Not directly they won’t-CitadelGrad wrote:If you think the Iranians are done after 15 ineffective missiles, you're nuts.
Iran will hit at least one soft target, probably not even in the Middle East, possibly in the U.S., in a few months.
It looks like they were only about appeasing the hard-liners in Iran and not inciting the American public, most of whom think it was a stupid moveCitadelGrad wrote:If you think the Iranians are done after 15 ineffective missiles, you're nuts.
Iran will hit at least one soft target, probably not even in the Middle East, possibly in the U.S., in a few months.
This.CID1990 wrote:Not directly they won’t-CitadelGrad wrote:If you think the Iranians are done after 15 ineffective missiles, you're nuts.
Iran will hit at least one soft target, probably not even in the Middle East, possibly in the U.S., in a few months.
They’ll do it with a proxy
Which is to say it will be business as usual
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Very interesting. This guy obviously is a Never Trumper/Deep State/librul loserSkjellyfetti wrote:Lol
Laugh it up, fuzzball. Mike Lee is a rising star of the small-l libertarian right.Skjellyfetti wrote:Lol
He’s ready to have the “big” discussion that neither republicans nor democrats want to haveIvytalk wrote:Laugh it up, fuzzball. Mike Lee is a rising star of the small-l libertarian right.Skjellyfetti wrote:Lol
Him and Amash. You started trashing Amash, though. I guess impeachment is a bridge too far.Ivytalk wrote: Laugh it up, fuzzball. Mike Lee is a rising star of the small-l libertarian right.
Zero casualties. Ballistic missiles aren't designed to produce zero casualties. Ineffective.mainejeff2 wrote:They looked pretty effective to me on those before and after satellite pics.CitadelGrad wrote:If you think the Iranians are done after 15 ineffective missiles, you're nuts.
Iran will hit at least one soft target, probably not even in the Middle East, possibly in the U.S., in a few months.
Yup, but it was the speech that was needed following the wrap up of this "crisis".AZGrizFan wrote:Trump's speech this morning: He sounds like a robot. Must KILL him to have to stay on topic/teleprompter.
Wrong- North isn't a felon. His convictions were overturned by an appeals court.Chizzang wrote:
On a technicality. Still a thug and like many Reagan followers and conks, not smart enough to see their own hypocrisy regarding Iran and negotiating with terrorists.BDKJMU wrote:Wrong- North isn't a felon. His convictions were overturned by an appeals court.Chizzang wrote:
93henfan wrote:Have any of you all who also served as military officers (granted, I was the only Marine officer, but still) ever seen an officer just decide one day that he'd enter a clandestine weapons deal with Iran in his spare time without any orders from superiors?
I mean, I used to do it all the time, but I'm just a motivated high achiever. I'm talking about the average Marine officer, like Ollie North.
I took it as the briefers didn’t want to discuss or debate the merits/morality/legality of the attack.CAA Flagship wrote:I honestly don't get what he is saying.
What is so disturbing about being asked to not talk publicly about "further military intervention against Iran"?
The Senate is not being asked to make a decision about formally going to war, as far as I know.
I thought they were simply briefed on what happened recently and the reasons for it.
What am I missing here?
It's probably just more theater anyway.Ibanez wrote:I took it as the briefers didn’t want to discuss or debate the merits/morality/legality of the attack.CAA Flagship wrote:I honestly don't get what he is saying.
What is so disturbing about being asked to not talk publicly about "further military intervention against Iran"?
The Senate is not being asked to make a decision about formally going to war, as far as I know.
I thought they were simply briefed on what happened recently and the reasons for it.
What am I missing here?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like the one about he quit smoking yesterdayCID1990 wrote:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where was Hillary at the time?93henfan wrote:So is anyone buying "engine failure" on the downed Ukrainian airliner in Tehran?
You know Iran had the anti-air batteries on highest alert figuring there'd be some incoming with stars and stripes painted on it.
Is there any doubt the Iranians shot that plane down? I mean, the fuselage footage even shows shrapnel holes riddled throughout.
How is that possible without revealing classified information? The entire discussion would be based on the validity of intelligence. And the intelligence would probably be classified because it could reveal exactly how it was obtained. And revealing how it was obtained would jeopardize future intel.Ibanez wrote:I took it as the briefers didn’t want to discuss or debate the merits/morality/legality of the attack.CAA Flagship wrote:I honestly don't get what he is saying.
What is so disturbing about being asked to not talk publicly about "further military intervention against Iran"?
The Senate is not being asked to make a decision about formally going to war, as far as I know.
I thought they were simply briefed on what happened recently and the reasons for it.
What am I missing here?
