US may have killed Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani

[0nelilreb]

Then sand intel agencies we are supposed to trust over Russia interference in the last election?

Cant have it both way Mick. Either you trust them or don’t.

That’s why I said I love watching him do it . I honestly don’t think he knows he is doing that .

 

[volinbham]

Most righties will tell you that Trump is this brilliant strategist playing his 3D chess and all. BS, he wakes up every morning and asks what can I do for Trump today? I'm sure he thought everyone would rally around him after this strike. Instead his loyalists in Congress are left trying to justify his lunacy.

Ironic statement is ironic

 

[carlos86]

CENTCOM is preparing to fully withdraw from Iraq.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

CENTCOM is preparing to fully withdraw from Iraq.

Can't wait to see the sanctions.

 

[lawgator1]

Both, it was retribution and preventing an imminent attack based on intelligence from what we've been told so far. You are acting as if these two things are mutually exclusive when they don't have to be. I understand skepticism but you're pretending this can't possibly be factual when it clearly can.

No one that I can think of has said here, or elsewhere for that matter, that there wasn't justification for doing it, generally. All seem to agree that he had committed heinous terrorist acts in the past, and was likely to do them in the future. He had American blood on his hands. He was a threat.

The issue is TIMING. Why now? And if Trump's personal benefit from it was part of the calculus (and it seems some of you concede it may have been), the question is to what extent Trump substituted his personal benefit as a factor offsetting the possible consequences.

That is a perfectly legitimate inquiry. Trump and his administration have chosen to go with the line that an imminent attack was coming that necessitated acting now. Ok, could very well be. I am skeptical, but I have not seen the evidence one way or another. I accept that we might not see that evidence directly for some time to come. But it seems to me that Congressional Dem calls for the Gang of Eight and key House members to be briefed is entirely reasonable.

 

[carlos86]

 

[hog88]

Good.

 

[0nelilreb]

Regardless of outcome , when the country votes for you to leave , I believe we should leave . Pull back to protect assets we have in the surrounding regions and watch the show . Lots of pros and cons to both , but I think it’s the right thing to do .

 

[lawgator1]

Trump abandoned the Kurds and now his actions precipitate the need to leave Iraq. The isolationist wing of the GOP celebrates.

I wonder if they realize what they have bargained for. And I wonder if the same isolationist wing protests as hard when it comes to military support for Israel. Those two concepts may really collide here, soon.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[hog88]

Trump abandoned the Kurds and now his actions precipitate the need to leave Iraq. The isolationist wing of the GOP celebrates.

I wonder if they realize what they have bargained for. And I wonder if the same isolationist wing protests as hard when it comes to military support for Israel. Those two concepts may really collide here, soon.

I could be wrong but haven't I seen you criticize him because we haven't withdrawn from Iraq?

 

[0nelilreb]

Trump abandoned the Kurds and now his actions precipitate the need to leave Iraq. The isolationist wing of the GOP celebrates.

I wonder if they realize what they have bargained for. And I wonder if the same isolationist wing protests as hard when it comes to military support for Israel. Those two concepts may really collide here, soon.

What will the left say now , will they turn warhawkish and side with the GOP hawks or will they say it’s good that Trump is getting Troops out of Iraq ? Lol . This will be fun to watch .

 

[lawgator1]

I could be wrong but haven't I seen you criticize him because we haven't withdrawn from Iraq?

Not sure of your point, but I honestly do not feel strongly about that individual issue. My first point is that it certainly appears that we are not considering withdrawal by choice. My second point is that the Trump base, at least the isolationist wing, will tout it as a good thing because of their larger goal of getting us out of the ME. Heck, Trump will brag about it.

But when you add up the abrupt decision to basically leave Syria all alone, then this .... I don't know. Seems awfully risky in such a short period of time. Who benefits from us out of Syria and out of Iraq? I have some ideas.

 

[lawgator1]

What will the left say now , will they turn warhawkish and side with the GOP hawks or will they say it’s good that Trump is getting Troops out of Iraq ? Lol . This will be fun to watch .

Oh, no doubt, the hipocrisy across the entire political spectrum is going to be a sight to behold. Some folks' ardent claims of absolute this or that are soon to be put to the test.

 

[hog88]

Not sure of your point, but I honestly do not feel strongly about that individual issue. My first point is that it certainly appears that we are not considering withdrawal by choice. My second point is that the Trump base, at least the isolationist wing, will tout it as a good thing because of their larger goal of getting us out of the ME. Heck, Trump will brag about it.

But when you add up the abrupt decision to basically leave Syria all alone, then this .... I don't know. Seems awfully risky in such a short period of time. Who benefits from us out of Syria and out of Iraq? I have some ideas.

