| There are 39 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
|
|
Just like the aids, better to give than to receive!
|
|
|
I think there is a difference between actually starting a pre-emptive war, as we did in Iraq, and the tactic of threatening to use pre-emptive action. I mean, pre-emptively starting a war with a country to prevent, for example, terrorist actions is a relatively new phenomenon for the United States, begun by the Bush administration over Iraq. It didn't work out well due to the awful way that war was arrogantly run by that administration, particularly by not allowing ex-Ba'athists to have a role in the future of their country, which could have prevented the Sunni uprising terrorist attacks. On the other hand, the threat of pre-emptive action is a tactic we've been using for decades, most notably during the Cold War in the 1980's when the idea of a winnable nuclear war with a first strike by the United States, in conjunction with a military buildup of our nuclear weapons and the proposed Strategic Defense Initiative, led in part the Soviets to believe that they didn't have the resources to continue the arms race successfully, which, in turn, led to the extraordinary signing of multiple nuclear arms deals and the end of the Cold War.
I see its current use by the Trump administration as more of a tactic -- to threaten the use of attacks to prevent future incidents by Iran -- rather than a desire to start a full-scale war. Thus, I have no issue with the comment made by the Secretary of Defense.
|
|
|
Nuke 'em til they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark both pre-emptively and post-emptively!
Just kidding 
|
|
|
When it comes to Iran, pre-emptive action is 40+ years overdue. Whacking one of their top terrorists is a great way to start the year. Don't stop now.
|
|
|
In the civilized world we just assassinated a government official of iran and a pro Iranian Iraqi.
Its described as a preemptive strike.
The other way of looking at this is trump whacked 2 guys who had it coming. May they roast in hell.
Unfortunately iran is well connected with terrorists around the world. Has this been our destiny with iran.? War.. after all these years. Our history with iran makes this inevitable i guess. I'm assuming trump will be himself and make things worse. Please no more war.
|
|
|
rouhani should be next, then Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
threat contained, war over
|
|
|
Another disastrous unauthorized war in the Middle East. Have not we learned anything. ?????
Trump said he was out to end our endless wars. Now he is taking us close to another one. Insane.
|
|
|
We, the USA stands alone then. You realize where we started. A nuclear agreement that was not violated until trump backed out. Official lines of communication. It was little steps to build some kind of relationship. Thats gone. They've already said to expect retaliation. Nothing good will come from this. Again, dems were not told in advance. This is not how it's supposed to be. Trump is alone in this one.
|
|
|
It’s sad that people want to attack Donald Trump and make this a political talking point rather than laud the death of terrorist leader that kill Americans.
|
|
|
+1000 KnightRider
|
|
|
“If we get word of attacks, we will take pre-emptive action as well to protect American forces, protect American lives.The game has changed.” Mark Esper, US Secretary of Defense
What do you think of “pre-emptive strikes?”
Yes this needs to happen. Iran shot down a US drone, Iran bomb an Saudy pipeline, then Iran sent a couple of torpedoes into a oil tanker in the Gulf, Iran proxies invaded our US Embassy in Iraq.
Yes, it was time for a significant response from the USA. Was it enough? I doubt it.
A bully needs to be dealt with, if not, the attacks will continue. Do I want a War with Iran? Hell no.
|
|
|
I’m not sure I would call killing Soleimani pre-emotive. It seems this was retaliatory.
I am talking about pre-emotive as a change in policy.
If my neighbor has been threatening me... and he even killed another neighbor.... and I see him in the back yard loading his guns... should I shoot him over the fence.
I know it may seem I am being critical of pre-emptive strikes... I am not. I am just trying to ferret out my own position. A lot to think about.
I just don’t want to be knee-jerk. Yeah! MERICA! Or “Boooo! War monger in imperialists!
