The impending war with Iran

[waks]

LOL, fine. Include the Obama administration in your response. Do you think the assassination was wise?

Why is killing an enemy soldier operating inside a country lead by a U.S. coalition government called an assassination?

Well a UN official has already said it violates international human rights. But quit splitting hairs here and answer the question.

[sonofdaxjones]

LOL, fine. Include the Obama administration in your response. Do you think the assassination was wise?

Why is killing an enemy soldier operating inside a country lead by a U.S. coalition government called an assassination?

Well a UN official has already said it violates international human rights. But quit splitting hairs here and answer the question.

Stating an absolute fact relative to the rank and status of this individual is not anywhere close to splitting hairs waks, FFS.

All of these people chiming in now saying that killing this guy is unwise are essentially admitting that they were (apparently) perfectly fine with allowing Iran to, in all matter of speaking, station one of their highest ranking military officers in another country so that officer could plan and carry out attacks against a U.S. coalition government and U.S. personal. . . they are either categorically insane or utterly inept, if not both.   

But they should have tried to capture the guy first, before trying to kill him.

[Phil Titola]

Bloodthirsty dax having a good new year's!

[sonofdaxjones]

The only good drone strike is a Democrat lead drone strike

[waks]

LOL, fine. Include the Obama administration in your response. Do you think the assassination was wise?

Why is killing an enemy soldier operating inside a country lead by a U.S. coalition government called an assassination?

Well a UN official has already said it violates international human rights. But quit splitting hairs here and answer the question.

Stating an absolute fact relative to the rank and status of this individual is not anywhere close to splitting hairs waks, FFS.

All of these people chiming in now saying that killing this guy is unwise are essentially admitting that they were (apparently) perfectly fine with allowing Iran to, in all matter of speaking, station one of their highest ranking military officers in another country so that officer could plan and carry out attacks against a U.S. coalition government and U.S. personal. . . they are either categorically insane or utterly inept, if not both.   

But they should have tried to capture the guy first, before trying to kill him.

Dodging a yes or no question repeatedly because you object to the wording of the question is splitting hairs. Thank you for finally (kind of) answering the question. Do you think this will lead to war with Iran and if it does are you still totally cool with the action? Do you think Trump has actually thought this out and that there is a plan in place if and when Iran retaliates?

[star seed 7]

Trump has had so much success with North Korea, why doesn't he try a similar diplomatic approach with Iran?

[sonofdaxjones]

LOL, fine. Include the Obama administration in your response. Do you think the assassination was wise?

Why is killing an enemy soldier operating inside a country lead by a U.S. coalition government called an assassination?

Well a UN official has already said it violates international human rights. But quit splitting hairs here and answer the question.

Stating an absolute fact relative to the rank and status of this individual is not anywhere close to splitting hairs waks, FFS.

All of these people chiming in now saying that killing this guy is unwise are essentially admitting that they were (apparently) perfectly fine with allowing Iran to, in all matter of speaking, station one of their highest ranking military officers in another country so that officer could plan and carry out attacks against a U.S. coalition government and U.S. personal. . . they are either categorically insane or utterly inept, if not both.   

But they should have tried to capture the guy first, before trying to kill him.

Dodging a yes or no question repeatedly because you object to the wording of the question is splitting hairs. Thank you for finally (kind of) answering the question. Do you think this will lead to war with Iran and if it does are you still totally cool with the action? Do you think Trump has actually thought this out and that there is a plan in place if and when Iran retaliates?

First, of all, was this guy a uniformed officer of a nation state's military conducting/leading military operations against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and U.S. partner government(s) from inside the borders of a sovereign nation (and not from inside his own nation),  Yes or No?

Once you admit that this guy was Iranian military officer conducting a war against the United States and its partners we can go on from there.

 

[waks]

LOL, fine. Include the Obama administration in your response. Do you think the assassination was wise?

Why is killing an enemy soldier operating inside a country lead by a U.S. coalition government called an assassination?

Well a UN official has already said it violates international human rights. But quit splitting hairs here and answer the question.

Stating an absolute fact relative to the rank and status of this individual is not anywhere close to splitting hairs waks, FFS.

All of these people chiming in now saying that killing this guy is unwise are essentially admitting that they were (apparently) perfectly fine with allowing Iran to, in all matter of speaking, station one of their highest ranking military officers in another country so that officer could plan and carry out attacks against a U.S. coalition government and U.S. personal. . . they are either categorically insane or utterly inept, if not both.   

But they should have tried to capture the guy first, before trying to kill him.

Dodging a yes or no question repeatedly because you object to the wording of the question is splitting hairs. Thank you for finally (kind of) answering the question. Do you think this will lead to war with Iran and if it does are you still totally cool with the action? Do you think Trump has actually thought this out and that there is a plan in place if and when Iran retaliates?

