Is the World More or Less Safe Given Trump Killed an Iranian General?

Jump to Last Post 1-25 of 25 discussions (316 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image91
    My Esotericposted 8 weeks 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 of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force. 

    In addition, an Iraqi militia leader, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iran-backed militias in Iraq known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, he was associated with the Iraqi Hezbollah faction who killed an American contractor recently that led to retaliatory air strikes against them.  This, in turn, led to an Iranian inspired protest at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. It was at this juncture that Trump ordered the strike on Soleimani without consulting Congress.

    The reason given is that it was self-defense because Iran, in the person of Soleimani, as planning "imminent" attacks on US personnel and infrastructure. 

    Trump claims "Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks," Trump said. "We caught him in the act and terminated him."

    Yet the Defense Department and JCS General Milley said

    "There was “compelling” intelligence and clear evidence that Qasem Soleimani was planning a “significant campaign of violence” against the US in the coming days, weeks and months, "

    Trump claims Soleimani's "reign of terror is over".  But is it?  Won't the next in command take up the mantel and continue whatever operations Soleimani had been planning?  The Quds is a robust organization not much different in structure than America's military.  What Trump wants us to believe is that taking out Soleimani is equivalent to them killing General Milley, the Joint Chief of Staff.

    So, what did Trump gain by this significant ratcheting up of the conflict between American and Iran?  Was the gain worth the cost America is going to pay with the retaliatory strikes Iran will inflict on us?

    Also, do you believe Trump's justification?  I don't and won't until it is verified by our intelligence community.

    Trump once said that President Obama would start a war with Iran to win the Presidency.  Is it possible that Trump has the same idea for himself?  Is it possible that Trump made the world a much more dangerous place for Americans in order to divert attention from his impeachment?

    1. peterstreep profile image78
      peterstreepposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Killing Soleimani was an act of war. Imagine if General Milley was killed by an airstrike, on the bases of that was planning something...
      By killing Soleimani Trump made the unstable situation in the middle east more fragile.
      Soleimani had lots of influence and fought strongly against ISIS. If not for his help the Islamic State would have been far more powerful.
      Trump wants a war, that's clear. As a war will boost his presidency.
      This was nothing but an election campaign stunt.

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Peter, not to go off topic, but how is Great Britain now that you have Conservatives firmly in charge (which surprised the hell out of me!)  I am guessing Brexit (or busting out) is a done deal now.

        Will Scotland and Northern Ireland remain?

        1. peterstreep profile image78
          peterstreepposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Hi, My Esoteric.
          Brexit is a disaster.
          Just a personal example.
          I'm Dutch, My wife is British and we live in Spain. My wife is a violin player and works both in Spain and Holland. After Brexit she will need a visa and a work permit to be able to work in Holland. Because of this, it is quite probable that she will lose her job in Holand. As she is self-employed, the orchestras probably won't take the hassle to hire her. (Tax will also become more complicated)
          Spain has a public health system. And you have access to it if you are a European citizen. Although Spain probably will have a separate deal with the UK about this part it still is an uncertainty.
          My wife is at the moment in the process of getting a Dutch nationality. As many people from the UK are trying to get.
          Brexit is one big disaster. As the UK will suddenly be a small country in the big world of commerce. And skinned alive by the US, China and Europe the three biggest commercial markets.
          The UK has to start negotiations all over again with hundreds of countries. Negotiations will take a minimum of 2 years if you' re lucky. In the meantime the UK will be ruled by the World Trade Organization and work under 3rd country rules, losing its advantages and benefits. For sure many businesses will not survive this change.
          The EU will lose a big trading partner but will manage. The UK though is shooting itself in the foot and as you say It could well be the end of the UK. But it will be tough for Scotland to go, but possible.
          It's complex. But in short. One big example of disaster capitalism.

    2. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Another piece of history:

      "As global affairs analyst Max Boot pointed out Friday on CNN, the US has not killed a senior military leader of another country since 1943, when it shot down the plane carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the mastermind of Pearl Harbor." - CNN (note, we were engaged in a world war at the time)

    3. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Here is a great synopsis of America's involvement in the Middle East back to President Carter.  Note the Trotsky quote in the middle of it.

      https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/03/opinions … index.html

    4. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Here is one way the Iranian's may get back at America.  From CNN.

      "And the President should be aware that while Iran may well start to settle the score quickly, it is also a master of serving revenge up cold.

      During a bout of Middle East tension in 1988, the USS Vincennes on patrol in the Persian Gulf accidentally shot down an Iranian civilian passenger jet, killing all 290 people on board.

      Tehran's leaders waited nine months for revenge, widely suspected of having a pipe bomb detonated under the Vincennes captain's car, narrowly missing maiming his wife."

    5. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      This is Iran's view and response - "Dehghan responded defiantly to Trump's warning.

      "It was America that has started the war. Therefore, they should accept appropriate reactions to their actions," he said.

      "The only thing that can end this period of war is for the Americans to receive a blow that is equal to the blow they have inflicted. Afterward they should not seek a new cycle.""

      Iran will respond.  SO, the question is, where will it end?  Can America decimate Iran, no doubt.  Can Iran decimate America, no, not physically; but what about in other ways?

    6. Sharlee01 profile image82
      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      "Is the World More or Less Safe Given Trump Killed an Iranian General?"

      It just may be a step to a safer world. The world has been dealing with this rouge country for many years, we have watch them become more and more powerful using suppression and killing to keep power.

      Nothing has worked so far... Perhaps Trump's aggressiveness will be a step in the right direction.  I guess we will have to see if Trump's actions will help or hinder the situation in the middle east.

    7. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      You know what is ironic??  Trump has spent almost four years telling the world that Russian didn't interfere with the 2016 election.  To put a point on it, he did nothing to beef up our protection against a repeat.

      As a result, Iran has an open door to interfere with the 2020 election against Trump.  Next to the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans, they are probably the best in world at such things.

    8. Onusonus profile image78
      Onusonusposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      You left out a bunch of stuff.
      https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s960x960/81168556_10156536658226956_133664355823648768_o.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_ohc=Q0RV402Z5v8AQloAh1IZLEq4qlEYkND1laO2Je8B0TplZyhMhXCqsespg&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&_nc_tp=1&oh=ced6dcd03d6b48770e5ea32f97647f98&oe=5EAEBA4F

    9. Sharlee01 profile image82
      Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Trump killed a terrorist that is on the terrorist list for many years. has fresh blood on his hands, he just a few weeks ago killed his own people in the streets that were protesting...  He is a murder, and you should be ashamed of putting him in any other light!

