He posted more threats during the day on social media.


Trump during his first term and both following campaigns. Are you pro-war?

I’m pro strategic thinking. If the pros outweigh the cons, sure war it is. If not. No.

The cons for the war in Iraq were a power vacuum that paved the way for the creation of ISIS, couple hundred of your peers losing their lives, over a hundred thousand civilians losing their lives and ~$3 trillion in taxpayers money. Before the war I’m sure they thought the "pros outweighed the cons". Will it be the same with Iran?

Iran intervention is at least a bit more viable since it wouldn't leave a power vacuum, the Pahlavi dynasty is in exile and would be re-instated as the government of Iran and they have a ton of support both domestic (suppressed) and abroad.

The best course of action though wouldn't be an invasion, a US Russia alliance could topple the Khamenei regime

I wish you wouldn’t have picked literally what I view as our ONLY successful military mission in my lifetime.

Look. Two goals were made in Iraq.

1. Finding weapons of mass destruction/chemical stockpiles. Although no official stocks were found direct remnants of them were which means they were moved… where do you think would accept them?

2. Remove Sadaam from power. Achieved.

Their “power vacuum” is on them. If they want to kill themselves that’s fine as long as they leave our allies alone. If Iran wants that smoke then the US can overthrow them in 9 months too like Sadaam. They can rinse and repeat all they want.

PS the casualties for BOTH wars combined (Iraq & Afghanistan) were only a very small fraction of something like Ukraine and Iraq was a top 10 world military at that time remember? It was also the number 1 military in the Arab world at that time.

No WMDs were found & Saddam was replaced by an arguably worse regime perpetrating violent acts, not only at home this time, but abroad. The don’t want to "kill themselves", the US destroyed any chance they had at maintaining a stable government. It’s okay if you want to be a warhawk, but not everyone thinks the same.

I consider them finding remnants of Chemical weapons used against Kurds sufficient enough evidence and most people consider chemical weapons WMD.

US troops and Iraqi troops trained by the US both had to deal with and dispose of warheads, aviation bombs and mortars filled with Nerve gas and Mustard gas which was in direct violation of the agreement they signed after the gulf war regardless of them producing them or simply hiding “old stock”(the claim) from UN inspectors.

Here is one of many articles I was talking about:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/classroom/daily-videos/2023/08/u-s-soldiers-were-injured-by-iraq-chemical-weapons-report-shows

Keep in mind they were supposed to report ALL of this stuff. If they didn’t report this then what makes anyone with a brain think stuff wasn’t moved. No, they left this behind in spite of violations and sent the rest somewhere else.

This post was edited by MadMan87 on Mar 18 2025 08:51am

Agreements for thee, but not for me? Anyway, I don’t know what your source is that remnants of WMDs were found, because both UN-led and US-led inspections found nothing at the time.

I have you a link and there are thousands where that came from.

If all of them have the same credibility as that undated event, I’ll pass thanks.