US may have killed Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani

#451
#451
rjd970 said:
JMO...

IF we are going to maintain a presence over there (a separate debate) then this guy had American blood on his hands and was a legitimate target. It's hard to imagine he was in Iraq for anything other than nefarious reasons.
Click to expand...

thank you for a dose of sanity.

there are "in a perfect world" scenarios and reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#452
#452
hog88 said:
Milquetoast statement at best.
Click to expand...
Everyone can keep making fun of me and Pete. But he is the only politician I've seen making a bit of damn sense in this cluster ****.
81886394_2910031785683164_8748499411564232704_o.png
 
#453
#453
volinbham said:
or capturing Navy ships...
Click to expand...
What would America do if the Iranian Navy sailed up the Mississippi?

"Navigational errors". lol talk about bad faith.

On January 12, 2016, two United States Navy riverine command boats were seized by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy after they entered Iranian territorial waters near Iran's Farsi Island in the Persian Gulf. Initially, the U.S. military claimed the sailors inadvertently entered Iranian waters owing to mechanical failure, but it was later reported that they entered Iranian waters because of navigational errors.[3] The U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry, called the Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif within five minutes. His call was followed by multiple other phone calls between the two ministers. The sailors had a brief verbal exchange with the Iranian military and were released, unharmed, 15 hours later.
 
#455
#455
Mick said:
What would America do if the Iranian Navy sailed up the Mississippi?

"Navigational errors". lol talk about bad faith.

On January 12, 2016, two United States Navy riverine command boats were seized by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy after they entered Iranian territorial waters near Iran's Farsi Island in the Persian Gulf. Initially, the U.S. military claimed the sailors inadvertently entered Iranian waters owing to mechanical failure, but it was later reported that they entered Iranian waters because of navigational errors.[3] The U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry, called the Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif within five minutes. His call was followed by multiple other phone calls between the two ministers. The sailors had a brief verbal exchange with the Iranian military and were released, unharmed, 15 hours later.
Click to expand...

Now you're colluding with Iran
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01, davethevol and hog88
#456
#456
Mick said:
Cite your evidence of Bad Faith with the agreement.
Click to expand...
I don't, it was a simple question. If there were attacks initiated and involving any group or organization supported in any way by the Iranian government would that not demonstrate bad faith?

Others cited Iranian supported attacks on Western interests. If that's true I'll leave it to them to cite the instances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#457
#457
zeppelin128 said:
Everyone can keep making fun of me and Pete. But he is the only politician I've seen making a bit of damn sense in this cluster ****.
81886394_2910031785683164_8748499411564232704_o.png
Click to expand...

He wouldn't consult with a hostile congress anymore than Trump did. His whole statement was pure generalizations and the fact he throws in "I was a military intelligence officer" is nothing but campaigning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and davethevol
#461
#461
Everyone worried about us going to war. If that comes to pass I have faith that we have a CiC who will let our Men & Women do their job without having an arm tied behind their back.
No more of this firing until after your fired upon but first calling a lawyer, mak8ng sure who you want to shoot at is the one shooting at you, then double and triple checking that no civilian is anywhere near your target etc., etc...
 
#462
#462
volinbham said:
His whole "consultation" comments are fun to say but basically throw away comments.

Actually the whole thing is a nothing statement full of obvious yet general comments
Click to expand...


I think the point is simply to raise the issue of whether this attack has been fully thought through. Everyone would like to believe that this was planned and recommended by the best US military experts, with no political influence, such that even if Trump had some political considerations in mind, it is still a good idea in the long run. At the same time, given his behavior over time, I don't see anything wrong with questioning why Trump okayed it and how the military leadership dealt with that.

So its less about the wisdom of the decision, and more about why Trump okayed it, and why now. I don't see how anyone could take issue with wondering about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#463
#463
KB5252 said:
I don't, it was a simple question. If there were attacks initiated and involving any group or organization supported in any way by the Iranian government would that not demonstrate bad faith!

Others cited Iranian supported attacks on Western interests. If that's true I'll leave it to them to cite the instances.
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from. It would be bad faith if they supported attacks on the countries they had an agreement with. I think the biggest criticism of the agreement was it did nothing to curb their missile program.
 
#465
#465
lawgator1 said:
I think the point is simply to raise the issue of whether this attack has been fully thought through. Everyone would like to believe that this was planned and recommended by the best US military experts, with no political influence, such that even if Trump had some political considerations in mind, it is still a good idea in the long run. At the same time, given his behavior over time, I don't see anything wrong with questioning why Trump okayed it and how the military leadership dealt with that.

So its less about the wisdom of the decision, and more about why Trump okayed it, and why now. I don't see how anyone could take issue with wondering about that.
Click to expand...

It's fine to question it. My point is acting like the concept of questioning it and hoping we don't get in an endless war isn't exactly ground breaking sentiment.

IOW - Mayor Pete didn't provide us with some deep, insightful analysis here. It's what pretty much anyone would say (other than screaming partisans on either side). If we want to give him credit for not being an extremist then I guess that's something.
 
#466
#466
Mick said:
I see where you're coming from. It would be bad faith if they supported attacks on the countries they had an agreement with.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any question they've supported attacks in Iraq against both the Iraqi government and the US and allies there. Were doing so before the agreement, during the agreement and after the agreement.
 
#469
#469
lawgator1 said:
I think the point is simply to raise the issue of whether this attack has been fully thought through. Everyone would like to believe that this was planned and recommended by the best US military experts, with no political influence, such that even if Trump had some political considerations in mind, it is still a good idea in the long run. At the same time, given his behavior over time, I don't see anything wrong with questioning why Trump okayed it and how the military leadership dealt with that.

So its less about the wisdom of the decision, and more about why Trump okayed it, and why now. I don't see how anyone could take issue with wondering about that.
Click to expand...
I think that's reasonable in it's purest form but for many the reasons for questioning this aren't pure.

I think the location is the best indication of why it had to be then and at that moment. I think it's also the best indicator that it was pitched/options given by intelligence officials and not a decision/diversion created by Trump.
 
#470
#470
CagleMtnVol said:
Everyone worried about us going to war. If that comes to pass I have faith that we have a CiC who will let our Men & Women do their job without having an arm tied behind their back.
No more of this firing until after your fired upon but first calling a lawyer, mak8ng sure who you want to shoot at is the one shooting at you, then double and triple checking that no civilian is anywhere near your target etc., etc...
Click to expand...

Thanks Mr. Viking! The Middle Ages called and wanted to know when you're returning.
 
#473
#473
volinbham said:
I don't think there's any question they've supported attacks in Iraq against both the Iraqi government and the US and allies there. Were doing so before the agreement, during the agreement and after the agreement.
Click to expand...

You failed on the last citation so I will allow you to cite another to back up your latest assertion.
 
#474
#474
Mick said:
I see where you're coming from. It would be bad faith if they supported attacks on the countries they had an agreement with. I think the biggest criticism of the agreement was it did nothing to curb their missile program.
Click to expand...
It was a useless agreement for the most part, most of them are.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top