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        What other "light" are you referencing?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image82
          Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Any other light than a terrorist murderer. If I am correct the question asked for an opinion?

          "Is the World More or Less Safe Given Trump Killed an Iranian General?"

          I gave mine... I have nothing else to add to that opinion.

  2. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 8 weeks ago

    Wag the dog!

    1. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      What did you say about "Wag the Dog" Randy?

      The revenge has begun so Shar won't have to wait very long at all.

      https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/05/politics … index.html

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        I don't see anything in the link connecting those claiming responsibility to Iran.  Is there one, or is this just another terrorist attack on Americans?  Or are both true - there IS a connection AND it is just another terrorist attack on Americans, no different than all the others?  A "revenge" by terrorists for killing a terrorist, in other words - something we've been facing ever since 911?

        1. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Even though Iran has been trying gain a foothold with al-Shabaab even though they are of different sects (sort of like pro-Trump and anti-Trump camps), I think your second thought is more correct.

          Now to the next headline - Trump has threatened to sanction Iraq "like they have never been sanctioned before" if they kick America out of their country.

          He, hehe, said "said Sunday he would not withdraw entirely unless the military is compensated for the "extraordinarily expensive air base" there."

          https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 821255001/

          Your guy is becoming even more unhinged than he already is.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Then there is nothing about "revenge" for the killing of the Iranian.  Are you making things up again, anything to show Trump did wrong, but things without any basis in reality?

            Or is that the definition of "unhinged" - to live in an alternate reality without connection to the real world?

            1. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Apparently you didn't figure out the change in direction.  Now that Trump has declared war on Iran for which they will revenge, he has decided to do the same with Iraq after killing one of their commanders as well (for which they are going to kick us out of Iraq).  Good, a two front war, just what we need.

              Oh yeah,  why did Trump stand down his war with ISIS??  What is up with that?

              https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/us/p … -iran.html

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Trump declare war?  Did not Iran do that with the murder of a hundred Americans? 

                How is it that Trumps response to past actions and events is now taken as a stand alone event, coming out of nowhere?  Is that just more dissatisfaction with Trump in general - complain about everything he does, whether good, bad or indifferent - or is there a deeper path to follow?  Is it that you prefer to be the punching bag for the world?

                1. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  No, they did not.  They supplied the tools to their surrogates to do that.

                  They did not attack U.S. soil, they did not kill a very high ranking American, so no, that does not fall under the definition of declaring war on America.

                  Taking out Iran's 2nd most powerful man (let's say he was Gen Milley) without "JUST" cause, is such a declaration.  So far, Trump has not shown anyone good reason to do it.  That is a must since he can not be trusted to tell the truth about damn near anything. 

                  And then there is the NYT report that the Suleimani option was tossed in because they wanted him to choose a different option.

                  Unless Trump proves their was an imminent threat, he just hung America out to dry and has completed his original task of turning America into a rogue nation.

          2. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            And then there is this:

            @NYTimes: “Officials presented the president with options. The Pentagon tacked on the choice of targeting Suleimani mainly to make other options seem reasonable. They didn’t think he would take it. When Mr. Trump chose the option, military officials, flabbergasted, were alarmed.”

            It Just Keeps Getting Better!

  3. Will Apse profile image92
    Will Apseposted 8 weeks ago

    What struck me most was that the attack was carried out on Iraqi soil. After the previous attack on Iraqi soil, Iraqi mobs stormed the US Embassy.

    Seems Trump is saying 'we own Iraq and don't give a damn what any one thinks".

    That is not going to work out well. Soon the Iraqis will be thinking, maybe Russia or China would make a better friend. Maybe, even, we should throw in our lot with Iran.

    I can't believe that anyone with any sense of foreign policy was involved in that assassination.

    1. Al Stine profile image94
      Al Stineposted 7 weeks ago

      His actions are extremely counterproductive to any peace efforts and there is no justification to support such an act. He didn't assassinate some terrorists leader hiding in a cave, he assassinated a high ranking diplomat of a sovereign nation and member of the United Nations. He claims his actions are to stop a war, and not to start one, but when you view the reactions of his supporters and enablers, it is very clear to see what his true intentions are. War is death, celebrating an act of War is celebrating Death.

      1. hard sun profile image90
        hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Agreed. You can learn a lot by the reactions of both him and his supporters. This is more about just showing that Trump can, and will, do what he wants to do, and his people cheering him on, than it is making America safe.

        As others here have pointed out,  likely all he did by killing this Iranian general, in Iraq--without Iraq's permission--is create an environment more conducive to terrorists. No worries though, the boomer Trump supporters won't be around to see the totality of the next generation jihadists this helps to spur on.

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Well, certainly. We are always responsible for the barbarism of others. I don't know whether you've noticed or not but terrorists terrorize whether there be provocation, or not.

          Sympathize all you want. Explain all you want. But. Terrorism has more to do with their objectives than our actions.

          1. hard sun profile image90
            hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            This is the point: Of course, terrorists/jihadists will always be. However, actions, such as the one we are discussing, make their recruiting efforts much easier. When it appears that the US doesn't respect a nations' sovereignty, people of that nation are more apt to sign up for the jihadist cause. That has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with sympathy, and everything to do with our nation's, and our people's, self preservation.. Once again, we can learn a lot by his supporters' reactions.

            Now, if we had taken out a decent number of Iranian planes, or some such, I think it would be easier to make a case for this helping our cause. I mean, if we are to go to full-scale war with Iran, I think they'd miss those planes more than a few military brass.

            1. Live to Learn profile image80
              Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              I do respect your opinion but....say what?

              Terrorists, almost by definition, have no respect for a nation's sovereignty. What did you think the Iranian general was doing in Iraq? What were the Saudis doing in American planes over American soil back on 9/11? The list goes on.

              I do agree that this action may be used for recruitment, but girls in bikinis at the beach is also used for recruitment and videos of these animals beheading innocents are used for recruitment. I don't know what to say other than it isn't hard to recruit a barbarian to commit acts of violence.

              I'm no more hawkish than I believe Trump to be. As much havoc as this general wreaked, no matter how many lives were lost to terrorism this general directed, I find any celebration at his death inappropriate. The violence will continue after his death but if the intelligence community perceived an imminent threat to American citizens and removal of this man helped thwart that threat it is, to me, an acceptable action.

