So, from what I am seeing from every t.v. screen in every airport bar and in every nail salon, propagated by the Leftist Network News, is that Trump has basically kicked the bad guy regime in the knee and he has really made them mad now! Does that about sum it up? Could the same be said about the bad guys in D.C., has he kicked them in the knee and made them mad too?
If we are going to compare destructive bad guys to the knee kicker, I say hear, hear, three points!
We'll see how this works out for Little Donnie. Perhaps wagging the dog will cause him more problems than just getting fleas.
It had to be done Randy. If there had been inaction on his part, you all would be giving him grief for that.
Like in Saudi Arabia? Trump sold them weapons after they murdered an American resident. Trump sure showed them.
Would you have taken this guy out of the picture if it was your choice Randy?
President Donald Trump has proven more than one time he will defend Americans and American interests. This was a bad, bad man who is responsible for deaths of many Americans. We can only benefit from him being in charge.
How can you find fault with this comment Randy?
What does that mean, “hopefully not for long”?
The comment is about defending Americans and American interest and your response is, hopefully not for long?
Hopefully, Trump won't be in charge for long. Understand Now?
Yes, you don’t want him working for Americans and American interest. Got It!
It has been interesting, watching this thread. On the one hand are those that hate Trump and, automatically, everything he does. Their reaction is instructive: "Trump has done it again! THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! THERE WILL BE WAR!" This has come from the same folks that have for months attacked Trump and anything he says or does.
On the other hand there are the rest of us: "President Trump has taken out another major terrorist figure, in accordance with US stated policy of doing so wherever they are found. Good-O Mr. President - you have made the world a safer place! Now, go do it again."
Yep the Trump haters are arguing with the Obama and Clinton haters, is that correct, Dan? Do you feel okay as being labeled a hater yourself?
Oh, I don't hate her - she is the epitome of evil, but that is not a reason to be consumed with hatred. You will disagree, of course, but that is your privilege.
No, but you do hate her and Obama. You have just as much evidence I hate Trump as I do for your hatred of Obama.
I hear this "hatred bullshit" thrown around all the time on Fox, but most of us dislike Trump because he's an arrogant, lying, conman who has no business in the Oval Office.
Now, dispense with the hatred crap and think up a realistic reason to defend the cretin.
Oh, you have your reasons for hating the man. No argument there.
But to pretend it is only "dislike" rather than "hate" is absurd. "Dislike" does not produce daily tantrums and public rants. Something far stronger is required for such activity.
Aren't you the guy who says you can't know what's in another person's mind? Do you only use that when it's convenient? You're saying you know Randy hates Trump because of how he behaves in an internet forum, yet will claim mental health professionals cannot possibly conclude Trump is mentally ill using years of video and other evidence. You also don't believe those who testified under oath that Trump wanted Biden investigated for his own personal gain because they can't possibly know Trump's motivation despite plenty of evidence illuminating that motive.
I don't hate Trump and I don't believe Randy does, either, but you are apparently a mind reader when it suits you.
Do you disagree? Do you believe a person with 10-50 rants, vile names, constant demonization and lies about another person "dislikes" them? Or "hates" them?
Or perhaps it's merely semantics here - is one simply an extension of the other? Perhaps your "dislike" is an emotion so black and vile that most people would use the word "hate" instead. Shudder to think what your "hate" is - burn them alive at the stake, perhaps, after days of torture.
Lol, this is just your usual wild misrepresentation of those you don't agree with.
You sound like Trump.
But since you now proclaim it acceptable to tel other people you know their minds better than they do, I gather you'll also accept multiple sworn testimonies about Trump's motivation in the Ukraine matter.
He won't though, Sandy. He's in too deep to admit Trump has abused his power and obstructed congress in the bargain.
No, I proclaim it acceptable to explain what words mean. Words such as "dislike" and "hate", where one is used primarily to give a false impression about the depth of feeling. I DID say it was a semantics question, not one of thought or feelings - did you understand that? How the word is being misused to give a false impression?
Again, what is your reason for hating Obama, Dan? I'm sorry to inform you, but haven't been elected the decider of who hates whom. No matter how badly you want to be.
As I stated, I pity the cretin rather than hate him, as well as his adherents.
Trump is a sad, pathetic man. Have you ever seen an expression of joy or love on his face? He is a miserable person, a man to be pitied.
His supporters bother me more than Trump. He is mentally ill. What is their excuse?
Pretty Panther, you completely dismiss Randy’s meltdown rant, proceed to call Wilderness out with, “you proclaim its acceptable to tell people you know their minds better than they do”.
Then as if you have that power, you are instantly in Trump’s head, telling us he is miserable, to be pitied, sad, mentally ill. You don’t stop there, you have to get in one more jab against his supporters...such as me, with a “what is their excuse”, as if as bad as Trump is (in your words).....we are so much worse and we “bother you more”.
Plan to be bothered for a long time. He will win again in 2020, by a wider margin, because people have had their fill of the garbage being fed to us through MSM and of people like you, who have bought the whole Hillary “deplorable” speech, without knowing or caring to know anything about us; the backbone of this Nation, the heart of this Country, Mom and Pop businesses, fed up with being overtaxed, over regulated, forced to accept p.c. nonsense everyday Americans that sought a different path. That path included an outsider, Donald Trump, and we are daring to give him a chance.
It would be nice if you would join us.
Obama told us we “needed to accept terrorism coming to a city near us”, Trump is attempting to go after them before they can!
That’s a no-brainer for most of us.
Guilty as charged. I have been consistent about Trump from the beginning. One cannot say the same about those who used to tout conservative values but now support and defend a lying, mentally ill con man of such low character that I wouldn't trust him with my dog.
History will reveal the truth in the end and it won't be pretty for Trump and his enablers.
As with him, you refuse to give my words a chance.
Sorry, I am not interested in joining your club. When Trump was elected, I told my husband maybe we are wrong about him and he will be the guy who is beholden to neither party and makes changes for the good. First thing he did was embezzle inauguration funds.
Nope, not my kind of club. Glad you've found your niche, though.
"It would be nice if you would join us. "
You asked me to join your group, as though it is a club or something.
I ignored your "backbone of America" characterization of Trump supporters, but you probably can surmise I don't buy into that. Does the "backbone America" really admire a guy who disses American hero John McCain and professes love for dictator Kim Jong Un?
I meant, joining us in giving an outsider a shot, at this President thing.
P.S. I have a friend that was in Vietnam and the men that were actually there, do not describe McCain as a hero. But, that’s neither here nor there.
My husband did three tours in Viet Nam and he left the Republican party because of Trump. Yeah, it's really great to admire a guy who avoided service because of bone spurs over a guy who risked his life.
Its fascinating what Trump enablers will defend.
Yes, I know. You pity him...while calling him every vile name you can think of, while proclaiming him to be an idiot and worse, while telling the world, multiple times per day, how evil he is. These are the marks of simple dislike....at least if one is spinning the truth into something it isn't.
Yes, it's different from accusing Hillary and Bill of being murderers and running a prostitution ring out of a pizza shop. Accusing Hillary of single handedly selling uranium to Russia as well.
I've never thought of Trump as evil because he's not bright enough to get away with anything evil, as shown in his Ukraine "drug deal" fiasco, Trump University, and the Now kaput Trump Foundation.
How can one hate a buffoon?
Trump is deliberately sewing discord among US citizens. He is the President and there's NO excuse for his behavior, which absolutely does affect our nation and who we are as a people. I try not to hate his followers as this is what he wants. I probably do hate him though, even though he is a buffoon. Just like so many Trumpers hate Hillary and, at this point, ANYONE who doesn't like Trump. It's sad.
We keep hearing, they don’t hate Trump, so then what is it?
As you stated, “they’ve attacked him for everything he says or does.”
A comment, such as, “he’s protecting America and American interest” can’t even be accepted, without an argument, along with a condescending jab!
Trump’s supporters have been called every name in the book...because this group can’t understand why we don’t hate him, as they do, but don’t dare say they hate him!!! It’s just crazy.
Keep up the good work Mr. President! It’s good to know, you have our back.
Agreed Mike. We are benefiting and will be for years to come, because we put the right person in office.
How would you react when Iran killed the military leader of the US in peacetime.
This is an act of war, started by the US. Of course, it's a part of the plan to get Trump re-elected.
War is the best strategy for a sitting president to get re-elected.
In other words, it's nothing but an election stunt.
Peter, Soleimani is (was) a terrorist. He was the target, a precise target and now...he is a dead terrorist, it is a good thing!
Trump will be re-elected, because overall he is doing a great job, he doesn’t need “stunts”
According to who was Soleimani a terrorist? He was a general of the state of Iran.
What is your definition of a terrorist?
Iran and the US aren't in a war, so in my view killing a foreign military leader is an act of war.
There is a difference between let's say Osama bin Laden who was a leader of a group, not officially supported by a state. Or an official person working in the military of a state.
Soleimani was not a terrorist but a political figure working for a government.
In what capacity was he working for a government? That's what you should be asking yourself and curious about.
There has been enough information shared on this thread as to what this man was engaging in and capable of. I'd suggest you scroll through, Peter.
The same can be said about the United States who can also be accused of state terrorism and torture.
If you look at it objectively the US has killed more people during wars and terror attacks then Iran.
But if we stop accusing countries from terrorism then the simple fact remains that the US killed an official military person working for a government. In any circumstances, this is an act of war.
Or as Rambo would put it. They (the US) did first blood. Iran could take revenge. Something Trump desperately wants, as Trump is asking for an excuse to start a war.
Do you want another war in the Middle East? And for what?
Like the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq.
Is it worth it?
So you aren’t curious, you’ll not ask yourself the question posed? You’ll not scroll through to find out more about him?
Your automatic knee-jerk response is to condemn the U.S., all while making Soleimani out to be some innocent “political figure”, taken out so we can go to war?
"According to who was Soleimani a terrorist?"
Intelligence service and military of the US, as well as those of other foreign countries.
Your view may be that killing a terrorist, one that has been given a titlein a foreign military, is an act of war because of the title but most of the world will disagree with you. Being a part of a recognized government does NOT preclude that government, or it's people, from engaging in terrorist activities. The definition of terrorism does NOT include "terrorist shall not be affiliated with any government".
What I wanted to say Wilderness is that the label terrorist is very subjective. According to the Iranian government, he was a respectable military man who has done great service to his country.
So if you label Soleimani as a terrorist you are talking about state terrorism. And without any doubt, the US is also guilty of state terrorism.
The US has killed thousands of innocent people during the wars they have fought in foreign countries. Iran too, without a doubt.
I'm probably just saying. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone
“According to the Iranian government, Soleimani was a respectable military
Seriously Peter, this is your argument?
Do you know anything about Iran?
Anything about Soleimani?
Oh that’s right, I had suggested you scroll through for a crash course, but you chose not to.
Instead you choose to double down on condemnation of the U.S.
Yes - one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.
Perhaps one method of choosing which is closer to the truth is to look at what label other countries apply? One calls him a general (officially - the citizens apparently don't care for that so much), the rest of the world uses the label "terrorist". Which do think gives a truer picture?
Have any of our Military leaders ever murders his own people, have they planned and executed to many to count terrorist attacks? Do you have any idea of how many people this man has killed, many Americans?
I am surprised by your analogy. his thought process is hard to understand. but you are not alone, so take heart...
Trump does not need a war to get reelected, but I guess it's as good as you can come up with. It's better than Russia - Russia - Russia.
What's an election stunt is the impeachment. It's laughable.
The US has killed thousands of innocent people during the wars it fought on foreign soil. The US tortures and has committed many war crimes. The US definitely is not a peaceful country and innocent.
Iran too is not a peaceful country and there is a lot to be said about human rights. But this does not give the US the right to kill an official general of the military during peace time. Or anybody for that matter.
Gee, guess what? When you fight a war civilians die. Now, show me a war where NO civilians died. Waiting.
The United States has also freed thousands of people throughout the world from dictators and despots.
The United States does what it has to do to protect its interests and its people. If you have troops or civilians that could be saved, not killed and the only way to get the information to prevent this is by using torture, I say use torture. You step onto a battlefield all bets are off. It is then only a goal of survival and victory.
The United States has every right to kill off any general of any country that poses a treat to the United States, its interests and its allies. Any general, any officer, any enlisted or any upright walking individual who poses a threat will need to be neutralized. It's just that simple. The best way to avoid this is to not pose a threat. Then you won't have a problem.
