Time to go public with Soleimani attack intel

[jc456]

That was a drop is a bucket compared to what they got with sanctions relief.

.

diplomatic solutions mean both sides give and get something. We put the breaks on their nuke program in exchange for sanction relief and integration with world markets... building relationships of that sort is the pathway to civilized relations. Do you disagree?

Are you saying Iran is in any way civilized?

.

I’m saying that a civilized relationship is far more desired than an endless war

Iran has yet to express the same desire.

.

well they had complied with the agreement for years until recently. So yes that’s an expression of desire to cooperate. It’s all gone to shit now

the agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Again, compliance to nothing is fairly easy huh?

 

[OKTexas]

Honestly, I never heard of a President going to Congress for approval like that. He is CinC.

When was the last a high profile member of another country's military was taken out in such a manner by the US?

what difference does it make?

A lot actually. It is one thing to take out someone like OBL who was a terrorist and had been hunted by the world for decades. Soleimani was a member of another country's military. If Iran had taken out Gen. McKenzie in the same manner we did to Soleimani, we would have considered it an overt act of war.

And I am not saying that we should not have taken Soleimani out, but so far all we have is the Admin's word that he was a threat...and for some of us that is not really good enough....no matter who is sitting in the White House. Our government has a long history of lying to us.

in the case of Soleimani ---I do not think that he needed to be hanged was in
question

And what do you base that on? On what our government has told us. This might be a shock to you...but they lie to us all the time.

No, it's base on provable evidence of Soleimani's actions over the last 20+ years.

.

 

[irosie91]

The U.S. is full of anti-Iranian shitheads who are an existential threat to Iran. Of course you would defend Iran, where warranted, at least try to understand what they are doing, and why, because it is the reasonable thing to do. I think you could use some reading on Iran (start here, for instance) to add a bit of color and nuance to your picture - because the black-and-white, us. v. them nonsense isn't really helpful.

I would guess you've followed recent reporting in the "imminent attacks" that were "prevented", and how these lies are falling apart already.

Nothing is black and white, especially in the Middle East. But any country whose leaders chant death to America have some serious growing up to do. Could you imagine if our congress chanted something like that?! As for the other implications of sponsoring terrorist groups, all I have to go off is media reports so I’m not going to pretend to know the truth with all that... but it doesn’t sound good

I do agree that the explanation if the “imminent attack” has been piss poor by our officials. They can’t give a straight answer, so yeah, that smells fishy.

Well, it got those assholes out of our embassy, so mission accomplished

oh was that the mission?! Ok got it.

it may also get escalated attacks and our troops kicked out of Iraq where we were fighting ISIS. But let’s buzz off just as Iran wants so they can step in. Brilliant move.

I bet those 4000 troops were just waiting for a Mid East vacation that they now get to take. Awesome!

Iran has already taken control of most of the Iraqi government. That's why ISIS was created. Sunnies got tired of being pushed around and murdered. Course under Saddam Sunnis were doing it to the Shiits for 25 years.

So we leave Iraq and the cycle starts all over.

Muslims only understand fighting and oppression. They either have Dictators or Holy Leaders, which is worse. Secular or a Theocratic government. Freedom is for infidels.

correct. And it is looking like this kill could be getting our troops kicked out of Iraq... leaving it open for Iran. How do you that’s going to play out?

it's going to be a Shiite shit hole and base of operations for Iran-----

 

[Slade3200]

Your “thinking” is far off base. TDS is the furthest thing from my mind... The troops are the ones I’m thinking about. As 4K are being deployed over seas and our military ramps up for conflict they are exactly why I made the OP. Soleimani appears to be a bad dude. But if killing him provokes a war that leads to American troops being killed when other actions could have been taken then yes, I’m gonna cause a stink about it. I’m still open to accepting the move as a good one but with zero trust in this administration I think they owe the world a good explanation for their actions.

As long as you raised a stink about Obama using drones 573 times, bombed 5 countries and killed an estimated 1,200 civilians.... you can makes this point.
Otherwise... it is TDS

I don’t oppose drone strikes and I don’t oppose taking out high profile targets as long as it is done in a smart and strategic way to benefit our country. Trumps move may have been a good one but it is too high profile to be done in this secret unilateral way. He needs to work with our congress and our allies when his moves escalate and provoke foreign powers to a point that risks war

Honestly, I never heard of a President going to Congress for approval like that. He is CinC.

obama reached out to several top officials in congress before the Osama Bin Laden raid. I never said POTUS needed approval by congress but with stakes this high it’s smart to coordinate with congress and our allies

OBL was a static target, Soleimani was on the move. Two different scenarios.

