Iran Deal, the reset..... and halt

mrussel1

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

I’m not sure since nothing really happened by the killing of binladen was there any retaliation by anyone? I’m blaming the Baffoon’s actions for this mess! He always talks about bringing troops home yet by his decision to kill the general we had to send troops back into harms way! How is that sensible ...If you want peace you have to offer peaceful solutions period ...

i agree 100% that trump started this mess. there is no denying that. 

Wow. That was all I was saying in the beginning. He started this mess and is to blame. And it was a leap. 

I could see your side if the plane was inbound, but it was an outbound plane.  If in fact Iran did accidentally shoot an outbound plane down then that is a 100% on them and no one else.  

My understanding of the device which launched the missile, is that it's a mobile device, that can be deployed to specific areas as needed. Say, near an airport if another country threatens to indiscriminately drop bombs on cultural sites if a retaliatory force was used for the assassination of a major military icon. 

Obviously Iran is accountable for this, but to claim that this hasn't been catalyzed recklessly by this recent bout of American intervention, is really disregarding the obligation a POTUS has - of thinking beyond the impact that may occur in 24 hours. 

I get trying to anticipate collateral impact, but I'd disagree that any imaginable outcome is within scope. "They might blow a commercial airplane departing from their own airport out of the sky despite no offensive measures taking place" is way beyond that to me.

Mrussel's post is interesting because I love Reason and respect the hell out of Robby Soave, but I disagree with his point.

I think of a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, who was a POS in my mind, but an interesting figure nonetheless.  because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

With this strategic folly, Iraq voting to kick us should have been a known known.  Whereas the plane is a known unknown.  There had to be expected consequences or effects, but the specifics could not be anticipated.  Robby's point is right, in my mind.  When nations go to war, you have to expect collateral damage.  You don't know what it is, but it's coming.  In that respect, we have accountability, considering we struck first.  The paper attack on the embassy was not 1979, so I don't buy our assassination as a counter to an act of war.   

I think part of the challenge here is that the vast majority of us think Trump shouldn't have made the decision that he did.

Is it safe to assume we all feel Obama made the right call in giving the go-ahead to take out bin Laden? If al-Qaeda had purposefully or erroneously bombed a civilian passenger airplane while retaliating, would the US bear some responsibility? Or would we be ok laying that solely at the feet of al-Qaeda?

There's a big difference, to me, because the strike on bin Laden was a retalitory strike on an individual who had planned and executed a very specific attack on our citizens.  Should the roles have been reversed, and the chronology was:  Iran fires missiles at our barracks ->we take out the general->Iran shoots down the airline, I would not be critical of Trump.  There is an obligation to defend ourselves, obviously.  But the justification was somewhere between razor thin and non-existent for our first strike.  That's why I agree with the Reason article.  

@HughFreakingDillon not when you asked apparently.  I don't recall that yesterday, but htere was a boat load of traffic.  Here above. 

RIP - Neil Peart. 

but the US is framing this as at least partially retaliatory and also preemptively. so I don't see much difference at all. 

But it's not, in my mind.  So I can't justify it.  I'm not speaking for the administration or the "US", only me.  And what I outlined is the difference between what Obama did and this.  

mickeyrat

HughFreakingDillon said:

mickeyrat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

cincybearcat said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

I’m not sure since nothing really happened by the killing of binladen was there any retaliation by anyone? I’m blaming the Baffoon’s actions for this mess! He always talks about bringing troops home yet by his decision to kill the general we had to send troops back into harms way! How is that sensible ...If you want peace you have to offer peaceful solutions period ...

i agree 100% that trump started this mess. there is no denying that. 

Wow. That was all I was saying in the beginning. He started this mess and is to blame. And it was a leap. 

Is Iran to blame at all? 

Trump first escalated this mess for sure, owns some responsibility but a small amount for this specific incident (in my opinion).  

I just don’t know... Trump attacked a foreigner on foreign soil.  Is that Iran’s fault? Soldiers “trigger happy” because they don’t know what he will do next? Is that Iran’s fault... not so sure. 

Im convinced it’s Trumps mess. The whole thing is self-preservation. He doesn’t care about anything but winning.  The nation, NATO allies, soldiers lives, innocent civilians lives... none of it matters to him. 