              1. hard sun profile image90
                hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                If you think bikini girls with machine guns are as good of recruitment tools as a US strike within a nation, without that nation's permission, then you haven't been paying attention. The topic makes for a great Cramp's song though, lol.

                We will see how this plays how over the next year or two, but we will not see the full results of Trumpian Iranian policy for decades to come. I'd respect the intentions of an attack on an Iranian military base more than this. It would just make more strategic sense.

                Are you suggesting that we should not even be considering how it is that terrorists are able to recruit more to their ranks? This is the number one way to limit the impact of terrorism. If we can keep them from becoming terrorists to begin with, it solves a lot of problems, and is much cheaper on Americans. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. But, an even better terrorist is one that never came to exist. Americans need to think harder if we are going to remain great. It seems we are trending in the reverse.

                1. Live to Learn profile image80
                  Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Murica? I don't know what that is. Perhaps, you'd be kind enough to elaborate.

                  I think you may be right in that countries such as Iran react more favorably to pallets of cash than they do to strategic attacks. Oh heck. Of course you're right, on the surface. But, nothing any administration has done has increased stability in that region, turned Iran away from it's stated mission of the annihilation of Israel or made any headway in moving any nation in that region toward improving basic human rights.

                  Bottom line. Maybe this is a wag the dog scenario. Maybe it did save American lives. Maybe it will endanger them. However, nothing done by any administration has increased security in the region. You are listening to self proclaimed experts who obviously aren't experts since no one has ever followed a course that made things better. We have always been,and will remain,a target of terrorists.

                  Middle Eastern hatred of America resembles liberal hatred of Trump, just includes more violence. For now.

                  1. hard sun profile image90
                    hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I already edited out the Murica as I decided it was not necessary. I do think stability in the region was better with the Iranian treaty in place. And, you said it  with "maybe this is a wag the dog scenario." I haven't listened to any experts on TV for years, if that's what you're referring to. I have read PDF's straight from the DOD, the FBI, etc. as I did research for a huge piece a couple years ago. Edit: None of this makes me an expert, but I know enough to know we should consider ALL consequences of our actions, and do whatever it takes to defeat our enemies. Attacks like this come back on us at some point. Whether they are worth it, or not, I think depends on the scenario. I don't see this being worth it.

                    The liberal hatred for Trump is exactly what Trump wants and invites. He thinks it helps him with his people.

                    1. Live to Learn profile image80
                      Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                      Ah, you edited out an attempt to insult my intelligence. Gotcha.

                      I'm done talking to anyone who thinks insulting the intelligence of an opposing view (even briefly) is acceptable.

                      Have a nice day.

                2. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I am reading Jim Sciutto's The Shadow War which goes into detail how America, over the last 3 decades, has misread the real intentions of people like Putin, Xi, and the Kim's with the end result of leaving America vulnerable. 

                  Very scary book.

                  1. hard sun profile image90
                    hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I will check it out as I recently finished by current crop of books I set out to read. BTW, I also have your book about conservative economic theory on my Amazon wish list, I'm just waiting for the post-holidays spending hesitation to end before I pull the trigger, lol.

              2. My Esoteric profile image91
                My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Then why not take out Iran's Supreme Leader with a surgical MOAB instead?  That will certainly cut off the head of the terrorist organization called IRAN.?

                Why are you arguing about whether Soleimani was a terrorist?  Nobody is arguing against you - he was.

                But what you seem to be arguing for is that it will be OK if Trump uses a drone to assassinate these know terrorists:

                Putin?
                Un?
                Assad?
                Xi?

                All friends of Trumps, some of who he is in Love with.

                1. Live to Learn profile image80
                  Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I am looking at this from an angle of what has been reported. He was in another country coordinating terror attacks on our citizens.

                  He,also, is not the leader of a country so I'm confused by the confusion you are attempting to create here.

                  If I were president, which I'm not, I'd have washed my hands of the mess Europe made that is the Middle East long ago. I'd have pushed to find a way to make fossil fuels obsolete so the influence of the Middle East disappeared.

                  I don't like anyone dying but human life has little to no value to residents of that part of the world. They don't care about our lives. I won't shed a tear when one of theirs who exemplifies the barbarism of that region finds his demise.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image82
          Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          He took out ISIS... He certainly is making every attempt to deter Jihadist. The fact is he took out our biggest threat.  I suppose you feel it would have been more beneficial to let them grow? Do the math fewer terrorists are positive or would you suggest we negotiate with  terrorist.groups?

          Ya know what, you should worry about the next generation.  One thing Trump did was cut down on what they will have to deal with... or should I say negotiate with.

          And no rump has clearly not created an environment more conducive to terrorists. he has clearly warned them they will be accountable for their crimes.

          1. hard sun profile image90
            hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Trump took out ISIS? Is that what he told you? Iran is making more nukes now, without even having to attempt at hiding it. How is this safer? How did Trump killing a few military brass cut down on "what they have to deal with?" I'm no expert, but it seems like this is going to bring a lot more to deal with and accomplish very little. The real "terrorists" blow themselves up, I don't think they are too worried about being held accountable for their crimes. While this Iranian general was a bad human who did likely deserve what he got, he was really a military general, not a traditional terrorist, no matter how Pompeo tries to spin it.

            1. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              I tried to edjumacate Shar about the facts of the matter, but she didn't pay attention.

              I read an interesting Political article last night - which makes it worthwhile to keep presenting the truth to people.  Except for Trump supplicants where the reverse is true, most people listened.

              While I was looking for it I saw a new headline "Pentagon Halts Fight against ISIS in Iraq amid new threats to Bases" - If ISIS was defeated, why were we still fighting them and why are we stopping now?

              The title is We are not living in a Post-Fact world[/b]

              It is based on a new study that rejects, for the most part, the adage that "voters are consuming Fake News and rejecting Facts."

              They found for reviewing 10,000 participants over the previous four years, that:

              -  "When presented with factual information, Americans - Liberals, Conservatives and everyone in between - generally responded by becoming more accurate"

              -  "32% of people when [i]not
              presented with factual accurate information later expressed factual beliefs, compared with 60% of people who were presented with factually accurate information and went on to express factually accurate beliefs.

              - There was a 2010 study where conservatives presented with the truth about WMD in Iraq actually became more convinced of the presence of WMD.  This was called the "backfire effect".

              - This new study, for the most part, refutes that finding.  Interesting is that this studies authors invited the old studies (which used a much smaller sample) authors to participate.  They did and became convinced of the new studies findings.