.

Perhaps... but we don’t know that there wasn’t time to consult and I havent heard them say that they didn’t have time to reach out. They said there was an imminent attack and now they seem to be walking that back.

let’s be honest trumps has zero interest in consulting with Dems about anything

 

[jc456]

As long as you raised a stink about Obama using drones 573 times, bombed 5 countries and killed an estimated 1,200 civilians.... you can makes this point.
Otherwise... it is TDS

I don’t oppose drone strikes and I don’t oppose taking out high profile targets as long as it is done in a smart and strategic way to benefit our country. Trumps move may have been a good one but it is too high profile to be done in this secret unilateral way. He needs to work with our congress and our allies when his moves escalate and provoke foreign powers to a point that risks war

Honestly, I never heard of a President going to Congress for approval like that. He is CinC.

obama reached out to several top officials in congress before the Osama Bin Laden raid. I never said POTUS needed approval by congress but with stakes this high it’s smart to coordinate with congress and our allies

OBL was a static target, Soleimani was on the move. Two different scenarios.

.

Perhaps... but we don’t know that there wasn’t time to consult and I havent heard them say that they didn’t have time to reach out. They said there was an imminent attack and now they seem to be walking that back

who's walking it back?

 

[Slade3200]

thats a weak talking point. All accounts from our intel officials, including trumps team have said that Iran was in compliance. But I guess you prefer the current state of aggression over steps towards diplomacy and cooperation.

It was impossible to objectively verify compliance with all the holes in the inspection regime. And yes, I prefer no deal over a bad deal that for all intents and purposes was unverifiable. And one that didn't address other violations that Iran was involved in, such as organizing their own terrorist militias outside their own country, sponsoring and arming other terrorist groups, and human rights abuses in their own and other countries.

.

it was a step in the right direction towards civility and diplomacy. It wasn’t an end all solution. It got our foot in the door and had specific terms that were verified and adhered to.

I disagree.

.

Well let me ask... what do you think of Trumps North Korea agenda?

He isn't doing any worse than other presidents. At least he isn't giving away the store the way some did, hoping for a change in direction.

.

Right but you know Trumps position don’t you? He wants them to denuke in exchange for lifting sanctions and entering the world markets with trade deals. That means money.
I even think he tweeted about the riches they would obtain. Isn’t it ironic to see that negotiation happening on one side and then all the attacks about the money Iran got during the deal with Obam? You have to see the irony, yes?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When was the last a high profile member of another country's military was taken out in such a manner by the US?

what difference does it make?

A lot actually. It is one thing to take out someone like OBL who was a terrorist and had been hunted by the world for decades. Soleimani was a member of another country's military. If Iran had taken out Gen. McKenzie in the same manner we did to Soleimani, we would have considered it an overt act of war.

And I am not saying that we should not have taken Soleimani out, but so far all we have is the Admin's word that he was a threat...and for some of us that is not really good enough....no matter who is sitting in the White House. Our government has a long history of lying to us.

in the case of Soleimani ---I do not think that he needed to be hanged was in
question

And what do you base that on? On what our government has told us. This might be a shock to you...but they lie to us all the time.

No, it's base on provable evidence of Soleimani's actions over the last 20+ years.

.

And you have seen those actions? You have witnessed them first hand? Or have you just been told about them by our government?

 

[OldLady]

Honestly, I never heard of a President going to Congress for approval like that. He is CinC.

When was the last a high profile member of another country's military was taken out in such a manner by the US?

what difference does it make?

A lot actually. It is one thing to take out someone like OBL who was a terrorist and had been hunted by the world for decades. Soleimani was a member of another country's military. If Iran had taken out Gen. McKenzie in the same manner we did to Soleimani, we would have considered it an overt act of war.

And I am not saying that we should not have taken Soleimani out, but so far all we have is the Admin's word that he was a threat...and for some of us that is not really good enough....no matter who is sitting in the White House. Our government has a long history of lying to us.

in the case of Soleimani ---I do not think that he needed to be hanged was in
question

And what do you base that on? On what our government has told us. This might be a shock to you...but they lie to us all the time.