I have no doubt he attacked just to secure Republican Senate votes to avoid getting turfed from that earlier post. Makes perfect sense really, he wouldn’t have any reason to do it otherwise. Think about it, it came out of nowhere! 

this I would imagine most of us agree on. 

Fair enough. Sorry for getting too fired up. I’m really frightened and pissed off. I went back to my visit to Birkenau after the Krakow show last year and the feeling of dread I had that everything I value and treasure is being led by the village idiot who is in the back pocket of pure evil (Putin).
Also, I cannot put into words the grief I feel for your friend. I am holding back tears as I type this... it should never have happened and I hold Trump 100% responsible.  It’s of little solace to you and your friend I know, but he has to be stopped or there will be more.... many more. 

The War Pigs are circling him... and it’s worrisome 

it was thought by many that this would be the year trump would try to start something, depending how impeachment and his poll numbers went. it was to be completely expected. but I don't think we need to build the bunker just yet. I went crazy when he was first elected, thinking this was going to be the end of the planet as we know it. it seems some have gone back to that fear based thinking. Do I have confidence in the checks and balances of the US government to reign in the POTUS? not anymore. But while I think he's a self-service POS, I don't think he's going to bring us WW3. 

But I do have confidence in other world leaders to not jump on board with his bullshit. I know Trudeau won't, anyway. 

have seen reporting from  wsj article trump told aides he did this to curry senate favor during impeachment.......

FAKE NEWS

wsj is owned by murdoch......

pjl44

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

I’m not sure since nothing really happened by the killing of binladen was there any retaliation by anyone? I’m blaming the Baffoon’s actions for this mess! He always talks about bringing troops home yet by his decision to kill the general we had to send troops back into harms way! How is that sensible ...If you want peace you have to offer peaceful solutions period ...

i agree 100% that trump started this mess. there is no denying that. 

Wow. That was all I was saying in the beginning. He started this mess and is to blame. And it was a leap. 

I could see your side if the plane was inbound, but it was an outbound plane.  If in fact Iran did accidentally shoot an outbound plane down then that is a 100% on them and no one else.  

My understanding of the device which launched the missile, is that it's a mobile device, that can be deployed to specific areas as needed. Say, near an airport if another country threatens to indiscriminately drop bombs on cultural sites if a retaliatory force was used for the assassination of a major military icon. 

Obviously Iran is accountable for this, but to claim that this hasn't been catalyzed recklessly by this recent bout of American intervention, is really disregarding the obligation a POTUS has - of thinking beyond the impact that may occur in 24 hours. 

I get trying to anticipate collateral impact, but I'd disagree that any imaginable outcome is within scope. "They might blow a commercial airplane departing from their own airport out of the sky despite no offensive measures taking place" is way beyond that to me.

Mrussel's post is interesting because I love Reason and respect the hell out of Robby Soave, but I disagree with his point.

I think of a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, who was a POS in my mind, but an interesting figure nonetheless.  because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

With this strategic folly, Iraq voting to kick us should have been a known known.  Whereas the plane is a known unknown.  There had to be expected consequences or effects, but the specifics could not be anticipated.  Robby's point is right, in my mind.  When nations go to war, you have to expect collateral damage.  You don't know what it is, but it's coming.  In that respect, we have accountability, considering we struck first.  The paper attack on the embassy was not 1979, so I don't buy our assassination as a counter to an act of war.   

I think part of the challenge here is that the vast majority of us think Trump shouldn't have made the decision that he did.

Is it safe to assume we all feel Obama made the right call in giving the go-ahead to take out bin Laden? If al-Qaeda had purposefully or erroneously bombed a civilian passenger airplane while retaliating, would the US bear some responsibility? Or would we be ok laying that solely at the feet of al-Qaeda?

There's a big difference, to me, because the strike on bin Laden was a retalitory strike on an individual who had planned and executed a very specific attack on our citizens.  Should the roles have been reversed, and the chronology was:  Iran fires missiles at our barracks ->we take out the general->Iran shoots down the airline, I would not be critical of Trump.  There is an obligation to defend ourselves, obviously.  But the justification was somewhere between razor thin and non-existent for our first strike.  That's why I agree with the Reason article.  

I think it's really hard to get the nuance of what I'm trying to say across in text.