              - As part of the new study, they [i[tried[/i] to induce the "backfire effect" and, for the most part, failed.  "By and large, the average person responded to the corrections by bringing their views closer in line with the facts.  This was true across ideologies and across parties." This includes Trump supporters.

              -  I keep saying "for the most part".  Here is the exception.  To test Trump's unique ability to sow belief in falsehoods, they took the same set of Trump falsehoods and, at random, attributed them to either Trump or Senator Mitch McConnell.  They then presented the truth to each group of people.  What did they find?

              Those that thought Trump had made the statement, when presented with the truth, were less likely to change their views to coincide with the facts than those that thought McConnell gave the false statement.

              -

              1. hard sun profile image90
                hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Interesting and encouraging until I got to the part about Trump vs McConnell. It seems clear that the "backfire effect" worked only on Trump supporters in regards to statements attributed to Trump. I guess the silver lining is that Trump's people are not the American majority, and it's not like he's bringing more into the fold.  That's somewhat encouraging. I'd run across a headline though hadn't clicked through. The psychology/sociology of all that is Trump is definitely intriguing.

          2. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            I thought you knew, Shar, that because of Trump, ISIS is growing again now that America has left the battlefield.

            https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50850325

            https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your … -watchdog/

            https://www.businessinsider.com/pentago … raq-2019-8

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 237528002/ (one of those papers that AllSides rates neutral, btw.)

            https://www.theblaze.com/news/isis-grow … in-in-iraq (a Far-Right rag)

            "Ya know what, you should worry about the next generation.  One thing Trump did was cut down on what they will have to deal with... or should I say negotiate with." - EXACTLY how did he do that???

        3. peterstreep profile image78
          peterstreepposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          In other words an election stunt.

          1. hard sun profile image90
            hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Exactly. And it will work brilliantly to fire up his base, just in case they needed a bit more motivation to support their beloved. It's getting crazy in the US.

            1. peterstreep profile image78
              peterstreepposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Yes, we live in interesting times!!
              If George Bush, Bush Jr or Obama had said the things that Trump is saying at his twitter account they never would have been elected. It seems that we live in a post-truth era. and that people don't care about the truth anymore. That's worrisome.

              1. hard sun profile image90
                hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Yup. During the Obama administration, I worked as a lobbyist, listening to phone calls with many American "conservatives" and some "liberals" and then writing letters to govt.  officials based on the calls. The difference in how the "conservatives" thought about the world as opposed to today, is so stark that you would not even recognize them as being the same people today. The issue is that they put all of their chips into Trump so now everything he says/or does is EXACTLY what is best for America. For example, Trump could declare that Russia is our biggest ally, and they'd fall in line. Meanwhile, during the Obama administration, I heard conservatives literally screaming about how the Russians were coming because Obama was so weak.

                As to the Post Truth World, IDK if you saw the talk of the article "No we're not living in a Post-Fact world" which discusses research that shows how , in the US, this Post-Truth/Fact attitude is focused on Trump himself. It's an interesting piece.

                1. peterstreep profile image78
                  peterstreepposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  No I haven't read the article. But people always believed in lies and fairytale stories. But with the rise of social media people don't give themselves time to think about what they have heard. People don't fact cheque and lies do have an impact even if you know for sure it's a lie. Like the pedophile story of Hillary Clinton using a Pizza restaurant...
                  Those lies have consequences. And aren't innocent. Same with the label terrorist for every person who does not agree with you. Or the word nazi used by right wingers to label left wingers.

                  1. hard sun profile image90
                    hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Yes...good points. Confirmation bias has always existed and the Internet definitely makes it easier. I've always fact checked stories. I think America's youth is being taught a bit better than our older folks who didn't grow up with the Internet. We can always hope that this problem at least gets better.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    " But people always believed in lies and fairytale stories. " - which is why the Founders chose the electoral college - to stop people like Trump from getting elected.

                    Unfortunately, along the way, the rules were changed and the Electors are no longer the kind of people that our Founders had hoped would be chosen.

                    1. wilderness profile image97
                      wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                      For once I agree with you - the electors are no longer the kind of people that our founders would have expected.

                      The expectation was that electors would be politicians in their own right, ignoring the will of the people in favor of their own ideas and thoughts - much like our politicians today.  Instead we expect, and demand, that electors vote as directed by the people - They are nothing more than a ballot to be case as the people wish.  And if the people wish to have "people like Trump" to be elected, then we expect electors to do just that.  Not cast the people's vote as they would wish.

                2. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  That is why I call Trump supplicants Trumplicans.  As the conservatives today bear no resemblance to the Republican party of the 1970s let alone the liberal Republican party of 1864, Trumplicans have shed any ideological connection to today's conservatives.

              2. My Esoteric profile image91
                My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                I think it is the Trump supplicants that don't care about the truth or facts.

                1. peterstreep profile image78
                  peterstreepposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Sadly enough it's not restricted to the US. The lies told during the Brexit campaign where on a par with Trump. And in many other coutries politicians have discovered the power of the blunt lie.

          2. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            It is looking more like it given Trump's refusal to provide the intelligence he used as a basis.  He certainly did change the narrative, didn't he - from impeachment to WW III.

            It seems, according to Sen Warner (D-VA), I think, the intel that was presented did show attacks being planned.  He needs to see more information to determine if the "imminent" threshold was met.

            1. peterstreep profile image78
              peterstreepposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Ehm. Remind me please. What was the evidence again the last time the US started a war....something about chemical weapons I believe.....
              Intel about a planned attack by Soleimani...I think it’s justified to be cynical.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image82
        Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Would it not be fair if not prudent to see if his action brings war? And it is not fair to assume all Trump supporters are celebrating an act of war. 

        It is also unfair to assume President Trump assassinated this man for political reasons.  My God, he clearly has enough on his plate, I would not think he needed this. 

        I would be interested where you got the idea anyone is celebrating the presidents' killing a terrorist? You do realize this man was a terrorist?

      3. peterstreep profile image78
        peterstreepposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        100% agreed

    2. Live to Learn profile image80
      Live to Learnposted 7 weeks ago

      Trump has never appeared hawkish to me. He does appear to put the same value on the individual American life as he does the collective, for which I am grateful.

      You can give titles to this Iranian general all you like but my understanding was he fully supported terrorism against the US. I'm not going to celebrate, but I won't mourn either.

