(01-30-2020 11:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, I think the libs here plant just as many flags (e.g., trump was not elected by the will of the people) but do not see the reciprocity of their views and beliefs. That is a part of the double standard I rail about.
That is actually the perfect example to use to support my point (thanks!).
I didn't say "Trump was not elected by the will of the people" so your entire premise is askew. You wrote "the selection of the President [is] in the hands of the voters." I didn't make a value judgment about anything and I didn't plant a flag. I merely pointed out that the electors to the electoral college choose the President, not the voters. Hypothetically the electors could choose a President who received zero votes from voters.
So the "libs" didn't plant a flag of any sort. Instead, you assumed that I was planting a flag and responded to it. So again, the perfect example to prove my point.
(01-30-2020 01:27 PM)MOBalum Wrote: [ -> ]Curious: where does everyone here sit on the last dimension of Myers-Briggs? J vs. P
I have a hunch that might explain some of what Big and Lad are commenting on.
Ok, back to lurking...
Thanks for pointing this out! Here's a
link. In brief:
Quote:The identification and description of the 16 distinctive personality types that result from the interactions among the preferences.
Favorite world: Do you prefer to focus on the outer world or on your own inner world? This is called Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I).
Information: Do you prefer to focus on the basic information you take in or do you prefer to interpret and add meaning? This is called Sensing (S) or Intuition (N).
Decisions: When making decisions, do you prefer to first look at logic and consistency or first look at the people and special circumstances? This is called Thinking (T) or Feeling (F).
Structure: In dealing with the outside world, do you prefer to get things decided or do you prefer to stay open to new information and options? This is called Judging (J) or Perceiving (P).
Your Personality Type: When you decide on your preference in each category, you have your own personality type, which can be expressed as a code with four letters.
I don't know my type as I haven't taken the test (or don't remember if I have taken it). My guess is that I would end up with a P on the final factor.
I just took the M-B test. 51-49 J-type; so really kind of a push.
But, I will have to admit that I am not a follower of the M-B philosophy. I worked with way too many professional 'personality coaches' (i.e. people hired by a company to evaluate C-Level and VP level candidates) who pretty much think of M-B in the same vein as crystal power.
And thanks for the 'signal from space' from you lurkers. The dancing pontificating bears who post here might take requests from the audience if you prompt us.... if I were you all I would take full advantage to prod us into outbursts.
But it might be fun to see the results.
On M-B, I'm ENFP, the E, N, and P parts are pretty strong, the F and T are pretty close, and I've even tested ENTP a time or two.
But I really don't see M-B as the holy grail that some HR types do.
(01-29-2020 11:09 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2020 01:21 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-13-2020 05:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Trump successfully droned one of the biggest dirtbags on the planet. And he allowed the Iranians to save face with a retaliatory attack that blew up sand, and some tents.
34 US service members diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries after Iranian missile strike
So more damage to US service members than initially reported. I am still curious to see how this plays out in the coming months. I think it is still too early to judge by those of us without access to the relevant intelligence leading up to the Soleimani strike.
The number of US Service members diagnosed with some level of traumatic brain injury from the Iran missile strikes has increased to 50, 31 of whom have returned to duty. Not really clear how serious the injuries are to the other 19.
Number of US troops diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injuries from the 1/8/2020 missile attack by Iran has been
increased to 64.
Donald Trump on 1/4/2020 Wrote:Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader.... Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have [] targeted 52 Iranian sites ... and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
Donald Trump on 1/4/2020 Wrote:The Untied States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!
Don't get me wrong, I don't want us to go to war with Iran and I'm thankful that cooler heads have prevailed for the time being. But for those of you critical of Obama's failure to enforce his red line in Syria and arguing for a much more aggressive policy toward Iran, what do you think of Trump's non-response to Iran's missile attack that injured 64 US troops? At the very least, Trump has hesitated in his response.
(01-31-2020 10:48 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020 11:09 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2020 01:21 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-13-2020 05:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Trump successfully droned one of the biggest dirtbags on the planet. And he allowed the Iranians to save face with a retaliatory attack that blew up sand, and some tents.
34 US service members diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries after Iranian missile strike
So more damage to US service members than initially reported. I am still curious to see how this plays out in the coming months. I think it is still too early to judge by those of us without access to the relevant intelligence leading up to the Soleimani strike.
The number of US Service members diagnosed with some level of traumatic brain injury from the Iran missile strikes has increased to 50, 31 of whom have returned to duty. Not really clear how serious the injuries are to the other 19.
