ILikePie5

you evaded the question. i pointed out that iran can increase its terrorism against us and all we can do is try to manage a worse sitatuion. after i pointed that out, your non response was 'peace through strength'. how does that negate that they could and probably would increase their terrorism against us? 

why would you think iran wouldn't escalate the situation? all they have to do is use their proxies, their funded terrorist groups. we can't just nuke or strong arm our way out of that. we can bomb more motherfuckers, but it's just swatting flies at that point. the thing is, we'd be swatting a bunch more flies. they dont care if they die or lose people. thus, there would be more terrorism going on from iran, and nothing we can do but try to manage a situation made worse by trump

Venezuela has 3x the amount of Saudi reserves. jus sayin.

We are not precisely independent yet as there are certain grades of oils that are cheaper for us to import, but we definitely do not need the Saudis anymore as the sole supplier of that oil.

We can only hope for lemonade at this point.

BTW, we're contemplating wasting trillions on this, but still no wall. Still no infrastructure bill. Still no mandatory e-verify.

There's really no response to that as you clearly don't know what either of those words mean. An attack on an embassy is a provocation. A non-escalatory response would be to deploy troops to defend the embassy or launch some strikes on proxy groups. If taking out a key regional political figure with a drone strike isn't an escalatory response then the term has no meaning.

But he is Obama who'd destabilize an entire region of the Middle East and waste trillions of dollars because Israel yanked on his leash.

They can easily close the strait. You don't need to sit a bunch of ships there standing bravely, flags snapping in the wind. You mine it or resort to asymmetric tactics.

All of those destroyers and cruisers will be blown out of the water by maneuverable, small boat suicide attacks, advancing mines, and ship-killing cruise missiles. We've done wargame simulations against Iran in the Persian Gulf. It ended up with most of the carrier group at the bottom of the sea, and 20,000 dead US personnel. It was such a humiliation that they restarted the simulation with handicaps on the Iranian side, and the US officer who led that side resigned in disgust because they were choosing to prioritize making a flattering report to the Pentagon over actually addressing the weaknesses in the US Navy to asymmetric naval warfare. We've been using our carrier groups as floating artillery for so many years that we're completely unequipped for a real naval engagement. Look up Millennium Challenge 2002.

Being energy independent does absolutely ZERO to offset a global economic collapse. Also, we aren't energy independent. We import about 9 million barrels of crude a day.

Air strikes don't win a war. Iran is extremely mountainous, with notoriously fanatical fighters and arms flowing in from Russian and possible Chinese allies. It would be a nightmare to invade.

Iran has the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz and to harass traffic through the Bab-el-Mandeb through Shi'a proxies. This will cripple global shipping, especially oil traffic, and would trigger a worldwide economic crash. We would have to respond by sending our Navy to the Persian Gulf, a situation which will NOT end well for us.

He already escalated and guaranteed an Iranian response. The killing of Suleimani incenses and unites the PEOPLE of Iran. If the leadership tries to stop escalation, it will undermine their own power at this point. They have no choice.

dont you think escalating the situation will just make things worse?

The default position should be that other countries should be afraid of pissing America off. Not the other way around.

so how do you view the increase in terrorism that his assassination will cause? 

did the embassy get attacked before or after he was assassinated? i dont follow the news enough to know. if this was in response to an embassy attack, i still would not have escalated the situation even more. what do you think of the increased terrorism that his assassination will cause? 

where's the harm in waiting for a small attack or something more immenient?there's too much uncerntainty here such that your obvious bias is showing given how much you defer to trump. given how this plays into iran's hands and will fuel more terrorism, we should be skeptical of trump until he can make a stronger case for why he did what he did. 

My point is not to defend Iran or Hezbollah. My point is that there is blood on the hands of both sides. The only way to stop that blood being shed is by convincing the other side to stop fighting. And you will never do that by bombing them. You are only hardening their resolve to keep fighting. 

The same people defend Hezbollah.

People who think we  are going to war🤡🤡

No one has been in a cold war with Iran for 45 years. They rightfully hate america for trying to keep them oppressed by a tyrannical dictator. From the moment they threw off that dictator america has been nothing buy hostile towards them. They have good reason to hate america, but they had more pressing concerns until America shit all over the place and destabilized the whole region.

The US has engaged in 2 terrorist attacks in the last few weeks in Iraq. Why is iran a "sponsor of terror" when they so the exact same thing the US does?

they also have an effective military. Advanced technology and control of the straights of hormuz. 

What bluff? What does that even mean?

Obama returned 1.4 billion of Iranian money that the US illegally seized and held. He did this as a part of a treaty that prevented Iran getting nuclear weapons. Now that trump has torn it up, they are back working on their nuclear weapons. 

Iran is doing the exact same thing the US is doing. but when they do it is "cancer" that "should be taken out". But when the US does it it is somehow morally justified? This kind of twisted thinking is why the US keeps getting dragged into wars. 

Anyone who thinks we weren't in a cold war with Iran for 45 years doesn't know a goddamn thing about the Middle East.

It's so disgusting western countries bribed Iran to take part in a nuclear deal by allowing Iran to ramp up their proxy armies, and we even funded Iran to do it!

Hezbollah is a fucking wart on the planet and almost 100% funded by Iran.

which the Iranians were abiding by

Well, if I was MOD and you said redirect all actions on GP to Drafter I would interpret that as redirect COP to Drafter without double-checking with you.  I assume that is what Dudz did as he has now confirmed.  If I was MOD, I would never have called that role ESCORT but perhaps Dudz did.  

Nevertheless, the fact that you thought you were deflecting when you were in fact redirecting has revealed a lie.

No vote?

READ what Supa just said.  Your COP was redirected.  You proved drafterman town. 

We already know the scumteam from the scumslip. I really don't care which of the team we lynch but toaster is the most likely to get the votes.

can u explain what Supa gave you with max detail without violating the no quote rule?

gimme a link that supports your version of ESCORT role, pls.  I have got nothing.

Pie- from whence is your understanding of ESCORT derived?

Well goddamn it, everything is backwards now. Pie if you are town why the fuck would you do that. Drafter was absolutely the MOST likely person to be framed due to the voting DP1. If you are town, you might have cost town the game with that.

He redirected you to me. You got town results ON ME.

In general, I think history has shown that the argument of "He acted X in the past but is acting Y now" isn't a good scum marker. It failed in Office. It failed in JARGOM. People's behavior is fluid.

Hey, Pie.  If you are town you will make some kind of claim now.