John from Riverside Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 25 minutes ago, Capco said: Hmmm... was there something that happened in the Middle East between September and January that might have changed their calculus? Maybe it was in October? Maybe something in... oh idk, Israel? Whatever could it be... 🤔 The truth is, there are smaller skirmishes that happened all during that time that just didn’t make the news as much What happened in October? That was major and unfortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Egg Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 23 hours ago, B-Man said: RETALIATION, BIDEN STYLE FTA: We can infer that the Biden administration believes in telegraphing its punches. Marc Thiessen poses a rhetorical question: “How stupid do you have to be to announce you will strike two days in advance and where[?]” It’s smart if you want to minimize the damage done (or to be done). The administration also believes in repetition. The statement attributed to Biden includes this variation of what has become an administration mantra: “The United States does not seek conflict in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world.” It reminds me of LBJ’s classic one-liner on Vietnam at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin incident: “We still seek no wider war.” Although the intent and the circumstances vary greatly, both statements carry the air of fiasco. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/02/retaliation-biden-style.php Biden definitely and foolishly tipped off the enemy. This is why you don’t. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 ROGER KIMBALL: Biden’s action in Iraq and Syria is merely delayed reaction. What do you think of the apothegm “Better late than never?” I think it is often dubious. For confirmation, I adduce the airstrike the Biden administration just conducted against eighty-five targets in Iraq and Syria. The attacks, against infrastructure associated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, are billed as the opening salvo in response to last week’s drone attack by Iranian assets in Jordan that left three Americans dead and more than forty injured. Taking a page from an earlier, square-jawed time, officials from the administration tersely commented that America’s “multi-tiered” response would continue at a “time and in a manner of our choosing.” Spoken like a real administration. I wonder from what storeroom they got the script? Memo to the memo writers: if you are going to conduct a a military campaign, it’s generally advantageous to avoid telling your adversary when you are planning to strike. The Biden administration forgot that detail — or perhaps they were worried about causing too much damage to Iranian assets. For several days leading up to yesterday’s strike, the administration reported that a strike was in the works and that it would take place in just a couple of days. As it did. Wasn’t it kind of Joe to tell the Iranians when he was planning to strike? In fact, he has been the soul of courtesy, for he has also said that America would not be striking Iran itself. https://thespectator.com/topic/joe-biden-action-iraq-syria-delayed/ . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irv Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 On 2/3/2024 at 12:17 PM, yall said: I'm curious what your friend didn't like? I've not talked to my Tampa buddies about this incident yet, but what was your friend expecting the administration to do differently regarding those guys getting lost at sea? Demented Biden and Third Term Obammy botch another! And the hits keep coming. What a mess. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 This is really sick. This guy is a psycho. 100 American soldiers didn't see being injured by Iranian missiles as respect 100 injured by Iranian missile attacks 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 20 hours ago, Irv said: Demented Biden and Third Term Obammy botch another! And the hits keep coming. What a mess. Ya, Biden gonna get another term 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 The real reason Joe Biden won't punish Iran President Biden has been widely criticized for not retaliating against Iran with its proxies targeting US troops. This is the elephant in the room By Liz Peek Is President Joe Biden scared of starting a broader war if he attacks Iran? Or is he worried about gasoline prices going up, torching his reelection bid? The pusillanimous response of Biden to attacks on U.S. troops has enraged critics. Many want the president, who pledged to hold accountable "all those responsible" for the deaths of three U.S. soldiers, to strike Iran. To go after the head of the snake and squash Tehran’s ability to fund and train the terrorists who continue to attack U. S. personnel. He won’t do it. Why? Because he’s scared to death that hitting Iran’s oil fields or export facilities would drive global oil prices higher, and boost the cost of gasoline in the U.S. Gas at the pump might go back to $5 per gallon, a record reached in 2022; Biden, already a massively unpopular president, cannot tolerate that. Nothing drags down his approval ratings faster than skyrocketing prices at the pump; in an election year, he will do everything possible to make sure that doesn’t happen. This, folks, is the elephant in the room. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/real-reason-joe-biden-wont-punish-iran . 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/05/politics/us-did-not-notify-iraq-strikes/index.html In a call with reporters on Friday, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby had said the US “did inform the Iraqi government prior to the strikes.” On Monday, however, following the State Department briefing, Kirby confirmed that he misspoke. In a statement to CNN, Kirby said he “responded with information that I had been provided at the time” after the strikes on Friday. The adults are back in charge. 🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♀️🤦🏽 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 9 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/05/politics/us-did-not-notify-iraq-strikes/index.html In a call with reporters on Friday, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby had said the US “did inform the Iraqi government prior to the strikes.” On Monday, however, following the State Department briefing, Kirby confirmed that he misspoke. In a statement to CNN, Kirby said he “responded with information that I had been provided at the time” after the strikes on Friday. The adults are back in charge. 🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♀️🤦🏽 The Iraqis? And that's bad why? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said: The Iraqis? And that's bad why? That you didn’t read the article and completely missed the point but still felt the need to reply will be the least surprising thing that happens today. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 6 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: That you didn’t read the article and completely missed the point but still felt the need to reply will be the least surprising thing that happens today. So nothing...ok 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irv Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 6 hours ago, Tiberius said: The Iraqis? And that's bad why? Riiiing! The sand is on the phone again. It would like your head to leave. What a mess. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 13 hours ago, Irv said: Riiiing! The sand is on the phone again. It would like your head to leave. What a mess. Ya, elect a filthy isolationist and see how good things get. That would be a evil mess 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 32 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Ya, elect a filthy isolationist and see how good things get. That would be a evil mess You guys have gone 180 from where the DEMS used to be as far as foreign policy. Just constant war mongering and attacking any sane response with vitriol. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 2 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: You guys have gone 180 from where the DEMS used to be as far as foreign policy. Just constant war mongering and attacking any sane response with vitriol. Isolationist trash. Traitor to free governmnets. Go live in Russia 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 War mongers are trash. Traitors to humanity. Claim to be for human rights in one hand. support killing of people in the other. But the Military industrial thanks you. your bank account still growing due to your war stocks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 18 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Isolationist trash. Traitor to free governmnets. Go live in Russia There's a lot of real estate in between a policy of getting involved in every dust-up everywhere vs. completely withdrawing from the international community. Presently, there's no voices in Washington willing to pass on any opportunity to get involved no matter the cost or the benefits. A problem with our endless interventionism is it has yielded little to no value vs. the cost in life and treasure. While typically leaving the target of our "help" in worse shape than they were before we got involved. My view is we need to do a better job of picking our spots based on a logical approach of assessing the threat any of these situations poses to America. One result I see with the current approach taking up every challenge every time, all the time, is that it will leave our fighting forces and arsenal of weaponry "punched out" when a substantial direct threat to America presents itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said: There's a lot of real estate in between a policy of getting involved in every dust-up everywhere vs. completely withdrawing from the international community. Presently, there's no voices in Washington willing to pass on any opportunity to get involved no matter the cost or the benefits. A problem with our endless interventionism is it has yielded little to no value vs. the cost in life and treasure. While typically leaving the target of our "help" in worse shape than they were before we got involved. My view is we need to do a better job of picking our spots based on a logical approach of assessing the threat any of these situations poses to America. One result I see with the current approach taking up every challenge every time, all the time, is that it will leave our fighting forces and arsenal of weaponry "punched out" when a substantial direct threat to America presents itself. No, you are totally wrong. Ukraine is not a dust up. The invasion of Ukraine was the biggest war in Europe since WW2, you know, the war that happened in part because Hitler was appeased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 The world has certainly become a more violent place during the Biden presidency. Very sad. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts