(01-11-2020 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I have read lots of comments about the killing of Soleimani and the subsequent shooting down of the Ukrainian passenger jet, and I've noticed a fairly significant trend.
People who have never served in the military overwhelmingly believe that killing Soleimani was a mistake and will bring war, and that the downing of the passenger jet was a direct consequence. People who have served in the military overwhelmingly believe that killing Soleimani was a giant step toward peace and that shooting down the passenger jet was either unrelated or intentional on the part of the Iranians. It's not 100% either way, but there do seem to be two pretty strong trends.
Tanq (who I don't think did serve, so he would be one of the exceptions to the rule) poses an interesting question. There seems to be a tendency in some quarters to posit the killing of Soleimani as the proximate cause of shooting down the passenger jet, but to this point there has been no showing of any causal link, much less proximate causation.
I think the killing of the dirtbag was a step in an ongoing war; one that has been waged in the military sense in a one way direction for 35 years.
He was an enemy combatant fully engaged in actions against the United States --- and had been for decades.
Trump did something no other US administration has done --- he has acknowledged that war; and by doing so has stated that he has leveled the playing field where the US is empowered to strike militarily at the actions Iran has *done* for 30 years. He disempowered their asymmetric aspect with one fell swoop. You kill US soldiers --- you actually might get droned.
And people are gnashing their teeth that 'ooohhh..... Iran might strike back'. Good grief, this particular dirtbag has been striking for 25+ years, and to the tune of (more than 2) US soldiers.
The funny thing is that some quarters cannot even acknowledge that when you say (Mr Peabody voice on) 'well perhaps we shouldnt have done that' (/Mr Peabody voice off) they are *in fact* stating 'perhaps we should have let this dirtbag, who was responsible for killing massive numbers of US soldiers, keep doing just that'.
The entire Democratic caucus cant even to seem to acknowledge the guy was a dirtbag; on others cant even acknowledge that saying 'perhaps we shouldnt have done that' is precisely the same thing as saying 'perhaps we should have let the dirtbag continue'.
Its like their minds refuse to recognize the binary nature of 'yep lets take him off the table / and nope, lets let him continue'. Its not some asinine weighing function, it is binary in nature.
Look I recognize that lad is scared (or parroting) the 'ooohhhhh they could escalate, and maybe it wasnt such a good thing'. There is a part there that acknowledges that in their mind it is more beneficial for a dirtbag responsible for killing multiple hundreds of US servicemen keep doing so, and they cannot even articulate that within their schema there is some support for him continuing to do so.
This is like watching cats jump crazily in a room size shallow sauna bath.