Patrick O'Connor
Member
He was a terrorist and had American blood on his hands. Glad he got his just reward.
-
Welcome to TalkWeather! We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion. CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER
2020 Political Thread
- Thread starter gangstonc
- Start date
- Status
He was a terrorist and had American blood on his hands. Glad he got his just reward.
Patrick O'Connor
Member
I agree. The embassy is sovereign American soil.
Patrick O'Connor
Member
I have been reading the forum for quite a while. Just recently decided to participate.
Kory
Member
I wonder if this is legal?!
Patrick O'Connor
Member
Sending a strong signal to Iranian leadership to clean up its act. If they retaliate God bless them. And I think they are dumb enough to do so.
Trump has God on his side and evangels eat it up
www.yahoo.com
Trump tells evangelicals that God is 'on our side'
Launching a political coalition called “Evangelicals for Trump” at a Florida megachurch on Friday, President Trump declared his belief that God supports his agenda.
- Thread starter
- #67
gangstonc
Member
Yes. God definitely wanted him to pay off those porn stars.Trump has God on his side and evangels eat it up
Trump tells evangelicals that God is 'on our side'
Launching a political coalition called “Evangelicals for Trump” at a Florida megachurch on Friday, President Trump declared his belief that God supports his agenda.
Evan
Member
I'm no expert on Iran's geopolitical strategies nor do I think anyone can accurately predict their response with any real precision, but I do think history (particularly over the past 20-30 years) gives us a bit of a template for how Iran is likely to retaliate.
1. They're going to use proxy forces to preserve plausible deniability. Think Shia militias, Hezbollah, their terrorist apparatus which extends throughout the Middle East, Asia, and even Europe and the Americas, other Shia groups/allies, etc.
2. I think their goal will be to kill Americans -- whether civilian or military.
3. There's not going to be some large-scale conventional attack by uniformed Iranians or a direct military engagement with our military forces. Iran will do what they always do, and what Soleimani was so adept at. They'll arm their proxy forces with additional technology and weaponry and start plotting.
I think these three reasons are why we've continued to strike Shia militias in Iraq today. Some recent news came out from Reuters that the "imminent attacks" that Pompeo and others had publicly mentioned referred to Soleimani's recent planning to escalate attacks by having proxy forces attack US trooped in Iraq and in other areas of the Middle East.
They were arming militias and proxy forces in and around the Middle East (particularly in Iraq) with drones, more advanced precision weaponry, etc because they wanted to draw an American military response in Iraq that would distract people from the recent anti-Iranian protests and increased anti-Iranian sentiment due to Iran's meddling and control of Iraqi political affairs. Supposedly this even included recent planning with Hezbollah to attack US targets in their sphere of interest -- perhaps US diplomats. They always seem to love to target our diplomats and spies in Lebanon.
Although some kind of retaliation could happen at any time, I think it will be a thousand cuts rather than any big event (although you may have some larger attacks mixed in). Kill/kidnap an American citizen here or there. Attacks bases and military personnel with renewed IED/suicide bomber campaigns, although right now they seem to be found of rockets.
Might see a few larger bombings mixed in if they find a few suitable targets where they've scouted well for weaknesses. Hit a diplomatic gathering spot/watering hole or a Western hotel US diplomats or citizens frequently use. Possibly even use a mass shooting style attack instead of a bomb. Potential locations might be places like the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Oman, or even possibly Israel.
I think Iran will be under a lot of pressure to act quickly, so that's why I say the first retaliation might occur anytime now, but I think overall once the first counterpunch has landed they will slow down and this will turn into a sustained campaign very similar to the type they've conducted in the past but on a larger scale, more frequent, longer period of escalation, etc.
Just spitballing here, but Iran's overall strategy has been fairly consistent for a long time. Their tactics change, but the strategy of slowly bleeding and cutting hasn't. Iran has definitely conducted some much larger attacks in the past (Iranian directed or by an Iranian proxy), but I think they'll be careful not to provoke too much at first as they don't want further US action against their interests unless they can manipulate it for a larger strategic purpose.
Wouldn't be shocked to see attacks against an ally -- especially Israel. But who knows? Maybe Iran really loses it over Soleimani and miscalculates themselves into an even bigger confrontation. I think that still remains a possibility because even though the Iranians are typically very rational actors, they're human and make mistakes, have emotions, and sometimes the hardliners rile each other up.
1. They're going to use proxy forces to preserve plausible deniability. Think Shia militias, Hezbollah, their terrorist apparatus which extends throughout the Middle East, Asia, and even Europe and the Americas, other Shia groups/allies, etc.
2. I think their goal will be to kill Americans -- whether civilian or military.
3. There's not going to be some large-scale conventional attack by uniformed Iranians or a direct military engagement with our military forces. Iran will do what they always do, and what Soleimani was so adept at. They'll arm their proxy forces with additional technology and weaponry and start plotting.
I think these three reasons are why we've continued to strike Shia militias in Iraq today. Some recent news came out from Reuters that the "imminent attacks" that Pompeo and others had publicly mentioned referred to Soleimani's recent planning to escalate attacks by having proxy forces attack US trooped in Iraq and in other areas of the Middle East.
They were arming militias and proxy forces in and around the Middle East (particularly in Iraq) with drones, more advanced precision weaponry, etc because they wanted to draw an American military response in Iraq that would distract people from the recent anti-Iranian protests and increased anti-Iranian sentiment due to Iran's meddling and control of Iraqi political affairs. Supposedly this even included recent planning with Hezbollah to attack US targets in their sphere of interest -- perhaps US diplomats. They always seem to love to target our diplomats and spies in Lebanon.