I say anyone in Europe or anywhere else who doesn't like this has to realize they are the ones with the problem and not the United States. Guess what? They're the same as the United States and will do what is necessary to protect their people and interests. The United States just does it better.
So , Mike, you actually believe the bullsh@t about America as liberators.
America's intervention in the affairs of others particularly since WWII has been primarily for its economic and strategic political self interest, so, you can stop all of the flag waving.
So, what it is that you give America permission to do in the cause of war, that others do not have the right to do also? I don't believe in all that American exceptionalism rubbish.
So, we have the right to dispense with the prominent government officials in North Korea, Russia, China because the Rightwinger imagines them as a threat to American interests and her Allies? Since when do American interests become the prime standard to be applied to the rest of the world?
So, everybody has to kiss America's a$$ or face imminent annihilation? Do you know what you are saying? The kind of endless belligerency you express is why the planet remains on the brink.
What you consider our interests is nothing than another form of imperialism, and that may be what you consider part and parcel of your America, but it is certainly not mine.
Like I said in my opening, Mike, your perspective here is outrageous bullsh@t, and you know what? It's bad for you.
"But this does not give the US the right to kill an official general of the military during peace time."
Ummm I haven't read where he was killed because Iran is not peaceful - rather, the reports I've seen is that he was killed because he has repeatedly attacked American businesses and embassies, because he has repeatedly killed American citizens.
Is responding to an attack a reason to kill? Should England have turned the other cheek when Hitler sent the bombers across the channel?
No Iran is not a peaceful country and I will not defend their way of governing or the way they handle human rights.
But they are not at war with the US. And killing a top military general, second in command of the leader of Iran is an act of war.
There were tensions between the two countries. starting with the US withdrawing from the nuclear pact. But nothing that could have been solved with negotiations and talks.
If the US starts killing every top diplomat or general they don't like it will be very bad for diplomatic relationships and business.
Killing innocent Americans, attacking American businesses and embassies is not "at war with the US"? What would it take to BE at war? The death of half a million?
"But nothing that could have been solved with negotiations and talks."
Although I suspect there is a typo and you don't mean what was said here, it is correct. There is little to nothing (concerning the acts of this terrorist general) that could have been solved with negotiations. Iran does not negotiate in good faith in anything they do - there is zero reason to think they would reign in their rogue general.
If "top diplomats or generals" deteriorate into general terrorism, if they wantonly attack American interests with violence, then as far as I'm concerned we should remove them from the scene, and if that is "very bad for diplomatic relationships", well, it was already very bad. Any country that condones, or even allows, such actions isn't going to have useful diplomatic relationships anyway.
Although for a long time, the relation between Iran and the US hasn't been good. The recent troubles started when Trump walked out of the nuclear deal. The protests against the Embassy in Iraq, the killing of a contractor could have been avoided if the US had taken a more moderate approach. The murder on Soleimani will only raise the tension in the area.
Soleimani was only seen as a terrorist by two countries. Canada and the US. The rest of the world did not mark the Quds Force as a terrorist organization.
timeline tensions Iran - US
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/ … 34464.html
Do you really think Aljazzeera is anything less that a Muslim Terrorist tool? Seriously? If this is your source for information, you have no true source of information. This is the CNN of the Arab world.
Aljazeera is a pretty good newspaper. Why do you think Qatar is boycotted by most of the Arab countries? Simply because it has a highly independent and critical newspaper.
Have you read the article. Or are you simply afraid of the foreign-sounding word Al Jazeera...
I've read it and it is NOT a reliable source of unbiased information. It is a pro-Muslim info rag and nothing more.
Bias is a very popular word nowadays....
I think its pretty healthy to read news from different “bias” news sources..
Sure Al Jazeera has a different point of view towards the world then the western one. But I think its quite good to step out of that western mindset and look at the world from a different perspective.
That is a good point Peterstreep. I can enthusiastically endorse it.
How can one recognize bias if they don't have something to compare it to? Your point is even more important because you are speaking to different cultural perspectives, not just different spins of a point.
You mean when he walked away from a deal that Iran had no intentions of honoring.....ever!?!
You share Aljazeera News and their obvious bias, all while throwing the U.S. under the bus and then accuse us , the U.S. of making them that way!
The garbage being served up by MSM is obviously worse than I initially thought, there’s something very toxic in it, walk away, quickly!
So true Sharlee, the stunt of all stunts is being perpetrated by the left. But, it’s all they have, stunts and excuses, no substance whatsoever.
This was just shared with me:
https://aclj.org/national-security/what … ll4w8eL4k/
All I see here is people who don't know anything about Iran or the Middle East regurgitating what they heard on Fox News.
Here is what we know from both sides of the aisle: Iran is a nation that promotes terrorism. This "general" was a bad actor responsible for considerable bad acts. Nobody should shed a tear for his death.
Can we all agree on that?
Here are some questions that need answering: is it U.S. policy to assassinate whomever it wants whenever it wants? What were the so-called "plans" this guy had that prompted his killing? Did the Trump administration consider the repercussions of this act because the Middle East is a powder keg and there are lots of bad actors out there?
And btw, we will be hearing lots about the 1973 War Powers act. Technically, it's a law that says the President needs to consult Congress before going to war and is always trotted out by whatever politicians haven't been informed about some military action. It's used by both the left and right all the time and it's disregarded by both sides equally. Nobody should bring it up.
The bottom line is that we have little idea what the result of this action will be. Could it send a clear message to Iran that we're not going to let them terrorize the world anymore? Could it be that it starts World War 3? Could it be that it makes the Middle East better or worse? Could it be that it saves American lives or causes more Americans to be killed?
I can't predict the future and don't know. Neither do any of you.
"The bottom line is that we have little idea what the result of this action will be."
This is exactly my position, with the added thought that I hope Trump and his advisors carefully considered the.long-term consequences of this action. Bush made a grave mistake invading Iraq and there were plenty of advisors who warned him against it. They turned out to be right. I sincerely hope Trump made the right decision, but only time will tell.
"As long as I am President of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Good Morning....."
This is why I've avoided Trump rallies. Crazy!!!
https://www.facebook.com/153080620724/p … 286985725/
DiBlasio seems put out by it all, as if vigilance is suddenly something brand new for him to have to deal with. Seriously?
Iraqi citizens dance in the streets after US air strike kills Iranian terrorist leader Soleimani
I am not at war with Iran, this may well have been a unnecesarily
provocative and excessive move.
I don't give a rats a$$ about Israel, particularly under Netenyahu's influence, or Iran as a manufactured threat. By attacking so prominent an Iranian, we are taking on an act of war but again that is what the conservervative interventionists want.
Are we really prepared for Iranian reprisals? Maybe Trump could take his portly a$$ over there and lead the charge?
Are there "prominent" terrorists?
No one wants war, but the attack on our embassy and the killing of a contractor could not be ignored. What was done, was necessary. Message sent, message received.
Yep, Trump did the same when MSB hacked to pieces an American resident and journalist, right?
I understand,but Trump has been provocative toward Iran since he reversed the successful negotiations during the Obama administration.
I don't consider Iran in the same catagory as Al Quida or the Taliban. Iran is an American adversary, but we have other adversaries.
Yes and hopefully Trump continues to reverse Obama’s negotiations, which were harmful to Americans and were anything but successful. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could that ‘cash’ negotiation...back?
Do you mean we should have kept Iran's money? If so, the world court would have something to say about that. Of course, Trump doesn't have much respect for the courts either.
HOW were Obama's negotiations harmful? You don't have one iota of information about such things that aren't taken directly from Fox News. Provide any first-hand knowledge you have about this.
Guess what? You don't have any. You don't know a single thing about his negotiations or what they did or didn't do. By all accounts, Iran was complying with the nuclear deal.
Do you have "first hand knowledge" that they weren't? Please provide.
I provided it. Inspectors and the many, many people who went into Iran and confirmed that they were complying with the terms of the agreement.
There you go. So what knowledge do you have outside of Fox News opinions that those negotiations were harmful?
Here's a link for you:
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-04 … clear-deal
What you have clearly stated is that Iran wasn't going to abide by the terms. How do you know that? What evidence was presented to you or that you saw that supports this claim?
You don't, right? Because that's what the right-wing does. When there's overwhelming evidence of something, like climate change or the Sandy Hook shooting, up pops some right-winger to tell us all it's a hoax. It's a hoax because I don't like the politics of it. It must be a hoax. Somebody is making it up. If Sandy Hook creates an environment where people want gun control, it must mean it was a hoax.
So, Iran complying with a deal must be a hoax. The IAEA is some left-wing organization that just makes crap up.
That's all the proof you need.
Did you have the same thought when Bin Laden was killed? Did you think it was a mistake because of his prominence or the possible reprisals?
This is especially frustrating to see the responses in this thread that are criticizing Pres. Trump for taking out an important terror group leader—just because they are anti-Trump.
There doesn't seem to be much contradiction in the news reports about this man's role in many American deaths. It seems it is acknowledged, even by the anti-Trumpers, that this guy had American blood on his hands, but, because it was Pres. Trump that did it, it is now a bad thing.
Geesh, 'et tu, Brute'?
"psst. the killing of Soleimani is the topic"
Well, look who popped in. Glad you were paying attention.
Off Topic...Island Bites I hope you were not adversely affected by the earth quakes in PR. I hope everything is okay with you and your family.
Thank you, Mike. Fortunately, we are. There's been a lot of damage, specially in the South. (We are in the north of the Island.) But it is still shaking a lot. Experts say it will take a while to get back to "normal". So everybody is on edge and scared.
Again, thank you.
I am sending thoughts too for comfort and peace of mind for all affected.
I'm glad. My friend who lives there lost his house, but everyone in his family is okay. I was in an earthquake in California and it is a scary experience.
Glad you are okay.
GA, this had been frustrating for me since the getgo.
The gift that keeps on giving, Rep. Al Green, recently fessed up to the fact that they've been working to impeach Trump since before the inauguration (of course this wasn't any Earth shattering news to most of us) They hate him more, resent him more, wish him taken out more, than they do a murderous Iranian terrorist!
No, because with 9-11 a state of war existed between Al Quida and the United States. Taking out Bin Laden, was at least as significant as bringing down Yamamoto during World War II.
Have we really proven that Iran is a terrorist state or just an American adversary? If I were Iran, I wouldn't play ball with the US either.
This attack may cause more problems than it solves in the region and we cannot overlook that. And, as many journalists indicate, it may well be a saber rattling ploy to distract folks from his domestic problems.
Iran is a nation, Al Quida is a terrorist faction.
But like you say, there may be reason to believe that he deserved his fate, if he were really the instigator of attacks on Americans.
I just say, since Trump deep sixed the diplomatic approach heralded by Obama, he has had a had a chip on his shoulder toward Iran to the point that this kind of confrontation was inevitable.
I am too old to be conscripted, may heaven help the younger folks in the face of Trump' s belligerent tendencies.
"Iran is a nation, Al Quida is a terrorist faction."
This distinction is worrying me. I have to look into his QUDS forces some more. If the Qud was just another branch of Iran's military, then I think your statement might be a consideration. But, if Qud is just a military overlord of a network of terrorist organizations then it may fall closer to an Al Quida classification than a military branch one.
After Randy's quip about General Petreaus, I am not confident I am on firm ground, so I will get back to you. Keep your powder dry.
That didn't take long Cred. After about an hour of chasing links, I feel comfortable with Salami's designation as a terrorist leader, regardless of his 'official' station as a government's military leader.
Iran has been designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism for decades and in 2007 the U.S. designated the Quds force as a terrorist organization. Canada did the same in 2012, as well as did Egypt and several other nations.
Since Quds seems officially recognized by so many as a terrorist organization, I won't give Salamani cover just because he is an "official" government military leader. He was a terrorist leader.
It seems that most of the criticisms of Pres. Trump's action are related not to the question of whether he was a terrorist leader but to the possible repercussions of his killing.
Is the fear of repercussions now the deciding factor for these types of actions? I hope not.
I did find this quote from Gen. Petraeus about this action:
Petraeus Says Trump May Have Helped ‘Reestablish Deterrence’ by Killing Suleimani
" It is impossible to overstate the importance of this particular action. It is more significant than the killing of Osama bin Laden or even the death of [Islamic State leader Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi. Suleimani was the architect and operational commander of the Iranian effort to solidify control of the so-called Shia crescent, stretching from Iran to Iraq through Syria into southern Lebanon. He is 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."
