Iran? I understand that you want us to withdraw from the ME but stop making up bullshit to support you opinion. It only makes you look stupid.

We havent accomplished anything in Afghanistan and you think Iran would be easy? An Iran backed by China and Russia at that?

Its no wonder the government has found you so gullible.

I'm about as big of an American flag-waver you can find, but I really can't stand these types who think we can just bomb everyone we don't like with impunity.

 

[Claudette]

Why bother.

Just remove every piece of equipment, bullet and gun when we leave. Leave them with what they had when Saddam ruled.

I wouldn't leave a turd for those idiots.

I'm also glad our Troops are being pulled out of that shithole. Let them have it. Hope they all kill each other like they have been doing since the 7th century. No great lost. Just dead murdering Muslims.