Although some kind of retaliation could happen at any time, I think it will be a thousand cuts rather than any big event (although you may have some larger attacks mixed in). Kill/kidnap an American citizen here or there. Attacks bases and military personnel with renewed IED/suicide bomber campaigns, although right now they seem to be found of rockets.
Might see a few larger bombings mixed in if they find a few suitable targets where they've scouted well for weaknesses. Hit a diplomatic gathering spot/watering hole or a Western hotel US diplomats or citizens frequently use. Possibly even use a mass shooting style attack instead of a bomb. Potential locations might be places like the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Oman, or even possibly Israel.
I think Iran will be under a lot of pressure to act quickly, so that's why I say the first retaliation might occur anytime now, but I think overall once the first counterpunch has landed they will slow down and this will turn into a sustained campaign very similar to the type they've conducted in the past but on a larger scale, more frequent, longer period of escalation, etc.
Just spitballing here, but Iran's overall strategy has been fairly consistent for a long time. Their tactics change, but the strategy of slowly bleeding and cutting hasn't. Iran has definitely conducted some much larger attacks in the past (Iranian directed or by an Iranian proxy), but I think they'll be careful not to provoke too much at first as they don't want further US action against their interests unless they can manipulate it for a larger strategic purpose.
Wouldn't be shocked to see attacks against an ally -- especially Israel. But who knows? Maybe Iran really loses it over Soleimani and miscalculates themselves into an even bigger confrontation. I think that still remains a possibility because even though the Iranians are typically very rational actors, they're human and make mistakes, have emotions, and sometimes the hardliners rile each other up.
Patrick O'Connor
Member
Good assessment. I think they will use proxies but at some point they may be pressed to attack directly. A navy ship in the Straight of Hormuz is most likely target.
- Thread starter
- #70
gangstonc
Member
Most of the country doesn’t believe Trump. I guess that’s because he’s a liar.
Patrick O'Connor
Member
Right before the 2016 election a Reuter’s poll gave Clinton a 90% chance of winning. At some point the left is going to learn their lesson about putting so much faith in polls.
mobile.reuters.com
Clinton has 90 percent chance of winning: Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation
With hours to go before Americans vote, Democrat Hillary Clinton has about a 90 percent chance of defeating Republican Donald Trump in the race for the White House, according to the final Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project.
mobile.reuters.com
- Thread starter
- #72
gangstonc
Member
Um, she did have a 90% chance of winning. The stuff required for Trump to win (the 10%) happened.Right before the 2016 election a Reuter’s poll gave Clinton a 90% chance of winning. At some point the left is going to learn their lesson about putting so much faith in polls.
Clinton has 90 percent chance of winning: Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation
With hours to go before Americans vote, Democrat Hillary Clinton has about a 90 percent chance of defeating Republican Donald Trump in the race for the White House, according to the final Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project.
The most likely outcome doesn’t always occur.
And, he’s still a liar.
- Admin
- #73
- Messages
- 3,366
- Reaction score
- 2,648
- Location
- Fayetteville, AR
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
While cheating on his pregnant wife
Patrick O'Connor
Member
Obama is a liar. George Bush was a liar. Bill Clinton was a liar. George H.W. Bush was a liar. Reagan probably lied. Jimmy Carter may not have been. Ford I have no idea. Nixon was a liar. Johnson was a huge liar. Kennedy was a liar! Get the point?
Last edited:
Patrick O'Connor
Member
I would bet you a bunch of money that John Kennedy cheated on his pregnant wife. Bill Clinton too.
- Thread starter
- #76
gangstonc
Member
None lie as prolifically and stupidly as Trump. Get the point?
Patrick O'Connor
Member
Evan
Member
Yeah, and I have a major problem with that. You don't???
I guess since the guy down the road murdered his wife and kids a few years ago it would be just fine for me to do the same?
One of the biggest enemies of Christianity used to be moral relativism. Now a substantial chunk use it to justify their political beliefs and voting patterns. Can't imagine how we can be effective witnesses or convert people to the Pro-Life viewpoint if we can justify immorality and wickedness because "it triggers the libs."
Evan
Member
45% of Republican voters, in a way too early 2024 poll, say they would consider voting for Ivanka or Don Jr. Mike Pence only gets 40%.
Can't understand why anyone would think a substantial portion of the modern Republican Party is in a personality cult. Where would such an idea come from?
Trump children are 2 of the top 4 choices for Republicans in 2024
It's a vivid illustration of just how strong Trump's brand is with the GOP.
amp.axios.com
Can't understand why anyone would think a substantial portion of the modern Republican Party is in a personality cult. Where would such an idea come from?
Patrick O'Connor
Member
Of cou
Of course I do. But you and your cohorts only seem outraged when Trump offends. Please be consistent.
Also,, personal conduct is important but in the last election I and many others like me were willing to overlook it to achieve the results of the past three years. Donald Trump while in office has acted admirably. I know that will get laughs. But he has. And his results cannot be disputed. He will win in a landslide in 2020!
Of course I do. But you and your cohorts only seem outraged when Trump offends. Please be consistent.
Also,, personal conduct is important but in the last election I and many others like me were willing to overlook it to achieve the results of the past three years. Donald Trump while in office has acted admirably. I know that will get laughs. But he has. And his results cannot be disputed. He will win in a landslide in 2020!
- Status