*(you can read the rest in the link I gave to Randy)
So I am feeling more confident about my original thoughts now. I should have had this look-around first, but at least, even though I jumped the gun on this one, I don't feel like my thoughts were wrong.
So the attack on Soleimani just as well be the equivalent of an attack on Rouhani and Iran, itself. So, we have to say that the current administration sees Iran as a nation complicit as actors in the anti-American terrorism in the region. It is war on Iran in every way outside of formal declaration.
So, why not let loose the dogs of war, as we know that was what Trump has been pining for from the beginning?
Multiple reliable sources indicate that Iraq is not able to compete with the United States militarily but will impose "death to America" through a thousand cuts.
So, we get into guerrilla warfare much like the sort that wore us down in Southeast Asia, 50 years ago.
Meanwhile, as a wounded animal, attacks on America facilities and interests throughout the regime will increase, even if they remain surreptitious as to the direct source. Israel will be in the crosshairs as well.
I would not want to be anywhere near that part of the world with our standard flying in plain view.
Trump, being the dolt that he is, thought that it would be easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission, such as having the courtesy to inform congress regarding a planned assault of this magnitude and to consider the fallout that must follow.
With all this in view, the idea of the standard rightwinger of simply destroying Iran in a conventional war may well be less problematic.
Trump has been less hawkish and more averse to armed conflict than any recent president. Do you just make this stuff up (your comment about him pining for it) or are you so bias that you can't see that?
If he is less hawkish, he has a hell of way of showing it. Instead of going with diplomatic negotiation to control Iran's nuclear ambitions in exchange for reducing sanctions that was initiated by Obama and approved by the U.S and European allies, Trump drops out of the agreement unilaterally and expected Iran to behave with the restraint that was associated with the previous negotiations.
Why should they, Trump's moves were not those of a peacemaker.
Remove your red tinted blinders and you will be able to see that he was goading Iran into having to act.
I didn't support the outcome of Obama's negotiations so I did support Trump's actions to negate it.
That wasn't hawkish. That was moving in a different direction.
Well, I disagree with your opinion and see it as no more a rational explanation for what occurred than my own perspective.
If you remember one of Trump's promises was to negate that deal. It didn't come out of the blue. A large segment of the population was not happy with it.
I am part of that "large segment". Bringing Iran into the tent with something to gain by joining the ranks of responsible nations, rather than remain the pariah is the more desirable course?
Why negate the deal? There was NO indication that Iran was reneging on its side of the agreement.
Our European allies were shocked at Trump's action without any real reason except for his distrust of Iran which was not substantiated.
Expecting Iran to change it's ways is naive. You can make any statement you like but the likelihood of Iran being any different than it has been is laughable. They weren't even attempting to pretend they were abiding by the Obama deal.
It's like North Korea. I'm certain Trump didn't expect him to act differently than he had in the past but he gave it a shot. The difference between him and Obama is he didn't fly pallets of cash over and he didn't commit to a deal that an fool knew North Korea wouldn't abide by.
Oh well. it was worth a shot. Hang in there bud, time will judge this action.
The Quds Force was only seen by Canada and the US as a terrorist organization. It wasn't acknowledged worldwide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d … ist_groups
Another interesting read I found was the timeline of the build-up of the tension between the US and Iran.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/ … 34464.html
Hi Peterstreep, I understand that Quds hasn't been declared a terrorist organization worldwide, but other countries. besides the U.S. and Canada think it is.
Egypt thinks so, it included Quds in its list of terrorist organizations sent to the U.N. Since Quds is a branch of the IRCG, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain also think it is.
Your timeline link was interesting. It clearly showed escalations by both sides. However, it does seem, (from the link), that the armed force-type escalations were firstly and primarily Iran's.
Back when the QUDs (IRGC) were first designated as a terrorist group by Bush (if memory serves)...it was designated so by most of the US Allies...
But, it was most recently re-designated as a terrorist group by the current administration April 15th, 2019
Some interesting reading from the state department:
https://www.state.gov/designation-of-th … ard-corps/
Thanks GA. Yes it looks that way ( the armed force attacks) It's all very dodgy. And to be honest I never know who to believe in situations like this.
I just hope that it won't escalate any further.
Personally I don't think it will become as far as war. Iran is a completely different story then Iraq at the time. Iran has a highly organized and weaponized army.
And what if after lots of bloody battles and body bags the US "wins" the war. The US forces won't be seen as liberators by the people, but a foreign occupying state. This was different from the removal of Sadam.
So I guess, the chess game of dirty tricks on both sides will continue.
Not a good thing for the neighboring countries.
The QUD (IRGC) forces have already been classified as a Terrorist group.
In the Navy we had interactions with them all the time...they made runs at our ships constantly. They target our ships with missile sites, "wolf packs", and other weapons and we just prepare to respond if needed, and do what we can to defuse or de-escalate, but they continue to push the line in an attempt to elicit a response.
In the Navy we recognized two different Naval groups when it comes to Iran...The IRGC forces and Iran's State Navy (IRC or NEDAJA). One we treated as extremely hostile possible by responding in self defense up to the point of training weapons or actual weapons release if required and the other we treated as typical non-ally Navies...mutual acknowledgement and Maritime politeness. This "Cat and Mouse" with the IRGC is something that has been going on for 20 years or more...
Thanks Double Scorpian. After spending a bit of time looking around, I am comfortable thinking that the Quds forces of the IRCG are closer to a terrorist organization—in the form of support and control of its proxies' actions, than it is as just a military branch of the Iranian national armed forces.
I always wonder if people on the left are just plain stupid. Some of the responses to taking out this murderous terrorist in Iran proves my point. If you think this was a bad thing then you are just plain stupid.
This was a bad, bad, bad man.
“Soleimani’s forces killed at least 608 US troops in Iraq from 2003 to 2011, the Pentagon reported last year — and that doesn’t include those killed then and since by the many proxies under his control.
He had nearly that many Iraqis killed in the final months of 2019, ordering a brutal crackdown on protests against a corrupt, Tehran-dominated government. He helped kill far more at home, with over 1,000 peaceful protesters slaughtered in what Iranians call Bloody November. That’s why crowds took to the streets in the middle of the Tehran night to celebrate his death. His fighters helped Bashar al-Assad slaughter tens of thousands of men, women and children in the Syrian civil war.”
https://nypost.com/2020/01/03/cheering- … s-or-buts/
Thanks for elaborating on just who Soleimani was and why he was targeted and taken out, Mike.
It is easy to blame MSM for filling heads with garbage, but when we’ve reached the point (with this kill for example) when the people being filled are asked to come to the defense of terrorists...and they do?!?
Point out where some here are defending terrorists, AB. Simply because some believe the killing will make things much worse doesn't mean we're defending terrorists.
Not even a good try...
How will killing a terrorist make things worse?
Well, did you consider the aftermath of killing two major entities in an already sticky situation, AB?
Are you certain Trump hasn't got us into another war with his actions? I'm not!
I am certain that President Trump saw an opportunity to take out a bad and dangerous man, before things escalated, more than they already have.
My preference is that we always remain proactive.
Okay, as long as you consider the consequences of being too proactive.
I still think he's simply wagging the dog, especially now that the unredacted emails came out about the Ukraine extortion plot.
I agree with your "proactive" thought AB Williams, and it seems Gen. Petraeus does also.
That is an interesting tidbit I was unaware of. I may not be able to ask him, but I will go look for his thoughts about not doing it. I will get back to you when I know more about it.
I couldn't find anything about Gen. Petraeus deciding against going after Salamani Randy. Maybe you can point me in the right direction?
I did find his recent comments regarding Salami's death that seems to support the action:
David Petraeus:" It is impossible to overstate the importance of this particular action. It is more significant than the killing of Osama bin Laden or even the death of [Islamic State leader Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi. Suleimani was the architect and operational commander of the Iranian effort to solidify control of the so-called Shia crescent, stretching from Iran to Iraq through Syria into southern Lebanon. He is 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."
Source: ForeignPolicy.com Petraeus Says Trump May Have Helped ‘Reestablish Deterrence’ by Killing Suleimani
After finding that, and looking around to answer Credence2's comment, I think I can stand with my original thought that this action was the takedown of a terrorist leader
"....this action was the takedown of a terrorist leader."
Do you think this is how the government of Iran views it?
Of course I don't. But I bet they don't see themselves as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, or Salamani's actions as terrorism either.
I am certain there will be deadly terrorism-type consequences, but wouldn't letting the fear of those consequences dictate our actions be sort of like a 'death by a thousand cuts' existence?
I wouldn't call attempting to accurately predict the reaction to killing a terrorist/general and then acting accordingly "fear." I would call it "intelligent strategizing."
We could have used more of that prior to invading Iraq. Time will tell us whether this was smart or stupid.
Why in heavens name would anyone care how Iran views it? This is a government who is killing our soldiers and our people. They sponsor terrorism all over the world. What upsets them is not our concern. It they take action, we take action and stop them. It's that simple.
I care what they think only to the extent it might be a predictor of how they will react to us killing a terrorist/general on their soil. I.hope Trump thought this through better than Bush thought through the invasion of Iraq..
Time will tell us whether this was a smart or stupid move.
That was obviously considered, otherwise the target would not have been so small and so precise.
What's even more interesting is how Trump supporters, right here on HubPages, were falling out of their chairs to praise Trump for bringing troops home from the Middle East just a couple months ago. Now they are doing the same to praise him for sending more troops to the Middle East.
2800 if the number is correct. Only the first batch I fear...
What if people want us out of the middle east, but they also don't want a repeat of Benghazi.
The same people who were silent during eight years of Obama's wars, drone strikes, and applauded the killing of Bin Laden are suddenly anti war.
I don't know exactly who those people are that were silent during Obama's drone strikes, but killing Bin Laden was decent. A lot of people have been silent for decades while America drops bombs...no matter who the President is.
And, if you don't see the difference between killing Bin Laden and this general--and the way it all went down--then you are either being obtuse or dishonest with yourself.
All I see is a group of people that will bend over backwards to defend their beloved, even if it means contradicting themselves from one minute to the next, just as their hero does.
Trump supporters aren't waiting to see how this plays out before making judgement any more than those who don't support him are. His people are shouting to the rooftops that Murica is back because their beloved had some military brass killed.
I still think Iran would miss a few fighter jets more than a few generals, if the turds do hit the fan.
What differences do you see (beyond the acting president at the moment)? Both were outside their own country. Both were carrying out terrorist activities, and had been for some time. Both had attacked and killed Americans. Both were being supported by a bona fide government. All I can see is that one was given a nice sounding title by a government while the other wasn't. Is that what it takes to hold America at bay while it's people are murdered? Just give the person in charge a title?
It is curious they take exception. Obama actually droned to death 2 American Citizens (including one child) in extrajudicial fashion.
For the record, I am reserving judgment on this one. I just hope that it was well thought out as to the long-term consequences. The naysayers (and Bush Sr.) turned out to be right about the consequences of invading Iraq.
Time will tell on this matter as well.
Do any of you upright walking being on the left comprehend the concept that situations change and you have to address the change? President Donald Trump will protect Americans and American interests. Unlike obama who sent money to a state sponsor of terror as they chanted "Death to America."
Is this true, Mike? Or is it like your other silly memes?
I see you and Onus are now dipping from the same Russian propaganda trough.
Randy, I think this may be funnier than the memes.
Why is Iran stating it will fight according to international law, while our President states we will strike cultural sites? This is not good optics, and these things do matter on a global scale. Carry on.
A state sponsor of terror saying it will fight according to international law? Really? You believe this? Seriously? Have you ever had ANY dealing with Iranians? You go ahead and trust them and see what it gets you. Sure, they follow international law all the time with their support around the world of terrorism.
"Iran is still the "world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism" and Al Qaeda wants to reestablish itself as the "vanguard of the global jihadist movement," the State Department said in its Country Reports on Terrorism 2018, which was released Friday.
The Tehran regime has spent nearly $1 billion per year to support terror groups "that serve as its proxies and expand its malign influence across the globe," the State Department said. Those groups include Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state- … s-al-qaeda
Do you believe what Iran is saying? Do you think the leopard has changed it's spots?
No, I don't believe what Iran is saying. I do believe that the optics of this are very bad, as I stated. The US President openly states he may violate law, which gives the Iranians the chance to actual look like the "good guys" in the matter.
Let me share a fact of war. There is NO law. There is only survival and victory. After all the terrorism perpetrated by the Iranian government, I doubt anyone will be sympathetic toward them.
Do you think in Iraq when our guy were pinned down by shitbags firing on them from a historical building the commanders said "Oh, this is a historical site, we can't blow it up, that would be against the law?"
No, US Commanders sent in artillery strikes or ordered an airstrike to get out guys out of harms way and neutralize the shitbags. Screw that building. THAT is the reality of war.
There is NO law...ooh, scary stuff I guess! As I stated, it's optics. While not too many people around the world will likely sympathize with the Iranians, they will take the chance to jump on Trump, who most of them don't like, because he's a buffoon. And, remember, Trump is our President, so we have to deal with it, lol. THAT is the reality of propaganda wars that our President is very familiar with, so good with here in the states with his people, but horrible at on the world stage. Anyway, try to take care fella.
Really? "I've lived in lawless environments and I don't think you know much about THAT." What does THAT even mean?
I'm telling you when the bullets and bombs start going, nobody is worried about anything but survival and accomplishing the mission. THAT is the reality of war. Nobody is going to stop because a building has culture significance.
I don't care about the optics. President Donald Trump is doing what is necessary to protect Americans and American interests. It's just that simple.
It is unbelievable the way you guys throw us, the U.S., under the bus, condemn, criticize, name call our President (unknowingly (?) doing the same to millions of his supporters and give terrorists and terrorist states an alibi, along with a pass!
I don’t know what else there is to say. Shame on you.
Shame on you for supporting a dictator wanna be for President. I served my country proudly as did so many, like John McCain, who Trump's people disparage on a daily basis. Try not to hurt my feelings, lol.
It's American to criticize a President..it certainly was when Obama was President.
No it is beyond criticizing, it’s an obsession! As much as I was opposed to Obama’s mission to shape and form this Country into something entirely different, I did not, I would not... have ever said the types of things about him that you all have said about this President. It is beyond the pale.
Trump's intentional dividing of our great nation is beyond the pale. His continued name-calling of American citizens, our war heroes, and our government officials is beyond the pale. Add to it, the way his supporters then turn around and defend him, and it becomes ludicrous. I know right from wrong. I think many Trump supporters no longer do.
Also, I don't believe for one second that you didn't call Obama names. And, you know what, I don't really care if you did. It's the staunch defense of one person, no matter what he does, that is so Un-American.
Yet, you support a guy who founded his political career on the lie that Obama was born in Kenya. Are you a birther?
"Yet, you support a guy who founded his political career on the lie that Obama was born in Kenya."
"Founded his political career"? Founded it? You do understand that continual gross exaggeration will absolutely destroy any point you might be trying to make; that going from a couple of mentions to "Founding his career" is 100% over the top in exaggeration and not even partially true as Obama was never an opponent in the first place?
Loo, you don't remember him sending his lawyers to Hawaii to unearth the truth? "They've found something big, very big. You'll find out soon."
I'm paraphrasing,but surely you remember?
Apparently, some people saw that and thought, "Now, that's the guy I believe will save our country."
Me, I saw that and thought, "con man."
I must respond with a resounding HEAR, HEAR!
That man is our President, Pretty one. His name is Donald J. Trump and he is our President because the people are fed up with the status quo and being screwed over by establishment types, putting their interests before ours! That's it in a nutshell.
I have no idea where Obama was born, was it Chicago? To answer your question, no I am not a birther.
But you hitched your wagon to the Big Birther and his Big Lie and now you think us accurately calling him a liar is worse than his ridiculous harping on Obama's birthplace.
And that's just the beginning.
Yada, yada, yada...so where was he born? Not that I really care, but you brought it up.
Also, didn't he have a different name at one time?
Lol, you have to ask? After years of Trump and others questioning his legitimacy as president. Really? Too funny.
OMG, this is really stupid. Honolulu, Hawaii.
I only responded to shut you up about it. I suspect you are a birther and just won't admit it.
You have a nice day, too.
I seriously did not know for sure where he was born, I thought it was Chicago, but that's okay, if it makes you feel better to call me an idiot, then by all means, knock yourself out. It's how leftists roll.....
Are you a birther, AB? If not, the term idiot does not apply to you. Read closer.....
Crank was responding to me asking where Obama was born Randy, so you are saying I read too much into it? Are you his representative?
Where did he call you an idiot? To me it seems he was asking if it was fair to say "birther = idiot."
You have not stated where you stand on that issue.
Are you all like one in the same person? It really is odd. Although I've no "first-hand knowledge", that has been asked, answered and explained already.
You are definitely not helping your case vis a vis the "idiot" designation, but I very specifically did not say YOU were an idiot. I said that BIRTHERS were idiots, but you are failing to say whether or not you are one of those people who actively questioned Obama's birthplace and demanded he turn over his birth certificate and then even went so far as to say the birth certificate was a fraud in an attempt to delegitimize him and his presidency.
Hear, hear! - used to express one’s wholehearted agreement with something said, especially in a speech. A kind of verbal applause. It is a way of showing that you approve of what is being said.
“Embezzled”, where did you hear that? From Mrs. Clinton? Was it in the ‘Deplorable Speech’ or from one of her condemnation tours?
Hillary is old news to everyone but Trump supporters. You can read about what happened to the inaugural funds. Trump has a problem with raising funds for one thing (like veterans) and using them for another thing (like his own pockets). That's why a court dissolved his charity and forbade his children from ever again serving on a charity board.
Cuz, you know, they're all such fine, upstanding people.
Lol, whatever helps you sleep at night.
Yeah, a deplorable probably should not mess with Shakespeare.
Yeah, a Deplorable probably should not mess with Shakespeare.
I'm glad we have a President that responded when our Embassy was attacked as opposed to letting them all die and then getting on all the fakenews shows and lying about it for weeks. Then later sending pallets of cash to an evil theocracy that is trying to keep their people in the 14th Century and sponsors terrorism.
I haven't as of yet, I don't want to fight the crowds.
Happy New Year PP!
Good! I hope you stay away from those nasty rallies. They will shrivel your soul.
Happy New Year to you, too!
You are making it difficult to walk away, have you attended a Trump rally? I have many wonderful friends with wonderful souls that have attended and have come away intact. They've not been corrupted, so I will take my chances, as I have on him.
So, you approve of what goes on at those rallies?
As far as the rest, I have a hard time understanding how a good person could attend a Trump rally and enjoy it. Ew.
Do you love this Country PP? If you have to think about that question for a second, then you can’t begin to understand me or the many people of all colors, collars and backgrounds that support Trump, attend rallies, etc.
Yes, I love this country. Do you question that simply because I refuse to endorse a lying, low-life con man's presidency? Our country is all about freedom of thought. You and your ilk do not have a monopoly on patriotism.
Just curious, but do you find "refuse to endorse" the same as shouting imprecations, calling names, vilifying, exaggerating about and doing so a dozen times each day?
Seems to me one would be classified as "dislike" and one far more towards to the "hate" designation...
Don't you see the irony in admonishing people for name-calling when the President himself made a political strategy out of making up disparaging nicknames for opponents?
I see massive irony in people decrying the president's actions while doing the exact same thing themselves, and in spades. Do you?
And, of course, if you're talking about Kim, well one speaks the language or is not understood. Trump spoke the language and for the first time ever got Kim to the table. Sometimes disparaging comments is all that is understood.
Not at all!!! I see it as standing up for ourselves against a President who calls those who disagree with him names on an almost daily basis. And, a President's words mean so much more than those average citizens. I also expect more from my President than I do the average citizen. I know people who name call, and generally act like asses to others on a regular basis, who still understand that this behavior is not appropriate for a President who is supposed to be helping our nation come together...not the opposite.
Citizens are supposed to stand by and be civil why he disparages them?? That sounds like you want a dictator Wilderness.
Dan gets indignant when people disparage Trump, but is perfectly fine with Donnie calling veterans, war heroes, congressmen, and ambassadors disparaging names on a daily basis.
What a role model Trump is for our youth!
I'll own up to calling him a POS (my opinion), con man (factually supported by evidence), bully (factually supported by evidence) and liar (factually supported by evidence). I do not shout shout or exaggerate (that's your bailiwick). "....a dozen times a day." Exhibit A.
As for the rest, it doesn't matter what I say, you will believe I hate him, so I've moved on. Think what you want; I know the truth.
Here's a thought Peter, get CNN out of your head and start reading some of the informative articles which have been shared here. Good grief!
Thanks for your thoroughness in follow up Wilderness, I'd make a lousy diplomat, all about cutting to the chase.
Them I must be dense. I fail to see how cheering an angry bully is good for the soul or showing love of country.
You see an angry bully, I see a man from a totally different world than me, (a yank) oftentimes saying things that I wouldn’t say, often crude, yes, agreed... but doing his best for this Nation, with no false pretenses. I am sure he wonders, as I do, why so many have had it in for him since the get go. Why weren’t they ever willing to give him a fair shot?
When Obama ran, he did so to fundamentally transform this Nation. He wasn’t proud of this Country, Michelle wasn’t proud of this Country, they both told us so.! Talk about angry....neither ever showed any great love for this Country.
I will never forget Rush Limbaugh making the statement, “I hope he fails”. He meant in transforming this Country, but of course, the media took it out of context, ran with with it, made it seem as if Rush wished for a President to fail this Country.
I’ve often wondered what the anti-Trumpers want him to fail at. Maybe you can answer that.
I have gotten off Topic, but I am curious as to how you will respond.
"I’ve often wondered what the anti-Trumpers want him to fail at. "
Protecting our borders.
Ending the fiasco of millions of illegal aliens within our borders, feeding from our wallets.
Recovering the respect of the world, given away by Obama and the liberals.
Maintaining a strong economy with lots of jobs.
Maintaining a strong military.
Maintaining an equal position in trade agreements.
Protecting our businesses trade secrets and patents.
I'm sure there is more, but those should do for starters.
I want him to fail at turning our nation into a joke, but he's just too damn good at that one. I also wanted him to fail at completely tearing down Obamacare...he did that one though. Oh, by the way, where's Trump's "tremendous healthcare?" I'm sure there are more, but those should do just for starters.
Not surprised hard sun that you are perfectly okay with government mandates forced on the people.
Ha. Yeah, like Medicare and Social Security. Except, I would venture to guess that when it comes to real personal freedoms, my views are much more libertarian than yours. Thanks for pretending to know me though.
Yes, exactly like Medicare and Social Security.
Legalize all drugs....Let people marry who they wish, get abortions, and yes have guns etc. Stop the criminal justice system from making us the nation with the most incarcerated people per capita by far, etc. These are the real personal freedom issues.
"why so many have had it in for him since the get go. Why weren’t they ever willing to give him a fair shot?"
Really? You didn't notice how he behaved from the get go? I wouldn't allow anyone in my family to behave like Trump and I would not let Trump himself near my children.
Those are my standards and the standards of many other people. Trump is not fit to care for my dog, much less my country. I have said it from the beginning and he has done nothing to change my opinion.
It amazes me that Trump enablers refuse to acknowledge he brings criticisms upon himself.
It amazes me that I thought you were the person to ask! I thought you had stated that you had an open mind about him at the start. That obviously wasn’t you.
I shared that when he was elected I told my husband that maybe he would surprise us and be the guy who is not beholden to any party. It didn't take long to see that he was using the presidency to enrich himself in unethical, and probably illegal, ways. He has no interest in draining the swamp. He has become the biggest swamp creature of them all.
I know you will not believe that because you apparently knew nothing about the disappearing inaugural funds. Did you know about the charity?
Trump has been the same person his entire life and has not changed since he became president. I hoped he would, but he didn't.
Whenever somebody accuses the left of "not being proud of this country" or "hating this country", you know they are anti-intellectual and can't think past their own pillow.
"If you're not with us, you're against us."
It's the language of dictators. It fundamentally shows an inability to think critically.
How have U.S. interactions in the Middle East gone, incidentally? By anyone? Ironically, Trump has been correct in pointing this out. We should not be interfering in the Middle East. What exactly is his policy there because he seemed to want to get out and now he's pretty much back in.
So what is it: do you want to be embroiled in the Middle East or out of the Middle East?
This is what I believe:
So let me get this straight. You get your information through random YouTube videos?
I love these little sayings "Peace through Strength". You know why they create those? So morons can understand complex foreign policy and can feel good about themselves and say "rah, rah" whenever the U.S. drops a bomb on somebody or someone.