We benefit being out of Syria and Iraq.

 

[LouderVol]

I will probably get roasted due to everyone's like of the A-10, but if we are using this in a conflict with Iran, something has really gone wrong. As you mentioned, it is CAS and tank killer. I would hope we have no personnel in Iran to need to provide CAS, unless maybe SF. If armor is rolling or amassing that indicates a major ground war. Now I could see it against ground forces in Iraq as CAS.
It will be a strategic air campaign in Iran.
It will be heavy bombers with massive ordinance to take out nuclear facilities and oil refineries if desired. This is the strategic priority but SAM sites and Iranian AF needs to be knocked down.
SAM sites hit with F-16 Wild Weasels and F-35's. F-35's, F-15E's and F/A-18's for military sites, ships, runways and aircraft. EA-18 Growlers for Electronic Attack. F-22's for Air Superiority. Tomahawks everywhere. Maybe some Apaches near Iranian border just like in GW2.

I could its use as naval support. Lots of small Iranian gunboats not worth a jet. An A10 could loiter and provide closer support than a jet. But is heavy and fast enough to bring more weapons and reliability than a chopper.

Basically their navy doesnt offer any big enough to scare away A10s, but also nothing smaller than the A10 is built to handle.

 

[VolStrom]

Not sure of your point, but I honestly do not feel strongly about that individual issue. My first point is that it certainly appears that we are not considering withdrawal by choice. My second point is that the Trump base, at least the isolationist wing, will tout it as a good thing because of their larger goal of getting us out of the ME. Heck, Trump will brag about it.

But when you add up the abrupt decision to basically leave Syria all alone, then this .... I don't know. Seems awfully risky in such a short period of time. Who benefits from us out of Syria and out of Iraq? I have some ideas.

You know what's risky? Electing another democrat to the white house. You liberals need to move to Poland and live in the 1940's for a few years because that is where you want us to be.

 

[davethevol]

Not sure of your point, but I honestly do not feel strongly about that individual issue. My first point is that it certainly appears that we are not considering withdrawal by choice. My second point is that the Trump base, at least the isolationist wing, will tout it as a good thing because of their larger goal of getting us out of the ME. Heck, Trump will brag about it.

But when you add up the abrupt decision to basically leave Syria all alone, then this .... I don't know. Seems awfully risky in such a short period of time. Who benefits from us out of Syria and out of Iraq? I have some ideas.

We aren’t winning anything in those countries any time soon. No point in staying over there.

 

[Mick]

The same intel agencies we are supposed to trust over Russia interference in the last election?

Cant have it both ways Mick. Either you trust them or don’t.

No that's BS. But if you want to play that game Trump's lied so you shouldn't believe him ever. Is that how your silly game is played?

 

[05_never_again]

No one that I can think of has said here, or elsewhere for that matter, that there wasn't justification for doing it, generally. All seem to agree that he had committed heinous terrorist acts in the past, and was likely to do them in the future. He had American blood on his hands. He was a threat.

The issue is TIMING. Why now? And if Trump's personal benefit from it was part of the calculus (and it seems some of you concede it may have been), the question is to what extent Trump substituted his personal benefit as a factor offsetting the possible consequences.

That is a perfectly legitimate inquiry. Trump and his administration have chosen to go with the line that an imminent attack was coming that necessitated acting now. Ok, could very well be. I am skeptical, but I have not seen the evidence one way or another. I accept that we might not see that evidence directly for some time to come. But it seems to me that Congressional Dem calls for the Gang of Eight and key House members to be briefed is entirely reasonable.

I'm sensitive to the thought that he's doing it to distract from impeachment, or for re-election purposes (it's totally possible), but imagine if they got another shot at him in May or October and killed him then. The election is still almost a year away...if he wanted to do this for max election impact, he actually would have waited longer, IMO.

Based on what I've read, Soleimani traveled fairly openly for a marked man, even traveling to these places on publicized visits. They probably would have had another chance to kill him later this year if they didn't take their shot the other day.

In all likelihood, the biggest thing affecting the timing was probably the embassy protest. That had "Benghazi" written all over it - Benghazi was the first thing I thought of when I heard the news of it, and some commentators on the left even began calling it "Trump's Benghazi." Trump has something of an obsession with Obama and jumped at an opportunity to differentiate himself from him; show how he's the tough guy who will take quick, decisive action in contrast to Obama, who obfuscated and scuffed around in response and ultimately didn't retaliate. That I think was motivator #1; it seems entirely possible Trump might have still done this even if he wasn't impeached or in a re-election campaign.

