(01-10-2020 01:20 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 09:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 09:22 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-09-2020 04:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-09-2020 03:49 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Obama LOVED killing people with drones. He never went to Congress for the OK. He also picked the targets himself.

Beats the hell out of trying to kill them with boots on the ground!

I agree; unless the one ording [sic] the strike is Trump, apparently.

I'll type slowly so you can understand. Nobody is shedding any tears for Soleimani. All anyone is asking...including a few Republicans...is if the administration is telling the truth about why it had to take place now. What was the imminent threat...were there multiple threats...was an embassy attack being plotted as trump claimed yesterday, or was it because the American was killed as Pence claimed last night in Toledo? If we could get ONE straight answer out of this clown show of an administration, with no apparent policy in the ME, it would be a ******* miracle!

The day you get a straight story from ANY politicians, it would be the first day in our collective lifetimes....

A known and named Terrorist who in on the hit list was hit. I didn't know there were rules of engagement for that - was that included in the Geneva Convention?

The Free World is safer today than it was 7 days ago.

Again, I don't need to know as much as congress does...and even they are getting the runaround.

And your last line does not match popular opinion...and it's way too early to tell. There could still be retaliation and Iran will certainly find another body to fill his shoes.

(01-10-2020 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 12:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why it had to take place now is simple. We had the opportunity.

And?

Pretty confident this was not the only chance we've ever had to act.

Did you post a tweet from someone mentioning this very thing the other day? Apparently, previous admins have been briefed on this dude and did nothing for fear of starting a war. Trump took the shoot and it worked. We got the dude and no war. Win win.

(01-10-2020 03:05 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 12:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why it had to take place now is simple. We had the opportunity.

And?

Pretty confident this was not the only chance we've ever had to act.

Did you post a tweet from someone mentioning this very thing the other day? Apparently, previous admins have been briefed on this dude and did nothing for fear of starting a war. Trump took the shoot and it worked. We got the dude and no war. Win win.

I would not spike the football just yet. It's only been what, a week?

(01-10-2020 03:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:05 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 12:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why it had to take place now is simple. We had the opportunity.

And?

Pretty confident this was not the only chance we've ever had to act.

Did you post a tweet from someone mentioning this very thing the other day? Apparently, previous admins have been briefed on this dude and did nothing for fear of starting a war. Trump took the shoot and it worked. We got the dude and no war. Win win.

I would not spike the football just yet. It's only been what, a week?

Not spiking anything, just pointing out it was Iran than backed down. Iran has a history of this. It pokes the bear until punched in the mouth, then backs down. I'm sure there will be future proxy attacks like there always have been. Nothing new there. Still, no WWIII.

(01-10-2020 03:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:05 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 12:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why it had to take place now is simple. We had the opportunity.

And?

Pretty confident this was not the only chance we've ever had to act.

Did you post a tweet from someone mentioning this very thing the other day? Apparently, previous admins have been briefed on this dude and did nothing for fear of starting a war. Trump took the shoot and it worked. We got the dude and no war. Win win.

I would not spike the football just yet. It's only been what, a week?

Not spiking anything, just pointing out it was Iran than backed down. Iran has a history of this. It pokes the bear until punched in the mouth, then backs down. I'm sure there will be future proxy attacks like there always have been. Nothing new there. Still, no WWIII.

Yeah...they have backed down for a week...and maybe in a week...or a month...they'll see a chance and take it. You said the following, which is premature IMO.

Quote:We got the dude and no war. Win win.

(01-10-2020 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 12:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why it had to take place now is simple. We had the opportunity.

And?
Pretty confident this was not the only chance we've ever had to act.

But this time we had a leader who would act.

(01-10-2020 04:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 12:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why it had to take place now is simple. We had the opportunity.

And?
Pretty confident this was not the only chance we've ever had to act.

But this time we had a leader who would act.

We've tracked him every day for years according to reports.

