Quote (CarsV @ Jan 3 2020 11:14am)
Yeah that's it, go with the masculinity angle lol.
So what should we have done about a foreign military leader actively leading attacks on American sovereignty? Ask them politely to stop? A regime who routinely preaches "death to America!"? Iran is no different from many other totalitarian regimes. They want control. They want to project power and influence. For them is about the strait. Unfortunately for them, and clearly the Washington Post as well, America and some of its allies won't allow that. I know, it reads like some simple boogeyman South Park episode script. But, some things in the real world are more simple than they're made out to be.
Also, we aren't reliant on the Mid-East for oil. That's Europe's dog.
pretty simple math. cost of life in attacks versus cost of lives in a war. cost of cleaning up attacks versus cost of a war. etc.
lol we aren't reliant on Middle Eastern oil, but Trump went from clowning Obama for sucking saudi dick to on his knees within half a term. are we reliant in truth? maybe not depending on your definition. are we president after president, from both parties, bowing down to the Saudis? yes. and they're the "good guys" in the middle eastern Islamic cultural war? Rotten fruit belongs in the trash, you dont keep half because it's less rotten.
Obummer wasted an opportunity to make a decent deal with Iran, Trump trashed it and rather than correcting it he went the opposite direction.
in any case, how does this lead to less attacks? what does Iran have to lose? more terrorists? losing a war? lol we can't even win in Afghanistan against backwater Jihaadists, let alone Iran who fund the Jihaadists.
the sanctions are in place, and seem to be working. not ideal, but seems to be working. please tell me what this accomplishes other than "sending a message", aka the masculinity angle. certainly not less attacks, i pray you're not that silly.