US may have killed Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani

#1,557
#1,557
Orangeburst said:
How does this help Trump? If anything it could hurt his re-election.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid he believes his own press -- that he, and he alone, can force Iran to cower in the corner. That his threats will cause them not to retaliate or that it will be so muted a response that he can laugh it off without having to bomb 52 sites. He is counting on de-escalation.

Problem is, he has painted himself in a corner. If Iran attacks a US base in Iraq, say, or some installation in Saudi Arabia or Israel, and kills a half dozen US troops, the pressure on Trump to escalate immediately and disproportionately will be huge.
 
#1,559
#1,559
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Click to expand...



Actually, the Dems I saw on Meet the Press and what not said he had the authority to do it IF in fact there were an imminent threat. They wanted to see the evidence of that, and they want to be consulted on it if there is an escalation. Congress is always skeptical of POTUS claims of the necessity for military action like this, regardless of who is in office.

Perfectly reasonable position.
 
#1,560
#1,560
lawgator1 said:
Actually, the Dems I saw on Meet the Press and what not said he had the authority to do it IF in fact there were an imminent threat. They wanted to see the evidence of that, and they want to be consulted on it if there is an escalation. Congress is always skeptical of POTUS claims of the necessity for military action like this, regardless of who is in office.

Perfectly reasonable position.
Click to expand...
The President has a legal right to try to goad us into a war. It's to be celebrated, didn't you know?
 
#1,561
#1,561
lawgator1 said:
I'm afraid he believes his own press -- that he, and he alone, can force Iran to cower in the corner. That his threats will cause them not to retaliate or that it will be so muted a response that he can laugh it off without having to bomb 52 sites. He is counting on de-escalation.

Problem is, he has painted himself in a corner. If Iran attacks a US base in Iraq, say, or some installation in Saudi Arabia or Israel, and kills a half dozen US troops, the pressure on Trump to escalate immediately and disproportionately will be huge.
Click to expand...

Since Trump is our president, do you think that his response to an attack would be proportionate?
 
#1,562
#1,562
Mick said:
The President has a legal right to try to goad us into a war. It's to be celebrated, didn't you know?
Click to expand...

The skepticism of Trump is amplified, given his penchant for using the office to promote his own ends. So yes, I would expect people to be a bit circumspect about this. Would be irresponsible to take his word for it.
 
#1,565
#1,565
Sandman 423 said:
Since Trump is our president, do you think that his response to an attack would be proportionate?
Click to expand...

Should it be?

And besides, as I say, he has cornered himself. This is shades of the red line. Trump threatens to strike 52 targets. If Iran bombs a US base and kills 100 US soldiers, Trump likely goes to war and the 52 sites are attacked.

But what if the Iranian attack kills 5 soldiers, what does he do? Or if it kills 2?

Trump is the opposite of speaking softly whilst carrying a big stick. He boasts, he yells, he threatens, he bullies.
 
#1,566
#1,566
lawgator1 said:
Should it be?

And besides, as I say, he has cornered himself. This is shades of the red line. Trump threatens to strike 52 targets. If Iran bombs a US base and kills 100 US soldiers, Trump likely goes to war and the 52 sites are attacked.

But what if the Iranian attack kills 5 soldiers, what does he do? Or if it kills 2?

Trump is the opposite of speaking softly whilst carrying a big stick. He boasts, he yells, he threatens, he bullies.
Click to expand...

He's already responded to at least two red lines (this action being one of them). Iran was told if they kill an American there will be consequences. There were.

Soleimani didn't just happen. It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction. Iran had been continually provoking, they were warned, they went the next step and the hit came.

I presume the same is already scripted. Our next plans are laid out and are dependent upon Iran's actions. This is not a temper tantrum or rush to war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, AM64, marcusluvsvols and 1 other person
#1,567
#1,567
lawgator1 said:
The skepticism of Trump is amplified, given his penchant for using the office to promote his own ends. So yes, I would expect people to be a bit circumspect about this. Would be irresponsible to take his word for it.
Click to expand...
****** intel as justification for continuing war in Iraq is expected from the GOP.
 
#1,569
#1,569
volinbham said:
He's already responded to at least two red lines (this action being one of them). Iran was told if they kill an American there will be consequences. There were.

Soleimani didn't just happen. It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction. Iran had been continually provoking, they were warned, they went the next step and the hit came.