Yes from some random guy.
You don't want to take this seriously?
Fine, I have better things to do.
Oh buggers. I gave a 'rah rah' to that speech. So now I am a moron too.
By the way, does the source of the speech, (random youtube video), decide its credibility? Would her source have been acceptable if it was a text version of the speech from the National Archives?
As to your "love of those little sayings. . . " geesh. That was kinda cute too.
That is not a source for her claim that Iran was not complying with the agreement.
It was a nice speech, though.
No it wasn't, it was a source describing how she feels, (not her claims), about the issue.
And I think it was more than a nice speech, it was a great speech. Regarding the point of the speech, I am puzzled that anyone with a bit of knowledge of history and human nature would disagree with it.
It was appropriate for the time. I am not convinced it applies to the current situation.
Edit: she said "this is what I believe."
No PP, it was in response to another question posed by Crank. He asked about the Middle East and if I thought we should be involved there or not...something along those lines.
The thoughts and policies of Reagan best describe my thoughts about situations we find ourselves a part of, such as the Middle East; the whys, what for, what ifs, etc. That's why I shared that particular speech.
As to Crank's other question posed about Iran and compliance, I could have found some links to share, but he wanted "first-hand" knowledge and that I don't have! Any links I found to share, he would have criticized the source (that's fair, because I do it too, someone earlier shared Aljazeera as their source and I took issue with that)
I do not think Iran understands what compliance is, I know they can't be trusted any further than I could throw them. I don't think they deserve a seat or a say when it comes to the International economy, due to their own actions...they've brought it upon themselves!!! At the same time I feel for the Iranian people and for all of the innocent people, forced by their radical 'so called' leaders to have to live with economic sanctions and such.
Hopefully, I've answered adequately, I did not take the time to go back for specifics.
P.S. Reagan, this speech and so many others of his, are beyond nice, they are freaking awesome.
My basic point is that condensing Middle East foreign policy into nice, little soundbites and claiming that you understand the ramifications of this particular drone strike and how it fits into a larger policy in the Middle East is lunacy. Using Youtube to support your position on Middle East foreign policy based on random videos is the opposite of proving that you have even the most basic understanding of what is going on in the Middle East and what has been going on.
The IAEA said Iran was complying with the nuclear deal. I don't know what further proof I can supply. The typical anti-intellectual response to this is "it's a hoax" and the "it's a hoax" crowd based that response on some random Youtube video they found. They do it with climate change. They did it with Sandy Hook.
Perhaps somebody can explain this to me: the Trump administration's policy with Iran is to take out their bad actors via drone strikes and to not negotiate with Iran because it can't be trusted, but their policy on North Korea is to negotiate and trust North Korea?
The irony in all this is I actually generally agree with Trump on the Middle East, which is we should disentangle ourselves as much as possible because we have never had a coherent nor effective policy there. Let that part of the world implode and make sure they can't blame it on us. Unfortunately, we're stuck there and we're never getting out, so I don't know if drone strikes is the basis for a cohesive foreign policy.
The problem with drone strikes, as Obama discovered, is sometimes you kill the wrong people.
well damn, I missed all of that in her comment that I responded to. I thought she was just using the video as a statement about how she feels about how the U.S. should interact with aggressor nations—from a position of commitment rather than appeasement.
It was from that perception that I agreed with her post. Plus the fact of my Reagan fandom of course. ;-)
Oh hell abwilliams. You have done it now. My response to this is sure to be the last nail in the coffin of my declarations that I am not a Pres. Trump apologist and enabler. But . . .
As a huge Reagan fan, I had to listen to the full four and one-half minutes. I couldn't stop.
So here is my resounding 'Hear! Hear! because that speech is also how I feel.
So what is the "stable genius" plan to stop this?
https://news.yahoo.com/iran-abandons-nu … 22002.html
There is also a clear and present danger that Iraq might ask the US to leave its country, I am curious how "Agent Orange" will react when Iraq reminds him of the American pledge to respect Iraq sovereignty?
I throw up my hands in acknowledgement that I, as a mere mortal, cannot hope to fathom the inner workings of so gifted a genius.
But oh what Varsity is up against....from their own home team.
Shame on you for criticizing an American President! And shame on your unAmerican behavior of demonizing those who disagree with you by calling them terrorists sympathizers because they question a decision made by your beloved.
You know what I mean, maybe...not sure why I give you any credit.
I know exactly what you mean. You are pulling for the Trump team as opposed to the American team. Your rhetoric is just like his. Shame on you! lol
No, I am for America.
God first, my family second, my Country and flag third.
Political parties do not enter in.
Iran is run by an evil theocracy that murdered 1500 of its own people, including 400 women a couple of days before Christmas because they were protesting a gas price hike. If allowed to wield a bomb, given they kill their own people, they would use it on Israel or the USA, without a doubt. Putting off dealing with their leaders, equates to more casualties.
Thanks for sharing this information Doublescorpion.
I believe in their disdain for this President, some otherwise, intelligent reasonable people, have forgotten what we are up against. What our military is literally, up against.
I just retired in April of 2019 after 22 years...and every deployment I did was to the Middle East...I know and have seen first hand what happens and what can or could happen with certain countries in that area....
Their culture is extremely different than ours....and trying to judge them based on our culture and understandings just don't work...How they think, how they do things...is very, very different than what most Americans are accustom to.
They truly believe that the are doing "God's (Allah's) Work" and because women and children (female and non-first born typically) are considered beneath men, they have no issues in using women and children as a suicide bomb because that they know that Americans soldiers have trouble killing women and children and that our SOE requires defensive return of fire and not offensive...even with boots on ground, there was very, very few occasions where we conducted offensive missions...the vast majority were defensive.
For those wishing to have an opinion on Iran or any other Middle Eastern country and how we handle things...Feel free to go and spend some time in said country (just be careful what you pack...because some items we deem as normal, are illegal there and will get you the death penalty)… but, see for yourself what these countries are all about … watch a woman being beat on the street , because a foreign man (who didn't know better) asked her for directions, watch the public executions of a Mother and Father who got caught smuggling less than an ounce of weed into the country, watch a 15 year old boy getting his hand cut off for stealing food because he was hungry, watch a teenage girl be disfigured or even killed by her own family because she was raped..and then see where your opinion falls out...
I have been there...and I will never defend or justify Iran or any other middle eastern country over the United States...We military fight to protect our freedoms and to ensure that the actions that I have mentioned above and have seen happen myself never happen in the United States. There is a lot that happens in these countries that never makes the news, any anyone who conducts terrorist actions against their own people or outside sources and ends up on the wrong side of an airstrike, I am not going to feel sorry for...and I sure as hell and not going to defend their evil, murderous actions...
And if it takes going to war with Iran to finally put an end to this terrorist crap...then sign me back up...
If we must go to war with Iran than we must. The issue being debated is whether Trump's entrance strategy here was wise. My argument is that alienating Iraq, and maybe our allies, was likely not the best move. Of course, I don't have all the intelligence here, but Trump says we cannot trust the intelligence agencies anyway. So, where does that leave Americans? You see, many of us feel Trump is HORRIBLE for American and many of us don't trust the supreme con man further than we could throw him, and therein lies half the problem. We have good reason to be skeptical of the competence of our "leader."
I don't really care if one does or doesn't like the President...
We already have approval for the war against terrorism...
This guy was a terrorist...killed Americans, others, and even his own people...
He was planning future attacks against Americans....
So this was a tactical strike against a known terrorist leader...period...the strike happened in Iraq...not Iran...shortly after an attack on our embassy there...call it a protest all you want...those flags being carried were not protest flags, but rather known terrorist groups...
I've been there...I've done that...I have first hand knowledge...
The majority of those speaking on here...have what the news have put out and only know a fraction of what is actually happening in that area of the world...
Iran has been at war with the US for a very long time...it just isn't "Official"...and for those of us who have been there...we know this....we understand this....and we known and understand what happens if we don't act...we have seen first hand what inaction does and creates....we have watched first hand the loss of our fellow brothers and sisters, because of inaction and having our hands tied and following rules that the other side doesn't follow.
We removed a terrorist leader...period...
We need to remove the terrorist finance...and it just so happens that Iran is one of those doing the financing...
I don't care who it is to be honest...if you are a terrorist, finance terrorist or support terrorist...for the betterment of the world as a whole, they need to be removed...
Liking the President has nothign to do with my opinion on this matter. Trusting the President's decision making capabilities and motives, is a different story. As I stated, my opinions about this incident are formed mainly based on how we went about bombing these guys in Iraq. Being at least verbally expelled from Iraq is not how we should want to start out any escalation in the MiddleEast IMO. This point has been hit on over and over here on these forums. Also, while my military experience may not be as extensive as yours--particularly in the Middle East--, I too, have some experience and lost some brothers and sisters. All this means is we have the same goal, with the interests of the US in mind...as should ALL Americans. However, it doesn't strengthen, or weaken, opinions on this matter.
Edit: Having said this, I'll give you credit for knowing more about the specifics of terrorists responses to embassy attacks. I've made no claim as to the nature of the people protesting, or whatever you want to call them. I never even argued that we should take NO action.
The vote for the US to leave Iraq..is only from one part of the Iraqi parliament...about 1/3 or so...and that is the part that supports the more terrorist faction that is fighting in Iraq right now...
So it wasn't an official, full parliament vote.
As to the presidents decision....
He gets briefed...he gets advised...and then, he has to make the final decision on if, how and when to act based on all information provided to him by his military advisors...So, one or more of his military advisors offered the plan for this strike...he only approved it...
Terrorism is a world problem...just not an American one...Look at others countries that get attacked quite often...America isn't the only country being targeted by terrorist...
We went into Iraq for a few reasons...and it was done with one hand tied behind our backs...There were so many extra rules and guidelines applied to the Gulf War(due mostly to coalition cooperation, and even command structures i.e. British commander over American and French troops), that I am surprise we managed to be as successful as we were (most of our success was due to missions conducted by small groups of special forces).
For the interest of America and for the world in general...Removing a Terrorist should be something we all support...Nobody wants a war, regardless of the countries involved...but, the fact of the matter is, that we are at war and have been for sometime...Iran does not have to training, resources or even manpower to fight a true war with the US...They will bluster and talk loud for awhile...and then go back to doing what they have been doing for a good long while now...hit and run tactics using terrorist cells on soft targets...
Yes. It seems the Iraqi vote is not final. Thanks for that. However, the vote was important enough to US officials that they attempted to convince the parliament to vote otherwise. It is not a good thing for the US to have public sentiment over there moving against us.
Trump isn't in the habit of listening to advisers, and he states he is smarter than his generals. I'm hesitant to trust that he's making well-informed decisions. Just because a plan was offered doesn't mean it wasn't offered because Trump would accept almost nothing different. No, I don't think we should automatically cheer any aggression in the Middle East. We should always support our troops, but part of what makes America great, is that we are allowed to, and do, express varying opinions on matters such as these strikes.
Of course, I hope things play out in the possible way for the US.
The majority of Americans strongly support our military and any and all actions we must take to protect our homeland and our allies. It must be so frustrating for you when you read some of the knuckleheaded (I am being nice) comments on these threads.
Thank you for your Service to this Country, God Bless America!
Trump campaigned on staying out of Middle Eastern affairs. Now we are un-American for not supporting EVERYTHING about his war!?!?!?
Iranians are glad Soleimani is dead.
"Khodadadi, the owner of Tochal Market in Westwood, was optimistic Friday as news spread of the death of Iran’s top military commander, General Qassem Soleimani.
“Nobody likes people get killed, but this person had a lot of history behind him, and that’s why it makes everybody happy,” he said.
Nooshin Mashkaty, a NASA engineer who was born in Iran but moved to Los Angeles as a child for school, agreed.
“Having a terrorist pay his due is a very happy moment,” she said. “Soleimani is the brain behind all of the terrorist attack, internal and external, so you could imagine how everyone was happy. He not only has killed many Americans, he’s killed many Iranians and many other people around the world.”
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/01 … -solemani/
Who the hell is that dude, Joey? And why should anyone believe him about anything?
The Russian propagandists are stooping really low. And you're following them right down into the gutter.
Need a shower now?
Are you saying Iran doesn't execute homosexuals?
This is an excellent point. What do you suggest we do about the other countries in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, who do the same?
No. Are you seeing things?
No new propaganda to share today?
