Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Stretch5432 t1_jegf4af wrote

Damn, I know the gut punch of a deployment extension. Feel for the sailors listening to that 1MC when they heard it. Absolutely sucks. Hats off to all the Enlisted folk doing it out there.

129

Realistic_Worry_6837 t1_jegqw8y wrote

It's especially fun when the Admiral gets on the 1MC the next day and tells the entire crew to "get over it". That dude was all class.

60

macross1984 t1_jeg1too wrote

US will not hesitate to retaliate so behave or else.

37

Human-Entrepreneur77 t1_jeg3eyd wrote

They send the warthog when it's time to kickbutt

13

SimmaDownNa t1_jeg7hd3 wrote

I don't believe A-10s can deploy from an aircraft carrier, but the spirit of your comment is still 100% correct.

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT

35

Wwize t1_jegr3kk wrote

The article says they're sending a squadron of A10's. It doesn't say they'll deploy from a carrier, they could deploy from Turkey, for example. The US has an airbase there.

4

j0b534rch t1_jegtjuv wrote

Also, the US has a large base or two in Jordan. They aren't talked about much but they are there.

4

autotldr t1_jefxw8t wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)

> WASHINGTON -The United States has decided to extend the deployment of the George H.W. Bush carrier strike group to provide options to policymakers after last week's deadly attacks in Syria by Iran-backed forces, U.S. military officials said on Friday.

> News of the deployment came a day after the Pentagon doubled its tally of the number of American troops wounded in last week's attacks in Syria to 12, following the diagnosis of six U.S. military personnel with traumatic brain injuries.

> The Pentagon has estimated eight militants were killed during retaliatory U.S. air strikes against two Iran-linked facilities in Syria during the tit-for-tat exchanges triggered by the first March 23 attack against a U.S. base near the Syrian city of Hasaka.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: U.S.^#1 strike^#2 group^#3 attack^#4 State^#5

8

[deleted] t1_jeg2vyt wrote

[deleted]

2

aaden08 t1_jeg3lye wrote

lol so you admit invading Iraq was a bad idea but somehow we should have went into Iran who has not attacked us and that's somehow a good idea?

How about no more decade+ mideast wars for a change?

−11

CentJr t1_jeg7scu wrote

I mean... Iraq literally got invaded for less than the shit that Iran has been pulling for the last decade.

Enriching uranium to a dangerous level , spreading proxies all over the region, causing sectarianism to spike wherever they go, bombing their neighbors with ballistic and UAVs to get the political leverage they need, attacking ships in the Persian Gulf, managing to drag down 3-4 Arab countries into a pool of endless corruption...etc etc.

And now they are helping Russia bomb an EU candidate.

17

Test19s t1_jeh1ztf wrote

Still, we in the USA literally stabbed Iran in the back under twice-impeached criminal defendant Donald Trump, so it’s pretty rich to talk about invading them. Best to stick to targeted sanctions and humanitarian aid to dissidents and refugees.

5

aaden08 t1_jegcmmm wrote

You bring up food points. But can you honestly say the US and Israel are not also engaged in a proxy war with them? It's been tit for tat hacking, assassinations, bombings etc. Can't assassinate their military leaders, hack their infrastructure and not expect the same back. Also, blame Trump for canceling the nuclear deal that they were obeying. Now with countries like Russia invading and bullying weaker neighbors who aren't nuclear states and not backed by NATO, places like Iran are more likely and understandably going to enrich uranium to have their own deterrent.

The next year will be very telling.

−1

Wwize t1_jegrbo6 wrote

Iran attacked the US several time throughout history and even recently. It started with taking the US embassy hostage and today we have them attacking US troops in Syria.

2

aaden08 t1_jegt9fw wrote

I guess you also skipped over the part where the US/CIA directly interfered with their government.

You realize things have an origin point right?

Imagine if their intelligence agency directly orchestrated overthrowing your government in favor of a puppet.

You can't simply see things as one sided. Otherwise history repeats itself.

Both sides are to blame for escalation recently. The biggest being Trump killing the nuclear deal and furthering sanctions on Iran.

4

Oregonmushroomhunt t1_jeh1l2f wrote

If I was president, this is how I would solve this Ukraine problem. I would get Americas nuclear arsenal ready using submarines. Then I’ll get on Air Force One. And fly nonstop over Ukraine’s war zone. Telling Russia if they interfere with Air Force One, it would be all out war with America. Taking the power away from Putin. And while Air Force One was flying out to save Ukraine I would have a full deployment of two squadrons of 35s to protect it. Shooting down anything Russia deploys over Ukraine.

Killing a president authorizes nuclear weapons so I make sure my vice president was ready in a bunker.

−37