First, of all, was this guy a uniformed officer of a nation state's military conducting/leading military operations against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and U.S. partner government(s) from inside the borders of a sovereign nation (and not from inside his own nation),  Yes or No?

Once you admit that this guy was Iranian military officer conducting a war against the United States and its partners we can go on from there.

Dax. He was a bad guy. We all can agree on that. Nobody is shedding tears over his death. This whole time haven't you been against the United States even being in these conflicts in Iraq and Syria? It just perplexes me that suddenly you are totally fine with the escalation of this conflict. We're sending 3000 more troops to Kuwait. I just wish you were more consistent in your positions is all.

[CHONGS]

Dax only supports military actions when a republican is in the White House.

You have to remember, he was mad when OBL was killed.

[waks]

Dax only supports military actions when a republican is in the White House.

You have to remember, he was mad when OBL was killed.

I thought I remembered that but I didn't want to waste my time trying to find it.

[sonofdaxjones]

LOL, fine. Include the Obama administration in your response. Do you think the assassination was wise?

Why is killing an enemy soldier operating inside a country lead by a U.S. coalition government called an assassination?

Well a UN official has already said it violates international human rights. But quit splitting hairs here and answer the question.

Stating an absolute fact relative to the rank and status of this individual is not anywhere close to splitting hairs waks, FFS.

All of these people chiming in now saying that killing this guy is unwise are essentially admitting that they were (apparently) perfectly fine with allowing Iran to, in all matter of speaking, station one of their highest ranking military officers in another country so that officer could plan and carry out attacks against a U.S. coalition government and U.S. personal. . . they are either categorically insane or utterly inept, if not both.   

But they should have tried to capture the guy first, before trying to kill him.

Dodging a yes or no question repeatedly because you object to the wording of the question is splitting hairs. Thank you for finally (kind of) answering the question. Do you think this will lead to war with Iran and if it does are you still totally cool with the action? Do you think Trump has actually thought this out and that there is a plan in place if and when Iran retaliates?

First, of all, was this guy a uniformed officer of a nation state's military conducting/leading military operations against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and U.S. partner government(s) from inside the borders of a sovereign nation (and not from inside his own nation),  Yes or No?

Once you admit that this guy was Iranian military officer conducting a war against the United States and its partners we can go on from there.

Dax. He was a bad guy. We all can agree on that. Nobody is shedding tears over his death. This whole time haven't you been against the United States even being in these conflicts in Iraq and Syria? It just perplexes me that suddenly you are totally fine with the escalation of this conflict. We're sending 3000 more troops to Kuwait. I just wish you were more consistent in your positions is all.

It's to late in Iraq.  But at minimum the U.S. has spent billions trying to rebuild Iraq and prop up some semblance of a government that sorta reflects the fringes of Democracy.   The previous administration was purely burn it down to the ground and let the worst of the worst fight it out from there.   Which is why Libya is still going and going with no end in sight, and Syria is still a mess.  Remember, there were multiple offers to negotiate Assad stepping down and the U.S. (Obama) rejected them all.

I do not consider taking out a senior military officer of a foreign entity leading attacks against U.S. partners and U.S. interests inside Iraq an escalation, only idiots think that.   Again, what they're really admitting is that they were (apparently) fine with allowing Iran to sit in Iraq and attack (repeatedly) and the U.S. do nothing about it.

   

[sonofdaxjones]

Dax only supports military actions when a republican is in the White House.

You have to remember, he was mad when OBL was killed.

Oh Chinstalker 

[waks]

LOL, fine. Include the Obama administration in your response. Do you think the assassination was wise?

Why is killing an enemy soldier operating inside a country lead by a U.S. coalition government called an assassination?

Well a UN official has already said it violates international human rights. But quit splitting hairs here and answer the question.

Stating an absolute fact relative to the rank and status of this individual is not anywhere close to splitting hairs waks, FFS.

All of these people chiming in now saying that killing this guy is unwise are essentially admitting that they were (apparently) perfectly fine with allowing Iran to, in all matter of speaking, station one of their highest ranking military officers in another country so that officer could plan and carry out attacks against a U.S. coalition government and U.S. personal. . . they are either categorically insane or utterly inept, if not both.   

But they should have tried to capture the guy first, before trying to kill him.

Dodging a yes or no question repeatedly because you object to the wording of the question is splitting hairs. Thank you for finally (kind of) answering the question. Do you think this will lead to war with Iran and if it does are you still totally cool with the action? Do you think Trump has actually thought this out and that there is a plan in place if and when Iran retaliates?

First, of all, was this guy a uniformed officer of a nation state's military conducting/leading military operations against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and U.S. partner government(s) from inside the borders of a sovereign nation (and not from inside his own nation),  Yes or No?

Once you admit that this guy was Iranian military officer conducting a war against the United States and its partners we can go on from there.