If this was the right call, no matter his motivation for doing it, it's going to be to his personal benefit. Extreme example, but D-Day, for example, was to Eisenhower's personal benefit. It has so much to do with him eventually becoming President. Does that mean that he shouldn't have led the invasion?

 

[lawgator1]

I'm sensitive to the thought that he's doing it to distract from impeachment, or for re-election purposes, but imagine if they got another shot at him in May or October and killed him then. The election is still almost a year away...if he wanted to do this for max election impact, he actually would have waited longer, IMO.

Based on what I've raid, Soleimani traveled fairly openly for a marked man, even visiting these places on publicized visits. They probably would have had another chance to kill him later this year if they didn't take their shot the other day.

In all likelihood, the biggest thing affecting the timing was probably the embassy protest. That had "Benghazi" written all over it - Benghazi was the first thing I thought of when I heard the news of it, and some commentators on the left even began calling it "Trump's Benghazi." Trump has something of an obsession with Obama and jumped at an opportunity to differentiate himself from him; show how he's the tough guy who will take quick, decisive action in contrast to Obama, who obfuscated and scuffed around in response and ultimately didn't retaliate. That I think was motivator #1; it seems entirely possible Trump might have still done this even if he wasn't impeached or in a re-election campaign.

I'm not thinking of the timing vis-a-vis the election as much as coinciding with impeachment.

I need to emphasize, I am absolutely willing to accept that this was a wise military and policy decision and in the short and long term interests of the country. I see now that a briefing of the Senate, I'm assuming Gang of 8, is set for Wednesday. We will likely know more after that and whether there is any worry that this was done hastily for political reasons, rather than strategic ones.

 

[05_never_again]

I'm not thinking of the timing vis-a-vis the election as much as coinciding with impeachment.

I need to emphasize, I am absolutely willing to accept that this was a wise military and policy decision and in the short and long term interests of the country. I see now that a briefing of the Senate, I'm assuming Gang of 8, is set for Wednesday. We will likely know more after that and whether there is any worry that this was done hastily for political reasons, rather than strategic ones.

At this point, distracting from impeachment and his re-election are basically the same thing. A key prong of his re-election campaign will absolutely be getting people distracted from the fact he was impeached.

The good news for Trump is that there seem to be pretty good strategic reasons for doing this now, even if there wasn't an "imminent attack" (and like I was saying earlier, definitions of "imminent attack" can differ). The strategic reasons for this strike are much better than Clinton's rationale for the 1998 bombing of Iraq, for example. Soleimani was in the middle of an active and increasing campaign of attacks against US targets in the Middle East.

 

[LouderVol]

At this point, distracting from impeachment and his re-election are basically the same thing. A key prong of his re-election campaign will absolutely be getting people distracted from the fact he was impeached.

The good news for Trump is that there seem to be pretty good strategic reasons for doing this now, even if there wasn't an "imminent attack" (and like I was saying earlier, definitions of "imminent attack" can differ). The strategic reasons for this strike are much better than Clinton's rationale for the 1998 bombing of Iraq, for example. Soleimani was in the middle of an active and increasing campaign of attacks against US targets in the Middle East.

I think it's the opposite. Trump might not want to distract FROM the impeachment but actually bring attention to it.

He can sell it, why the Democrats devoted their entire energy to impeaching me, and succeeded in year 4, I have been fixing the economy, killing bad guys, and trying to do my job. And despite all that good they still only care about impeaching the guy who got minority employment to record lows. They only care about impeaching the guy who killed a terrorist no one else would touch. Etc etc.

In my opinion a war hurts him here. Getting out of Iraq, helps.

 

[Orangeburst]

Trump abandoned the Kurds and now his actions precipitate the need to leave Iraq. The isolationist wing of the GOP celebrates.

I wonder if they realize what they have bargained for. And I wonder if the same isolationist wing protests as hard when it comes to military support for Israel. Those two concepts may really collide here, soon.

Surely you are for pulling out. Right? It is either stay and kill bad guys or pull out. Which is it?

 

[05_never_again]

I think it's the opposite. Trump might not want to distract FROM the impeachment but actually bring attention to it.

He can sell it, why the Democrats devoted their entire energy to impeaching me, and succeeded in year 4, I have been fixing the economy, killing bad guys, and trying to do my job. And despite all that good they still only care about impeaching the guy who got minority employment to record lows. They only care about impeaching the guy who killed a terrorist no one else would touch. Etc etc.

In my opinion a war hurts him here. Getting out of Iraq, helps.

Don't think Trump wants, or is trying to, start a war. You are right though, he can point to the killing of Soleimani, good headline numbers on economy, etc., and say "all these Dems still want to do is impeach me."