US forces bomb militia facilities discussion (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,645
Reaction score
4,099
Age
41
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline
Well, even Rubio thought it was the right call. We can't allow our military to be attacked and do nothing.

 

Taurus

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
811
Reaction score
1,759
Age
53
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
As long as we're about proportional response, when do we investigate the Russian/Taliban bounties?
 
Last edited:

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
5,996
Reaction score
9,460
Location
Midwest
Offline
I think those bounties were already investigated as much as they can be, just ignored by the former guy. There are supposed to be new joint US-NATO sanctions against Russia announced today I think. The bounties, Navalny, and the hack are all the reasons for them.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,366
Reaction score
1,572
Location
Madisonville
Offline



"Biden wanted to respond to the incident in Iraq," said Max Abrahms, a professor of political science and public policy at Northeastern University, "but he wanted to do it in a way that didn't seem too heavy-handed ... the more fundamental question that needs to be asked, and isn't, is what are Iranian militias doing in Iraq? The answer is they are there partly because the U.S. toppled (Iraq's former president) Saddam Hussein."

First airstrikes under Biden: US bombs Syria facilities used by Iran-backed militia
Abrahms said that the Biden administration is trying to balance the instincts of veteran national security officials and diplomats such as Secretary of State Antony Blinken – Obama administration-era officials who have long gravitated toward military interventions and regime change from Syria to Venezuela – with "the zeitgeist of the American citizenry, which has moved over the course of the Trump administration."

He described this "zeitgeist," which is backed up by polling, that shows many Americans are most concerned about economic and security threats closer to home, as "a more limited role for the United States in the world, a greater delineation of where our vital interests lie and a skepticism of a democracy-promoting agenda."


Why don't we just get out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan?
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
5,996
Reaction score
9,460
Location
Midwest
Offline
Partly because we don’t want to cede the Middle East to Russia and/or China.

This strike had pretty broad bipartisan support IIRC.

We don’t have a huge presence on the ground ATM, anyway, right? Just enough to keep the other big guys from taking over.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #9
OP

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
3,334
Reaction score
2,508
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline



"Biden wanted to respond to the incident in Iraq," said Max Abrahms, a professor of political science and public policy at Northeastern University, "but he wanted to do it in a way that didn't seem too heavy-handed ... the more fundamental question that needs to be asked, and isn't, is what are Iranian militias doing in Iraq? The answer is they are there partly because the U.S. toppled (Iraq's former president) Saddam Hussein."

First airstrikes under Biden: US bombs Syria facilities used by Iran-backed militia
Abrahms said that the Biden administration is trying to balance the instincts of veteran national security officials and diplomats such as Secretary of State Antony Blinken – Obama administration-era officials who have long gravitated toward military interventions and regime change from Syria to Venezuela – with "the zeitgeist of the American citizenry, which has moved over the course of the Trump administration."

He described this "zeitgeist," which is backed up by polling, that shows many Americans are most concerned about economic and security threats closer to home, as "a more limited role for the United States in the world, a greater delineation of where our vital interests lie and a skepticism of a democracy-promoting agenda."


Why don't we just get out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan?


Those tweets don't really say a whole lot. :shrug:
 

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,645
Reaction score
4,099
Age
41
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline



"Biden wanted to respond to the incident in Iraq," said Max Abrahms, a professor of political science and public policy at Northeastern University, "but he wanted to do it in a way that didn't seem too heavy-handed ... the more fundamental question that needs to be asked, and isn't, is what are Iranian militias doing in Iraq? The answer is they are there partly because the U.S. toppled (Iraq's former president) Saddam Hussein."

First airstrikes under Biden: US bombs Syria facilities used by Iran-backed militia
Abrahms said that the Biden administration is trying to balance the instincts of veteran national security officials and diplomats such as Secretary of State Antony Blinken – Obama administration-era officials who have long gravitated toward military interventions and regime change from Syria to Venezuela – with "the zeitgeist of the American citizenry, which has moved over the course of the Trump administration."

He described this "zeitgeist," which is backed up by polling, that shows many Americans are most concerned about economic and security threats closer to home, as "a more limited role for the United States in the world, a greater delineation of where our vital interests lie and a skepticism of a democracy-promoting agenda."


Why don't we just get out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan?


Nuance matters.

The targets hit are buildings used by Iran backed Militia's.

They (the Pentagon) specifically know that Kataib Hezbollah and Katiab Sayyid al-Shuhada are two such groups that use those buildings.

The specific question is if Awliya al Dam (Guardian of the Blood), is specifically backed by Iran, or if they are a front for a more well known Shia militia (which would mean, backed by Iran). The Iraqi's and Kurds think they're a proxy for Iran. Maybe it should be 'suspected', vs provable in a court of law, but that also assumes the Pentagon is telling the public everything they know.

That's part of the issue with Proxy militia's, they don't always have 'proof' of working with Iran. That's how Iran gets to admit they're not involved.

People don't worry about the future problems when they're consumed with current ones. But when you don't keep your eyes on everything, you miss the signs.