Like him or hate him... being President is a hard job.
|
|
|
I should have said “just pre-emptive “
They obviously killed him with at least one eye on the future.
|
|
|
being pres is tough....dude is making some tough decisions
|
|
|
Preemptive, retaliatory, or on the terror list for over a decade, matters not, at least he’s gone
Iran may try and talk shit, but they do know they can’t win in the end
|
|
|
We should have a ceremonial HX terrorist blogger list.
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the USA and Iran are in what psychiatrists call "a negative feedback cycle."
Each adds to the enmity of the other by frequent, repeated hostile exchanges.
How far back do you want to go to understand this?
In 1953 the USA engineered the murder of lawfully elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mossaddegh, in a take-over coup by the CIA and the UK's MI6. This was done -- why else? -- because of oil. Mossaddegh had decided to nationalize it's oil production.
The west decided it wasn't having it.
Kermit Roosevelt actually BRAGGED that it cost only $100,000 dollars to overthrow Mossaddegh and install Reza Pahlavi -- the subsequent Shah of Iran.
There are long memories there, just as there are here. There are legitimate ancient grievances there, and on our side, too, once the Ayatollah took over.
It's great that we eliminated one of the chief agents of their long history of state-sponsored terrorism.
But it would be naive to think it will end there.
|
|
|
^Loki has presented the most thoughtful, well-reasoned description of these circumstances.
|
|
|
Iranian’s have “looong memories”, as the expression goes. This will play out into the next generation.
|
|
|
This is all above my pay grade, it don't matter what I think.
I do remember in 1970 when I was stationed at Georgia AFB in Victorville we were training Iranian pilots to fly F4 Phantoms. I remember them having lots of accidents.
|
|
|
I have to concur with Loki’s comment. The general was a national hero and #2 in the decision making of the security forces.
1 - This guy was their James Matthis/Gen. MacArthur. People loved him. Even if the government does nothing there will be brash elements that will want revenge on their own terms.
2 - Suliemani was a respected and disciplined soldier/war dog who kept people in line. Those who will vie for the reigns of power that no longer held by him will cause a blood bath.
|
|
|
In Trump's speech to today while talking about the airstrike he mentioned more than once
"We have the best intelligence in the world".
Well that must be only when that intelligence is in line with Trumps bullshit and as long as that intelligence never implicates Putin or Russia in anything
|
|
|
You know that is true Dude.
He sometimes thinks our intelligence apparatus is biased and full of shit. Sometimes he is right.
The one thing you can know about the US government... you can never believe everything every time.
|
|
|
^^^
Not sure why you’re equating Trump with “Merica”. Not a mathematician but I recall a lot more
Americans voted against him that for him. And last I checked a majority wanted him impeached and removed from office.
That being said, from everything I read, that guy was bad news and had it coming. I am not going to condone the deliberate killing of anyone (Thou shall not kill-remember that one?). But I comprehend that government leaders have to make those tough decisions. I will not second guess but there will be consequences.
However, I will mention hypocrisy. Now all of the sudden the intelligence community is great and no longer “deep state”. Second, 45, on multiple occasions predicted that 44 would start a war with Iran to either get re-elected or to change the current conversation. Ironic, isn’t it?
|
|
|
'Mericans?' Hey where's that Arabian princess anyways?
|
|
|
Gene... I think your stat is wrong concerning impeachment. 54% were in favor of Congress holding the hearings concerning impeachment.
Since the conclusion of the hearings the number in support of impeachment peaked at 48% and has been going down.
And... the 3 million votes Hilary won by were from California. Without CA... she lost. But... that’s not fair... because California counts... so she did win the popular vote.
But once again... she could count to 66 million... but couldn’t count to the only number that mattered... 270.
|
|
|
Here you go...
|
|
|
Oops... those numbers were updated today.
|
|
|
Hmm KS, it's like saying without Texas, Trump wouldn't have won.
One American, one vote right? It doesn't matter from CA or any other place. It counts the same.
