World War III thread

[Lokmar]

Because no matter what the US and Isreal are always the evil bad guys. Even when we bomb a murderous regime that slaughters thousands of people and wants us all dead....somehow that is OUR fault. Because white people.

If I ever got to be POTUS, I'd blow up Mecca and turn it into a pig farm.

[Dove]

If I ever got to be POTUS, I'd blow up Mecca and turn it into a pig farm.

 How fucking WEIRD is that?

 Yeah let's all journey to a weird black box and walk around it. 

 I read somewhere that was symbolic of Baal. So they are demon worshippers.

[Lokmar]

How fucking WEIRD is that?

 Yeah let's all journey to a weird black box and walk around it. 

 I read somewhere that was symbolic of Baal. So they are demon worshippers.

I keep saying, faggits serve save satans left hand, muhzies his right.

[formosan]

How long will the strikes on Iran continue? Any predictions?

[Frood]

Actually he has spoken that it would be best for the world if the Islamic regime ended.

Best for the West, you mean....

[Frood]

Also Trump had brief some of congress first. So they knew.

 And there is solid intelligence stating that Iran was going to launch attacks at Americans first and he decided to prevent that and go ahead and strike.


 

Of course...... WMD's.... 

[Garraty_47]

How long will the strikes on Iran continue? Any predictions?

Until USA runs out of ammo (intercept missiles, etc.) and/or "israel" starts taking an embarrassing amount of damage.

[Lokmar]

The strikes will continue for 2 weeks at which time Iran will either be in a civil war or transitional government.

[Lokmar]

Until USA runs out of ammo (intercept missiles, etc.) and/or "israel" starts taking an embarrassing amount of damage.

I used to work for the industrial war complex (General Dynamics, Pomona, Ca). When we started running out of ammo, we got overtime.

There isnt a level of damage Israel would take that would make them stop. There is a level that would cause them to nuke Iran tho.

[Herman]

This aint good for Trump.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll that concluded on Sunday revealed that the joint U.S.-Israeli regime-change strikes are unpopular with most Americans.

While Republicans are apparently more supportive of the military campaign than their counterparts, the new poll found that such support is largely conditional and far less than for the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts.

The new polling is consistent with surveys conducted last month, which indicated that Americans were not particularly keen on the prospect of a new series of U.S. military strikes against Iran.

For instance, an SSRS/University of Maryland poll, conducted from Feb. 5 to Feb. 9, found that 21% of respondents favored an attack, 49% were opposed, and 30% were unsure. An Economist/YouGov poll found that 28% of respondents supported and 48% opposed the U.S. taking military action in Iran.

According to the new Reuters/Ipsos poll, 27% of respondents said that they approved of the strikes, 43% signaled disapproval, and 29% said they weren't sure.

Broken down by party affiliation:

55% of Republicans approved of the strikes, 32% said they were unsure or skipped the question, and 13% said they disapproved;
7% of Democrats said they approved, 19% said they were unsure or skipped the question, and 74% said they disapproved; and
19% of individuals in the "other" camp said they approved, 38% said they were unsure or skipped the question, and 44% said they disapproved.

The support for the present conflict pales in comparison to American support for the Iraq war prior to and following the March 20, 2003, invasion.

[Herman]

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced Sunday that the U.K. will allow the U.S. to use British military bases for limited defensive strikes targeting Iranian missile sites, reversing an earlier refusal amid escalating U.S.-Israeli operations against Iran.