good lord,nothing is as impressive as irrational trumpet going off. Always with the "You're not saying Trump is great,then go on, to live there," type tantrums .
Iran’s Response
- Thread starter Bethboilerfan
- Start date
Do you like what Trump is doing then? Pulled out of Syria, mostly. Trying to get out of the Afghanistan quagmire. Trump ramped up "drill baby, drill" here in the USA and now the US is the world's largest producer.
The Iranian General had the blood of 600 or so American soldiers on his hands. He taught the Iraqi Shia militias how to make the lethal improvised bombs. He was a shadow leader behind the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Hamas and Hebollah. Hell, one of the people killed with him was the local Hamas leader in Iraq.
This General was the one who planned the US Embassy attack in Iraq recently. The only people who seem to have a problem with this drone strike are the Ayatollah and his followers, and Democrats.
Do you actually have a problem with the drone strike? Iran knows they cannot take on the US directly. They may try cyberattacks. They may try asymmetric attacks on Embassies well away from Iraq or Iran, such as in South America. They do not want a war with the US because they know it will not end well for them.
If anything, this strike will cause fear in the Iranian leadership. If the US can do this to this General and his Hezbollah buddies this way, the US could also nail the Ayatollah himself. The Eagle has sharp talons.
Good Riddance to Qassem Soleimani
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/...i-111535972.html?_guc_consent_skip=1578135835
https://www.yahoo.com/news/legal-basis-us-killing-iran-170112539.html?_guc_consent_skip=1578137238
https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-fac...r-230551178.html?_guc_consent_skip=1578137580
Last edited:
This guy could easily have been considered an "enemy combatant". He was reportedly planning more attacks on US people and facilities.
Did you disagree with Obama ordering the operation to take out Osama bin Laden? Of course not, because Obama authorized that one.
I prefer
Matthew 5:38-40
Eye for Eye
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
But what that verse doesn't say is what you do after that. I'm really glad this sumbitch is dead.
What no one is mentioning is that the strike Also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the leader of the Iraqi Shiite militia group Kataib Hezbollah, along with several other Quds Force and militia members.
This was a HUGE hit to the number one terrorist nation.
This was a HUGE hit to the number one terrorist nation.
What firepower do you think we have now that we didn't have under Obama?
[/quote]
Good question. The real change we have in fire power is the change in POTUS. Obama was weak.
attack an embassy, expect a response these days. it's not about the celebration.
Good question. The real change we have in fire power is the change in POTUS. Obama was weak.[/QUOTE]
First, we're always developing new weaponry, so I have no need to even question what's out there like our liberal friends do. Second, you point is very valid that Trump has the sack to confront the bully head on.
And why is it that our liberal friends on here celebrate the death of Obama (which the tracking of began under Bush 2), yet mourn the death of the terrorist's #1 leader in the world?
Can you say hypocracy?
Do you know there is difference between Iraqis and Iranians? You said that the “Iranians” would be celebrating what Trump had done or are all they all the same to you?Iraqis Praise Trump After He Kills ‘Their Tormentor’ — Celebrate in the Streets of Baghdad
By REUTERS | Jan 3, 2020
Spontaneous celebrations broke out in Iraq’s Tahrir Square on news of the killings of key Iranian military figures by the U.S on Thursday.
Michael Doran, a foreign policy expert and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, tweeted out footage on Friday of Iraqis taking to the streets.
Mike
✔@Doranimated
Iraqis are celebrating. You don’t need to know Arabic to understand what they’re saying: “Ding dong the witch is dead!” |
3,456
9:51 PM - Jan 2, 2020
Doran said in a tweet that revelers in Baghdad were “rejoicing at the death of their tormentor.
Replying to @Doranimated
Another video of revelers in Baghdad rejoicing at the death of their tormentor |
Mike
✔@Doranimated
Happy Iraqis bake cakes and sweets to celebrate the bright morning after and to thank President Trump |
564
2:34 AM - Jan 3, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
329 people are talking about this
Doran also tweeted out a photograph purporting to show Iraqis baking cakes in praise of President Donald Trump.
