The whole thing just seems like a massive strategic mistake. I can’t see any benefit from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by stoneyburn hibs
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
The whole thing just seems like a massive strategic mistake. I can’t see any benefit from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by stoneyburn hibs
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...proval-ratingsQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I don’t think even the normally war hungry American population wants a war in the Middle East again though. This may not go the way he thinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm reading into that that the Americans might have informed their European allies prior to the strike and got a luke warm response in contrast to their middle eastern allies who were informed after the act. :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
With the various attacks that have taken place on American targets or allies of America in recent months I can understand that the Americans wouldn't just want to sit idly by and do nothing.
This does seem like a pretty rash and severe action to take, although it would be very much in keeping with the temperament of the current president.
I know it's often said that a war is good for a president but I could see the wrong sort of war being massively damaging.
The potential consequences of this are massive, not least the vacuum which will be even greater in that region because of the American actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Utter ****wits.
It seems a lifetime ago that Obama managed to balance the importance of the US alliance with Israel with a cooling of tensions with Iran and a relatively sensible treaty.
I've no idea what Trumps policy is on the middle east. It seems he does nothing for ages then just let's off a huge firework when no one expects it. Ripping up the Obama treaty with Iran wasn't unexpected but the Jerusalem embassy move and now this action are either deliberately provocative or downright idiocy. Possibly both.
One thing he does manage to do consistently is always make moves which seem to benefit Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
https://forensicnews.net/2020/01/03/...ower-told-fbi/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's worth pointing out that Christianity Today, an evangelical magazine founded by Billy Graham, have openly and repeatedly called for Trumps impeachment. They have called him a 'human who is morally lost and confused'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Sadly there is a tendency to portray all Christians as being the same as those socially and politically Conservative types who use religion to try to legitimise their views and give them a deeper context.
I'm not accusing you of the above BTW.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ent=edit-promo
A good article given that it was written by David Frum who was part of the Bush White House in the run up to the Iraq war.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataplana
Of course its all about them.
Israel is one of Iran’s primary targets (possibly the main one).Quote:
Originally Posted by Betty Boop
Trump has now completely lost the plot. Says he has a hit list of 52 Iranian targets he'll destroy if Iran retaliates. The number is symbolic in that it represents the amount of hostages taken by Iran years back. The targets apparently include cultural locations, he's talking like a terrorist.
I did worry when I saw the number thing. Erm, how about attacking targets based on military value. Cultural! WTF?!? Going to bomb a mosque?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
J
Pretty sure that would be war crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
We are in a cycle now. Iran can’t not hit back and of course when they do America can’t not hit back.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That doesn't seem to be correct re Sky (unless they were initially misinformed):Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
https://news.sky.com/story/prime-min...neral-11900599
Seems likely enough to me that Trump would just plough ahead with something ike this regardless of whether he'd informed anyone else.
Could Iran not go to the United Nations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I only posted what was being reported by Sky News at the time. Like I said earlier though, the truth will come out.Quote:
Originally Posted by G B Young
The British army would struggle to muster the equipment required to go to war. The navy is completely depleted and the airforce isn’t much better.
If we are standing on our own two feet in the world and forming our own global relationships, it would be counterproductive to position ourselves as a lapdog for the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by lord bunberry
Have we not just voted in a government to do just that? Nobody can say they are going against the will of the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colr
Wow,
https://twitter.com/janearraf/status...321592834?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it’s pretty safe to say one thing Soleimani wasn’t doing was working hard to defuse tensions in the Middle East!Quote:
Originally Posted by Radium
Of that I have no doubt but if you invite someone to talks and then kill them then it makes further attempts at talks a bit tricky.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
America won’t get dragged into a boots on the ground war in my opinion.
Precision targeting is more likely.
We’ll all be the ones to suffer with a world wide terror campaign being the Iranians best way of revenge.
As we all know, they’ll eventually have to come to some compromise, how long that takes is anyone’s guess.
Not seen anything that suggests any real resolution between Sunni Saudi Arabia/ ISIS & Shia Iraq/ Iran so can see your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s most powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him — which they viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq — on the menu they presented to President Trump.They didn’t think he would take it. In the wars waged since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...cid=spartanntp
Avoid motorcades, Donald.
When the statement comes from the British government it will probably be a statement from the DWP to say they've found Soleimani fit for work. [emoji16]Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
If there’s one thing Johnson is good at, it’s looking after Johnson. If that means lying low and not doing a Blair then he’ll do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
J
The Iraqi Parliament vote to end the presence of foreign troops in the country.