Yes, I am supposed to ignore the implication and concur with you that anyone that questions anything about Obama is an idiot. Right?
Anything about Obama? No. His birthplace? Yeah.
Your evasive game playing is just silly. If you are a birther, just admit it. If you were a birther but now acknowledge your mistake, just say so. If you're still a birther, have the courage of your convictions and own it proudly.
Regardless, you continue to support the guy who founded his political career on birtherism.
Yes, her acting confused is very telling though. But then, I find this in many Trump enablers. Some detest questions as you're well aware.
30 hours back, you asked this question and I answered it.
I looked it up. Being able to edit your posts is wonderful, isn't it?
She's a Trump enabler, so what do you expect, Sandy? Honesty?
Shouldn't you be checking the validity of the claim before agreeing with it? Just like the "Trump enabler" label you use, there are other labels for the leaps you make.
Did you check the "editing" comment you are affirming? A four-hour edit window doesn't jive with your seven-hour response. If you want to use the "honesty" club you should be sure you have the foundational authority to wield it.
From what I see of the time sequence, you don't have a leg to stand on.
When I responded to her here, it was within the same hour she posted it: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/346 … ost4113540
At that time, I did not see her very last sentence where she states she is not a birther. Her subsequent comments were, in my mind, were of a continuing evasive nature, like repeatedly asking me if I knew where Obama was born. I didn't go back and read until awhile ago when I posted the response about editing.
I will accept her word but isn't it odd that everyone participating in the conversation did not know she had stated she was not a birther?
Wellllll . . . I was also following the thread and don't recall the denial either. But, I wasn't looking for it until your comment, and maybe I wasn't paying close attention.
In cases like this, I always give the benefit of doubt to the defender when I am not certain I am right.
In this case, I think the doubt is in her favor. At least the timing of Randy's response indicates that should be the case.
Was this a trial?
Sounds like a summation.
So kind of you to refer to the evidence.
As for those who jumped to conclusions, finding me guilty before the evidence surfaced, I know all I need to know about you!
You all have nothing of substance to add to this discussion, so instead you attack the messenger.....I get it. What else can you do? It's your modus operandi.
I appreciate the one witness for the defense (thanks GA)!
In the meantime, Soleimani is still dead, I understand the retaliation of Iran and I will understand and support every single action of our President, when red lines are crossed.
I never saw an explicit statement where you said you were not a birther, but it was a relief to finally see you post that you were not. I'm glad that's the case.
Not sure why I would have to apologize. I merely pointed out my opinion that birthers are idiots and you are not a birther. However, I certainly apologize if I caused any stress.
No, as I said, I know all I need to know about you and your compadres and I don't let little insignificant things distract me or get under my skin.
Yes, well that is the problem, isn't it? You already know everything.
Nope, not by a long shot. I just stand on principle. You should know that about me by now.
"I just stand on principle."
See, this is what puzzles me about Trump enablers. You stand on principle. So, Trump's behavior and actions, on the whole, are consistent with your principles?
I am not an "enabler", I am an American citizen and I support my Country and my President. He, whom was elected in a free and fair election.
I am sorry your girl Hillary fell short. It is time to get over it and move on.
I know he, Donald Trump, is far from perfect, but I have not placed him on a pedestal, as you all have Barack Obama.
I understand, he, Donald Trump, is just a man, nothing more/nothing less, trying his absolute best, to keep you and I and this Republic, safe.
I understand that you have been on an emotional rollercoaster since Hillary failed to receive the torch, but what's done is done.
We can keep going back and forth, if you'd like, there may be some space in between, but I'll respond eventually.
So, your call, PP.
Well, that included everything I've come to expect. References to Obama and Hillary (nothing to do with my question), inference that I don't believe Trump is a rightful president (I do and have never said otherwise), but no actual answer to the question posed.
The reason I asked you this is you voluntarily stated you stand on principle. When a person states this, they usually mean well-accepted principles like honesty, treating others with kindness and respect, service to others, etc.
I feel it is a legitimate question given the kind of man Donald Trump has been his entire life.
But maybe those weren't the principles you were referring to?
I guess you believe that people can't change?
That's really sad and unfortunate, I never give up on people, even those that see things differently than me.
I've noticed that your buddies are now questioning the faith and convictions of those whom support the U.S. and the U.S. President, not surprised.
I get my convictions/patriotism questioned here on a regular just because I don't support Trump. So? Get over it is what Trump supporters are so fond of saying.
I do believe people can change. Has he suddenly stopped lying? I missed that, I guess.
One can support the U.S. and not like its president, by the way. They are not one and the same despite Trump's ongoing efforts to conflate them.
I've been called a traitor, a socialist, and a hater of America by people on these forums. Christiams like to believe they are being victimized when they are merely being asked to be accountable to their stated convictions.
What else do you need to know that I haven't covered? I do not OWE you any explanations about anything I believe in, but I've taken the time to answer your questions.
I not only survived the little inquisition held here, I came out the victor, but no, you all cannot let it lie. It's not enough to question my intelligence and my motives, now it's on to questioning my faith.
Your little gang of harassers will not be happy until you've silenced me and maybe HP is on your side, not mine, but for now, you've failed miserably. I'll not be silenced.
We don't want to silence you, AB. You make our case for us.
1. No one is trying to silence you.
2. If you make a statement on an internet forum, don't be surprised if it elicits a response. It is purely your prerogative as to whether or not to answer.
Same. It seems Trump is the exact opposite of the Christian values many of his supporters state they are supporting. I have a close relative who is very religious and devoted to church who cannot understand at all why some Christians support the man. I always respected her because I feel she displays the behaviors and values that you'd expect of real Christians.
Simple, Hard Sun, Christian evangelicals in this country are into identity politics, the true tenets of Christianity and its meaning are mere window dressing. It basically is a white male supremacy organization using the Shroud of Turin to cover that fact up.
Hmm...yeah. I'm not going to argue that. I saw the image of Trump Jr with Hillary in cross hairs and some symbol they say is linked to white supremacy or some such. I try to stay away from these types, but I think there are quite a few around these parts. This is not the Christianity I know. Last I knew this relative was pretty fundamentalist, but I'm not sure if she'd call herself evangelical.
We will never get a real answer to this question, so we might as well quit asking. It's just so difficult to let someone say they "stand on principle" when they support a guy who lies, cheats, and professes love of murdering dictators.
Sigh....it is what it is.
You stand on principle? I'm going to make an assumption that you are probably not religious. Church-goer? Christian?
It's actually kind of funny, with Bush, we used to hear from the Christian right all the time. With Trump, not so much because of the hypocrisy of being a good Christian and Trump supporter at the same time. The two don't seem to go together.
That said, people like me often criticize Christian conservative who really aren't typical Christians but Christian Capitalists, who can pretty much justify any behavior under one or the other, which is fine.
Apparently, none of us saw it. Go figure.
This appears to have ended with a hung jury. Which is probably the best you could hope for in these forums. ;-)
The Honorable Judge Gus has given his verdict!
"Honorable" I like that, can I keep it?
I don't have a mantle to put it on, but I do have a nice shelf. Would that be okay?
You can order a certificate of Judgeship on the net, just like you can be an ordained minister and receive a collar. Anything can be bought on the net, Gus. Make yourself as important as you want.
We have four hours to edit our posts. Do you think she edited her comment within that four hours due to Randy's question? (his question, (if I am looking at the right one), came 7 hours after she posted her comment.
So yes, the ability to edit is nice, but it doesn't fit your inference in this instance.
Crank, I am not a birther!
Early on, I'll admit, when everyone was talking about it (many, many moons ago) I wondered, for about a day, wasn't convinced and that was that!
If there is an official recording of his birth in the State of Hawaii, I have no reason to doubt it.
P.S. I am still glad that Soleimani is dead.
Quick turnaround. Who created it? Do you know if it's real? Where and when was it taken?
That's the thing, isn't it. We just take whatever image we want off the internet, don't check its veracity, and if it fits our politics, we post it as fact.
Yes. It is my belief that Onus is being fed by Russian propagandists. Or, maybe he is one himself. He posts memes that are created very quickly after a cultural or political event occurs. I'd like to know where they come from. Perhaps he will enlighten us, though he hasn't bothered to confirm or deny so far.
Sounds like you're upset that MSNBC hasn't had a chance to spin the story yet. Don't worry, i'm sure Rachel Madcow will have something stupid to say in defense of her clueless liberal base.
Oh yeah, you nailed it, Onus. You should use your own words more often. Brilliant.
So, Onusonus, what does the Electoral College do for you? Do you prefer the idea that it makes possible victory to the will of the minority of voters? Do you intrinsically distrust the voices of the majority of the electorate? Are you afraid of the demographic changes that are coming and see the Electoral College as the "last stand" for you and your rightwing buddies?
Guess what? The Electoral College was created in 1804 and is the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. How could a country in 1804 anticipate changes in the electorate in 2020? It had nothing to do with it.
We don't have a Democracy. We have a Representative Republic. The Electoral College prevents "The Tyranny of the Majority."
This is a concept provided from the ancient Greeks and has developed through the years.
“The Electoral College is a very carefully considered structure the Framers of the Constitution set up to balance the competing interests of large and small states,” writes Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission. “It prevents candidates from wining an election by focusing only on high-population urban centers (the big cities), ignoring smaller states and the more rural areas of the country — the places that progressives and media elites consider flyover country.”
https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/c … e-majority
A well composed reply, Mike.
Is there such a thing as tyranny of the minority?
I accept the Electoral College for 2 reasons
1. I respect the idea of consideration given to the interests of less populated areas
2. It is politically impossible to get the votes to amend it away.
But in Presidential contests until the last 25 years candidates that win the Electoral College yet lose the popular vote came about rarely, 19th century. Now it is comes up in too many election cycles, 2000, 2016. Why is this happening at increasing frequency? I am going to be concerned that something that happened once in a blue moon becomes a frequent pattern, is that what the founders anticipated?
Why should fewer numbers have proportionately more "say" in the outcome? I know it was the price paid in the 18th century to bring all parties on board. But, I am having less patience with it.
We all are just going to have to work all the harder to defeat the Right and its agenda with all greater earnestness to compensate for its advantage provided them through the EC.
Have you seen the Time magazine article, 'How to talk to your kids about Soleimani's death'?.....seriously!
How about this, "kids there are real monsters in this world, but no worries, there are many, many good guys working to protect you and your Mommy and Daddy, by taking out the ugly, evil monsters."
I need to find it and I will share the link.
Who is zooming who, here?
We all the knew that the very day that Trump stepped out of the agreement with Iran crafted by Obama and our European allies that he had war with Iran in his sights. Outside the standard bigotry and biases of the "mighty righty", Iran was not in a state of non-compliance to justify the abrupt exit.
Everybody hopes that it will all just go away, will it? There are many terrorist factions outside of Iran's control that will use this incident to attack American facilities and troops in the region. Israel is at risk. If I were Iraq, I would ask the US to leave and take its "liberators" with it as it seemed to be downplayed that Trump neither informed Congress nor Iraq as one of its own prominent personnel was killed in the attack.
Yes, Iran is an unpleasant place by American standards, but so is Saudi Arabia and we cozy up in bed with them. Is it the petroleum industry? Moral outrage from the Right is ALWAYS phony.
American presence and foreign policy in the region is just about to become much more complicated. Who was it that was telling me than Trump wanted to scale down our presence and activities in the region?
"Yes, Iran is an unpleasant place by American standards, but so is Saudi Arabia."
It was an Iranian general who has killed hundreds of people serving in the US military. It was an Iranian general who killed hundreds of civilians around the world using terrorism. Soleimani was a bad, bad person who is responsible for hundreds of American deaths.
There is no such Saudi Arabian general who has done such a thing. It there were, he'd be dead or close to it.
I'm glad President Donald Trump has focused on Iran since the beginning of his presidency. They are a state sponsor of terror.
"Iran is still the "world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism" and Al Qaeda wants to reestablish itself as the "vanguard of the global jihadist movement," the State Department said in its Country Reports on Terrorism 2018, which was released Friday.
The Tehran regime has spent nearly $1 billion per year to support terror groups "that serve as its proxies and expand its malign influence across the globe," the State Department said. Those groups include Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Iran has also plotted its own terrorist acts around the globe, most notably in Belgium, France, and Germany, according to the department.
Al Qaeda continued to fester in 2018, as well."
obama and the democrats have indirectly funded global terrorism by providing Iran with so much cash. This is how they use it.