And you are basing your suspicions on nothing but your imagination, Gator. There is no way that our government decided to provoke war with Iran just because it's "good for business." Or a good vote getter. That is way too cynical. We are talking about human lives and the government is made up of humans who understand that. Besides, we're already at war in Afghanistan.

 

[OKTexas]

That was a drop is a bucket compared to what they got with sanctions relief.

.

diplomatic solutions mean both sides give and get something. We put the breaks on their nuke program in exchange for sanction relief and integration with world markets... building relationships of that sort is the pathway to civilized relations. Do you disagree?

Are you saying Iran is in any way civilized?

.

I’m saying that a civilized relationship is far more desired than an endless war

Iran has yet to express the same desire.

.

well they had complied with the agreement for years until recently. So yes that’s an expression of desire to cooperate. It’s all gone to shit now

Not stemming their terrorist activities tells a completely different story. Of course the mullahs have never been shy about talking form both sides of the mouth.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

it's going to be a Shiite shit hole and base of operations for Iran-----

Which ends up making the Bush II decision even worse than before, if that was possible.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And you are basing your suspicions on nothing but your imagination, Gator. There is no way that our government decided to provoke war with Iran just because it's "good for business." Or a good vote getter. That is way too cynical. We are talking about human lives and the government is made up of humans who understand that. Besides, we're already at war in Afghanistan.

We did it back in 2003, why not now?

Why do you think we invaded Iraq? It sure was not for WMDs.

You give these people way too much credit.

 

[Slade3200]

Nothing is black and white, especially in the Middle East. But any country whose leaders chant death to America have some serious growing up to do. Could you imagine if our congress chanted something like that?! As for the other implications of sponsoring terrorist groups, all I have to go off is media reports so I’m not going to pretend to know the truth with all that... but it doesn’t sound good

I do agree that the explanation if the “imminent attack” has been piss poor by our officials. They can’t give a straight answer, so yeah, that smells fishy.

Well, it got those assholes out of our embassy, so mission accomplished

oh was that the mission?! Ok got it.

it may also get escalated attacks and our troops kicked out of Iraq where we were fighting ISIS. But let’s buzz off just as Iran wants so they can step in. Brilliant move.

I bet those 4000 troops were just waiting for a Mid East vacation that they now get to take. Awesome!

Iran has already taken control of most of the Iraqi government. That's why ISIS was created. Sunnies got tired of being pushed around and murdered. Course under Saddam Sunnis were doing it to the Shiits for 25 years.

So we leave Iraq and the cycle starts all over.

Muslims only understand fighting and oppression. They either have Dictators or Holy Leaders, which is worse. Secular or a Theocratic government. Freedom is for infidels.

correct. And it is looking like this kill could be getting our troops kicked out of Iraq... leaving it open for Iran. How do you that’s going to play out?

it's going to be a Shiite shit hole and base of operations for Iran-----

how do you think it will impact ISIS?

 

[Slade3200]

diplomatic solutions mean both sides give and get something. We put the breaks on their nuke program in exchange for sanction relief and integration with world markets... building relationships of that sort is the pathway to civilized relations. Do you disagree?

Are you saying Iran is in any way civilized?

.

I’m saying that a civilized relationship is far more desired than an endless war

Iran has yet to express the same desire.

.

well they had complied with the agreement for years until recently. So yes that’s an expression of desire to cooperate. It’s all gone to shit now

Not stemming their terrorist activities tells a completely different story. Of course the mullahs have never been shy about talking form both sides of the mouth.

.

i see you ignoring the areas of compliance to point at the areas of conflict. I get why you’re doing that but you’re not acknowledging the whole picture

 

[OKTexas]

Honestly, I never heard of a President going to Congress for approval like that. He is CinC.

When was the last a high profile member of another country's military was taken out in such a manner by the US?

He was the leader of a US designated terrorist organization. No different than any other terrorist.

.

A designation assigned less than a year ago...seems convenient.

Some of us are not as trusting of the government as you and your fellows are....call us names if you must

Are you claiming the designation wasn't justified?

.

Based upon what our government tells us, it does seem to be justified.

Try basing it on what Iran has been doing, there's plenty of evidence out there.

.