Number of US troops diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injuries from the 1/8/2020 missile attack by Iran has been increased to 64.
Donald Trump on 1/4/2020 Wrote:Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader.... Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have [] targeted 52 Iranian sites ... and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
Donald Trump on 1/4/2020 Wrote:The Untied States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!
Don't get me wrong, I don't want us to go to war with Iran and I'm thankful that cooler heads have prevailed for the time being. But for those of you critical of Obama's failure to enforce his red line in Syria and arguing for a much more aggressive policy toward Iran, what do you think of Trump's non-response to Iran's missile attack that injured 64 US troops? At the very least, Trump has hesitated in his response.
Trump's decisions seem to be based on a red line of American deaths. I am OK with that being the red line. Just as long as there is one, and our enemies know it will be enforced. For a change.
But maybe we could have just sat on our thumbs, Obama-style. Gone to a fund raiser or two, and appeared Presidential. Maybe sent a strongly worded letter. Foreign policy rooted in fear of the consequences of standing up for oneself is not much of a foreign policy, as Obama showed us.
When the Russians wanted to invade a foreign country and annex it, they did so without fear of the US. Since then, they have invaded nothing, despite the propaganda that Trump is a Russian puppet.
Sometimes a strong response will not work out well. But being afraid to stand up to opposition is less likely to work out in the long run. Ask Neville Chamberlain.
(01-31-2020 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2020 10:48 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020 11:09 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]The number of US Service members diagnosed with some level of traumatic brain injury from the Iran missile strikes has increased to 50, 31 of whom have returned to duty. Not really clear how serious the injuries are to the other 19.
Number of US troops diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injuries from the 1/8/2020 missile attack by Iran has been increased to 64.
Donald Trump on 1/4/2020 Wrote:Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader.... Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have [] targeted 52 Iranian sites ... and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
Donald Trump on 1/4/2020 Wrote:The Untied States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!
Don't get me wrong, I don't want us to go to war with Iran and I'm thankful that cooler heads have prevailed for the time being. But for those of you critical of Obama's failure to enforce his red line in Syria and arguing for a much more aggressive policy toward Iran, what do you think of Trump's non-response to Iran's missile attack that injured 64 US troops? At the very least, Trump has hesitated in his response.
Trump's decisions seem to be based on a red line of American deaths. I am OK with that being the red line.
Maybe this is true and maybe it is not. But in his tweets, Trump was very explicit and he didn't identify "American deaths" as the line. He tweeted about responding with force if Iran attacked "USA assets", "any Americans", "American assets", "an American Base", and "any American". Nothing in those tweets about only responding with force only if Iran killed an American.
(01-31-2020 12:00 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2020 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2020 10:48 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020 11:09 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]The number of US Service members diagnosed with some level of traumatic brain injury from the Iran missile strikes has increased to 50, 31 of whom have returned to duty. Not really clear how serious the injuries are to the other 19.
Number of US troops diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injuries from the 1/8/2020 missile attack by Iran has been increased to 64.
Donald Trump on 1/4/2020 Wrote:Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader.... Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have [] targeted 52 Iranian sites ... and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
Donald Trump on 1/4/2020 Wrote:The Untied States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!
Don't get me wrong, I don't want us to go to war with Iran and I'm thankful that cooler heads have prevailed for the time being. But for those of you critical of Obama's failure to enforce his red line in Syria and arguing for a much more aggressive policy toward Iran, what do you think of Trump's non-response to Iran's missile attack that injured 64 US troops? At the very least, Trump has hesitated in his response.
Trump's decisions seem to be based on a red line of American deaths. I am OK with that being the red line.
Maybe this is true and maybe it is not. But in his tweets, Trump was very explicit and he didn't identify "American deaths" as the line. He tweeted about responding with force if Iran attacked "USA assets", "any Americans", "American assets", "an American Base", and "any American". Nothing in those tweets about only responding with force only if Iran killed an American.
...and? Trump acts with restraint and correctly gauged that the Iranian response to his move would be far less drastic than his critics feared, and in some cases hoped. All that’s left for his critics is to nitpick, as you are doing.
(01-31-2020 12:00 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2020 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2020 10:48 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020 11:09 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]The number of US Service members diagnosed with some level of traumatic brain injury from the Iran missile strikes has increased to 50, 31 of whom have returned to duty. Not really clear how serious the injuries are to the other 19.