He also killed Iranian protesters.
"In November, protests initially sparked by an abrupt hike in gasoline spread across Iran as demonstrators called for more political freedom. Reuters has reported that some 1,500 people were killed in the resulting crackdown ordered by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the bloodiest since the Islamic Revolution in 1979."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN1Z703R
I understand, Mike, I just saying that I was hearing a lot of the same stuff from Bush as justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
From my perspective, America has always been engaged in a Cowboys vs Indians attitude, which is now taken to the international arena.
Why just not get out of the region and mind your own business? Other Western democracies seem to be better at that. We ARE going to pay a price for the Globocop role that so many rightwingers are comfortable with...
"Why just not get out of the region and mind your own business? "
I'm sure you're familiar with global terrorism. Trust me, those in the middle East don't think like you and me. Many Muslims around the world believe they are following a worldwide Islamic Caliphate. They don't want peace. They want Islam to rule the world. Over a billion Muslims in the world. The vast majority are peaceful. Only 20 percent believe in an Islamic Caliphate, but this represents millions of Muslims who DO believe in it. We can't just go home. They'll come to our home to fight us, like 9/11 and other terrorist attacks since then.
No, we have to take the fight to their home. That is the only sensible response.
https://www.lausanne.org/content/lga/20 … tians-care
Mike, I have to ask you, do you remember the Alamo?
According to a 2017 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, "of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent). The total number of fatalities is about the same for far right wing violent extremists and radical Islamist violent extremists over the approximately 15-year period (106 and 119, respectively). 52 percent of the deaths attributable to radical Islamist violent extremists occurred in a single event—an attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida in 2016."
In 2018, most ideologically motivated murders were linked to right-wing extremism.
According to Slate, after the occurrence of the 2019 El Paso shooting, right wing terrorism has been responsible for more killings on US soil than Jihadi terrorists since the September 11 attacks, while Jihadi terrorists have been responsible for more killings since the Orlando nightclub shooting of 2016.
The above is the reality of Islamic terrorism in the US since 9-11. Obviously, I need to be more concerned as to other non-Islamic sources of violence here.
In spite of being full of ourselves, boasting of our military prowess and technology, that all can be overcome by sheer numbers and the fact that the adversary will not wage war in conventional terms.
You are condemning us to endless war against an supposed enemy that cannot be defeated militarily. While the status quo ante-Trump has been precarious, all out confrontation has been avoided, but no longer.
Where are you get the people to wage "this war". Shall we reintroduce the draft?
I saw the information you provided is from the CATO Institute. It is a liberal think tank. In the article where you got your information, there is NO definition of the word "right wing." I would like to know what THEY consider right wing. It would make clear their goal in writing the article. Slate is an EXTREME liberal publication.
Here is a more objective site that simply lists terrorists attacks against Americans in the United States and abroad.
Here is from 2009.
Feb. 9, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills four American soldiers and their Iraqi translator near a police checkpoint.
April 10, Iraq: a suicide attack kills five American soldiers and two Iraqi policemen.
June 1, Little Rock, Arkansas: Abdulhakim Muhammed, a Muslim convert from Memphis, Tennessee, is charged with shooting two soldiers outside a military recruiting center. One is killed and the other is wounded. In a January 2010 letter to the judge hearing his case, Muhammed asked to change his plea from not guilty to guilty, claimed ties to al-Qaeda, and called the shooting a jihadi attack "to fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims."
Dec. 25: A Nigerian man on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit attempted to ignite an explosive device hidden in his underwear. The explosive device that failed to detonate was a mixture of powder and liquid that did not alert security personnel in the airport. The alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, told officials later that he was directed by the terrorist group Al Qaeda. The suspect was already on the government's watch list when he attempted the bombing; his father, a respected Nigerian banker, had told the U.S. government that he was worried about his son's increased extremism.
Dec. 30, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills eight Americans civilians, seven of them CIA agents, at a base in Afghanistan. It's the deadliest attack on the agency since 9/11. The attacker is reportedly a double agent from Jordan who was acting on behalf of al-Qaeda.
May 1, New York City: a car bomb is discovered in Times Square, New York City after smoke is seen coming from a vehicle. The bomb was ignited, but failed to detonate and was disarmed before it could cause any harm. Times Square was evacuated as a safety precaution. Faisal Shahzad pleads guilty to placing the bomb as well as 10 terrorism and weapons charges.
May 10, Jacksonville, Florida: a pipe bomb explodes while approximately 60 Muslims are praying in the mosque. The attack causes no injuries.
Oct. 29: two packages are found on separate cargo planes. Each package contains a bomb consisting of 300 to 400 grams (11-14 oz) of plastic explosives and a detonating mechanism. The bombs are discovered as a result of intelligence received from Saudi Arabia's security chief. The packages, bound from Yemen to the United States, are discovered at en route stop-overs, one in England and one in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.
Jan. 17, Spokane, Washington: a pipe bomb is discovered along the route of the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial march. The bomb, a "viable device" set up to spray marchers with shrapnel and to cause multiple casualties, is defused without any injuries.
Sept. 11, Benghazi, Libya: militants armed with antiaircraft weapons and rocket-propelled grenades fire upon the American consulate, killing U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other embassy officials. U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton said the U.S. believed that Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, a group closely linked to Al Qaeda, orchestrated the attack.
Feb. 1, Ankara, Turkey: Ecevit Sanli detonates a bomb near a gate at the U.S. Embassy. Sanli dies after detonating the bomb. One Turkish guard is also killed. Didem Tuncay, a respected television journalist, is injured in the blast. Unlike the bombing at the embassy in Benghazi last September, the U.S. government immediately calls the bombing a terrorist attack. According to Turkish officials, the attack is from the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party, which has been labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. and other nations.
April 15, Boston, Mass.: multiple bombs explode near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Two bombs go off around 2:50 in the afternoon as runners finish the race. Three people are killed. One is an eight year old boy. More than 260 people are injured. Three days later, the FBI releases photos and video of two suspects in the hope that the public can help identify them. Just hours after the FBI releases the images, the two suspects rob a gas station in Central Square then shoot and kill a MIT police officer in his car. Afterwards, the two men carjack a SUV and tell the driver that they had set off the explosions at the marathon. Police pursue the vehicle into Watertown. During the shootout, a MBTA officer is shot and one of the suspects, identified as Tamerlan Tsarnaev, age 26, is killed. A suicide vest is found on his body. The other suspect, Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, age 19, remains at large for several hours, causing a massive manhunt and lockdown for all of Boston, Cambridge, and many other surrounding communities. The manhunt ends when he is found alive, but seriously injured, hiding in a boat behind a house in Watertown. The two suspects are brothers and had been living together in Cambridge. They have lived in the U.S. for about a decade, but are from an area near Chechnya, a region in Russia.
July 17, Ukraine: A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 crashes in eastern Ukraine near the Russian border, killing all 298 passengers and crew members. The crash occurs in territory where pro-Russian separatists have been battling Ukrainian troops. President Poroshenko says the crash is an act of terror. "I would like to note that we are calling this not an incident, not a catastrophe, but a terrorist act," he says. Ukrainian and American officials say the plane is shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile, citing satellite images. Poroshenko accuses the separatists of launching the missile, which they deny. Russian president Putin also denies having any role in the disaster. A day after the crash, President Obama says he believes that the rebels shot down the plane. He calls the crash a "global tragedy" and faults Putin for continuing to arm the rebels and for not stopping the fighting. Most analysts say rebels may have thought they were targeting a military transport plane rather than a commercial jet. A day before the crash, the U.S. and Europe impose further sanctions on Russia in response to Putin's refusal to stop arming the separatists.
August 19: Members of ISIS behead American journalist James Foley, 40, in apparent retaliation for U.S. airstrikes against the group. Foley, who worked for GlobalPost, went missing in Syria in November 2012.
Sept. 2: An ISIS militant decapitates another American journalist, Steven Sotloff, 31, who worked for Time and other news outlets. He was abducted in 2013 in Syria.
Dec. 2, San Bernadino, Calif.: Fourteen people are killed and more than 20 wounded when two people open fire at a holiday party at the Inland Regional Center, a service facility for people with disabilities and special needs in San Bernardino, California. The suspects, husband and wife Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, are killed in a shootout with police after the rampage. Officials say they believe the attack is terrorism related. It is the worst mass shooting in the United States since 26 people were killed in Dec. 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. (Dec. 8): The F.B.I. announces that Farook and Malik had been "radicalized." The FBI also concludes that while the couple was not working with ISIS directly, their actions were inspired by the Islamic State.
June 12: A mass shooting at an Orlando nightclub in the early hours of Sunday, June 12, 2016, leaves 50 people dead, including the gunman, and more than 50 injured. The shooter is identified as Omar Mateen, 29, who entered the nightclub armed with an assault rifle and a pistol. According to authorities, Mr. Mateen pledged his allegiance to ISIS via a 911 call from inside the nightclub. This massacre is the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil.
October 31: On Tuesday, October 31, 2017, a man drove his rented Home Depot truck near the World Trade Center in New York. The driver, Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, plowed his vehicle into pedestrians along the West Side Highway bike path, killing eight and wounding another eleven. Sources say a note in the truck claimed this attack was for ISIS.
See also U.S.-Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations; Suspected al-Qaeda Terrorist Acts.
1. On Oct. 29, 2003, New York officials reduced the number of people killed at the World Trade Center in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States by 40 names. The list of casualties dropped to 2,752 from 2,792 for a variety of reasons: some people initially reported missing have been found, there were duplicate names, there was no proof that a person was at the World Trade Center that day, and because of fraud. On January 2004, the number was reduced by 3 more to 2,749."
Yes, we have an enemy that requires being defeated by using more than a military solution.
https://www.infoplease.com/world/disast … -americans
I would not support the reintroduction of the draft. I prefer a professional military. One where people are free to choose the military as a career. I don't think that would be necessary unless a ground war was started by a large country. I don't see that happening any time soon.
Extremism in the United States
Despite fears that extremism is on the rise in the United States, right-wing extremism is far more prevalent than jihadi terrorism. From 2009 to 2018, 23.4 percent of extremist-related killings were caused by someone affiliated with Islamist extremism, and almost three quarters of extremist-related killings were carried out by someone affiliated with right-wing extremism. Overall, there have been relatively few terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 1970.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/667 … nd-gender/
This is very similar to the information I provided earlier that you suspected had a liberal bias, do you have the same attitude about this source?
You have quite a list there, but does it address percentages of the sort of terrorism as a whole?
You are more optimistic about the military outcome and necessity than I am. I see the danger reaching far and wide. As this is a struggle of ideologies going beyon man power and quantities of military ordinance. We will have our britches down in some of the most dangerous parts of the world waiting for someone to kick.
I will get you a definition for right wing extremism.
I thought getting out of the ME and not being the world's police was something Trump ran on? This was one thing I agree with him on.
For example, from Ron Paul's site: "President Trump has indicated that he will fulfill one of his central campaign promises - to get the US out of the endless wars in the Middle East and elsewhere." http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archive … s-go-nuts/
I'm interested as to what Trump has to say...for once.
I suppose you believe it was US money we gave back to Iran, Mike? Why, because your role model said so!
This lie has been repeated by the Right so many times you actually believe it's true. Sad...
Randy, try READING before responding. It'll make your responses better.
John Kerry KNEW some of the money supplied by obama would be used for terrorism.
"Davos, Switzerland (CNN)Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged to CNBC Thursday that some of the money Iran received in sanctions relief would go to groups considered terrorists."
https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics … index.html
"The U.S. government has traced some of the $1.7 billion released to Iran by the Obama administration to Iranian-backed terrorists in the two years since the cash was transferred.
According to knowledgeable sources, Iran has used the funds to pay its main proxy, the Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah, along with the Quds Force, Iran’s main foreign intelligence and covert action arm and element of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
The U.S. money supplied to Iran as part of an arms settlement dating back to the 1970s also has been traced to Iran’s backing of Houthi rebels seeking to take power in Yemen. Iran has been supporting the Yemen rebels as part of a bid to encircle and eventually take control of Saudi Arabia."
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … iran-back/
Had to copy and save this one. While waiting on Mike's response, I have some questions; which groups are being considered as Right wing? Right wing as in conservatives? Which conservative groups are responsible for more killings than Islamic terrorists?