 

[OKTexas]

As long as you raised a stink about Obama using drones 573 times, bombed 5 countries and killed an estimated 1,200 civilians.... you can makes this point.
Otherwise... it is TDS

I don’t oppose drone strikes and I don’t oppose taking out high profile targets as long as it is done in a smart and strategic way to benefit our country. Trumps move may have been a good one but it is too high profile to be done in this secret unilateral way. He needs to work with our congress and our allies when his moves escalate and provoke foreign powers to a point that risks war

Honestly, I never heard of a President going to Congress for approval like that. He is CinC.

obama reached out to several top officials in congress before the Osama Bin Laden raid. I never said POTUS needed approval by congress but with stakes this high it’s smart to coordinate with congress and our allies

OBL was a static target, Soleimani was on the move. Two different scenarios.

.

Perhaps... but we don’t know that there wasn’t time to consult and I havent heard them say that they didn’t have time to reach out. They said there was an imminent attack and now they seem to be walking that back.

let’s be honest trumps has zero interest in consulting with Dems about anything

Perhaps? Had he gone into the crowded airport, he could have been lost in the crowd. They verified him and his party getting into two cars and had minutes to take the shot and limit collateral damage. To my knowledge only the people in those two cars were killed or injured. There are too many variables in a situation like that to make the decision by committee. And considering the present political climate, I don't think the commies in congress could be trusted not to leak the info. You only need look at what smuckey schumer said today without any facts. Trump can do nothing right according to them.

.

 

[OKTexas]

It was impossible to objectively verify compliance with all the holes in the inspection regime. And yes, I prefer no deal over a bad deal that for all intents and purposes was unverifiable. And one that didn't address other violations that Iran was involved in, such as organizing their own terrorist militias outside their own country, sponsoring and arming other terrorist groups, and human rights abuses in their own and other countries.

.

it was a step in the right direction towards civility and diplomacy. It wasn’t an end all solution. It got our foot in the door and had specific terms that were verified and adhered to.

I disagree.

.

Well let me ask... what do you think of Trumps North Korea agenda?

He isn't doing any worse than other presidents. At least he isn't giving away the store the way some did, hoping for a change in direction.

.

Right but you know Trumps position don’t you? He wants them to denuke in exchange for lifting sanctions and entering the world markets with trade deals. That means money.
I even think he tweeted about the riches they would obtain. Isn’t it ironic to see that negotiation happening on one side and then all the attacks about the money Iran got during the deal with Obam? You have to see the irony, yes?

Like I said, Trump isn't giving away the store without a provable change, just sticks, no carrots. maobama took a different approach with Iran.

.

 

[basquebromance]

el presidente a seguir peleando. No hay otra opción, mi amigos!

Trump has no option but war, my friends!

 

[OKTexas]

what difference does it make?

A lot actually. It is one thing to take out someone like OBL who was a terrorist and had been hunted by the world for decades. Soleimani was a member of another country's military. If Iran had taken out Gen. McKenzie in the same manner we did to Soleimani, we would have considered it an overt act of war.

And I am not saying that we should not have taken Soleimani out, but so far all we have is the Admin's word that he was a threat...and for some of us that is not really good enough....no matter who is sitting in the White House. Our government has a long history of lying to us.

in the case of Soleimani ---I do not think that he needed to be hanged was in
question

And what do you base that on? On what our government has told us. This might be a shock to you...but they lie to us all the time.

No, it's base on provable evidence of Soleimani's actions over the last 20+ years.

.

And you have seen those actions? You have witnessed them first hand? Or have you just been told about them by our government?

Is you google broke? There's plenty of independent reporting, just look it up. I'm neither your teacher or secretary.

.

 

[irosie91]

in the case of Soleimani ---I do not think that he needed to be hanged was in
question

And what do you base that on? On what our government has told us. This might be a shock to you...but they lie to us all the time.

international sources of news. I do not rely on TIME MAGAZINE

international sources of news said that Soleimani needed to be killed...got a few links to share with us?

Seems you are full of shit.

I have no idea how to link to foreign news services of which I am not
an online subscriber. When I commented to a close friend of mine---
who does not read English-------SOLEIMAN IS DEAD------he was delighted

it is easy, you right click on the link in the address line of your browser and then hit copy and this hit paste in your post.

What language were you two conversing in?

didn't work

 

[irosie91]

it's going to be a Shiite shit hole and base of operations for Iran-----

Which ends up making the Bush II decision even worse than before, if that was possible.

an unintended consquence