Number of US troops diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injuries from the 1/8/2020 missile attack by Iran has been increased to 64.
Donald Trump on 1/4/2020 Wrote:Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader.... Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have [] targeted 52 Iranian sites ... and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
Donald Trump on 1/4/2020 Wrote:The Untied States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!
Don't get me wrong, I don't want us to go to war with Iran and I'm thankful that cooler heads have prevailed for the time being. But for those of you critical of Obama's failure to enforce his red line in Syria and arguing for a much more aggressive policy toward Iran, what do you think of Trump's non-response to Iran's missile attack that injured 64 US troops? At the very least, Trump has hesitated in his response.
Trump's decisions seem to be based on a red line of American deaths. I am OK with that being the red line.
Maybe this is true and maybe it is not. But in his tweets, Trump was very explicit and he didn't identify "American deaths" as the line. He tweeted about responding with force if Iran attacked "USA assets", "any Americans", "American assets", "an American Base", and "any American". Nothing in those tweets about only responding with force only if Iran killed an American.
Maybe it is the commentaries I have heard, rather than a quote from Trump, but he responded when an American contractor was killed, and did not respond when a drone was shot down. If so, I guess we could say that American lives are a defacto red line, not an explicit one.
In any case, I want hard reaction tempered with judgement. Hard reaction was never a possibility with Obama, and I thought it should be. I was disappointed at his reaction(s) to Crimea, the Ukraine, Iran, North Korea, and just about everybody else. My disappointment was not limited to his erasing the red line - maybe he should not have drawn it in the first place. But in every place, at every opportunity, he was soft. Back-down Barrack. I wanted more. I wanted a Kennedy or a Truman, not a Carter. JMHO.
(01-31-2020 12:26 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2020 12:00 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2020 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2020 10:48 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Donald Trump on 1/4/2020 Wrote:Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader.... Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have [] targeted 52 Iranian sites ... and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
Donald Trump on 1/4/2020 Wrote:The Untied States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!
Don't get me wrong, I don't want us to go to war with Iran and I'm thankful that cooler heads have prevailed for the time being. But for those of you critical of Obama's failure to enforce his red line in Syria and arguing for a much more aggressive policy toward Iran, what do you think of Trump's non-response to Iran's missile attack that injured 64 US troops? At the very least, Trump has hesitated in his response.
Trump's decisions seem to be based on a red line of American deaths. I am OK with that being the red line.
Maybe this is true and maybe it is not. But in his tweets, Trump was very explicit and he didn't identify "American deaths" as the line. He tweeted about responding with force if Iran attacked "USA assets", "any Americans", "American assets", "an American Base", and "any American". Nothing in those tweets about only responding with force only if Iran killed an American.
...and? Trump acts with restraint and correctly gauged that the Iranian response to his move would be far less drastic than his critics feared, and in some cases hoped. All that’s left for his critics is to nitpick, as you are doing.
Nitpicking? I didn't nitpick Trump's actions after Iran's missile strike.. I literally wrote that I was "thankful that cooler heads have prevailed."
Did Trump really correctly gauge the Iranian response? 64 US troops with mild traumatic brain injuries, 25 of whom still have not returned to duty 3 weeks after the missile strike?
Conservatives here have repeatedly taken Obama to task for not following through on his threat to use force in Syria after Assad crossed Obama's red line by using chemical weapons on civilians. I am just asking if conservatives here felt like Trump was establishing a red line with his quoted tweets and, if so, whether they feel like Trump should be taken to task for not following through with his threat of force after Iranian missile strikes injured 64 US troops.
Also, do you have any evidence that any of Trump's critics "hoped" for a more dramatic response by Iran? That is pure slanderous ridiculousness.
Didn't we kill their general?
Why are we arguing that there was no response?
It seems to me that he did what he said by killing the general, and then he backed down because there were clearly some back-channel communications that allowed them to save face at the risk of some RELATIVELY (for a war zone with exploding bombs) minor response
Had Iran used chemical weapons and we not responded, I would be ALL OVER Trump for the same reason I was all over Obama.
The problem with ANY red line is that you have to stand behind it. DOesn't mean you have to go 'all-in' on ANY attack... and that's the problem with literally saying red line and then not doing it. If you won't respond to chemical attacks, which are a violation of international treaty... what does it take?