      The death of a terrorist always implies some form of retribution will be attempted. I don't see us as safer, or less safe, at this juncture. It's the nature of having a presence in the Middle East or the nature of civilized nations attempting to interact with the barbarism of some Middle East regimes.

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        There is no doubt that Soleimani was responsible for many deaths, Americans and others, in what are acts of terror.  He was also no doubt plotting more mayhem. For that he deserved to die.

        It is also not in doubt that he was an arch foe of ISIS, as mentioned above, and he was not a lone wolf with his own non-state terrorist organization.  He was a very senior member of the Iranian government carrying out their orders.

        Killing bin Laden was not an act of war.  Killing Soleimani was. 

        In both cases, America violated the sovereignty of an allied nation.  In Pakistan's case, it didn't destabilize the nation.  In Iraq's case, it could very well drive them 100% in to the arms of Iran and remove American influence in that part of the world. 

        It could also mean a faster regeneration of ISIS, which has begun again in earnest after Trump summarily pulled out of Northern Syria leaving the battlefield to the Russians and the letting our Kurdish allies to die at the hands of the Turks.

        It will also mean more American, not necessarily military, deaths somewhere around the world as Iran retaliates.

        It will also mean a world-wide rising for fear and anxiety while people everywhere wait and wonder where Iran will attack.

        So, yes, a very bad man is gone.  But the question is, was the price we will pay worth it?

        So, the quest

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          I think, in the pursuit of honesty, will should be replaced with could.

          I wish no one,anywhere, ever had to die under violent circumstances. I hate war. I do think Trump hates the idea of war also. But, I think he wants it to be crystal clear he will protect American lives and hold responsible those who manipulate to have terrorism enacted against us.

          You say we acted against a sovereign nation. Is not this man a direct report of a nation responsible for the same? The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. I'm not blaming Trump for this. There has never been a solution to the Middle East.  If anyone listened to me we'd not deal with barbarians. But since we do, it's always a muddled mucked up mess.

          1. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            No, I chose "will" on purpose.  There is no reason at all to think Iran will change how it reacts to attacks on its citizens.

            "Is not this man a direct report of a nation responsible for the same?" - No, Soleimani works for Iran.  We attacked in Iraq.

            1. Live to Learn profile image80
              Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              By my understanding we have authorization to do so in Iraq. Your beef is the fact that the attack was on an Iranian.

              To be clear. We know they will retaliate if we hurt their citizens or soldiers. Why should our actions be any different when our citizens or soldiers are attacked?

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                So why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia when an American resident and journalist was hacked to pieces on the orders of the leader of the country? Instead, we rewarded them with a vast weapons sale.

                But then, SA had Qatar lease son-in-law's 666 building in NY when no one else would. Probably just coincidence for the umpteenth time. roll

                1. Live to Learn profile image80
                  Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I don't like the fact that no more was done than it was however if you are going to compare I will point out Kashoggi was a Saudi, killed by Saudis in a Saudi embassy.

                  If you think we should have reacted militarily that would negate much of the argument your side is presenting.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Khashoggi was a legal U.S. resident,  just like millions of others living in America.  Are you saying each one of those are fair game from their original country if that country wants to take them out and we shouldn't care or do something about it?

                    1. Live to Learn profile image80
                      Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                      No. I was pointing out that was talking out of both sides of the mouth.

              2. My Esoteric profile image91
                My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                My beef is we assassinated a high ranking official of a foreign gov't.  It is yet to be determined if it was legal or not and that will come from what the intelligence reports really say.

                If the intel shows that there was truly an imminent attack which Soleimani was going to pull off, then it was a good kill.  Letting Congress know, in that case, was not needed.

                If, however, the intel shows that Soleimani was doing what he normally does as commanding an army in conflict with the US and planning non-imminent attacks, then the kill was an assassination, illegal, and an act of war.

                Of course Trump leaves me no choice in believing anything he says and neither does Pompeo; both lie more than they tell the truth.  So I will take my cues from those in the intelligence community, senior military officers, and Democrats who have heard classified and unclassified briefings on the intel.  I would believe Collins, Murkowski, and Romney as well.

    3. AshutoshJoshi06 profile image85
      AshutoshJoshi06posted 7 weeks ago

      The odds are that some soldiers and a lot of civilians will become casualties and collateral damage. Hopefully all that could be avoided if sense prevails in Washington.
      But then there is other pissed off side too that has vowed to avenge the killings. With news of projectiles fired into the green zone already flashing, you never know. All in all the world is not getting any safer.

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yes, you never know, but I read that shelling the Green Zone as well as our bases is not that unusual.

    4. Will Apse profile image92
      Will Apseposted 7 weeks ago

      Massive Iraqi crowds mourn the General's death. Iraqi MP's vote to expel all foreign troops. The Iraqi army has ended cooperation with German forces, already. Iraq is complaining to the UN about sovereignty violations as loudly as Iran.

      Who could have guessed? Well, most people who read real newspapers, might have, lol.

      Pretty much all of West Asia wants the US out. Only Israel and the Saudis remain as allies plus a few tiny Emirates.

      Putin must be delighted. The US really might be out of the entire region in weeks. All it will take is a Russian air defense system. Maybe the Chinese and Russian ships already in Iranian waters will hang around too.

      I remember Blair and Clinton saying "As long as Europe and America remain united there is nothing that can threaten us" and it was true.  That seems a long, long time ago.

      1. hard sun profile image90
        hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        And, I just watched Face the Nation, for the first time in some time, and saw Pompeo talk about how he wasn't convinced this would happen, and that the Iraqi people were with us. I understand the expulsion decision happened, in part, due to Iraqi public pressure after the bombing.

        1. Will Apse profile image92
          Will Apseposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Iraq is 60 per cent Shia. The government is mainly Shia. It was Shia militias who were mostly responsible for defeating ISIS in Iraq (with backing from Shia Iran).

          That Iranian general did not sneak in a back door, he was a guest of the Iraqi government. And Trump killed him in their capital city.

          1. hard sun profile image90
            hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Well that definitely makes sense politically for the Iraqi govt then. If the intention is for the US to just leave the MidEast altogether, and leave a "power vacuum", then I see the expulsion as not mattering so much. 

            However, Trump is sending more troops so he Iraqi expulsion is difficult to see as a good thing. Where will they all go with at least Afghanistan and now Iraq expressing they are not willing to help with confronting Iran? Saudi Arabia?

            1. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              He will need them to defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.  Maybe he can put them to good use fighting Iranian proxies in Yemen.

