(01-03-2020 12:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  A good opinion article on the situation.

Quote:The decision to focus on Tehran’s proxies in the wake of the embassy attack was the right course.

As the New Year begins, it is abundantly clear that Washington’s policies designed to bend Iran to its will have failed. Yet Tehran’s’s recalcitrant responses have similarly failed to improve its own security, and the disastrous prospect of open war has drawn closer with recent events. This is truer than ever with the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, a leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Trump administration had taken a step in the right direction with its recent focus on Iran’s proxies; it would be wise to return to this course.

Since April, when the State Department designated the IRGC and its special operations component, Soleimani’s Quds Force, as foreign terrorist organizations, the United States and its allies have endured a series of setbacks and human losses. Iran seized a British tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, very likely attacked a Saudi oil facility, and shot down a U.S. drone. On Dec. 27, Iranian proxy Kata’ib Hizballah killed a U.S. citizen and wounded at least four others in a rocket attack in Iraq. Yet the year was hardly an unbridled success for Iran’s leaders. Protests have ungirded the regime at home and abroad, where its proxies in Lebanon and Iraq have suffered political setbacks.

The US Recently Made a Smart Move Toward Iran. Killing Soleimani Wasn’t It

Neo-conservatives who pine for aggressive action against Iran chafed in September, when President Trump called off a strike in retaliation for the drone downing, and again last week when he chose to strike Kata’ib Hizballah rather than Iran itself. Yet this turn from confronting Tehran directly toward increasing pressure on its proxies was the correct policy response.

That proportionate and well-conceived response was short-lived. The Jan. 2 targeted killing of Soleimani represents a dangerous escalation. Iran’s response will put U.S. assets, and likely innocent civilians, in harm’s way. The United States must turn to a mix of smart sanctions, surgical strikes, covert action, and proxy moves to keep steady pressure on Iran without exacerbating the situation.

The US Recently Made a Smart Move Toward Iran. Killing Soleimani Wasn’t It

The dangerous escalation was before that—and it was the Iranians who escalated. They fired directly at US forces (not US proxies) killing a US citizen and wounding a US soldier. Even then, the US response was to attack the proxie involved. Then, the US embassy was attacked by Iranian proxies (once again, Iran attacked the US directly—not a US proxy).

Iran decided to change the game and raise the stakes—-not the US. My guess is they didn’t think it mattered because Obama taught them that they could attack US troops directly via proxy’s with zero risk. Apparently—they have discovered there is a new sheriff in town. Red lines actually matter with the new guy.

Price paid? More like a charge off but that works, too.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain...y-price%2F

Obama was the king of the drone strike, how many of those had congressional approval before occurring?

(01-03-2020 12:42 PM)banker Wrote:  Obama was the king of the drone strike, how many of those had congressional approval before occurring?

I would assume those were authorized under an AUMF.

(01-03-2020 11:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:37 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Important thread.

ok........anything else?

Else what?

She's an expert on the situation and wants congress brought up to speed immediately on the administrations position here...if they actually even have one.

Not to mention they seem to be giving two sides of why they killed him. Was there am imminent threat or not?

We’ve had generations of “experts on situations” and they’ve been largely wrong, wrong and lastly wrong.

We’ll see what evolves from this, but taking out a bad actor like this thug can only be seen as a good thing.

If one recalls the impact of limited, targeted strikes at another bad hombre, Qaddafi, after Lockerbie it can be shown these things can work. Perhaps this gives the mullahs pause and they rethink the path they’re careening down.

If we can take out someone as central as this dog, we can take out any of them. Qaddafi learned from his prior misdeeds, perhaps these nuts will as well.

We need to kill more, until they get tired of dying. Either that, or write it off and come home.

(01-03-2020 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:56 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:37 AM)VA49er Wrote:  ok........anything else?

She's implying that Trump hasn't thought this out and/or is in over his head. I assume she would prefer pacification and cash to keep Iran in line.

I don't see that at all.

Her statement yesterday called for "careful diplomacy" after the attack on the embassy and she cautioned the administration to be "judicious" in their response. This is after she lays out Iran's role in the destabilization of Iraq and the recent attacks during which she pretty much makes the case for doing exactly what the administration did.

She on the House Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities. She knows this was a good move, she's just pandering to the left that is anti-trump at all costs.

If it was made for the right reasons, then yes, it's a good move. But congress was not informed beforehand and I don't believe congress has seen the proof yet of this imminent threat. If there was one, then show congress and it's all good.

Behind closed doors there isn't a single person in Washington DC that doesn't think this was the right move. On twitter and in front of the microphones, they will say otherwise.

Imminent threat? You mean like the attack on the embassy the previous two days? What, you wanna wait for 4 dead diplomats?

(01-03-2020 12:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need to kill more, until they get tired of dying. Either that, or write it off and come home.

Unfortunately they won't get tired of dying. It's not as bad of a fate as disobeying their leaders. We just cut the head off the snake, very publicly and very in-their-face.

If I were Trump and Iran retaliated in any meaningful way I would post an open question to Iranians on Twitter- Should I destroy 100% of your oil production capabilities, or would you prefer a change in leadership?

We've tried hands-off and "leading from behind". That didn't work. Time to use the big stick.

(01-03-2020 01:02 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  Now maybe Obama knows what should happen when a red line in crossed.

Thankfully now the US doesn't have to worry if BHO learned that lesson or not.

And the US and world is a safer place because he's not making the decisions.

(01-03-2020 09:37 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Nomination for worst twitter hot take of 2019?

https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1...79616?s=20

And the winner for the 'This tweet aged well' competition of 2020 goes to....

(01-03-2020 12:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  A good opinion article on the situation.

Quote:The decision to focus on Tehran’s proxies in the wake of the embassy attack was the right course.

As the New Year begins, it is abundantly clear that Washington’s policies designed to bend Iran to its will have failed. Yet Tehran’s’s recalcitrant responses have similarly failed to improve its own security, and the disastrous prospect of open war has drawn closer with recent events. This is truer than ever with the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, a leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Trump administration had taken a step in the right direction with its recent focus on Iran’s proxies; it would be wise to return to this course.

Since April, when the State Department designated the IRGC and its special operations component, Soleimani’s Quds Force, as foreign terrorist organizations, the United States and its allies have endured a series of setbacks and human losses. Iran seized a British tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, very likely attacked a Saudi oil facility, and shot down a U.S. drone. On Dec. 27, Iranian proxy Kata’ib Hizballah killed a U.S. citizen and wounded at least four others in a rocket attack in Iraq. Yet the year was hardly an unbridled success for Iran’s leaders. Protests have ungirded the regime at home and abroad, where its proxies in Lebanon and Iraq have suffered political setbacks.

The US Recently Made a Smart Move Toward Iran. Killing Soleimani Wasn’t It

Neo-conservatives who pine for aggressive action against Iran chafed in September, when President Trump called off a strike in retaliation for the drone downing, and again last week when he chose to strike Kata’ib Hizballah rather than Iran itself. Yet this turn from confronting Tehran directly toward increasing pressure on its proxies was the correct policy response.

That proportionate and well-conceived response was short-lived. The Jan. 2 targeted killing of Soleimani represents a dangerous escalation. Iran’s response will put U.S. assets, and likely innocent civilians, in harm’s way. The United States must turn to a mix of smart sanctions, surgical strikes, covert action, and proxy moves to keep steady pressure on Iran without exacerbating the situation.

The US Recently Made a Smart Move Toward Iran. Killing Soleimani Wasn’t It

You are trying awful hard to put blame on the US for taking out a evil man(men) that's killed or set in motion the killing of 50,000 to 100,000 people. Most of those, innocent people.

I have the feeling if this was 4 years ago you would not being trying so hard.

