(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.