              1. hard sun profile image90
                hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Hmm...I did read that Saudi Arabia/Kuwait are likely targets, which makes sense. I'm not familiar with US/Yemen relations at all, but I'm guessing they would indeed welcome the help as long as Trump doesn't rub them the wrong way also.

                It just seems so counter-productive to get things heated up over there in a way that could limit our military options. I'm sure Trump has Great Bigly plans though, IDK.

    5. emge profile image75
      emgeposted 7 weeks ago

      The sins of the father follow the son. That's the way I see it. President Bush destabilized Iraq by overthrowing Saddam who was no friend of al Qaeda and Iran. Now the US is in a dilemma and despite maintaining 5000 troops in Iraq has no peace or appreciation from the Shia leadership that now rules Iraq and is allied with Iran. So what did America gain? shot itself in the foot. The way the wind is blowing. it may well mark the end of American influence in Iraq. America and Trump are faced with the famous soliloquy of Hamlet "to be or not to be."

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        That may very well be true.

    6. profile image60
      munkleposted 7 weeks ago

      All this is exactly what Israel wants, for the US to war with Iran.  General Wes Clark: "...finishing off, with Iran."   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNt7s_Wed_4

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Israel is distancing themselves from Trump and the Soleimani killing.

        https://www.thedailybeast.com/netanyahu … -it-report

    7. Onusonus profile image78
      Onusonusposted 7 weeks ago

      https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s960x960/81402367_1294772190728813_1681882126229700608_o.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=tdMYpWOeX9sAQnTGpEqrruQI1SLiqaodsMRrxhPG2GoqBSiceEsTwg34Q&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&_nc_tp=1&oh=88ccae484789375b07e34f417e1f6a0f&oe=5EA7B0BB

    8. KC3Lady profile image83
      KC3Ladyposted 7 weeks ago

      I find it refreshing to have a leader who isn't pacifying terrorists. If only that decisiveness would trickle down to local law enforcement standing up to multiple perpetrator stalkers rather than pacifying, and even assisting them.

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        You find Trump decisive? I find him dangerously mentally ill; someone who changes his mind hourly.  His action was decisive only because he can't undo an assassination of another nation's official in an act of war. 

        Why doesn't he take out the known terrorist and mass murderer Un, the leader of North Korea, instead of coddle him?

        Why doesn't he take out the known terrorist and mass murderer Putin, the leader of Russia, instead of appease him in a traitorous manner?

        Why doesn't he take out the known terrorist and mass murderer Iran's Supreme Leader, instead of killing one of his underlings?

    9. GA Anderson profile image91
      GA Andersonposted 7 weeks ago

      Relative to your thought that the EC failed its secondary purpose of stopping the election of a demagogue, that can only be an opinion. Obviously a large segment of folks would disagree with you.

      Also, I think your support of the National Popular Vote Interstate  Compact falls into the same shenanigans category as changing a vote from super majority to simple majority for political purposes. You seem to have a problem with that, so how can you support the NPVIC?

      The appearance is that if you can't get what you want through an established process then the established process must be wrong and should be changed. And since you can't get enough support to change that process legitimately, you are okay with using shenanigans to get what you want.

      GA

    10. KC3Lady profile image83
      KC3Ladyposted 7 weeks ago

      It is more safe.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Not for the 175 people killed on the Ukrainian airliner shot down by mistake because of Trump's attack on the Iranian general. Collateral damage.....I detest that term!

        1. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          But you don't detest it enough to refrain from trying to make political hay from it.

          GA

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            What part of my comment do you disagree with, Gus? How does the death of this many people benefit me? Or anyone else, for that matter?

            1. GA Anderson profile image91
              GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              I disagree with the part where you blame Pres. Trump for it. Your perceived benefit was the opportunity to take another shot at the president.

              GA

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Okay Gus, you believe the airliner would have been shot down even if Trump didn't order the drone strike on the general. Gotcha!

          2. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            I do not see it as making political hay be holding Trump responsible for his actions.

      2. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        BS.  Tell that to all of the American troops who are on lock down because of the threat Trump created.  Tell that the Iraqis fearing for their lives from ISIS attacks because Trump called off his war against ISIS.  Tell that to all of the American embassy officials around the world who now have to check their cars to make sure Iran didn't plant another bomb like they have before.

        Delusional.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          "Tell that to all of the American embassy officials around the world who now have to check their cars to make sure Iran didn't plant another bomb like they have before."

          I suppose Trump was responsible for the past checks/lockdowns/etc. as well?  The ones before he ever stepped on the scene?

          Delusional.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Trump was stupid for withdrawing from the Nuclear treaty. He only did it because he tries to undo everything Obama achieved.during his administration.

            Iran was certified to be adhering to the terms of the treaty, despite what you hear on Fox News. Trump has opened up a can of worms trying to wag the dog. He's failing badly, Dan.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Yup.  Took out a kingpin terrorist.  Failing badly.

              1. My Esoteric profile image91
                My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Why isn't he taking out kingpin terrorists like his friends Putin, Xi, and Un??

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Not sure what any of that has to do with blaming Trump for the actions of Iran, who is very well known for long time terrorist activities.

              Or are you trying to change the topic to something besides such foolish claims?

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                What about it, Dan? Do you believe 167 people on the airliner would be alive today if Trump hadn't ordered the drone strike?

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  There is zero doubt in my mind that Iran would have continued (and very likely will continue) to spread death and destruction through their terrorist activities; there is nothing new going on there. 

                  What about you?  Do you think they would have stopped such activity without the loss of their terrorist kingpin?  Or are you just taking the opportunity to blame Trump for something that was destined to happen anyway, whether the downing of a plane or something else?

                  (As far as I know no government has taken responsibility for that - all are claiming a mechanical failure.)

                  1. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I do agree with that assessment about Iran (although I would substitute "will" rather than "would have", if fact it will probably increase now.

                    So, no, I don't think Iran will stop what they are doing because we assassinated Soleimani.  As a result of the killing, the world and especially American's are in more danger of being attacked by Iran than ever before.

                    There is little doubt now that Iran shot down the Ukrainian plane. The Iranians are denying it to save face.

                    It is easy to connect the dots from Killing Soleimani to shooting ballistic missiles at our troops to Iran being on high alert for American retaliation to Air Defense forces having an itchy trigger finger to thinking the Ukrainian airplane was hostile.  Easy Peasy.

                    I am not sure what you mean "destined to happen anyway".

