|I have not yet begun |
Also ask if ANYTHING has significantly changed in the last 1800 years regarding how one tribe feels about the other.
You can’t change the way animals act. You watch, maybe photograph the non-dangerous ones and shoot the imminently dangerous ones if needed.
After the game, the King and the pawn go into the same box.
|Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie|
There's so much to love in this single tweet:
Acta Non Verba Trump Stands Alone...but he fights
NRA Life Member (Patron)
God, Family, Guns, Country
"My guns are always loaded."
What whiskey will not cure, there is no cure.
Well, sitting here on the Internet, the above looks like the no-brainer, obvious right answer. I’m not sure exactly how well it would/will translate in the “real world”, but I’m confident that we have the best guy on the job to figure the details out and get it done.
“TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran said Sunday it would no longer abide by any of the limits of its unraveling 2015 nuclear deal with world powers after a U.S. airstrike killed a top Iranian general in Baghdad…”
Funny… They’ve already abandoned that deal about three times already.
Look about you.
Yeah, ironic isn't it. TDS is truly a mental disorder and there is no cure in sight. The day after the election will be fun to watch. I expect to see libs jumping out of buildings and drinking Drano.
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll have to be a horrible warning" -Catherine Aird
I have ZERO belief that they ever did in the first place.
"Live every day as if it's going to be your last, and one day, you'll be right.”
Back to the subject of this thread:
Pompeo is awesome here, Not falling for the BS, Straight and forceful.
The butcher with the sharpest knife has the warmest heart.
Another Pompeo quote I like, from an interview on Fox News. Happy that POTUS has these type of folk in his Cabinet..........
Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday: "Do you think our enemies think the President is more vulnerable because of the impeachment effort?"
Secretary Pompeo: "You should ask Mr. Soleimani."
America, Land of the Free - because of the Brave
Soleimani willingly chose to participate in a high-risk sport. At least he died doing what he loved. /sarcasm
This space intentionally left blank.
The Iranians have gotten away with attacking us and our allies with bombings, kidnappings, hijackings, murders, rocket attacks, etc., for 40 years.
They have always been crafty about this - using surrogates, keeping the violence level just below what we cannot tolerate.
Then we whacked Soleimani for involvement in past and future attacks.
Now they are threatening to attack us in retaliation for the death of Soleimani.
They must realize that something has changed.
They must realize that continuing up the escalatory ladder now will result in the loss of many important regime assets. Ships, airplanes, nuclear facilities, headquarters buildings, server farms, power plants, oil refineries, rocket production facilities, etc. Enough stuff that the regime might fall.
The only thing wrong we can do now is decide to occupy Iran.
Before our wonderful Commander in Chief threw his balls on the table and salami’s into the next world, the damocracts said they had to impeach because POTUS was a severe security threat to our constitution and country.
All the while our LEADER was planning on a huge FUCK OFF
November can’t come fast enough for me
"When you are going to shoot; shoot, don't talk ."
Plus we have Iraq telling us to get out. I think the best option is to wait and see if Iran does anything. They're in a real catch 22, they know Trump means business and is unlike our past President, and that any offense move on their part would have serious repercussions. On the other hand, if they do nothing, they'll look very weak to their neighbors. I agree a ground war would be a bad move. Taking out their Nuclear facilities with bombs from drones, since they did say they weren't honoring the 2015 Nuclear treaty (which I doubt they were following anyways) would be the next move and whatever the other good targets may be. That being said, in an election year, war is never good.
I may be a bad person, but at least I use my turn signal.
Obviously any other responses by us, depends on what move they do next. If they continue with the penny ante attacks, we should focus on all their IRGC assets in Iraq. Time for Muqtada al Sadr and his friends to disappear. All the eggshell walking we've been doing around Bahgdad and Basra's Shite population has to end.
If they try something big, then we start dropping JDAMs on IRGC locations within Iran. Crater their internal security apparatus so severely that it supports the civil strife that's happening resulting in an internal uprising. Any ground attack into Iran requires a big logistics tail, we're trying to reduce our footprint there.
|Go ahead punk, make my day|
A ground war is a non-starter. We've already fought 2 ground wars in Asia for nearly 20 years and accomplished pretty much nothing that we couldn't have done with aggressive SOF / Drone / Air Strike / other unconventional operations. Afghanistan should have remained SOF ops and Iraq was a complete mistake on our part.
I'm certainly not for isolationist America, I'm just done shoveling loads of cash and American blood for minimal result. Walk softly and carry a big stick.
|Frangas non Flectes|
I totally agree with this. It's not so much that we should just pull out entirely and leave a power vacuum, but we really shouldn't have any troops involved in this morass.
