BREAKING!!! TRUMP APPROVES SENDING TROOPS, MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE to KSA!!! Cyberattack on Iran ongoing (P.32)

Exactly right. No reason, no sense, all blame blacing and so barking mad that he will go from the new jesus zeus to satan faster than ever before. Whatever he does.

SO he might as well do what he wants to read in 20 years.


No President has successfully passed the war buck on since Buchanan and that was likely because

Better or acceptable arrangements were arrived at harmoniously. It was not dc society "people" because Buchanan could hardly stand how awful they were. He did have other good friends tho.

I may be wrong too? Has there been one that didn't wanna give and got his way out of it since? I was thinking they were all for it or took counsel to...

So if he "loves to do a little sidestep" out of it, that will just be another thing he pulled off that others didn't.

[link to m.youtube.com (secure)]

That's why Putin was laughing the other day and suggesting Saudis s400. Patriot is outdated for years.

nice stuff really really convincing

100%.

It's all lies, everyday, all day. It will likely stay this way for the next 50 years.

Saudi has already hit Iranians or pro-Iranian troops in Syria, so theres that.

As far as will we be involved in the strike, I doubt it. But that doesn't mean that we're not going to war. I wouldn't put it past the Iranians to hit us once the Saudis attack. Then we jump in because we were attacked. It won't be more than a week after the Saudis attack before were involved. So yeah as of today all we're going to do is apply more sanctions, but I have a feeling that we're getting this war rather we or Trump wants it or not.

Have you ever heard of Gulf War Syndrome what the fuck do you think caused that shit huh? Saddam used gas on the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war and on the Kurds. Where do you think the Syrians got there supply from, it's not like he didn't have more than enough time to move them out of the country? And yes, we did find chemical weapons in Iraq. We didn't find any manufacturing though.


The U.S. government suppressed information about chemical weapons it found in Iraq, and several servicemembers were injured by their exposure to those weapons, The New York Times is reporting.
[link to www.cnn.com (secure)]

[link to www.nytimes.com (secure)]

On June 21, 2006 the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released key points from a classified report provided to them by the National Ground Intelligence Center on the recovery of chemical weapons in Iraq.[119] The declassified summary stated that "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent", that chemical munitions "are assessed to still exist" and that they "could be sold on the black market".[120] All weapons were thought to be manufactured in the 1980s and date to Iraq's war with Iran.[119] The report prompted US Senator Rick Santorum to hold a press conference in which he declared "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."[121]

During a House Armed Services Committee meeting convened to discuss the topic, the center's commander, Army Colonel John Chiu, elaborated that the munitions are "badly corroded in most cases [and] some were deliberately dismantled, if you will, to prevent them from being used."[122] Nonetheless, in response to a question from committee member Curt Weldon, Col. Chui agreed that the munitions met the technical definition of weapons of mass destruction. "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention and yes, sir, they do constitute weapons of mass destruction."[123] Weapons expert David Kay, who also appeared before the committee, disagreed with the assessment, contending that any chemical weapon produced by Iraq in the 1980s would not remain a viable weapon of mass destruction today. Kay said the chemical agent, though hazardous, is "less toxic than most things Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point".[119] Speaking on National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation, weapons expert Charles Duelfer agreed: "We said in the [ISG] report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard.[124]

In September of the same year, the report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings stated that such discoveries were consistent with the ISG assessment that "Iraq and Coalition Forces will continue to discover small numbers of degraded chemical weapons, which the former Regime mislaid or improperly destroyed prior to 1991. The ISG believes the bulk of these weapons were likely abandoned, forgotten and lost during the Iran-Iraq war because tens of thousands of CW munitions were forward deployed along the frequently and rapidly shifting battle front."[125] - [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Fuck off and die.

Wow, maybe we should call you two the Treason Brothers.

You know, you may not like the government, but this is your home, it's where your family lives. WTF? I know your going to scream something something Trump, something something false flag, something something Zionists. The most fucked up part is that you have zero fucking proof of any of that and are just fucking clueless, so much so that you don't realize how much you little fuckers are hurting the country which is going to harm everyone if we do go to war. This country is on the edge of ripping itself apart and you fuckers want to give a big push. Why don't you fuck off and go vape in your gender-neutral bathrooms. Fucking slaptards.

smelly Ayntydum

Vincent Lee
@Rover829
Reuters: #SaudiArabia ambassador to #Germany, asked about possible military attack against #Iran, says everything is on table but need to discuss carefully -Germany's Deutschlandfunk radio

[link to twitter.com (secure)]

Sounds a bit like N.Korea's infamous "we will respond at a time of our choosing" lol.

French Foreign Minister: It is not true that Houthi militias in Yemen attacked Saudi Aramco facilities
via: @lummideast

[link to twitter.com (secure)]

Denial ain’t just a place in Egypt

Interesting, given that if I remember rightly the French were one of the doubters last time Iran got blamed.

I agree with this, but the order of events, as they're most likely to unfold, is all wrong.

Saudis will never attack first. Their little Yemeni misadventure has already shown them that their military is incapable of conducting even a simple "police action" against a vastly inferior opponent. Going against Iran (alone, at first) would be a complete disaster in a mater of days, if not hours.

Let's not forget that Saudi Arabia has already experienced an attempted military coup, a year-or-so ago was it, most likely initiated by some (used-to-be, now just proud owners of depleted oil fields) "oil rich" tribe or another, or even several of them, and only the presence of U.S. troops in Riyadh had prevented the overthrow of the Saudi royal family.

