USA Goes to War Against Iran
Time for a dedicated thread to the war.
How long will it last and what will be the probable outcome?
So your argument is, "Why bring up the $300 billion and not bring up what the US is getting in return" and when I bring up what the US is getting, you say, "Hey, bro, that's just preliminary - we've got a long way to go."
What a retaad.
You just don't know what you're talking about - no where in this deal is the US giving them 300 billion. You writing that the US gives them 300b and things just go right back to where they were pre war is hilarious - doesn't work that way.
You're really clueless - there's no finalized deal and won't be for some time as negotiations take place - those are preliminary agreements to get things back on track and work towards a more detailed arrangement. Another libtard seeing a CNN headline.
Doeant even seem like the deal will go through because Iran is intent on making a ceasefire for Hezbollah a central tenant. And Israel and Hezbollah have no interest in a ceasefire. It looks like Iran is either intentionally trying to scuttle the deal by offering impossible terms or desperate to buy time for Hezbollah to recover.
You don't know the specifics of the agreement you're just reiterating a couple basic immediate headlines. Anyone with a brain would say let's wait for the final agreement to be signed and see what both sides are getting - if you think the US or anyone is giving Iran 300b with nothing in return you must be braindead.
You must have forgotten that it's trump calling the shots. Idiots do idiotic things.
You just don't know what you're talking about - no where in this deal is the US giving them 300 billion. You writing that the US gives them 300b and things just go right back to where they were pre war is hilarious - doesn't work that way.
Let's be clear, you have no idea how "things work" when it comes to complex foreign entanglements such as this. As such, you should shut the **** up.
Let's be clear, you have no idea how "things work" when it comes to complex foreign entanglements such as this. As such, you should shut the **** up.
Can’t argue with this rock solid logic. It’s amazing how controversial a statement such as let’s wait for the facts is around here. What a circus.
However, the conflict also clearly shows that in terms of hard power, China is not a superpower. It has very limited ability to project force, focusing mainly on its intermediate borders and regions.
Willingness might be better word choice than ability. I think they see the problems that the US chronically has as policeman to the world.
It's important to view the quote I 'liked' in it's entirety:Two reasons I 'liked' what he said:First, I understand, and 100% agree with, the sentiment of wanting to punish folks who slaughter children by killing them. And there is nothing inherently wrong with capital punishment for murder. One can both approve of the death penalty while at the same time 'not taking delight
You didn’t merely like it. You typed a post agreeing with it. You’re being dishonest. But anyway you’re hardly the first Christian, a follower of that bloodthirsty religion, to not really believe in the doctrine.
Which brings us back to the thread title.
My ignorance? I said let's wait for all the details to come out on the agreement before judging it - did you not read my post?
Yes, I in fact bolded the portion of your post I was directing my comment toward.
I have your stupid ass on ignore. Made the mistake of browsing without logging in. Hopefully will avoid that mistake, and your keyboard vomit, in the future. Adios, dildo.
Yes, I in fact bolded the portion of your post I was directing my comment toward.
I have your stupid ass on ignore. Made the mistake of browsing without logging in. Hopefully will avoid that mistake, and your keyboard vomit, in the future. Adios, dildo.
Got it - so you realized your argument is ******ed and now I'm on ignore. Stupid clown.
US President Donald Trump criticizes Israel’s conduct against Hezbollah and says that Syria should take over the fight against the Iran-backed terror group in Lebanon.
He says that the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has gone on for too long and suggests that Israel is killing too many noncombatants.
“Israel is fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed,” Trump says in remarks at the G7 summit of global leaders in France. “And you don’t have to knock down an apartment house every time you’re looking for somebody. Because there are a lot of people in those apartment houses. And they’re not all Hezbollah — that I can tell you.”
Trump says later, “I’m not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and with Hezbollah. They should have been able to do the job faster. It just goes on forever. And when that happens, it throws a negative light on the big deal, and that’s the deal with Iran.”
He reiterates that he was upset about Israel’s strike on Hezbollah in Beirut on Sunday, shortly before the interim peace deal between Iran and the US was announced.
“I didn’t like where, two hours before we’re signing the agreement, that there was an attack in Lebanon, in Beirut,” he says.