(01-31-2020 12:55 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2020 12:26 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2020 12:00 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2020 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2020 10:48 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Don't get me wrong, I don't want us to go to war with Iran and I'm thankful that cooler heads have prevailed for the time being. But for those of you critical of Obama's failure to enforce his red line in Syria and arguing for a much more aggressive policy toward Iran, what do you think of Trump's non-response to Iran's missile attack that injured 64 US troops? At the very least, Trump has hesitated in his response.
Trump's decisions seem to be based on a red line of American deaths. I am OK with that being the red line.
Maybe this is true and maybe it is not. But in his tweets, Trump was very explicit and he didn't identify "American deaths" as the line. He tweeted about responding with force if Iran attacked "USA assets", "any Americans", "American assets", "an American Base", and "any American". Nothing in those tweets about only responding with force only if Iran killed an American.
...and? Trump acts with restraint and correctly gauged that the Iranian response to his move would be far less drastic than his critics feared, and in some cases hoped. All that’s left for his critics is to nitpick, as you are doing.
Nitpicking? I didn't nitpick Trump's actions after Iran's missile strike.. I literally wrote that I was "thankful that cooler heads have prevailed."
Did Trump really correctly gauge the Iranian response? 64 US troops with mild traumatic brain injuries, 25 of whom still have not returned to duty 3 weeks after the missile strike?
Conservatives here have repeatedly taken Obama to task for not following through on his threat to use force in Syria after Assad crossed Obama's red line by using chemical weapons on civilians. I am just asking if conservatives here felt like Trump was establishing a red line with his quoted tweets and, if so, whether they feel like Trump should be taken to task for not following through with his threat of force after Iranian missile strikes injured 64 US troops.
Also, do you have any evidence that any of Trump's critics "hoped" for a more dramatic response by Iran? That is pure slanderous ridiculousness.
If you are equating the use of chemical weapons against civilians with a limited and token missile strike announced in advance that caused some concussions, then... well, that’s my response. Nitpicking, yes.
(01-31-2020 12:55 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I literally wrote that I was "thankful that cooler heads have prevailed."
I presume the cooler head that counted the most was that of Donald J. Trump, POTUS.
So you are praising Trump for his restraint.
The convo seems to be
Obama drew a red line and then didn't respond to a chemical weapons attack and was taken to task for it
Did Trump draw a red line? If he did, after killing the General responsible for the attack, was he bound to respond to the wild and relatively benign flailings that followed?
I think the difference is,
Obama talked tough and then did nothing in response to a violation of global treaty
Trump talked tough and then took out a General when his talk was ignored.. and then behaved like a super-power in response to a meager response
I suppose we could respond to each and every aggressive act with overwhelming force... but the left (and some of the right) wouldn't support that either. I think it's a relatively small part of the right that would support that, and nobody else.
(01-31-2020 01:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Didn't we kill their general?
Why are we arguing that there was no response?
Maybe you have the timeline messed up?
12/27/19 - Iran kills US contractor & injures several US troops
1/3/20 - Trump orders strike that kills Soleimani
1/4/20 - Trump issues the tweets quoted above warning Iran that if they attacked any americans, american assets, or american bases, he would respond militarily.
1/8/20 - Iran launches ~20 balistic missiles at 2 Iraqi bases housing US troops, 64 US troops are injured
So Trump said he would respond if Iran attacked the US in response to Soleimani's death. Iran attacked the US, but Trump did not respond (yet). I'm actually glad cooler heads have prevailed.
(01-31-2020 01:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ][T]hen he backed down because there were clearly some back-channel communications that allowed them to save face at the risk of some RELATIVELY (for a war zone with exploding bombs) minor response
No sense arguing whether 64 injured US troops was a relatively minor response by Iran. It is a matter of opinion. But Trump didn't say that he wouldn't respond as long as Iran's response was "relatively minor".
(01-31-2020 01:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Had Iran used chemical weapons and we not responded, I would be ALL OVER Trump for the same reason I was all over Obama.
Worth noting that US troops were not attacked by Assad in Syria, so this is kind of apples to Oranges. If anyone attacked US troops with chemical weapons, I firmly believe that both Trump and Obama and Bush and Clinton would respond with significant force.
Why doesn't anyone just answer my question instead of trying to impute something into my question? Talk about nitpicking. I didn't even criticize Trump ... I said I thought he has taken the correct approach. But I'm admittedly not as much of a hawk as some of you seem to be, so I was asking an honest question now that we have learned there were more US troops injured than initially reported.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like Frizzy, Hambone, and OO are all fine with Trump's non-response (so far) to the Iranian missile attack that injured 64 US troops, 25 of whom have not returned to duty after 3 weeks. I am also fine with it, so we agree. That's all I was asking.