Basically, I don't think the responsibility for a collateral incident changes based on the wisdom or legality of the original decision. I believe there are still retaliatory actions to come and I can think of *plenty* of scenarios where I'd feel that we shoulder some of the responsibility for them. This is not one.

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

I’m not sure since nothing really happened by the killing of binladen was there any retaliation by anyone? I’m blaming the Baffoon’s actions for this mess! He always talks about bringing troops home yet by his decision to kill the general we had to send troops back into harms way! How is that sensible ...If you want peace you have to offer peaceful solutions period ...

i agree 100% that trump started this mess. there is no denying that. 

Wow. That was all I was saying in the beginning. He started this mess and is to blame. And it was a leap. 

I could see your side if the plane was inbound, but it was an outbound plane.  If in fact Iran did accidentally shoot an outbound plane down then that is a 100% on them and no one else.  

My understanding of the device which launched the missile, is that it's a mobile device, that can be deployed to specific areas as needed. Say, near an airport if another country threatens to indiscriminately drop bombs on cultural sites if a retaliatory force was used for the assassination of a major military icon. 

Obviously Iran is accountable for this, but to claim that this hasn't been catalyzed recklessly by this recent bout of American intervention, is really disregarding the obligation a POTUS has - of thinking beyond the impact that may occur in 24 hours. 

I get trying to anticipate collateral impact, but I'd disagree that any imaginable outcome is within scope. "They might blow a commercial airplane departing from their own airport out of the sky despite no offensive measures taking place" is way beyond that to me.

Mrussel's post is interesting because I love Reason and respect the hell out of Robby Soave, but I disagree with his point.

I think of a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, who was a POS in my mind, but an interesting figure nonetheless.  because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

With this strategic folly, Iraq voting to kick us should have been a known known.  Whereas the plane is a known unknown.  There had to be expected consequences or effects, but the specifics could not be anticipated.  Robby's point is right, in my mind.  When nations go to war, you have to expect collateral damage.  You don't know what it is, but it's coming.  In that respect, we have accountability, considering we struck first.  The paper attack on the embassy was not 1979, so I don't buy our assassination as a counter to an act of war.   

I think part of the challenge here is that the vast majority of us think Trump shouldn't have made the decision that he did.

Is it safe to assume we all feel Obama made the right call in giving the go-ahead to take out bin Laden? If al-Qaeda had purposefully or erroneously bombed a civilian passenger airplane while retaliating, would the US bear some responsibility? Or would we be ok laying that solely at the feet of al-Qaeda?

There's a big difference, to me, because the strike on bin Laden was a retalitory strike on an individual who had planned and executed a very specific attack on our citizens.  Should the roles have been reversed, and the chronology was:  Iran fires missiles at our barracks ->we take out the general->Iran shoots down the airline, I would not be critical of Trump.  There is an obligation to defend ourselves, obviously.  But the justification was somewhere between razor thin and non-existent for our first strike.  That's why I agree with the Reason article.  

I think it's really hard to get the nuance of what I'm trying to say across in text.

Basically, I don't think the responsibility for a collateral incident changes based on the wisdom or legality of the original decision. I believe there are still retaliatory actions to come and I can think of *plenty* of scenarios where I'd feel that we shoulder some of the responsibility for them. This is not one.

But why not?  If we should bear some responsibility for collateral damage in a war theater, wouldn't the most obvious time be when a pre-emptive strike was not clearly necessary?

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

I’m not sure since nothing really happened by the killing of binladen was there any retaliation by anyone? I’m blaming the Baffoon’s actions for this mess! He always talks about bringing troops home yet by his decision to kill the general we had to send troops back into harms way! How is that sensible ...If you want peace you have to offer peaceful solutions period ...

i agree 100% that trump started this mess. there is no denying that. 

Wow. That was all I was saying in the beginning. He started this mess and is to blame. And it was a leap. 

I could see your side if the plane was inbound, but it was an outbound plane.  If in fact Iran did accidentally shoot an outbound plane down then that is a 100% on them and no one else.  

My understanding of the device which launched the missile, is that it's a mobile device, that can be deployed to specific areas as needed. Say, near an airport if another country threatens to indiscriminately drop bombs on cultural sites if a retaliatory force was used for the assassination of a major military icon. 