The United States killed Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani, the spearhead of Iran’s spreading military influence in the Middle East, in an air strike at Baghdad’s international airport. The Iraqi government is outraged over the killing and says it will lead to war.
The Pentagon said on Thursday the air strike that killed Soleimani was carried out at the express direction of Trump.
“At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization,” the Department of the Defense said in a statement.
I really hope Trump knows what he is doing. I hope this decision to kill Soleimani was better thought through than his decision to withdraw from Syria. I see Trump as a man who really doesn’t want to think to deeply about long term strategy. He likes simple solutions to very complex problems. Hopefully he is right this time.
Osama Bin Laden was the current #2 leader of what sovereign nation, when he was taken out ?????
Bin Laden was a fugitive war criminal, remember ?? Completely different scenario.
Think of someone like Colin Powell being assassinated by Iraq in the first Iraq War. There's your equivalence. (CERTAINLY not inferring moral equivalence)
No Americans are crying for the deceased Maj. Gen. Suleimani. But the advisability of this action will be measured later, when the resulting fallout from all of its repercussions are measured. Plus, the evidence of the "imminent" military actions by Suleimani need to be revealed to the extent possible.
First, we're always developing new weaponry, so I have no need to even question what's out there like our liberal friends do. Second, you point is very valid that Trump has the sack to confront the bully head on.
And why is it that our liberal friends on here celebrate the death of Obama (which the tracking of began under Bush 2), yet mourn the death of the terrorist's #1 leader in the world?
Can you say hypocracy?[/QUOTE]
No, but I CAN say hypocrisy, when necessary. Here it isn't. Completely different set of circumstances, as those with fundamental knowledge of the Bin Laden action can attest. I.e. - not you.
Also wonder why an American would have trouble differentiating between Obama and Osama.....unless, of course, that American considers the two basically interchangeable....
You can't be this stupid. It has to be intentional trolling.
Obama made the call to go into Pakistan and kill Bin Laden. This guy wasn't Bin Laden. He wasn't worth the effort nor the lives that will likely be lost on both sides because of this action, IMO.
You are wrong. Russia, China, and France made comments about it. Can you guess why France did? They've invested LOTS of $$$$$ in Iran. Russia has been in cahoots with Iran for years. China has also supported Iran's ambitions.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/inside-p...k-005506385.html?_guc_consent_skip=1578162147
If Trump did nothing, American lives would have been lost.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/inside-p...k-005506385.html?_guc_consent_skip=1578162147
That’s certainly the narrative. But American lives are likely to be lost anyway. The question is, how many more or less because of this?
wrong. this guy has been running around the middle east with impunity inciting war and terror. we have tracked him for a long time. he was a bad guy.
Per that article it was Soleimani's goal to use the attacks to trigger a U.S. military response . He may not have gotten the response he wanted but he got one nonetheless.
Clearly killing him was in the U.S. best interests in the short term, but if he goes down as a martyr it's only going to swell more anti-American sentiment and attacks in the region. They've already named his replacement; it's not unreasonable to think the new guy will come in with the same plan in mind and now more people willing to support his cause. I hope that's not the case, but only time will tell.
Yep. I'm not sure killing him means the imminent attacks against us........which were the latest reason for the assassination ........... are less likely to happen.
There are reasons this terrorist hasn't been taken out before now........by previous presidents or Trump for that matter.
miksta said:
↑
ecouch said:
↑
Now google 4.5% purity.[/quote]
Now try making a clear coherent point.
No breaches happened prior to Trump's announcement that we'd be leaving the deal. Full stop.
[/quote]
They didn’t have to beach the agreement. They could basically do what they wanted to move their program forward: develop delivery systems that they dint have even of they had e bomb, move forward to develop
https://usat.ly/2tkAqcE. “Iran deal is historically bad: Rep. Lee Zeldin”
https://usat.ly/2K7aOrJ “ Obama administration sold a bad Iran nuclear deal to the American public”
↑
ecouch said:
↑
Now google 4.5% purity.[/quote]
Now try making a clear coherent point.