I probably would not be fine with it if I was one of those US troops or their family or friends. I also wouldn't be fine with it if the exact same attack occurred prior to the US killing Soleimani.
Also, how do we know these troops just have some headaches? One of you their treating doctor or something?
The key factor is how the US response was interpreted.
It is possible that some international malefactors interpreted Obama's non-response in Syria as a sign of quiet strength, but I doubt it -- and I don't think anyone else believes it either.
It is possible that some international malefactors interpreted Trump's non-response to Iran's missile volley as a sign of weakness, but I doubt it -- and I don't think anyone else believes it either.
As the saying goes (or used to go*), the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
*See
https://www.npr.org/2012/08/24/159975466...to-stories
Dont mess with Cocaine Mitch.
The Cocaine Snapping Turtle has the votes to end the impeachment trial today.
But..... looks like he will stretch it out till Wednesday. Cold. As. Ice.
Why? Well, he is forcing The Bern, the Shrew, and Klobuchar to stay in DC through that time. That is, through the Iowa Caucuses on Monday.
Second, Trump delivers the SOTU Tuesday. In front of a crowd half made up of fully humiliated Democrats. Presumably the night before the chamber votes to acquit. But, it *is* the SOTU so all the Democrats might have to feign a veneer of civility.
(01-31-2020 04:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]The key factor is how the US response was interpreted.
It is possible that some international malefactors interpreted Obama's non-response in Syria as a sign of quiet strength, but I doubt it -- and I don't think anyone else believes it either.
It is possible that some international malefactors interpreted Trump's non-response to Iran's missile volley as a sign of weakness, but I doubt it -- and I don't think anyone else believes it either.
Agree 100%.
(01-31-2020 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2020 10:48 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020 11:09 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2020 01:21 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (01-13-2020 05:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Trump successfully droned one of the biggest dirtbags on the planet. And he allowed the Iranians to save face with a retaliatory attack that blew up sand, and some tents.
34 US service members diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries after Iranian missile strike
So more damage to US service members than initially reported. I am still curious to see how this plays out in the coming months. I think it is still too early to judge by those of us without access to the relevant intelligence leading up to the Soleimani strike.
The number of US Service members diagnosed with some level of traumatic brain injury from the Iran missile strikes has increased to 50, 31 of whom have returned to duty. Not really clear how serious the injuries are to the other 19.
Number of US troops diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injuries from the 1/8/2020 missile attack by Iran has been increased to 64.
Donald Trump on 1/4/2020 Wrote:Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader.... Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have [] targeted 52 Iranian sites ... and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
Donald Trump on 1/4/2020 Wrote:The Untied States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!
Don't get me wrong, I don't want us to go to war with Iran and I'm thankful that cooler heads have prevailed for the time being. But for those of you critical of Obama's failure to enforce his red line in Syria and arguing for a much more aggressive policy toward Iran, what do you think of Trump's non-response to Iran's missile attack that injured 64 US troops? At the very least, Trump has hesitated in his response.
Trump's decisions seem to be based on a red line of American deaths. I am OK with that being the red line. Just as long as there is one, and our enemies know it will be enforced. For a change.
But maybe we could have just sat on our thumbs, Obama-style. Gone to a fund raiser or two, and appeared Presidential. Maybe sent a strongly worded letter. Foreign policy rooted in fear of the consequences of standing up for oneself is not much of a foreign policy, as Obama showed us.
When the Russians wanted to invade a foreign country and annex it, they did so without fear of the US. Since then, they have invaded nothing, despite the propaganda that Trump is a Russian puppet.
Sometimes a strong response will not work out well. But being afraid to stand up to opposition is less likely to work out in the long run. Ask Neville Chamberlain.
sheesh man donny set his red line in public twitter post,,, days before irans attack!! he said **"should iran stirike any us person or target"**
ANY US PERSON OR TARGET!!! are our troops serving in iraq not AMERICANS?
you got the tds so bad you cant even call him out for abandoning our troops. just sad.
"I am OK with that being the red line. Just as long as there is one"
my God,,, if youre not even going to follow the news why post here??
and yes,, fine,, ill post the tweet again. read it:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...0574812160
tweet was AFTER we killed soleimani BEFORE iran attacked bases w missiles