The point I'm trying to make was this guy seems to imply that Trump's opinion (and by extension his I suppose) is also America's, opinion. I am simply pointing out that's not the case. In fact, there are more against him than for him.
270 is beyond the scope of my statement. I am not disputing that he's president. I am just not certain I would equate his opinion to that of the majority of Americans for what it's worth.
To your question about the pre-emptive striking, I struggle with that one. Ironically I was just watching a movie with Tom Cruise "Minority Report". Have you seen that one? The ethical dilemma is pertinent here.
|
|
|
Points well taken SixD (to be fair though, Trump himself didn't think he'd win. That's pretty well documented).
Fundamentally, I do believe Trump is unfit for the office of the presidency but I do respect your rights (as a "Merican") to support him.
|
|
|
Democrats aren't worried about Trump's popularity growing with military action because anyone but a Trump supporter can see his bullshit. Dem just want to get to the election in November before this asshole starts World War III
|
|
|
"action because anyone but a Trump supporter can see his bullshit"
Not true. I didn't vote for him. I may not vote for him in November, although I'm leaning that way now due to all the illogical hate people have for him. All the anti-Trump crowd sees is bad, bad, bad. That's bullshit. His moves in Iran may end up being the right moves. But the anti-Trump crowd will never be able to see or admit that.
|
|
|
Gene, losing Texas wouldn’t have been enough.... but... if you read my previous post carefully... I agreed with you. California counts. My point was California was the margin in the popular vote total.
What about you “majority wanted him impeached and removed from office” comment.
538 is a reputable pollster... that traditionally leans left. They are no fan of the President. They laughed at his candidacy in 2015 and only gave him 29% chance of winning in November of 16. (Most other pollsters only gave him 15% chance) Although they were one of the only ones to raise the possibility of Trump winning the electoral College and losing the popular vote.
But the only thing those numbers prove is Polls really can’t be trusted. As in 2016, I think there is a large number of Trump voters who do not openly express their preference because of the way they are hassled by Trump haters.
But... polls are all we really have in between elections... so they are worth considering... with a grain of salt.
Do you have a reputable poll that has 51+% of Dems/Repubs and Independents wanting the president impeached/removed from office?
|
|
|
I do think Americans are tired of these endless wars and any real escalation would hurt Trump. No more rally round the flag boys. It just embroils us deeper into the quagmire, despite anyones intentions or patriotism. Americans do not really get to debate these wars as our reps in congress have no say so in whether escalation is in our interest or not. It used to be that an act of war had to be declared first by Congress but the growing power of the presidency has overridden the Constitution. We have been striking back and surging forever and it only destabilizes the situation.
|
|
|
Apologies KS. You indeed made that point.
Hmm I am on my phone and can't look up a specific poll for you, but you may recall a poll from Fox news even that said as much. I recall watching a show of Fox News and the anchors were really perplexed about those polls. Actually Trump was pretty pissed off about it.
"In each Fox News poll from October to now, between 49% and 51% of voters said they favored impeaching and removing Trump from office. The same polls put the opposition between 43% and 46%."
That's a couple of lines from an article I was reading earlier today. But's that really immaterial. The Senate will not vote to remove unless some additional incriminating evidence comes out or if the public sentiment shifts by 10% or higher. If we start getting 60% for removal in the polls, then you might see some senators defect. Recall. after impeachment, only 35% were for the removal of Nixon. Things changed quickly with new information.
We're seeing a drip-drip of information coming out. Some more relevant than others, but none are flattering for Trump. I suspect Bolton/Mulvaney/Pompeo would have a lot to stay.
|
|
|
Donald Trump showed restraint, then resolve, in killing of Iran's Qassem Soleimani
|
|
|
^ Stop Trippin...........please! ^
|
|
|
Read the column, written by someone who knows infinitely more about than you (or me for that matter), and learn about the situation, instead of staying in your hate-Trump zone.
|
|
|
James S. Robbins (((((Opinion columnist)))))
.........thats his opinion
|
| There are 39 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