Again, why now...why did trump wait. There had to be other times.

Still no reasonable justification was provided.

Swallow the at your own peril...but don't EVER tell me not to trust the government again when a Democrat does something.

(01-10-2020 04:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 04:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 12:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why it had to take place now is simple. We had the opportunity.

And?
Pretty confident this was not the only chance we've ever had to act.

But this time we had a leader who would act.

We've tracked him every day for years according to reports.
Again, why now...why did trump wait. There had to be other times.
Still no reasonable justification was provided.
Swallow the at your own peril...but don't EVER tell me not to trust the government again when a Democrat does something.

I don't trust government. I don't trust democrats, I don't trust republicans, but most of all I don't trust bureaucrats. I don't trust Trump. All I will say is that he is not as bad as the alternatives that the democrats are offering.

The only thought I have about why now is that it does appear that they got him without a lot of collateral damage, except for some of his lackeys. It's very possible that we haven't had a shot without substantial collateral damage before then.

(01-10-2020 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 12:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why it had to take place now is simple. We had the opportunity.

And?

Pretty confident this was not the only chance we've ever had to act.

which means ZERO in any version of relevant rebuttal....

what happened is somebody has balls.....the other's were mere mincy ones in modern times...

keep trollin' in the drownin' pool.....my battery never needs charging....and I ignore NO ONE!

well done, cupcake...

(01-10-2020 04:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 04:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 04:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 12:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why it had to take place now is simple. We had the opportunity.

And?
Pretty confident this was not the only chance we've ever had to act.

But this time we had a leader who would act.

We've tracked him every day for years according to reports.
Again, why now...why did trump wait. There had to be other times.
Still no reasonable justification was provided.
Swallow the at your own peril...but don't EVER tell me not to trust the government again when a Democrat does something.

I don't trust government. I don't trust democrats, I don't trust republicans, but most of all I don't trust bureaucrats. I don't trust Trump. All I will say is that he is not as bad as the alternatives that the democrats are offering.

The only thought I have about why now is that it does appear that they got him without a lot of collateral damage, except for some of his lackeys. It's very possible that we haven't had a shot without substantial collateral damage before then.

you were spot on.....hockey puck him and his redwings....

let's review.....who was it that didn't take out OBL when they had the op???

hell, I'll go back the butchered attempt at Castro (which was pointless in scope, but was in the public eye at that point)....it's now why you MUST go after the high level dealers vs. the head of state....

it's that or 'sand to glass'.....pick Ze poison....

(01-10-2020 03:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:05 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And?

Pretty confident this was not the only chance we've ever had to act.

Did you post a tweet from someone mentioning this very thing the other day? Apparently, previous admins have been briefed on this dude and did nothing for fear of starting a war. Trump took the shoot and it worked. We got the dude and no war. Win win.

I would not spike the football just yet. It's only been what, a week?

Not spiking anything, just pointing out it was Iran than backed down. Iran has a history of this. It pokes the bear until punched in the mouth, then backs down. I'm sure there will be future proxy attacks like there always have been. Nothing new there. Still, no WWIII.

Yeah...they have backed down for a week...and maybe in a week...or a month...they'll see a chance and take it. You said the following, which is premature IMO.

Quote:We got the dude and no war. Win win.

Not premature at all since there is no war. If war begins 4 years from now will you say I was wrong? What's the time limit?

I have heard stories that there was a failed attempt the same night to take out some other terrorist leader in Yemen. Don't know the particulars yet. That just proves that in these operations you don't always get them.

I've heard from a reliable source that during the first week of the war in Afghanistan, we had drone shots at both Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, but passed them up because of concerns over collateral damage. When you have a shot at either of them, you take it, and live with the collateral damage. We finally got Osama, how many years later, and we never got Mullah Omar, who apparently died of old age. That's unacceptable. What we should have done is kill both of them that first week, and then come home (unless we had some other A-listers that we had to kill too--kill them and then come home).