I presume the same is already scripted. Our next plans are laid out and are dependent upon Iran's actions. This is not a temper tantrum or rush to war.
Click to expand...


Wait a second, the admin claims that they had urgent intel that Soleimani was planning an imminent attack and they had an opportunity to take him out so they took it. You, on the other hand, are claiming this had been in the works for a long time, that the Iranians were warned of this type of action, and that we have game planned this well into the future. You can't have it both ways.

Everything I read says this was spur of the moment based on intel of an imminent attack. We don;t know if this prevented it, but one naturally wonders since presumably others knew of it. At any rate, even if some consideration was given to consequences, it is still somewhat unpredictable.

Doesn't mean you fail to act every time because of unintended consequences. But it does mean that Trump buys those consequences, particularly if his motive was not as claimed. I think that is why so many on the Dem side are asking to be briefed on the intel to take action now. Reasonable.
 
#1,571
#1,571
lawgator1 said:
Wait a second, the admin claims that they had urgent intel that Soleimani was planning an imminent attack and they had an opportunity to take him out so they took it. You, on the other hand, are claiming this had been in the works for a long time, that the Iranians were warned of this type of action, and that we have game planned this well into the future. You can't have it both ways.

Everything I read says this was spur of the moment based on intel of an imminent attack. We don;t know if this prevented it, but one naturally wonders since presumably others knew of it. At any rate, even if some consideration was given to consequences, it is still somewhat unpredictable.

Doesn't mean you fail to act every time because of unintended consequences. But it does mean that Trump buys those consequences, particularly if his motive was not as claimed. I think that is why so many on the Dem side are asking to be briefed on the intel to take action now. Reasonable.
Click to expand...

Soleimani has been on the "list" for the last 3 administrations. The last 2 both came to a different risk/reward calculus. Iran since that time has stepped up the attacks.

Iranians weren't warned he'd be taken out but they were warned that if their provocations killed an American citizen then there would be severe consequences.

The "target of opportunity" for retribution just happened to be Soleimani - it was the best option to prevent upcoming actions by the Iranians. Intel converged around his role in directing future actions AND him entering a location where he could be cleanly hit. Had he not been at the airport we would have hit other targets to prevent the impending threats. The head of the snake happened to poke his head out at the right/wrong time.

And yes I'm quite sure that plans have been created to deal with any number of Iranian actions going forward and that almost none of them involve engaging in a war with Iran.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, AM64, marcusluvsvols and 1 other person
#1,572
#1,572
volinbham said:
Soleimani has been on the "list" for the last 3 administrations. The last 2 both came to a different risk/reward calculus. Iran since that time has stepped up the attacks.

Iranians weren't warned he'd be taken out but they were warned that if their provocations killed an American citizen then there would be severe consequences.

The "target of opportunity" for retribution just happened to be Soleimani - it was the best option to prevent upcoming actions by the Iranians. Intel converged around his role in directing future actions AND him entering a location where he could be cleanly hit. Had he not been at the airport we would have hit other targets to prevent the impending threats. The head of the snake happened to poke his head out at the right/wrong time.

And yes I'm quite sure that plans have been created to deal with any number of Iranian actions going forward and that almost none of them involve engaging in a war with Iran.
Click to expand...


Wait another second. The administration is saying that the reason this was done was to prevent an imminent attack planned by Soleimani. You are saying it was retribution for prior attacks.

I agree that we have plans to meet Iranian aggression. Doesn't mean we have to invite the need to do so. Unintended consequences....

cache.php
 
#1,573
#1,573
lawgator1 said:
Wait a second, the admin claims that they had urgent intel that Soleimani was planning an imminent attack and they had an opportunity to take him out so they took it. You, on the other hand, are claiming this had been in the works for a long time, that the Iranians were warned of this type of action, and that we have game planned this well into the future. You can't have it both ways.

Everything I read says this was spur of the moment based on intel of an imminent attack. We don;t know if this prevented it, but one naturally wonders since presumably others knew of it. At any rate, even if some consideration was given to consequences, it is still somewhat unpredictable.

Doesn't mean you fail to act every time because of unintended consequences. But it does mean that Trump buys those consequences, particularly if his motive was not as claimed. I think that is why so many on the Dem side are asking to be briefed on the intel to take action now. Reasonable.
Click to expand...
This isn’t a Clinton Benghazi again. He stopped the attack that was going to be on our embassy. People don’t get that.
Clinton-4dead
Trump-0 dead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, marcusluvsvols and volfanjustin
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top