US may have killed Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani

#3,426
#3,426
Burhead said:
See the above. How soon we forget we're the only country in its history to have requested Article 5 and the alliance acted on that.
Click to expand...

I responded to the specific question posed to you; why should the U.S. bomb Iran over the downed plane? Despite the practical matter that we are NATO, the U.S. should take no unilateral action here. Let the rest of NATO lead from behind on this, to borrow a phrase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,428
#3,428
hog88 said:
Feel the same way on Dec 16, 1998?
Click to expand...


I honestly don't remember.

But that is academic in that we cannot do anything about that now. There is still time to salvage the nation's credibility and future from Trumplestilskin, however.
 
#3,429
#3,429
KB5252 said:
Did they say an attack was days away? Serious question I'm not sure.

It could be argued given his history that Soleimani was an imminent threat, another attack was just a matter of time.
Click to expand...

Esper did, yes.

Slain Iranian general's planned attack on Americans was 'days' away, Esper says

I'd have to go back and look for the words Trump used, but I think it fair to say he characterized it as an imminent threat of new attacks, not retribution for old ones, or the possibility of future ones at some undefined point down the line. The clear import of what he said was that plans were in the works, in the very near future, and that Soleimani was there to put them in motion.
 
#3,431
#3,431
lawgator1 said:
I honestly don't remember.

But that is academic in that we cannot do anything about that now. There is still time to salvage the nation's credibility and future from Trumplestilskin, however.
Click to expand...

For killing a terrorist before he could kill more people ? Nah I think our reputation on that is good .
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, AM64, NCFisher and 1 other person
#3,433
#3,433
#3,434
#3,434
n_huffhines said:
That was the justification W used to get us into a never-ending war in Afghanistan. Rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...
Bush sent the military in to remove the Taliban. I am talking about more like what was done this time. Also, If we weren't there we would not have this problem. Dude could not have done what he was doing if we were not in a country that does not want us there.
 
#3,435
#3,435
NCFisher said:
I responded to the specific question posed to you; why should the U.S. bomb Iran over the downed plane? Despite the practical matter that we are NATO, the U.S. should take no unilateral action here. Let the rest of NATO lead from behind on this, to borrow a phrase.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if NATO collective defense can be requested for a civilian jet being brought down. If it can, and they did request it activated, I'm not sure the US would have much choice in the matter. If we failed to act the NATO alliance would be dead and that would invite the Russians to be an even bigger player in Europe. Regardless if you believe in the idea of what NATO represents, there is no doubting that it played/plays a major role in keeping Europe peaceful for the last 74 years.
 
#3,436
#3,436
#3,437
#3,437
Sandman 423 said:
Bush sent the military in to remove the Taliban. I am talking about more like what was done this time. Also, If we weren't there we would not have this problem. Dude could not of done what he was doing if we were not in a country that does not want us there.
Click to expand...

People are acting like this is over. Blowback could be 10 years down the road, so even if Iran the government is done doesn't mean this is over. Iran might've fired on a empty base, but that's what's out in the open. Would anybody be surprised to hear that some Iranian officials are conspiring to retaliate thru terrorist organizations?
 
#3,441
#3,441
lawgator1 said:
All Dems plus Mike Lee and Rand Paul.

For now.
Click to expand...

You know that only Dems believe Dems , and the other two as far as I know didn’t say that Intel didn’t come close to matching what Trumps admin was saying .
what about the other Rs that said it was a very detailed briefing ?
 
#3,443
#3,443
n_huffhines said:
People are acting like this is over. Blowback could be 10 years down the road, so even if Iran the government is done doesn't mean this is over. Iran might've fired on a empty base, but that's what's out in the open. Would anybody be surprised to hear that some Iranian officials are conspiring to retaliate thru terrorist organizations?
Click to expand...
I would count on it, and our foreign policy should put pressure on them and nuclear activities now harder than ever. Not an easy task but this has been kicked down the road long enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,444
#3,444
0nelilreb said:
You know that only Dems believe Dems , and the other two as far as I know didn’t say that Intel didn’t come close to matching what Trumps admin was saying .
what about the other Rs that said it was a very detailed briefing ?
Click to expand...


Since we do not know what was said in the briefing we have to consider the three camps.

Camp 1 is the Dems. They say the intelligence briefing was inadequate and did not show imminent threat. You discount that based on partisanship, ok.

Camp 2: The standard R's, who are in lock step with Trump and fearful of his base. They say the briefing was adequate and showed imminent threat. You accept that based on partisanship, ok.

Camp 3: RP and Lee. Loyal Republicans, but skeptical of abuse of military power by any president. They are ADAMANT that the briefing sucked and did not show imminent threat. They say they were told just accept the generic representations made to them and move on, not question anything.

1578586561411.jpeg
 
#3,446
#3,446
lawgator1 said:
The intelligence briefings apparently do not come close to supporting the representations made by those agencies under Trump. That's the problem.
Click to expand...

Who's higher up in the military intel chain than Esper and Milley?? That's "no one".

Known Most Exalted Terrorist General for Known Most Exalted State Sponsor of Terror, get whacked on Iraqi soil plotting more exalted terrorist acts on American/coalition forces. There may be disagreement among establishment military analysts as to whether THEY wanted to whack him, but no disagreement that whacking him was overdue and he deserved it.

There is no problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,449
#3,449
n_huffhines said:
People are acting like this is over. Blowback could be 10 years down the road, so even if Iran the government is done doesn't mean this is over. Iran might've fired on a empty base, but that's what's out in the open. Would anybody be surprised to hear that some Iranian officials are conspiring to retaliate thru terrorist organizations?
Click to expand...

I've yet to understand the mindset that we should not kill people actively engaged in killing you because that might make them really mad, and they'll try to kill you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 615vols, hog88 and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top