(01-10-2020 05:26 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:05 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Did you post a tweet from someone mentioning this very thing the other day? Apparently, previous admins have been briefed on this dude and did nothing for fear of starting a war. Trump took the shoot and it worked. We got the dude and no war. Win win.

I would not spike the football just yet. It's only been what, a week?

Not spiking anything, just pointing out it was Iran than backed down. Iran has a history of this. It pokes the bear until punched in the mouth, then backs down. I'm sure there will be future proxy attacks like there always have been. Nothing new there. Still, no WWIII.

Yeah...they have backed down for a week...and maybe in a week...or a month...they'll see a chance and take it. You said the following, which is premature IMO.

Quote:We got the dude and no war. Win win.

Not premature at all since there is no war. If war begins 4 years from now will you say I was wrong? What's the time limit?

lol.....it's amazing how the dipshites continue to keep the wound open w/o a 'drain'...

the Carlin in me loins can't get enough of all this bs.....

the best part................................................................they do it for (f)reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

(01-10-2020 03:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Again, I don't need to know as much as congress does...and even they are getting the runaround.

And your last line does not match popular opinion...and it's way too early to tell. There could still be retaliation and Iran will certainly find another body to fill his shoes.

Tom --- the fk'n guy was on the TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

He is a named TERRORIST..... He KILLED SCORES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE.. WTF IS THE MATTER WITH YOU??????



THE FRICKIN FREE WORLD IS SAFER TODAY WITHOUT HIM CALLING ANY SHOTS.

I am surprised that the left wants to engage in this argument. It is one they cannot possibly win (even if things do break bad with Iran).

Even for those of us who consider him to be a clownish idiot, President Trump is the duly elected commander in chief and holds Constitutional authority to act in defense of our nation. Whether and when to take a shot at a known terrorist is a discretionary call, and he is the one with that discretion.

That leaves the left in an untenable political position. They can either try to argue that Soleimani was not in fact a terrorist, which requires near-total stupidity or complete mendacity, or they can argue that the decision process was flawed. RWT has gone for the second option.

The problem, as is addressed in this thread topic, is that the Democrat decision process was categorically worse - - literally giving billions to a regime that was going to use at least some of it to fund more terror, including against Americans.

The more sensible approach, I would think, would be to graciously tip the hat to the Orange Man (for once) and move onto other less damning topics.

(01-11-2020 01:44 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I am surprised that the left wants to engage in this argument. It is one they cannot possibly win (even if things do break bad with Iran).

Even for those of us who consider him to be a clownish idiot, President Trump is the duly elected commander in chief and holds Constitutional authority to act in defense of our nation. Whether and when to take a shot at a known terrorist is a discretionary call, and he is the one with that discretion.

That leaves the left in an untenable political position. They can either try to argue that Soleimani was not in fact a terrorist, which requires near-total stupidity or complete mendacity, or they can argue that the decision process was flawed. RWT has gone for the second option.

The problem, as is addressed in this thread topic, is that the Democrat decision process was categorically worse - - literally giving billions to a regime that was going to use at least some of it to fund more terror, including against Americans.

The more sensible approach, I would think, would be to graciously tip the hat to the Orange Man (for once) and move onto other less damning topics.

Agreed. I didn't care for Mr. Obama's policies but give him credit for taking out Osama. I don't question his authority or motives of the long term implucations, just a well done from me. Same thing here like him or hate him, well done Mr. Trump

(01-11-2020 01:44 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  The more sensible approach, I would think, would be to graciously tip the hat to the Orange Man (for once) and move onto other less damning topics.

Ha - that's funny..... Sensible and Gracious are not in the Dem Playbook.

I have said this many times before - Trump could bring World Peace, fix climate change, completely open the borders for anyone with a pulse, cure cancer, completely fix healthcare and reduce taxes to Zero for all, and Democrats would still not utter one positive word of praise on him.