- This topic has 18 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
… and kills Iranian military chief in response to the Iranian regimes terrorism against the United States.
Thoughts?
We may find out soon whether Iran has nukes.
Say Tehilim 83 which is good to say everyday but especially now.
The president can’t declare war. But he can recognize that a state of war already exists, and act accordingly. A state of war does NOT depend on a declaration; it depends on the facts. If our forces are in combat, we’re at war.
Iran can’t threaten the US, the US is infinitely stronger, and if iran wants to fight – we will fight
Declarations of war are done by the Congress. They have a lot of baggage which is why they have disappeared since the mid-20th century.
Killing on Iranian general, in Iraq, where he was organizing terrorist activities directed against the US, is not a big deal. It is interesting note that those objecting to Trump’s latest action, were previously complaining that he wasn’t helping the rebels fight the Iranian-supported regime in Syria.
‘This is how a WW starts by nations attaching themselves to one side or another, so let us learn from history.
What is the long-term strategy?? If the Trumpkopf doesn’t plan on regime change or engaging Iran with boots on the ground, why wouldn’t Iran simply continue with the type of asymmetric warfare that has worked for them over the past several decades. Again, we are better off with this Iranian terror leader dead, but the timing of the assassination along with the impeachment process in the Senate this week makes you wonder. Thusfar, there is no evidence of “actionable intelligence” that warranted the action on Thursday but perhaps that will be forthcoming.
Gadolhadorah:
Did Obama have a long term strategy of regime change in Pakistan (btw a US ally) when he sent his men to kill Bin Laden?
The reason it was done now is twofold.
One is in retaliation of the embassy attack (some US presidents, not all, dont allow the enemies to attack their embassies)
2, he showed up in Baghdad where the US has eyes on his whereabouts so they were able to easily find him and deal with him.Declarations of war are done by the Congress. They have a lot of baggage which is why they have disappeared since the mid-20th century.
Not true. It’s just that nowadays Congress likes to call it a more bureaucratic-sounding name — Authorization of the Use of Military Force. That is a declaration of war.
Also, no declaration is necessary if a state of war already exists.
I don’t know whether a war with Iran is a good idea, but plenty of generals and diplomats have warned against it, both before and after the killing of Gen. Sulimani. Of course, we know the president is impulsive, does not read his daily intelligence briefings, and can’t find Iran on a map. So what could go wrong?
Yacr85:
A few important distinctions. UBL was not the head of military of a sovereign state. This guy was. Also, he routinely traveled to Iraq and other countries in the region, but the administration has thusfar failed to provide any evidence that this time was different and there was some immediate threat linked tot the visit last week. If so, than the targeting was 100 percent appropriate. However, given the absence of any documented threat assessment (even to the members of Congress with clearance for classified information) the timing is what everyone is being questioned. Watch the interview today with Rand Paul on several networks where he questions whether we are safer as a result of the President’s actions.Joseph, the last president wasn’t impulsive and he found a way around the red line.
G h
Where he questions whether we are safer as a result.
That’s not an important question.
The question is only are we less safe?
The man was evil and needed to be taken out. As long as it doesn’t increase our danger from Iran it was a good move.
Since Iran is being as aggressive as they could anyway, there is really no problem with killing their generalsThe very fact that this person is dead makes us safer. He was dangerous, and now he’s not. Therefore we are safer.
Soleimani was the brains behind all of Iran’s terror and expansion in the Middle East. He was unafraid and he inspired his army to follow that attitude. It was his brazeness that left the world cowering in fear and what allowed Iran to have free reign in the region.
Now that he’s gone, their paragon of fearlessness and their mastermind is gone.The fact that they put $80million on Trump’s head, shows how much Trump is an impediment to their plans.
Whatever stopped them from attacking Israel before and attacking any other major American interests, will continue stopping them now. They know that Trump might not have moral qualms about flattening their country. Even if they don’t care all that much about the lives of their citizens, they do care very much about their own lives and they are not relishing receiving the same treatment asSoleimani. They are finally afraid, at least as long as Trump is in office.
Impeachment has been going on for months. It has more or less died down until Rebbetzin Nancy decides to forward the articles to the Senate. To say they are connected on some kind of timeline, like when Clinton bombed an aspirin factory the very day he was impeached, is ludicrous.
What does Trump think of his own actions?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.