                    1. wilderness profile image97
                      wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                      We agree - Iran has and will continue to commit terrorist acts and kill people - the death of their kingpin terrorist will make no discernible difference.

                      If they will continue, how did the death raise the danger level?  It was already an effective 100% that they will kill again.

                      I agree that it is a near certainty Iran shot down the plane.  They could indeed be denying it to save face if it was accidental - things like that often happen in the heat of the moment and certainly they were on high alert after their own missile strikes.

                      You may connect the dots all you wish and however you wish, but blaming Trump for Iran's terrorism is silly.  You've already stated they would kill again with or without Trump's action; given that blaming anyone but Iran can be nothing but the TDS coming out.

                      I believe you know ever well what was meant by that statement.  You already agreed to it: "Iran will continue it's terrorism activities".

          2. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Nope, you are simply deflecting

    11. emge profile image75
      emgeposted 7 weeks ago

      Hi! In my view, Trump has committed a blunder by killing the Iranian general. I don't think he has gained much, on the contrary to people in the third world and the Islamic world, he has lost face. The failure of America to respond to the missile attack of Iran is by itself nothing to be proud of. I have seen a number of times that Trump when it comes to taking decisive action does dither. In this case, also, he did get the Iranian general killed but the follow-up has been poor as he never expected that Iran will reach retaliate with so much force. Worse he had to face the fact that in case he does attack Iran then his two allies the UAE- Dubai and Saudi will suffer badly. The USA will also now in due course of time make an ignominious exit from  Iraq and that again shows the failure of the policy of having removed Saddam Hussein. All in all, America could do better without a president like Donald Trump

    12. Onusonus profile image78
      Onusonusposted 7 weeks ago

      https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/82402405_2936110903117302_2119664015247409152_n.png?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=DrMF3gkwMAgAQlHLIeyWH6guwwP2QEKapOhLIsJfGVI-fjgqXFxhN8kuQ&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=9d94e2b2af7eeeed4bc547165b8a552b&oe=5E9028A1

    13. IslandBites profile image86
      IslandBitesposted 7 weeks ago

      https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2019/07/trump_iran1.jpg?w=1932

    14. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks ago

      I'm surprised Mike and little Joey aren't denying this meme's truthfulness, IB. tongue

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        LOL

      2. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        You know what long-term impact TraitorTrump succeeded in cementing?  The take-over of hardliners in Iraq's government.  The moderates (relatively speaking of course) had quite a bit of influence.  They are holding elections shortly and they are going to get trounced now.

        They might have anyway because of Trump pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal - the moderates were the ones who pushed that through their gov't, much to the annoyance of the hardliners.  When he pulled out, the hardliners pointed to Trump and said "See, you can't trust the Americans to keep their word." (All of our former allies are saying the same thing)

    15. Onusonus profile image78
      Onusonusposted 7 weeks ago

      https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/81625901_3054451781279826_7190908407610605568_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=kcYzwL39gVwAQlFVEz6aFiPZcyfAW5zNgnEb-OOZt76cGfE2n9PQ0SnDQ&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=cf0a4a4aab140db9f746593dde65367a&oe=5E959D56

    16. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 6 weeks ago

      https://hubstatic.com/14835249.jpg

    17. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks ago

      I looked it up, Dan. a few US soldiers were affected by old deteriorated mustard and nerve gas artillery shells which were in no way the WMDs Bush claimed were being made by Sadam. These old munitions were not safe to actually be fired at anyone. Not even a close call!

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        He knows no WMDs were found, as explained by the factcheck link I provided. He and I had this out before. He is the one misremembering (to use a memorable word invented by Dubya) the facts.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Yep, not only is he Trumping it, he hates Obama. tongue

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          And yet there is Randy making the same claim I did: that WMD's were found and that they did harm our soldiers.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Old artillery shells are not WMDs, no matter how you look at it.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              I see.  Artillery shells containing nerve gas are not WMD's.  Pray tell, how do YOU define what a WMD is?

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Pray tell, how do you fire an unsafe artillery shell to create mass destruction?

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Put in a cannon and pull the trigger.  Drop it from a plane.  Set it on the ground and blow it up. 

                  Really, Randy, you can't figure out how to disperse the gas in side when it's dangerous and you don't care if you live or die?

                  But you didn't answer the question; what is a WMD if not an artillery shell filled with nerve gas?

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                    PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    You seem to think you or Randy should redefine what has already been defined by people with way more knowledge and expertise than you. Like I said, you think a lot of yourself, don't you.

                    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                      Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                      He's simply trying to prove what Dubya couldn't. No wonder he voted for him. No surprise at all.

                      He probably voted for McCain in hopes Palin would be VP or eventually POTUS. I'll admit, she would have been better than what we have now in the Oval Office. Sad to say...

                    2. wilderness profile image97
                      wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                      As far as I understand the term, an artillery shell filled with never gas most definitely classifies as a WMD.  Do you disagree, and if so, what IS a WMD?

                  2. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Are you volunteering to try one out, Dan? Even handling them would involve danger, but go for it if you have the nerve, or the know-how. Good luck! roll

                    1. wilderness profile image97
                      wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                      Dangerous, then.  And not only to the person handling it, but to many more in the area.

                      Is that not the definition of a WMD?  (You still didn't answer that question, did you?)

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Great!  Then you know that WMD's were found; WMD's that you explicitly, over and over, claim were never there.

        Want to re-think those claims, or will you try to spin it into something other than WMD's?  Maybe they were packages of spoiled meat, or old wine bottles that had been used as urinals?

        1. PrettyPanther profile image82
          PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Wow. You are still lying about WMDs. Unbelievable.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            No, I'm repeating what Randy said.  Did HE lie?

            1. PrettyPanther profile image82
              PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              You did not repeat what Randy said and you know it.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                So?  From Randy's post: "US soldiers were affected by old deteriorated mustard and nerve gas artillery shells"

                From my post: "Great!  Then you know that WMD's were found; WMD's that you explicitly, over and over, claim were never there." 

                Now, Randy says they were old (true), but that does not mean they were not WMD's.  He also says they aren't what Bush said was there, but again that does not mean they are not WMD's (I do not recall Bush stating WMD's were being made by Saddam - just that he had them).  I was very, very clear in my original statement that WMD's were found: Randy was very very clear in stating they were not.  Yet he now says they were.

                So where do you fit?  Are you claiming that mustard gas or nerve gas artillery shells are not WMD's?  If so, we (Randy and I) have a very different definition of what constitutes a WMD.  Or are you claiming, in spite of quoting Randy's post, that he did not say we found WMD's?