We can strike from the air just about with impunity and inflict serious damage on their ability to do much of anything. If they want to keep screwing around, we can, and should hit back harder. Time for their high level guys to start dying from ambushes they're powerless to stop, and unaware of until ordnance is turning them into burnt bolognese.
More Americans just killed at military base in Kenya
Light the fires and kick the tires, boys
Time for talking is over
"When you are going to shoot; shoot, don't talk ."
I generally agree with this. Same applies to South Korea and Japan as well. If the people and their governments don't want us to be there and more importantly, pay for us to be there to protect them, we should get out.
Our tax money is not for protection of others, especially when they are killing us in the process.
If the Russians or Chinese want to get into that mess, let them have at it. The Russians obviously couldn't handle it in Afghanistan. The Chinese are having real issues with Muslims in Western China.
If the Saudis and Qatar want us to keep our bases there for their own protection - that's ok because it enhances our quick strike capabilities significantly in the world's most volatile region. However in general, the use of the bases should be free or better yet - they pay us protection money. Otherwise, they put their oil production at risk, and that'd enhance our stature on the world's oil market even more.
Enough was enough. He was responsible for providing explosives, projectiles, and arms and other munitions that killed well over 600 American soldiers and many more of our coalition and Iraqi partners just in Iraq, as well as in many other countries such as Syria. So his death is of enormous significance.
The reasoning seems to be to show in the most significant way possible that the U.S. is just not going to allow the continued violence—the rocketing of our bases, the killing of an American contractor, the attacks on shipping, on unarmed drones—without a very significant response. I’m having a hell of good time watching Ben Rhodes melt down on Twitter. 0riginal 0buma butt boy. Damn Coward.This message has been edited. Last edited by: CQB60,
امّا شما مشخص خواهد شد كه با همه شما را ملاقات کنند
The Wall Street Journal opinion piece:
Easy Call: The Strike On Soleimani Was Lawful
By Alan M. Dershowtiz
While reasonable people can debate the wisdom of killing Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, there is little doubt that President Trump acted lawfully—under both domestic and international law—in ordering his death. The president has the constitutional authority to take military actions, short of declaring war, that he and his advisers deem necessary to protect American citizens. This authority is extremely broad, especially when the actions must, by their nature, be kept secret from the intended target.
Congress has the sole power to “declare war,” but it hasn’t formally exercised that power since World War II. Since then, the U.S. has fought long and costly wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
To be sure, there have been congressional votes, often vague and controversial, authorizing some military actions, while others were conducted without any congressional input. And there are serious scholarly debates about whether full-scale undeclared wars are constitutional. The courts have declined to resolve that question. But there can be no serious debate about the president’s constitutional authority to order a single attack on an enemy combatant who has killed and is planning to kill American citizens. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama issued such orders.
Critics of the order to kill Soleimani claim that this military action was different, because it could provoke a full-scale war if Iran decides to retaliate. They argue that Congress must authorize any military action that might result in an all-out war, declared or undeclared. But virtually any military action could escalate into a war, as evidenced by the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which started World War I.
The targeting of Soleimani was more justified, as a matter of law, than the targeting of Osama bin Laden in 2011. The killing of Soleimani was in large part an act of prevention, whereas the killing of bin Laden was primarily an act of retaliation. Would anyone doubt that if Mr. Clinton had succeeded in killing bin Laden before 9/11, as he tried to do, such an action would have been legal under American law? So, too, was it legal for Mr. Trump to order the targeted killing of Soleimani, who was planning to continue his killing spree against Americans.
The killing of Soleimani was also entirely legal under international law. The Quds Force commander was a combatant in uniform who was actively engaged in continuing military and terrorist activities against Americans. The rocket that killed him and a handful of others was carefully calibrated to minimize collateral damage, and the resulting death toll was proportionate to the deaths it may have prevented.
The killing took place in a foreign country, but so did the killing of bin Laden and others who have been targeted. U.S. military and civilian personnel are in Iraq with Baghdad’s approval and have the legal authority to protect Iraqi and American citizens and to neutralize threats to their lives. All the relevant criteria for legality under international law—using authorized and proportionate force to kill a combatant who is engaged in continuing violence—have all been met in this case.
Why then are so many accusing Mr. Trump of acting unlawfully under both domestic and international law? Would the same legal criticism be leveled at Mr. Clinton or Mr. Obama if he had successfully targeted Soleimani? Are the legitimate concerns about the wisdom of the action motivating the baseless criticism of its legality?
Whatever the motivations for trying to find or invent legal objections to the killing of Soleimani, such efforts are dangerous because they could constrain future presidents from taking military actions that are necessary and proper to protect Americans. Let’s continue to debate the wisdom and long-term implications of Mr. Trump’s decision, but let’s not conflate wisdom and policy with legality.
Mr. Dershowitz is a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of “Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo.”
“The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”
— Bertrand Russell
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 44|