No breaches happened prior to Trump's announcement that we'd be leaving the deal. Full stop.
[/quote]
They didn’t have to beach the agreement. They could basically do what they wanted to move their program forward: develop delivery systems that they dint have even of they had e bomb, move forward to develop
https://usat.ly/2tkAqcE. “Iran deal is historically bad: Rep. Lee Zeldin”
https://usat.ly/2K7aOrJ “ Obama administration sold a bad Iran nuclear deal to the American public”
Last edited:
People really seem to be struggling with the quote functionality today.
Yes, as of yesterday when everyone first heard his name, he became what you say. That’s the narrative.
You are certainly open to your opinion:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...r-the-deaths-of-hundreds-of-american-soldiers
this guy was also really bad. Iran and others like NK and China have been able to manipulate the US for a long time. It needs to change.
So whats your point? because he wasnt a household name it was wrong to take him out? Trump and a very mild response to other excersions made by Iran. How did that work out?
I don’t believe it is up to us as a country to unilaterally decide who is bad and who lives and who dies. The justification for killing Bin Laden was clear. The justification here is murky, particularly because he is a leading figure of a sovereign country. It was an assassination. I don’t think that is the business we should be in, particularly when it will almost certainly result in an escalation of violence.
Do you think going in and assassinating the Ayotollah would be justified? This was essentially one step below that.
This is what I know: I know a relatively good deal about Iran, and I’d heard this guy’s name, but until yesterday I had not heard of him as a wanted man and someone we thought we should target.
I know that when we killed Bin Laden, I celebrated. I know that when I read about this, I was made very uneasy.
I’m a reasonable guy. While I don’t like Trump, I am not overly partisan either way. That I am uneasy about this tells me all I personally need to know to form an opinion that this was not a good idea, whether it is justifiable or not.
If forceable regime change in Iran is a stated foreign policy of this administration, I think that is a grave mistake.
tucker carlson/fox news:
"From Iran's perspective, we're already there. If Iranian forces killed the chairman of our joint chiefs of staff, for example, would you consider it an act of war?
Is Iran really the greatest threat we face? And who's actually benefiting from this? And why are we continuing to ignore the decline of our own country in favor of jumping into another quagmire from which there is no obvious exit? If we're still in Afghanistan 19 years later, what makes us think there's a quick way out of Iran?
Before we enter into a single new war, there's a criterion that ought to be met: Our leaders should be required to explain how that conflict will make the United States richer and more secure.
There are an awful lot of bad people in this world. We can't kill them all, it's not our job. Instead our government exists to defend and promote the interests of our American citizens… So has the killing of Soleimani done that? Maybe. No one in Washington has explained how.
In every single place, each of these conflicts has turned out to be longer, bloodier, and more expensive than we were promised in the first place. The benefits? Often they've been non-existent."
"From Iran's perspective, we're already there. If Iranian forces killed the chairman of our joint chiefs of staff, for example, would you consider it an act of war?
Is Iran really the greatest threat we face? And who's actually benefiting from this? And why are we continuing to ignore the decline of our own country in favor of jumping into another quagmire from which there is no obvious exit? If we're still in Afghanistan 19 years later, what makes us think there's a quick way out of Iran?
Before we enter into a single new war, there's a criterion that ought to be met: Our leaders should be required to explain how that conflict will make the United States richer and more secure.
There are an awful lot of bad people in this world. We can't kill them all, it's not our job. Instead our government exists to defend and promote the interests of our American citizens… So has the killing of Soleimani done that? Maybe. No one in Washington has explained how.
In every single place, each of these conflicts has turned out to be longer, bloodier, and more expensive than we were promised in the first place. The benefits? Often they've been non-existent."
Good question. Only time will tell. With the Iranians, it seems like they only respect power and displays of strength.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Cringeworthy "first pitch" by Zach at Wrigley Field- Latest: DwaynePurvis00