Obviously Iran is accountable for this, but to claim that this hasn't been catalyzed recklessly by this recent bout of American intervention, is really disregarding the obligation a POTUS has - of thinking beyond the impact that may occur in 24 hours. 

I get trying to anticipate collateral impact, but I'd disagree that any imaginable outcome is within scope. "They might blow a commercial airplane departing from their own airport out of the sky despite no offensive measures taking place" is way beyond that to me.

Mrussel's post is interesting because I love Reason and respect the hell out of Robby Soave, but I disagree with his point.

I think of a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, who was a POS in my mind, but an interesting figure nonetheless.  because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

With this strategic folly, Iraq voting to kick us should have been a known known.  Whereas the plane is a known unknown.  There had to be expected consequences or effects, but the specifics could not be anticipated.  Robby's point is right, in my mind.  When nations go to war, you have to expect collateral damage.  You don't know what it is, but it's coming.  In that respect, we have accountability, considering we struck first.  The paper attack on the embassy was not 1979, so I don't buy our assassination as a counter to an act of war.   

I think part of the challenge here is that the vast majority of us think Trump shouldn't have made the decision that he did.

Is it safe to assume we all feel Obama made the right call in giving the go-ahead to take out bin Laden? If al-Qaeda had purposefully or erroneously bombed a civilian passenger airplane while retaliating, would the US bear some responsibility? Or would we be ok laying that solely at the feet of al-Qaeda?

There's a big difference, to me, because the strike on bin Laden was a retalitory strike on an individual who had planned and executed a very specific attack on our citizens.  Should the roles have been reversed, and the chronology was:  Iran fires missiles at our barracks ->we take out the general->Iran shoots down the airline, I would not be critical of Trump.  There is an obligation to defend ourselves, obviously.  But the justification was somewhere between razor thin and non-existent for our first strike.  That's why I agree with the Reason article.  

@HughFreakingDillon not when you asked apparently.  I don't recall that yesterday, but htere was a boat load of traffic.  Here above. 

RIP - Neil Peart. 

but the US is framing this as at least partially retaliatory and also preemptively. so I don't see much difference at all. 

But it's not, in my mind.  So I can't justify it.  I'm not speaking for the administration or the "US", only me.  And what I outlined is the difference between what Obama did and this.  

fair enough, I just don't believe for one second that others here and elsewhere would be as critical of obama as they are of trump if the situation were the same. 

there are plenty of examples of obama making questionable military choices, and the usual suspects here never thought he was in the wrong. imagine if trump had killed as many civilians using drones as obama did. this place would be calling for his head. 

pjl44

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

I’m not sure since nothing really happened by the killing of binladen was there any retaliation by anyone? I’m blaming the Baffoon’s actions for this mess! He always talks about bringing troops home yet by his decision to kill the general we had to send troops back into harms way! How is that sensible ...If you want peace you have to offer peaceful solutions period ...

i agree 100% that trump started this mess. there is no denying that. 

Wow. That was all I was saying in the beginning. He started this mess and is to blame. And it was a leap. 

I could see your side if the plane was inbound, but it was an outbound plane.  If in fact Iran did accidentally shoot an outbound plane down then that is a 100% on them and no one else.  

My understanding of the device which launched the missile, is that it's a mobile device, that can be deployed to specific areas as needed. Say, near an airport if another country threatens to indiscriminately drop bombs on cultural sites if a retaliatory force was used for the assassination of a major military icon. 

Obviously Iran is accountable for this, but to claim that this hasn't been catalyzed recklessly by this recent bout of American intervention, is really disregarding the obligation a POTUS has - of thinking beyond the impact that may occur in 24 hours. 

I get trying to anticipate collateral impact, but I'd disagree that any imaginable outcome is within scope. "They might blow a commercial airplane departing from their own airport out of the sky despite no offensive measures taking place" is way beyond that to me.

Mrussel's post is interesting because I love Reason and respect the hell out of Robby Soave, but I disagree with his point.