Dax. He was a bad guy. We all can agree on that. Nobody is shedding tears over his death. This whole time haven't you been against the United States even being in these conflicts in Iraq and Syria? It just perplexes me that suddenly you are totally fine with the escalation of this conflict. We're sending 3000 more troops to Kuwait. I just wish you were more consistent in your positions is all.

I do not consider taking out a senior military officer of a foreign entity leading attacks against U.S. partners and U.S. interests inside Iraq an escalation, only idiots think that.   Again, what they're really admitting is that they were (apparently) fine with allowing Iran to sit in Iraq and attack (repeatedly) and the U.S. do nothing about it.

 

Taking out the highest ranking military officer of a country (who is allied with China and Russia) we are not actively at war (shadow war not withstanding) with isn't an escalation? Ok, we can call it good. This is futile.

[sonofdaxjones]

LOL, fine. Include the Obama administration in your response. Do you think the assassination was wise?

Why is killing an enemy soldier operating inside a country lead by a U.S. coalition government called an assassination?

Well a UN official has already said it violates international human rights. But quit splitting hairs here and answer the question.

Stating an absolute fact relative to the rank and status of this individual is not anywhere close to splitting hairs waks, FFS.

All of these people chiming in now saying that killing this guy is unwise are essentially admitting that they were (apparently) perfectly fine with allowing Iran to, in all matter of speaking, station one of their highest ranking military officers in another country so that officer could plan and carry out attacks against a U.S. coalition government and U.S. personal. . . they are either categorically insane or utterly inept, if not both.   

But they should have tried to capture the guy first, before trying to kill him.

Dodging a yes or no question repeatedly because you object to the wording of the question is splitting hairs. Thank you for finally (kind of) answering the question. Do you think this will lead to war with Iran and if it does are you still totally cool with the action? Do you think Trump has actually thought this out and that there is a plan in place if and when Iran retaliates?

First, of all, was this guy a uniformed officer of a nation state's military conducting/leading military operations against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and U.S. partner government(s) from inside the borders of a sovereign nation (and not from inside his own nation),  Yes or No?

Once you admit that this guy was Iranian military officer conducting a war against the United States and its partners we can go on from there.

Dax. He was a bad guy. We all can agree on that. Nobody is shedding tears over his death. This whole time haven't you been against the United States even being in these conflicts in Iraq and Syria? It just perplexes me that suddenly you are totally fine with the escalation of this conflict. We're sending 3000 more troops to Kuwait. I just wish you were more consistent in your positions is all.

I do not consider taking out a senior military officer of a foreign entity leading attacks against U.S. partners and U.S. interests inside Iraq an escalation, only idiots think that.   Again, what they're really admitting is that they were (apparently) fine with allowing Iran to sit in Iraq and attack (repeatedly) and the U.S. do nothing about it.

 

Taking out the highest ranking military officer of a country (who is allied with China and Russia) we are not actively at war (shadow war not withstanding) with isn't an escalation? Ok, we can call it good. This is futile.

I agree, it's futile to talk with someone who clearly believes the U.S. should have done nothing (likely because OrangeMan bad) and just allowed this guy and his staff to literally operate against U.S. interests from right inside Iraq.   

[CHONGS]

Would the U.S. be fighting Iranians in Iraq if the U.S. hadn't invaded Iraq??

[sonofdaxjones]

Would the U.S. be fighting Iranians in Iraq if the U.S. hadn't invaded Iraq??

It depends.

What if Saddam had stepped down (for example) and the Iraqi government was a U.S. ally?

[CHONGS]

Could you please point to me to non U.S./non NATO sources that clarify that indeed U.S. forces are fighting directly against Iranian's supported directly by the Iranian government?

[Trim]

Hbd, Dax.

[sonofdaxjones]

Could you please point to me to non U.S./non NATO sources that clarify that indeed U.S. forces are fighting directly against Iranian's supported directly by the Iranian government?

FFS Chin, didn't you know that non official sources and/or non pre approved sources are not allowed here.

[sonofdaxjones]

Hbd, Dax.

I love cake and Iranians, except for the Jihadists.

[LickNeckey]

BLOODTHIRSTYWARPIG DAX IS BACK!!!

 

[CHONGS]

Actually, if you think about it, if they go after Iran, there's pretty much going to be a huge mess.   But rest assured if they do, the average Trumper is going to be there to defend it every step of the way.

[sonofdaxjones]

Actually, if you think about it, if they go after Iran, there's pretty much going to be a huge mess.   But rest assured if they do, the average Trumper is going to be there to defend it every step of the way.

Hopefully we'll get an explanation, and it won't be one of those "we came we saw he died" kind of deals with zero explanations and tens of millions of LibBots not caring - (D) approved

[CHONGS]

Yet your a dude who wants to argue and refute the current administrations massive role in stirring the pot in many of these problems.

[sonofdaxjones]

Yet your a dude who wants to argue and refute the current administrations massive role in stirring the pot in many of these problems.

Stir the pot?  Defined as not going full cuck on Iran.