Just like I'm sure some folks thought it was a waste of money to have all this Virus monitoring with Animals, and in other countries... oops.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,366
Reaction score
1,572
Location
Madisonville
Offline
Nuance matters.

The targets hit are buildings used by Iran backed Militia's.

They (the Pentagon) specifically know that Kataib Hezbollah and Katiab Sayyid al-Shuhada are two such groups that use those buildings.

The specific question is if Awliya al Dam (Guardian of the Blood), is specifically backed by Iran, or if they are a front for a more well known Shia militia (which would mean, backed by Iran). The Iraqi's and Kurds think they're a proxy for Iran. Maybe it should be 'suspected', vs provable in a court of law, but that also assumes the Pentagon is telling the public everything they know.

That's part of the issue with Proxy militia's, they don't always have 'proof' of working with Iran. That's how Iran gets to admit they're not involved.

People don't worry about the future problems when they're consumed with current ones. But when you don't keep your eyes on everything, you miss the signs.

Just like I'm sure some folks thought it was a waste of money to have all this Virus monitoring with Animals, and in other countries... oops.
Little is known about the group, including whether it is backed by Iran or related to the organizations that used the facilities the American airstrikes targeted on Thursday.

Why in the world are we launching muscle strikes when little is know about the group?


 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,366
Reaction score
1,572
Location
Madisonville
Offline


It makes more sense when you consider how much the military industrial complex is enriched by the never ending war movement.



Also: The US Defense Sector secured $30.6 billion in foreign arm sales from 2016 to 2018.

Since Biden's inauguration, the State Department approved an $85 million sale of Raytheon manufactured missiles to Chile and $60 million worth of Lockheed Martin's F-16 aircraft and services to Jordan.

While Biden has touted strict ethics rules that attempt to thwart the influence of lobbyists on the administration, several of his earliest appointees, including Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken consulted for a private equity firm that emphasized its "access, network and expertise" in the defense industry. Austin also had a seat on the United Technologies and Raytheon board, earning more than $250,000 from the now merged companies. Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes seems optimistic about the company's prospects under the new administration, telling investors in January that "peace is not going to break out in the Middle East anytime soon" and that the region "remains an area where we'll continue to see solid growth."


 

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,645
Reaction score
4,099
Age
41
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline
Little is known about the group, including whether it is backed by Iran or related to the organizations that used the facilities the American airstrikes targeted on Thursday.

Why in the world are we launching muscle strikes when little is know about the group?



I read the entire article. I also told you my reasons. Why are you just repeating the same single sentence to me that I clearly read and responded to? If you don't understand my point, then say so, and I can clarify, if needed.
 
Last edited:

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,645
Reaction score
4,099
Age
41
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline


It makes more sense when you consider how much the military industrial complex is enriched by the never ending war movement.



Also: The US Defense Sector secured $30.6 billion in foreign arm sales from 2016 to 2018.

Since Biden's inauguration, the State Department approved an $85 million sale of Raytheon manufactured missiles to Chile and $60 million worth of Lockheed Martin's F-16 aircraft and services to Jordan.

While Biden has touted strict ethics rules that attempt to thwart the influence of lobbyists on the administration, several of his earliest appointees, including Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken consulted for a private equity firm that emphasized its "access, network and expertise" in the defense industry. Austin also had a seat on the United Technologies and Raytheon board, earning more than $250,000 from the now merged companies. Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes seems optimistic about the company's prospects under the new administration, telling investors in January that "peace is not going to break out in the Middle East anytime soon" and that the region "remains an area where we'll continue to see solid growth."



$2.5 billion to "influence defense policy", does that mean encourage wars or "hey, buy our stuff"? And that was since 9/11, which was in 2001. So, $2.5 Billion over 20 years, is approximately $125M per year.

I mean, companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman don't exactly run commercials. Of course they lobby the Pentagon.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,366
Reaction score
1,572
Location
Madisonville
Offline
I read the entire article. I also told you my reasons. Why are you just repeating the same single sentence to me that I clearly read and responded to? If you don't understand my point, then say so, and I can clarify, if needed.
I understand your point and I don't agree. We shouldn't be in Syria using Al-Qaeda and other terrorists as our proxy ground force to support regime change. I'm skeptical of their claim about who they were targeting considering the Pentagon fully supports us being in Syria.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,366
Reaction score
1,572
Location
Madisonville
Offline
$2.5 billion to "influence defense policy", does that mean encourage wars or "hey, buy our stuff"? And that was since 9/11, which was in 2001. So, $2.5 Billion over 20 years, is approximately $125M per year.

I mean, companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman don't exactly run commercials. Of course they lobby the Pentagon.
Do you think there is a problem with out never ending wars movement and how the military industrial complex enriches itself while we waste our money and get our troops killed or injured?
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
5,996
Reaction score
9,460
Location
Midwest
Offline
No matter how many somewhat tenuous things you turn up about Biden, it cannot be a tenth as bad as Trump was, so I just can’t work up a lot of outrage on this.

At least Blinken is divesting, nobody did during Trump.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom