US may have killed Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani

[luthervol]

Wait. I thought the party line earlier was that there were no advisers - just a long list of vacancies because Trump fired them, the FBI indicted them, or they decided they hate Trump's guts.

Not NO advisers, but FEW and rarely listened to advisers.
BTW - I set my own party line, but it is amazing how often it is parallel to the dem. line.

 

[luthervol]

This about sums up a pure definition of stupidity. Good job.

It's stupid of you to think so.
I KNOW of multiple congressmen with whom I disagree across the board and find of very low character.

It's not much of a stretch to conclude that a congresswoman representing the democratic party would have at least some beliefs that align with mine.

Now you see how you were stupid???/

 

[volfanjustin]

Omar and young cronies shows total disrespect for another congresswoman talking American casualties. How the feck did this biatch get elected in the United States to serve the people along with the other 1st term morons. This country is in real trouble if this is not an exception.

This is what you get when you let anti American socialists take over the party

 

[kiddiedoc]

It's stupid of you to think so.
I KNOW of multiple congressmen with whom I disagree across the board and find of very low character.

It's not much of a stretch to conclude that a congresswoman representing the democratic party would have at least some beliefs that align with mine.

Now you see how you were stupid???/

No, not at all. Let me simplify for you:

I know next to nothing. . . .
But I'm sure

Your statement absolutely characterizes the lunacy of much of the Democratic party, the MSM, and many of the outspoken far-left population in current times. They aren't interested in investigating facts, analyzing information, or critical thinking. It's all knee-jerk, numb-minded, one-sided reaction. God forbid anyone actually use their brain or apply logic to a situation.

Here: what if you found out that your girl was sending money to terrorist organizations? What if she abuses her spouse or daughter? What if she supports legislation that is completely contrary to our Constitution?

So, yes, saying that you "are sure" about something immediately after saying that you "know next to nothing" about it is as dumb (and in some cases dangerous) as it gets.

 

[Vol737]

 

[BigOrangeD]

ARREST FOR TREASON: Iran Foreign Minister Denied Entry Into US: Communist Democrat Traitor John Kerry Advised Him How to Undermine America

 

[BigOrangeD]

Not So Fast Liberals, Hillary Clinton Once Warned She Would “Totally Obliterate” Iran

 

[Purple Tiger]

Oh yeah?
View attachment 252916

Spurious correlation. The above has nothing to do with the propaganda BS you posted earlier.

 

[BigOrangeD]

Oh yeah?
View attachment 252916

And Liberals said Trump would crash the economy. These people are stupid. Q

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

 

[DancingOutlaw]

This could get spicy.

 

[luthervol]

No, not at all. Let me simplify for you:



Your statement absolutely characterizes the lunacy of much of the Democratic party, the MSM, and many of the outspoken far-left population in current times. They aren't interested in investigating facts, analyzing information, or critical thinking. It's all knee-jerk, numb-minded, one-sided reaction. God forbid anyone actually use their brain or apply logic to a situation.

Here: what if you found out that your girl was sending money to terrorist organizations? What if she abuses her spouse or daughter? What if she supports legislation that is completely contrary to our Constitution?

So, yes, saying that you "are sure" about something immediately after saying that you "know next to nothing" about it is as dumb (and in some cases dangerous) as it gets.

Give me a freakin' break. That may be the biggest load of crap that I've read this year on the PF.
Classic BS move: Give a partial statement.
What if she bragged that she grabbed guys by the balls?
What if she cheated on her spouse repeatedly and used questionable funds, threats, and intimidation to buy their silence?
What if she was known to be a habitual liar?
What if she was immature and petty and constantly tweeted juvenile insults?
What if she publicly called members of her own party human scum?
What if she had a long history of swindling people out of millions of dollars?
What if she chose as her "advisers" some of the most hateful and divisive people imaginable?

If I knew any of these things were true, I would be much less likely to support her. If I knew that all or most of these things were true, I would certainly be looking to support someone else.

Facts? LOL

See if you can process this one.
I'm in a room full of people wearing either bama or UT clothing. Someone new walks in wearing UT clothing and I'm asked if I agree with that person's college allegiance of choice.
I say, "I know next to nothing about that person but I'm confident I agree with her more than with others in this room."
Get a clue and then think a little.

 

[Mick]

This could get spicy.

When you say spicy do you mean international outrage at Iran or full blown war with Iran? What do you think Trump's response should be or are you going to wait to see what he does?

 

[ChattaTNVol]

I don't know if you guys have seen anything about this yet but it could be a wrinkle.

 

[volfanjustin]

View attachment 252984

EL?

 

[DancingOutlaw]

When you say spicy do you mean international outrage at Iran or full blown war with Iran? What do you think Trump's response should be or are you going to wait to see what he does?

Why would the US attack Iran for shooting down a Ukrainian passenger plane?

 

[0nelilreb]

When you say spicy do you mean international outrage at Iran or full blown war with Iran? What do you think Trump's response should be or are you going to wait to see what he does?

I think the countries that had citizens on board should be putting on the pressure to have all the information available to them , it doesn’t concern us as a country and shouldn’t Trump .

 

[NCFisher]

You must have amnesia for the reason to even be in Iraq. Plus the small number of troops Obama authorized to northern Syria was working to keep the peace until the dotard in chief decided he was wanting to give Russia our military bases in the region and abandon our allies. Go ahead and try to articulated how great Trump's ME policy is compared to Obama. It's so incoherent you would have to be a special kind of stupid to even try to explain it. Also didn't you hear we have stopped fighting ISIS because of Trumps irresponsible actions toward Iran.

Not at all; I recall years of Clinton and Democrats selling Iraqi WMDs and that we'd have to do something about Hussein, and then Bush closing the sale. I recall massive U.S. intel failures - again! - that led to the basis for the war.

Obama was a foreign policy weakling. He deferred to Putin while Russia interfered in our election, again deferred to Putin on Assad using chem weapons, again on Russia facing missile defense systems in Czech R. and Poland, again on lethal weaponry for Ukraine, again on nuke missile treaty that Putin wiped himself with, and - bonus round! - released 150 large ones to Iran in a treaty that did nothing about the decades long war we're already engaged in with Iran.

But now - NOW - you want to bitch about taking out a gold medal terrorist Iranian azzhole (in Iraq) responsible for hundreds of U.S. deaths in the ME - and including planning an attack in DC to kill the Saudi ambassador - while OTOH stating Trump "flinched" for not attacking Iran over a flaccid missile attack we were tipped off to hours in advance via Iraqi PM Mahdi and easily - obviously - detectable by our intel systems. Which is it? Is he "stupid" for taking out Soleimani who's been a key agent in proxy war against us for decades, or "stupid" for not unleashing all hell on Iran for their saber-rattling missile exercise? It was not only a rational decision that should have been exercised long ago, but the only decision.

We have thousands of personnel in Iraq propping up their military. The Allies reneged on a Kurdish state in 1920 following end of WWI, but this is suddenly Trump's failure. We've not only paid the Kurds in the fight against ISIS, but trained and equipped them. Turkey has a large Kurdish faction, PKK, that has led a terroristic, insurrection movement for decades inside Turkey. Turkey, needless to say, is not entertaining the idea of an autonomous Kurdish state on the Syrian border, nor is Syria, nor will Iraq. We've used the Kurds as we needed them for decades, but to claim that alliance overshadows all brings into direct conflict the very concept of NATO alliance and getting further drawn into conflict with the Assad/Russia alliance. I see no reason U.S. troops should be the shock buffer against a NATO ally in a security and territorial dispute. Unless you advocate establishing another Israel-like Kurdish state surrounded by enemies that we'll be on the hook defending against NATO and non-NATO nations, perhaps it's time we and the Kurds became pragmatic.

When O took office, ISIS was a radically diminished force of less than 1000 huddled in S. Syria. Under his steady hand, the JV blossomed to tens of thousands wrecking a large swath of the region. Trump could entirely ignore IS at this point, and still better that gargantuan policy failure. And let's not forget "we came, we saw, he died - chortle!" - an inexplicable wrecking of a nation that created the largest regional arms proliferation since Vietnam.

Last, but not least, the Syrian civil war would have ended long ago but for the intervention of the Obama WH. Assad was the most popular leader in the region and still has popular support even years into the war; NATO has never understood this or perhaps chose blindness. But Obama decided "he must resign", belying a childlike understanding, or an agenda. Every group that revolts are not automatically the good guys, nor are "a popular uprising".

Sec. of Defense Esper summed up what could be a succint response to the nonsensical left and TDSers: “How do you expect us not to respond after they’ve been killing our people for 20 years? Soleimani alone has the blood of hundreds of Americans. He’s wounded thousands of Americans and coalition partners,”

He should listen to smart guys like you, Mick.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

This could get spicy.

This missle explodes before contact and sends shrapnel through its target. So this info with the earlier picture is really good evidence it was shot down.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

I don't know if you guys have seen anything about this yet but it could be a wrinkle.

They think one of them was leaking his location?

 

[NCFisher]

I am used to rhetoric, but it has become so insidious the last few years that has damaged our governance. We cannot run our nation like this. If the Durham report shows serious malfeasance by government operatives then I am not sure we can recover to any normalcy.

Malfeasance has already been shown, Durham can only confirm the scope/depth and whether corrupt intent can be proven to indict and jail people. Metaphorically, only bodies swinging from the gates of Penn. Ave will realign our justice, intel, and law enforcement agencies and that will not occur with any Democratic nominees or an establishment Repub in the WH. Trump is literally the only choice. Bill Barr is the most important man in America at this time.

 

[Mick]

Not at all; I recall two years of Clinton and Democrats selling Iraqi WMDs and that we'd have to do something about Hussein, and then Bush closing the sale. I recall massive U.S. intel failures - again! - that led to the basis for the war.

Obama was a foreign policy weakling. He deferred to Putin while Russia interfered in our election, again deferred to Putin on Assad using chem weapons, again on Russia facing missile defense systems in Czech R. and Poland, again on lethal weaponry for Ukraine, again on nuke missile treaty that Putin wiped himself with, and - bonus round! - released 150 large ones to Iran in a treaty that did nothing about the decades long war we're already engaged in with Iran.

But now - NOW - you want to bitch about taking out a gold medal terrorist Iranian azzhole (in Iraq) responsible for hundreds of U.S. deaths in the ME - and including planning an attack in DC to kill the Saudi ambassador - while OTOH stating Trump "flinched" for not attacking Iran over a flaccid missile attack we were tipped off to hours in advance via Iraqi PM Mahdi and easily - obviously - detectable by our intel systems. Which is it? Is he "stupid" for taking out Soleimani who's been a key agent in proxy war against us for decades, or "stupid" for not unleashing all hell on Iran for their saber-rattling missile exercise? It was not only a rational decision that should have been exercised long ago, but the only decision.

We have thousands of personnel in Iraq propping up their military. The Allies reneged on a Kurdish state in 1920 following end of WWI, but this is suddenly Trump's failure. We've not only paid the Kurds in the fight against ISIS, but trained and equipped them. Turkey has a large Kurdish faction, PKK, that has led a terroristic, insurrection movement for decades inside Turkey. Turkey, needless to say, is not entertaining the idea of an autonomous Kurdish state on the Syrian border, nor is Syria, nor will Iraq. We've used the Kurds as we needed them for decades, but to claim that alliance overshadows all brings into direct conflict the very concept of NATO alliance and getting further drawn into conflict with the Assad/Russia alliance. I see no reason U.S. troops should be the shock buffer against a NATO ally in a security and territorial dispute. Unless you advocate establishing another Israel-like Kurdish state surrounded by enemies that we'll be on the hook defending against NATO and non-NATO nations, perhaps it's time we and the Kurds became pragmatic.

When O took office, ISIS was a radically diminished force of less than 1000 huddled in N. Syria. Under his steady hand, the JV blossomed to tens of thousands wrecking a large swath of the region. Trump could entirely ignore IS at this point, and still better that gargantuan policy failure. And let's not forget "we came, we saw, he died - chortle!" - an inexplicable wrecking of a nation that created the largest regional arms proliferation since Vietnam.

Last, but not least, the Syrian civil war would have ended long ago but for the intervention of the Obama WH. Assad was the most popular leader in the region and still has popular support even years into the war; NATO has never understood this or perhaps chose blindness. But Obama decided "he must resign", belying a childlike understanding, or an agenda. Every group that revolts are not automatically the good guys, nor are "a popular uprising".

Sec. of Defense Esper summed up what could be a succint response to the nonsensical response left and TDSers: “How do you expect us not to respond after they’ve been killing our people for 20 years? Soleimani alone has the blood of hundreds of Americans. He’s wounded thousands of Americans and coalition partners,”

He should listen to smart guys like you, Mick.

I stopped reading after the bold. Only more lunacy to follow. Clinton's policy in Iraq was something entirely different from an invasion. But you want to believe that because of Clinton's concerns about WMD's and Saddam that it was his fault that Jr. used really crap intel to justify an invasion. If you remember correctly, Bush Sr. and the whole Desert Storm thing where they were firing SCUDS that could contain WMD's at our Troops. That concern didn't just disappear once we withdrew.

 

[NCFisher]

There is nothing that some in the media hate more than Trump... disgusting that they would report this

To paraphrase "They take the word of our enemy over our intelligence, military, and president....traitors!!"

 

[luthervol]

To paraphrase "They take the word of our enemy over our intelligence, military, and president....traitors!!"

Taking the word of your enemy over your own intelligence agencies and military?????
Certainly the thing only a traitor would do.
Wink...wink.

Trump/Putin anyone?

 

[tennvols77]

I stopped reading after the bold. Only more lunacy to follow. Clinton's policy in Iraq was something entirely different from an invasion.

When Iraq Was Clinton’s War



"The Clinton administration’s fixation on weapons and its desire for regime change were clearly on display at a February 1998 town hall, where Secretary of State Madeleine Albright tried to sell the public on bombing Iraq. Albright was repeatedly interrupted by antiwar activists, and pressed about why the US was so keen on attacking Iraq when there were many other, similarly terrible dictators throughout the world.

Albright replied, “No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.” Albright then proceeded to lecture the audience, telling them “I’m really surprised that people feel they need to defend the rights of Saddam Hussein.”



More:

Bill Clinton on War & Peace


1998: Signed Iraq Liberation Act calling for Saddam's ouster

That December, President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a four-day air strike campaign meant to diminish Saddam's weapons capabilities. "If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future," President Clinton said. "Mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them." There was bipartisan support for the operation.

Once again, politically wouldn't just invade or kill him, actually thought passing a law would remove Saddam......

His policy was a little different, Clinton passively played regime change because he was too much of a political whore to make the decision needed to invade and rid the country and world of Saddam. He actually thought passing a law and lobbing some missles would remove Saddam.