(01-03-2020 12:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:42 PM)banker Wrote:  Obama was the king of the drone strike, how many of those had congressional approval before occurring?

I would assume those were authorized under an AUMF.

Interestingly enough, apparently the House voted to repeal the AUMF this past Wednesday.

(01-03-2020 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:56 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:37 AM)VA49er Wrote:  ok........anything else?

She's implying that Trump hasn't thought this out and/or is in over his head. I assume she would prefer pacification and cash to keep Iran in line.

I don't see that at all.

Her statement yesterday called for "careful diplomacy" after the attack on the embassy and she cautioned the administration to be "judicious" in their response. This is after she lays out Iran's role in the destabilization of Iraq and the recent attacks during which she pretty much makes the case for doing exactly what the administration did.

She on the House Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities. She knows this was a good move, she's just pandering to the left that is anti-trump at all costs.

If it was made for the right reasons, then yes, it's a good move. But congress was not informed beforehand and I don't believe congress has seen the proof yet of this imminent threat. If there was one, then show congress and it's all good.

did your pea brain ever consider opportunity vs. coagulated bs was the defining factor....

his actions are nothing new when one has executive power.....

wtfe....vote against him if ewe don't like it....

(01-03-2020 12:55 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need to kill more, until they get tired of dying. Either that, or write it off and come home.

Unfortunately they won't get tired of dying. It's not as bad of a fate as disobeying their leaders. We just cut the head off the snake, very publicly and very in-their-face.

If I were Trump and Iran retaliated in any meaningful way I would post an open question to Iranians on Twitter- Should I destroy 100% of your oil production capabilities, or would you prefer a change in leadership?

We've tried hands-off and "leading from behind". That didn't work. Time to use the big stick.

Video shows moment Iran’s top general Qassem Soleimani is killed

(01-03-2020 01:06 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:42 PM)banker Wrote:  Obama was the king of the drone strike, how many of those had congressional approval before occurring?

I would assume those were authorized under an AUMF.

Interestingly enough, apparently the House voted to repeal the AUMF this past Wednesday.

hardly close to surprising...

I'm certain that never gets signed....

(01-03-2020 11:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:37 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Important thread.

ok........anything else?

Else what?

She's an expert on the situation

lmao

(01-03-2020 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:56 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:37 AM)VA49er Wrote:  ok........anything else?

She's implying that Trump hasn't thought this out and/or is in over his head. I assume she would prefer pacification and cash to keep Iran in line.

I don't see that at all.

Her statement yesterday called for "careful diplomacy" after the attack on the embassy and she cautioned the administration to be "judicious" in their response. This is after she lays out Iran's role in the destabilization of Iraq and the recent attacks during which she pretty much makes the case for doing exactly what the administration did.

She on the House Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities. She knows this was a good move, she's just pandering to the left that is anti-trump at all costs.

If it was made for the right reasons, then yes, it's a good move. But congress was not informed beforehand and I don't believe congress has seen the proof yet of this imminent threat. If there was one, then show congress and it's all good.

1 already dead isn't a threat?

(01-03-2020 01:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:56 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  She's implying that Trump hasn't thought this out and/or is in over his head. I assume she would prefer pacification and cash to keep Iran in line.

I don't see that at all.

Her statement yesterday called for "careful diplomacy" after the attack on the embassy and she cautioned the administration to be "judicious" in their response. This is after she lays out Iran's role in the destabilization of Iraq and the recent attacks during which she pretty much makes the case for doing exactly what the administration did.

She on the House Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities. She knows this was a good move, she's just pandering to the left that is anti-trump at all costs.

If it was made for the right reasons, then yes, it's a good move. But congress was not informed beforehand and I don't believe congress has seen the proof yet of this imminent threat. If there was one, then show congress and it's all good.

1 already dead isn't a threat?

Well, his side didnt think it was an imminent threat that 3 americans were killed and they were torturing Chris Stevens. In fact, they thought so little of it that Obama went to a Vegas fund raiser while it was going down.