Head of elite Iranian force killed in airstrike at Baghdad airport

[MOMENTO MORI]

Why? They sent missiles at the least important and defended US bases. Wouldn’t be surprised if they even told them ahead of time the missiles were coming so they could save face on Tehran TV.

Exactly if Iran kills Americans, what do they expect trump to do. If the US military sustained substantial causalities, they began the Iran bombing campaign in the next following days. They don’t want that.

[JimRaynor]

Exactly if Iran kills Americans, what do they expect trump to do. If the US military sustained substantial causalities, they began the Iran bombing campaign in the next following days. They don’t want that.

They also followed it up with, you better not retaliate! Meaning we sent these missiles they were primarily symbolic, please do not hit us back.

Tomorrow will tell, but if there aren’t any casualties I don’t see this escalating.

[man down]

All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2020

[BrometheusBob.]

The guys who were pushing the "If he doesn't work for the Russians he should prove it by invading Syria, he's Putin's *****!" narrative got what they wanted (destroyed all diplomatic talks)...

Now the exact same people down to the man are doing the "I called it! WW3!" routine.

I literally don't remember ever hearing the bold by anyone

But assuming I accept some people said that, what does this have to do with that?

[JimRaynor]

I literally don't remember ever hearing the bold by anyone

But assuming I accept some people said that, what does this have to do with that? You know this situation is about Iran rather than Syria?

I think the point he was making regarding Trump was, damned if you do damned if you don’t.

[megas30]

Not true. Syria has little oil production. If you are referring to Afghanistan...little to no oil there either.

We are dealing with Iran.

Iraq certainly does, but the US is oil and natural gas independent. We simply don't need their oil, so your argument is factually incorrect.

I guess the US government knows something we don't. First being independent doesn't mean one stops importing oil and locking oil away in reserves. It only means production exceeds consumption. And it is usually based on estimate of oil reserve. That oil reserve, i believe is in Shale, right?

However, at the moment it has been predicted that companies are eating themselves by overproducing shale oil, so the question is, is production sustainable when exploration and production companies are going bankrupt? Only a matter of time before production is halt to increase profit to prevent more companies from going under. When this happens, will production able to match consumption? Shale is only good as the profit it yields and, as of now, it is bringing nothing.

Also, if US is indeed independent and now an exporter of net oil, it means Iran, a longtime rival, is a huge competitor, with the third largest oil reserve, so why not take them out and tighten the market and secure a profitable market share. I see plenty reasons for them to be there. America is good at fooling the world, more so their own people. Listen, i understand why you guys are on America's side, but i don't have to, as i am not American. I don't have a dog in the fight, so i can be more objective.

[BrometheusBob.]

I think the point he was making regarding Trump was, damned if you do damned if you don’t.

But is that the case? I feel like the response to the missile strikes in Syria was mostly negative from libs, nationalists, and libertarians and generally supportive from other conservatives. And I think there was a similar response to the attack that killed Suleimani.. more or less. Am I wrong on this?

Basically, I can't identify the group of people that encouraged attacking Syria but are discouraging attacking Iran. Who would you say //// is talking about?

[i_am_a_champ]

Why? They sent missiles at the least important and defended US bases. Wouldn’t be surprised if they even told them ahead of time the missiles were coming so they could save face on Tehran TV.

Who knows. Both you and i dont

[megas30]

This says America can

Yet, never able to win a war by themselves. Moreover, in modern warfares that i live to experience, they always leave with their tails between their legs.

[JimRaynor]

But is that the case? I feel like the response to the missile strikes in Syria was mostly negative from libs, nationalists, and libertarians and generally supportive from other conservatives. And I think there was a similar response to the attack that killed Suleimani.. more or less. Am I wrong on this?

Basically, I can't identify the group of people that encouraged attacking Syria but are discouraging attacking Iran. Who would you say //// is talking about?

No you’re right for the most part. Point is when Trump refused to engage anyone who was Russia’s allies he was deemed a Putin stooge. When he strikes now he’s bellicose, criticism is always from the left, not to say that the right doesn’t defend him out right now matter what either.