Just imagine the level of chaos that would erupt in Riyadh if Iranian missiles started hitting it.

Iranians aren't suicidal, so they'd most likely leave U.S. assets alone (until U.S. got involved), and concentrate their strikes on Saudi ships and (oil/water/electricity) infrastructure.

If there's a war with Iran, U.S. will undoubtedly strike first... but then, Iranians would have no more excuses to hold back against U.S. targets. Even "limited air strikes" against targets on Iranian territory would escalate pretty quickly, as they'd show that U.S. is prepared to go all the way, and level Iran to the ground, much like they've already done with Iraq.

In other words, Iranians would be backed into a corner, with nothing left to lose... except time, if they hesitated to retaliate against U.S. with (mostly) everything they have... leaving their (at least several dozen) nukes in reserve, as the last line of defense against U.S. ground invasion... or, if they started (seriously) losing the air war (a prerequisite for a ground invasion), launching every single one of those all over the region (accompanied by dozens of conventional "decoys")... including Israel.

In such "limited air strikes" scenario, I'm fully expecting every single U.S. ship in the Gulf, as well as CENTCOM in Qatar, to be hit with a barrage of missile that would be impossible to defend against. And, if Iranians are pushed enough, I wouldn't exclude the possibility of some of those missile having chemical warheads, either.

It would be a total war, and anybody entering it without being prepared for the worst would be a damn fool.

Iranians have already learned their lesson by watching what the U.S. had done to Iraq, so they're undoubtedly prepared.

As for the U.S... I'm afraid that lessons from Vietnam had never been learned... because Vietnam, as much of a complete disaster it was for the U.S., never turned nuclear. And it could have, easily... and U.S. losses of 50,000 (10%) would've been 500,000 (or 90%, out of 536,100 at their peak in 1968).

U.S. is not prepared for 90% (or even 50%) loss in a war against Iran. In a war against Russia or China, sure, U.S. could (just maybe, possibly, perhaps) bear such losses and live, but against an "inferior" opponent like Iran? Not a chance.

The smaller the opponent, the smaller the losses are sufficient for one to be defeated (both morally and in terms of troop morale).

It took just 10% loss to be defeated in Vietnam. My guess would be that 30% loss in the case of Iran would still be bearable. Anything above that, and the whole campaign (and the U.S. itself with it) would start falling apart.

I prefer to trust Guardian when it comes to the subject of Gulf war syndrome.

Illegal vaccine link to Gulf war syndrome

"The illness known as Gulf war syndrome looks likely to have been caused by an illegal vaccine "booster" given by the Ministry of Defence to protect soldiers against biological weapons, according to the results of a new series of tests.

Scientists in the United States found that symptoms of the illness were the same for service personnel who received the injections whether or not they served in the Gulf."
[link to www.theguardian.com (secure)]

In other words... it was a colossal clusterfuck, to use the appropriate (military) term.

laurence norman @laurnorman
9m
I understand from sources that @JZarif still, as of late morning CET, has had no U.S. visa issued to travel to UNGA. And that @HassanRouhani won't go if Zarif doesn't. #Iran @realDonaldTrump

[link to twitter.com (secure)]

lol did they found this out only on 2019?

Arab News @arabnews
3m
#BREAKING: EU: Iran violates international conventions on human rights

[link to twitter.com (secure)]

Arab News @arabnews
11m
#BREAKING: US Central Command: Threats to navigation in the Gulf require an international solution

[link to twitter.com (secure)]

Oil future are quite up +2%

[link to finviz.com (secure)]

It increased after the strike, obviously, but yesterday it went down.

Do they know something we don't ??

Guy Elster @guyelster
16m
#BREAKING #Iran FM Zarif warns against war after Pompeo says Saudi attack was "an act of war"

[link to twitter.com (secure)]

Iranian FM: Pompeo's accusations against Tehran over Aramco attack are pushing for war that will not benefit anyone #Iran
via: @lummideast

[link to twitter.com (secure)]

CNN International @cnni
51s
BREAKING: Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif threatened 'all out war' in the event of a US or Saudi military strike on the country

[link to twitter.com (secure)]

Golnaz Esfandiari @GEsfandiari
12s
What would be the consequence of an American or Saudi military strike on Iran now?

Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif: "An all-out war."

"I am making a very serious statement that we don't want to engage in a military confrontation..But we won't blink to defend our territory."

[link to twitter.com (secure)]

#RETARDS

ELINT News @ELINTNews
25s
#BREAKING: Trump on Iran: “It’s possible we won’t have a peaceful solution”

[link to twitter.com (secure)]

ELINT News @ELINTNews
1m
POTUS to Fox in Iran: “I mean you may have some very strong hit...
we'll see what happens. A lot of things could happen. If we can have a peaceful solution, that's good. It's possible that that won't happen.” - Via @agearan

[link to twitter.com (secure)]

Russian Defense Ministry wonders why U.S. air defense system missed strike at Saudi oil facilities
[link to www.interfax.com]

Effectiveness of Patriot systems for fighting cruise missiles used by Saudi air defense systems is low - Russian Defense Ministry

Lucas Tomlinson @LucasFoxNews
3m
Secretary of State Pompeo says "fingerprints of the ayatollah" all over Saudi oil attack, blaming Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

[link to twitter.com (secure)]