The source of the data is provided below, in the article is a hyper link where you can get your question answered.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrori … ted_States
I'm a real stickler for details. They define an interpretation of right wing, they don't provide names of groups or examples of what they believe is right wing. Without this, the Gambino Family in New York could be considered right wing.
I wish they would provide the details of what groups they are referring to in the article as right wing.
To me, that is an important detail.
Mike, here is a definition provided by the Dept of Homeland Security and legitimate as it gets.
The United States Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremism in the United States as "broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." 
The Gambino family is violence is associate with crime for unjust material gain and does not qualify under this definition. When you think of the massacres of the last 10 years, I include the mentally ill, right wing extremists and to a lesser extent, Islamists and left wing extremists. And it is an important detail for the purpose of clarification.
We are speaking also of individuals whosemotivation has been aligned with the definition of right wing extremist "Timothy McVey", though not associated with a specific group. The perpetrator of the recent massacre in ElPaso falls well within the definition of right wing extremist.
I agree with you. I don't disagree with the definition.
I would just like more specifics of WHAT right wing groups were involved. I guess like a mob boss "I want names, I want addresses, I want to know when they scratch themselves."
It is a detail that is important for me to understand such a story.
No, that is shitty. And so is any comment that endorses it.
Once again we agree, Gus. Twice in one day...
Oh my, I guess Biden supporters are a little touchy about their guy being so touchy with young girls. How many examples do you want?
Being a Biden supporter, or not, has nothing to do with it Mike. It was just a dumb low-brow meme. Endorsing it is less than flattering.
This meme is spot on. Biden didn't earn the title of “Creepy Uncle Joe” for nothing.
"Fores wrote: "I felt him [Biden] get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified. I thought to myself, 'I didn't wash my hair today and the vice-president of the United States is smelling it. And also, what in the actual fuck? Why is the vice-president of the United States smelling my hair?"
https://www.newsweek.com/kellyanne-conw … os-1381378
Mike, I would prefer that another candidate take the nomination over Biden.
But in the face of all this, we cannot ignore Trump's behavior which in his past or today, has not been exactly "Emily Post"
You criticize, Biden, but is the man you root for any different? Is he acceptable solely on the basis of his advocacy of the Conservative Agenda? Sound much like the attitude of his Evangelical followers..
Under those circumstances, Lucifer himself would be an acceptable member of your winning team?
I still say the meme about Biden is pretty funny.
I will say what President Donald Trump did, he did as a civilian and NOT while holding public office.
I would like to point out it was the Democrats who were OKAY with Clinton and his womanizing while in public office. So, I don't think Democrats have any moral high ground when it comes to what President Donald Trump did when he was a citizen.
And Trumpeters deemed him fit to be president despite knowing what a disguating low-life he was.
Then we have things like the Jean Carroll rape accusations that lead to the defamation lawsuit he's now facing. But, Trump said if Clinton were President, it would be scandal filled.
And, let's not forget the suite filed against Trump by a 13 year-old girl. Of course, I've no clue of the veracity of this suit, which seems to have been dismissed by the filer, who claims this was done out of fear. https://www.snopes/news/2016/06/23/dona … e-lawsuit/
But, the most revealing thing about this 2016 court filing, IMO, is that Trump allegedly did these things in concert with Jeffery Epstein. But, Trump says he didn't really even know Epstein. Why would the accusations include the both of them if he didn't even know him? And, why did Trump say this back in 2002:
"Ive known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”http://nymag/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/
Come on man!!
But, we should get back to how great the guy is at making the world safer.
Trumpeters don't care how nasty their man is as long as he does their dirty work for them. They're good, patriotic Christians!
But Trumpeters dont care about that $hit, Mike. Unwanted kissing, pussy grabbing, walking in on teenage girls.....Trump has bragged about all of it on camera and audio.
You don't really think hair sniffing is worse, do you?
For the record, I do not want Biden to get the nomination, for this and many other reasons.
We already know Trumpeters are flaming hypocrites but we don't mind receiving daily confirmation of it. Keep up the good work!
I think that so-called private conversation was that women let him because of his celebrity, (not saying I like it, probably wouldn’t want to hear a lot of guy TALK) but just ignore all that PP, because everyone knows what Clinton actually DID, in our White House, as our President! More importantly, what he DID before, as Governor and YET ya’ll still elected him.....twice. So best lay off all that “flaming hypocrites” talk.
P.S. Soleimani is still deader than a doornail!
So are the 176 passengers on the airliner!
Soleimani was a terrorist, a very bad guy, he had to be taken out. If he had not been dealt with....properly....once and for all, and was able to continue his patterns of death, maiming and destruction, you all would be condemning Trump for not taking him out, blaming him for whatever heinous plans, he held in store for us and who knows who else.
But, that’s what you do, blame America, blame Republicans, blame Trump, blame anyone.....but the terrorist., no pity him! Disgusting.
I didn't see any pity for the terrorist, but what about those other 175 people who died in the conflict?
It's horrible that Iran with a Russian-made missile, took down a passenger plane, I do not think it was an intentional act, but that doesn't make it any less horrible.
I doubt they intended to shoot down a commercial airliner.
But there is precious little doubt that they intended to fire the missile, that they intended to shoot down whatever they thought they were firing at, and that they did it as an act of war, part of the action of firing missiles into Iraq.
Now you get it, Dan! They were expecting attack from the US because they retroactively attacked US troops in Iraq. Would the Ukrainian airliner--with 176 passengers aboard--have been shot down if Trump had not sent a drone strike on their general?
Of course not! So much for your hero's wag the dog attempt. I have an opinion as well.
They were expecting attack from the US in response to their own attack on our bases. Yes, but without the spin that such an attack was justified.
Perhaps it would have been shot down, perhaps not. But either way Iran has no intention of stopping their terrorist activities. It is possible, though, that learning that the US will no longer allow continued attacks without reaction will change their attack strategy on US people. If so, it was a good move. If not, well, Iran has killed before and will do so again - no change, then.
No reasonable person will lay the blame for Iran destroying a passenger plane at Trump's feet. Not even with the spin that we should never take steps to stop terrorism because it might cause terrorists to kill.
Perhaps it would have been shot down? Why? There was no heightened alerts until the drone attack by the US, so why would they shoot the plane down?
Never mind, you can apparently justify every stupid move Trump makes. You should have been with his when he was going bankrupt running the casinos. You may have had a better excuse for his bad business deals than he could come up with.
This is liberal philosophy in a nutshell. No personal responsibility. Sad!
To blame the United States for the Iranians shooting down a Ukrainian passenger plane is just idiotic.
It's like telling someone, "If you didn't have such a nice car, then you would not have been shot and carjacked. You have to take responsibility of having a nice car and enticing people to steal it and shoot you. It is YOU who have to accept the responsibility of what happened to you. Those people who stole your car and shot you are victims of your choices."
It's just plain ridiculous.
I've asked others this question Mike. Would those 176 people be alive today, or would they have been shot down anyway if weren't expecting another attack from the US?
Or do you care?
If you have to explain things like this, to the same people, a dozen times or more, chances are good that you are not getting through.
It's ridiculous to try.
Would those people be alive today if Trump hadn't sent a drone attack, AB? Simple, even you can figure this one out.
Who knows Randy, maybe they were given an extra week.
AB, I have a better question for them. I wonder how many low IQ liberals would be alive today if the Eugenics laws from the early 1900s were still in place. At that time, it was legal to do away with those considered "feeble minded."
Randy is always available and eager to answer, so the ball is in his court.
Still miles above you though, AB. As long as we're measuring....
True. Does that nullify everything else?
Sure. Are you saying you don't care what else Trump does as long as he does other stuff you want?
I asked, not stated. You did respond to criticism of Trump's self-admitted sexual assaults and perversions with a "but Solemani is dead" response. You could clarify if you so choose.
Did Bill run against Trump No. Is he relevant to this conversation? No. Do Trumpeters like to deflect to Clinton even though hes been out of office for 20 years? Yes.
I have never defended Bill. You? Here you are, excoriating Bill while defending a guy who bragged about walking in on teenage girls in various stages of undress and grabbing pussies without permission.
Typical Trumpeter rationalizating but totally unsurprising.
You’ve missed my entire point in your rush to call me out as a Trumpeter. I am not a Trumpeter, I was once reluctant, but I don’t expect you to believe me.
Sure, I believe you. Like so many who initially found him abhorrent, you fell right in line once he became the leader of your team. Am I supposed to admire that ? Well, I dont.
I didn't ask for your admiration and I do not seek it.
No, but you attempted to mitigate your current support for Trump by saying you were initially reluctant. I get it.
Yes I was initially reluctant and you were initially open-minded, I think we've covered that adequately.
No. I want to be clear. I knew what kind of man Trump was but I hoped Ihe would surprise me. No such luck.
You seem pleased, though.
I think he has surprised a lot of people. Our economy is phenomenal, the stock market is soaring, which strengthens our IRA, we need all the help we can get as small business owners, no pensions or residuals for us.
I was very pleased when Trump took back the words spoken by Obama, "accept terrorism coming to a city near you", it was as if he was giving up on us, throwing in the towel.
I was also very pleased when Trump took back the words spoken by Obama, "Manufacturing jobs aren't coming back", they have come back, with a vengeance!
Some of his jokes and jabs fall as short as some of the memes shared by both sides of the political spectrum, guess what? I wasn't expecting perfection, just someone that gives a damn.
I am not going to convince you to give him a chance any more than you will convince me that his heart is not in the right place, so truce? It's time to enjoy the weekend.
Funny is in the mind of the beholder, I suppose. I don't think this one, in particular, is funny, it's a meme, I get it. Joe brings so much on himself.
I don't like late night comedians either, don't think they're funny, I no longer tune in, but many still do.
Exactly! "We should never take steps to stop terrorism, because it might cause terrorists to kill"....which brings us right back to where we started.
I hope the liberals who are upset about President Donald Trump taking out this human garbage known as an Iranian general read this.
The continued propaganda on this thread is insane. Time after time the "liberals" here state how much they don't care about this Iranian general's life, but the Trumpeteers just keep coming back with these same memes stating otherwise. The old tried and true that if you keep saying it often and saying it loud, it becomes the truth.
I disagree. I would say time after time liberals are upset because President Donald Trump took out a general who killed, maimed and damaged thousands of our troops. I have no idea why any "American" would not celebrate this action.
" have no idea why any "American" would not celebrate this action. "
Did you celebrate the invasion of Iraq? I didn't. Same reason, I would gather.
I have stated I am reserving judgment. So far, it's not looking good, with the administration's stated justifications constantly evolving, and Trump bragging he deserves a Nobel peace prize while Republican senators are spitting mad about the non-briefing they received on the killing of Solemani.
Yeah, it's not looking good.
Oh but Mike, don’t you know they love America! Just not as much as they love our enemies.
See. I love America and don't like those who do the Russian's propaganda work
Maybe obama should go apologize to Iran for hitting their missiles with civilian aircraft.
Maybe Trump should apologize to Saudi Arabia for anyone questioning their terrorizing of journalists..oh yeah, he already did.
"Five people have been sentenced to death in connection with the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul last year, Saudi Arabia's public prosecutor announced Monday, but the two most senior officials implicated in the case, including an adviser to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, were cleared of wrongdoing."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mi … story.html
by Deforest 8 years ago
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The US administration just gave them the...
by deecoleworld 5 years ago
What are your thoughts on Police Brutality? Especially about the recent death of Walter Scott
by Castlepaloma 3 years ago
I was told by a few gun fans that hammers kill more people than guns. Personally I could not beat a man into a hamburger. Or Hamburger hill would be grossly rewritten. If someone challenge you to death duel, would your choice weapon be a hammer or a gun? I rest my case. Trump speeches is Mr....
by Randy Godwin 17 months ago
In 2015 Trump admitted he had a conflict of interest with Turkey because he had a Trump Towers project in the works. He now stabs the Kurds in the back after they fought beside American troops to help rid the region from ISIS. Apparently money means more to him than human lives as Turkey is posed...
by Scott Belford 15 months ago
Donald Trump, after some discussion with few of his top generals, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense as well as some of his advisors, over a two or three day period, decided to assassinate the second most powerful person in the Iranian government - General Qasem Soleimani, the leader...
by Angelique Newman 8 years ago
It's starting to get frustrating that my hubs slip into idle mode and I'm not aware of it until I do a count of them. I wish they would notify me, not to mention explain why they did it. I admit my page views are incredibly low lately but this is the second time they stopped featuring...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|