                1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                  PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  What a truly pathetic game you are playing.

                  "Q: Were there really weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the U.S. invaded in 2003?

                  A: No. The Iraq Survey Group determined that Iraq had abandoned its quest to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and that it had already destroyed all of its existing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."

                  "The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005. "

                  "Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason."

                  https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    "Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason."

                    And anyone that denies the physical evidence of mustard and nerve gas artillery shells is no longer acting on the basis of reason.  Not sure just what they are acting on, but it certainly isn't reason.  Rather pathetic, but there it is - reason dictates that, without exception, when such shells are found, and soldiers injured by them, that they are real and factual - pretending they aren't there is hardly the voice of reason, now is it?

                    From your link: "During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered".  "But the finds were rare, and the ISG concluded that they were not part of a significant stockpile of weapons. ".  "Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons."

                    So - the ISG found chemical WMD's, and so state.  And you're here linking to that statement and saying there were none.  That they found no means of production and conclude that such weapons were not currently being produced hardly denies the stated fact that the weapons were found.

                    I even mentioned this: "But you are willing to call "foul" because hindsight showed he made (mostly-there WERE some) the wrong choice."  This is exactly what your report, and Randy, say - that there were some, just not the massive cache's that Bush was led to believe.  But again you're trying to deny that, repeatedly saying there were [i]none[/b] found at all.  A pathetic game rather than the voice of reason and truth, then.

                    1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                      PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                      My gawd. You are something else. roll

                      The truth is staring you in the face and you play stupid word games. No wonder our country is f@ck!d up. We have people like you to perpetuate the lies even after the original liars have given up.

                      "The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005. "

                      You never cease to amaze me.

    18. tsadjatko profile image58
      tsadjatkoposted 6 weeks ago

      Just one of many statements he should be ashamed of ... but hey, what wouldn’t you expect from the looney left?

    19. GA Anderson profile image91
      GA Andersonposted 6 weeks ago

      Wilderness, PrettyPanther, do you folks need a referee? Or maybe some knuckle bandages?

      I can't resist offering an outside observer's view of your recent WMD exchanges. And you are not going to like it PrettyPanther, because Wilderness is right and you are wrong. But you are only wrong because you were sloppy. It looks like you two are arguing two different things.

      Wilderness is arguing that technically, and specifically, WMDs were found. PrettyPanther seems to be arguing contextually, relative to the claims of WMDs used as the pretext for the Iraq war.

      I called PrettyPanther sloppy only in the respect that she did not define the WMD claim she was arguing. Had she done that she would have been right and Wilderness' claim of specifically finding WMDs—in the form of old Mustard Gas shells, would not have been relevant to PrettyPanther's point. She would have been right.

      But, nooooo, she continues to argue that no WMDs were found when she should have been arguing that no WMDs were found relative to the currently held common understanding of what was meant by that claim as the reason Pres. Bush went to war with Iraq.

      Tsk. Tsk. Sandy. If your point is as I understand it, (as I explained), then I agree with you. You are right. But, you abandoned being right when you denied the truth of Wilderness' claim. The U.N. does define chemical weapons as WMDs, and Mustard Gas artillery shells are certainly chemical weapons. Whether they are old and rusty or brand new.

      Wilderness is completely right because he limited his claim to whether WMDs were found, not whether the WMDs, ("yellowcake" dirty bomb components, mass stockpiles of the most deadly chemical weapons, etc.), that the public was led to believe were there, really were there.

      It seems PrettyPanther has been arguing against the existence of that latter WMD description while Wilderness has steadfastly stuck to a different but equally correct point—the former description, WMDs really were discovered in Iraq. Just not the ones PrettyPanther is arguing.

      A simple 'yeah but . . .' would have stopped Wilderness in his tracks. Without that "yeah, but . . ." he is right and PrettyPanther is wrong.

      Hold on Ms. No 'But you know what I meant' defenses allowed when such clear opportunities for clarification were presented so many times. You just skipped past them. That was sloppy.

      GA

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        I argue about what matters. Wilderness argues to give the Bush administration an out for their lies. I knew what he was doing because that is his usual shtick.

        I feel perfectly at peace with my position. I wonder if wilderness feels the same.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Of course he does, he's a Trump enabler isn't he? I suppose you can call him a Dubya enabler as well.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Wilderness is absolutely at peace with he he said.  He even went to so far as to offer an olive branch in an agreement that old weapons (and indicated they were insufficient for a reason to attack) were found but nothing newer...which was again ignored in favor of "NO WMD'S FOUND".  In line with her usual shtick PP continued the same line of argument in order to stick with the "Bush did wrong" rather than with fact and truth.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Fascinating what brings some people peace, isn't it?

            I hear David Berkowitz is looking for an out. He could use your singular talents.

    20. GA Anderson profile image91
      GA Andersonposted 6 weeks ago

      Okayyyyy. . . Everybody is at peace. Now, how about them Mets? ;-)

      GA

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Lol, don't have a clue. Looking forward to the college football championship game, though.

        1. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          I am a great NFL fan, but have not been able to get enthused about college ball. Maybe there is only so much football I can take. There were a couple of really good playoff games this past weekend.

          GA

          1. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Go Titans!

        2. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Go LSU! SEC of course!

          1. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            So glad y'all finally got Nick Saban off my TV!

    21. Live to Learn profile image80
      Live to Learnposted 6 weeks ago

      It's so much fun to read through a pointless conversation that is the result of someone just not being able to admit they are wrong.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yeah, it's fun isn't it? Maybe wilderness should just take a Sharpie to a map showing us where all those dangerous WMDs were stashed just waiting to be unleashed by Saddam Hussein upon innocent people. I mean, all those lives lost or forever altered by trauma and the trillions of dollars spent were worth preventing the imminent threat posed by those WMDs.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Easier to ask the ISG - they're the ones reporting the find(s).

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        LOL  Not as much fun as poking it with a stick! lol

      3. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Pot....kettle.

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          lol Hi kettle.

    22. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 6 weeks ago

      TRUMP HAS ALREADY KILLED MORE CIVILIANS THAN OBAMA IN U.S. FIGHT AGAINST ISIS. More false flag attacks, it never ends. I don't watch football anymore because it reminds me of war.

      I just like to know where they are going on, so I can stay out of their personal hell and let as_hole be as_holes and let Americans go into deeper debt. That will someday force change from their world surroundings directions more than anything.

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)