Got a link to show we have? I've seen nothing but general condemnation or indifference.
US kills Iran's General Soleimani
- Thread starter Malevolence
- Start date
Got a link to show we have? I've seen nothing but general condemnation or indifference.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,766
- Location
- Welling, London
Epstein was a dirty peado, so it still could be considered a success and service to humanity.
She killed Gaddifi also.
Brilliant - go for the herp derp oil argument then throw in some antisemetic conspiracy in for good measure too.
Technically he is correct, the rothchilds do not own the central bank in Iran (or any other central banks but that fact hurts the meme lol).
What a moron.
It's the US who can not be trusted as usual, one administration creates a deal the next cancels it.
Launches strikes at generals and say "we don't want war"...
Well the Iraqis don't want them so hopefully good riddance, since 2003 Iraq has been in ruins due to these stupid apes who claim to be civilised.
Launches strikes at generals and say "we don't want war"...
Well the Iraqis don't want them so hopefully good riddance, since 2003 Iraq has been in ruins due to these stupid apes who claim to be civilised.
I mean you're saying that you were happier with a genocidal dictator who used chemical weapons ruling through fear than you are America trying to create a stable democracy in the Middle East but struggling because of groups like ISIS and other groups set up purely to destabilise the country
Oil might be relevant this time. Somewhat indirectly, though.
If you subscribe to the notion that Trump is in some way in Russia's pocket (and he sure acts like he is), then you don't have to work too hard on your logic to see why a destabilised oil region might be desirable. Russia collapses if the oil price goes too low, prospers if it rockets.
Naa Gaddafi was beaten to death by his own people, using their shoes.
Time to give up tbh. It doesn't work. They would rather fight each other in the middle east. Much like Africa they need about another 100 years to develop (without our intervention).
It was a fair bit more brutal than that, IIRC.
The Iraqis were happier by far, now there country is a war torn **** hole.
It was the Americans who pitted Shia against Sunni after the chaos of the war causing more deaths then Saddam ever did.
The European partners in the deal have in effect renegaded on their side of the deal by being unable to overturn effect of the US sanctions on Iran.
TBH Iran has been super patient regarding the nuclear deal, giving the EU a year to try and sort out the issues.
Errr no we have two: HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. I'm sure, if needed, they'd be fully operational battle stations! The QE is in for scheduled maintenance and the Wales takes over.
Leaks or not, they're formidable machines.
Do you honestly think America just wants peace and good will to all men?
Nah it was the coalition forces keeping those sectarian idiots apart.
It was Iraq’s inability to get along (much like Northern Ireland) that lead to ISIS. The Shia left the Sunnis feeling rather isolated on a national level and left some Sunni leaders rather ambivalent towards ISIS.
As for the Shia side, they’ve had a strong Iranian influence for years and likewise Iran has been operating there unofficially for years.
Currently US forces are there with the permission of Iraq, if Iran is going to actively try and attack them they have the right to respond to that.