He refers to Ahmed al-Sharaa, the president of Syria, saying that he would more effectively lead the fight against Hezbollah.
“I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah,” Trump says. “Because to be honest with you, I think they’d do a better job of doing it.”
It looks like Trump went with his gut on the Iran peace decision. None of his advisors thought it was a good idea. When it comes to geopolitics this guy is the biggest dip **** ever.
You just don't know what you're talking about - no where in this deal is the US giving them 300 billion. You writing that the US gives them 300b and things just go right back to where they were pre war is hilarious - doesn't work that way.
Hey, man, I got my information from JD Vance. As I last recall, he's the Vice President of the United States and heavily involved in the negotiations - maybe he should have consulted you first before saying Iran can receive up to $300 billion, shrug.
Doesn't really matter, as Israel has said that chit's not going to fly and are going to sabotage it.
Hey, man, I got my information from JD Vance. As I last recall, he's the Vice President of the United States and heavily involved in the negotiations - maybe he should have consulted you first before saying Iran can receive up to $300 billion, shrug.
Doesn't really matter, as Israel has said that chit's not going to fly and are going to sabotage it.
From your mouth to Gods ears.
Keep upping your post count, rapist
Doeant even seem like the deal will go through because Iran is intent on making a ceasefire for Hezbollah a central tenant. And Israel and Hezbollah have no interest in a ceasefire. It looks like Iran is either intentionally trying to scuttle the deal by offering impossible terms or desperate to buy time for Hezbollah to recover.
The US is more desperate for a deal than Iran imo.
Let's take a look of what I said in response to Victor's post that I 'liked':
Yes, I think capital punishment is an appropriate punishment for those who voluntarily slaughter children en masse.* That's a tad different than wishing death on a poster in an internet forum which is what began this discussion in the first place.
Like I said, context matters.
And even in the case of advocating for capital punishment for those murderers, I don't delight in the death of those wicked souls who perpetrated the evil deed.
But anyway you’re hardly the first Christian, a follower of that bloodthirsty religion, to not really believe in the doctrine.
Huh? What doctrine do I not believe in?
*after due process of course
Right, and which part of the Christian doctrine supports capital punishment?
Like I said, I'll trust an agreement when negotiations are done, the agreement signed and it has been adhered to for a time period that shows genuine commitment to it.None of the actors in this debacle are trustworthy.That is a very complex question that is answered in one of the most complex regions on earth when it comes to conflict. First, it is important to note that not ma
I think this is something which is very problematic for China that we dont talk about enough, that greatly constrains their ability to project hard power. Under Xi, China's aggressive posturing has turned most of East Asia against them, including North Korea. Xi is actually in a summit in NK right now trying to mend things.
With waning of US hard power in the region Japan especially is quietly aggressively re-militarizing (Quiet for us at least. Very loud to China). And they recently amended their Constitution allowing them to sell weapons abroad, which they haven't been able to do since WWII ended. They recently started selling portable truck mounted missile systems to Philippines, which is making China very upset.
Basically, China's neighbors are forming a wall in the Pacific stretching from Japan in the North all the way down to Australia in the South boxing them in. They are actually trying to build new islands to counter this, with very limited success. And once they get past East Asia, they still have to go through India, another emerging regional power they have frosty relations with, to get to West Asia and beyond.
China is going to be busy dealing with this for the foreseeable future. For all the talk about the limits of US hard power, there are no candidates to replace us. Throw in Xi messing around with China's monetary system in ways that make China very unattractive for investment, and China is not really poised to replace the US as the main benefactor and major trade partner for the GCCs. In fact, Saudi Arabia just recently re-comitted to continuing to sell oil in dollars.
Kelhus,
We're reaching the "told you so" phase of our discussion here where I predicted defeat for the US. The MoU has been released and it's pretty much utter humiliation for the US. But I want you to understand that it's not because I'm some IRCG sappy as you have suggested but rather because all of the analysis I saw predicted most of what has happened and it seemed like solid analysis.
There are Christians who support capital punishment and Christians who oppose it.
There were a tonnage of capital offenses in the OT. I'm not aware of capital punishment being categorically denounced anywhere in the NT.
In other words, there is no Christian doctrine one way or another wrt capital punishment.
Like, there's no Christian doctrine on being a vegetarian. You can be one or not be one.