I think of a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, who was a POS in my mind, but an interesting figure nonetheless.  because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

With this strategic folly, Iraq voting to kick us should have been a known known.  Whereas the plane is a known unknown.  There had to be expected consequences or effects, but the specifics could not be anticipated.  Robby's point is right, in my mind.  When nations go to war, you have to expect collateral damage.  You don't know what it is, but it's coming.  In that respect, we have accountability, considering we struck first.  The paper attack on the embassy was not 1979, so I don't buy our assassination as a counter to an act of war.   

I think part of the challenge here is that the vast majority of us think Trump shouldn't have made the decision that he did.

Is it safe to assume we all feel Obama made the right call in giving the go-ahead to take out bin Laden? If al-Qaeda had purposefully or erroneously bombed a civilian passenger airplane while retaliating, would the US bear some responsibility? Or would we be ok laying that solely at the feet of al-Qaeda?

There's a big difference, to me, because the strike on bin Laden was a retalitory strike on an individual who had planned and executed a very specific attack on our citizens.  Should the roles have been reversed, and the chronology was:  Iran fires missiles at our barracks ->we take out the general->Iran shoots down the airline, I would not be critical of Trump.  There is an obligation to defend ourselves, obviously.  But the justification was somewhere between razor thin and non-existent for our first strike.  That's why I agree with the Reason article.  

I think it's really hard to get the nuance of what I'm trying to say across in text.

Basically, I don't think the responsibility for a collateral incident changes based on the wisdom or legality of the original decision. I believe there are still retaliatory actions to come and I can think of *plenty* of scenarios where I'd feel that we shoulder some of the responsibility for them. This is not one.

But why not?  If we should bear some responsibility for collateral damage in a war theater, wouldn't the most obvious time be when a pre-emptive strike was not clearly necessary?

I'm going to leave it at "agree to disagree" and bow out. We're coming at it from different angles. This is the sort of conversation you need to have in person over a couple beers.

mrussel1

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

I’m not sure since nothing really happened by the killing of binladen was there any retaliation by anyone? I’m blaming the Baffoon’s actions for this mess! He always talks about bringing troops home yet by his decision to kill the general we had to send troops back into harms way! How is that sensible ...If you want peace you have to offer peaceful solutions period ...

i agree 100% that trump started this mess. there is no denying that. 

Wow. That was all I was saying in the beginning. He started this mess and is to blame. And it was a leap. 

I could see your side if the plane was inbound, but it was an outbound plane.  If in fact Iran did accidentally shoot an outbound plane down then that is a 100% on them and no one else.  

My understanding of the device which launched the missile, is that it's a mobile device, that can be deployed to specific areas as needed. Say, near an airport if another country threatens to indiscriminately drop bombs on cultural sites if a retaliatory force was used for the assassination of a major military icon. 

Obviously Iran is accountable for this, but to claim that this hasn't been catalyzed recklessly by this recent bout of American intervention, is really disregarding the obligation a POTUS has - of thinking beyond the impact that may occur in 24 hours. 

I get trying to anticipate collateral impact, but I'd disagree that any imaginable outcome is within scope. "They might blow a commercial airplane departing from their own airport out of the sky despite no offensive measures taking place" is way beyond that to me.

Mrussel's post is interesting because I love Reason and respect the hell out of Robby Soave, but I disagree with his point.

I think of a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, who was a POS in my mind, but an interesting figure nonetheless.  because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

With this strategic folly, Iraq voting to kick us should have been a known known.  Whereas the plane is a known unknown.  There had to be expected consequences or effects, but the specifics could not be anticipated.  Robby's point is right, in my mind.  When nations go to war, you have to expect collateral damage.  You don't know what it is, but it's coming.  In that respect, we have accountability, considering we struck first.  The paper attack on the embassy was not 1979, so I don't buy our assassination as a counter to an act of war.   

I think part of the challenge here is that the vast majority of us think Trump shouldn't have made the decision that he did.

Is it safe to assume we all feel Obama made the right call in giving the go-ahead to take out bin Laden? If al-Qaeda had purposefully or erroneously bombed a civilian passenger airplane while retaliating, would the US bear some responsibility? Or would we be ok laying that solely at the feet of al-Qaeda?

There's a big difference, to me, because the strike on bin Laden was a retalitory strike on an individual who had planned and executed a very specific attack on our citizens.  Should the roles have been reversed, and the chronology was:  Iran fires missiles at our barracks ->we take out the general->Iran shoots down the airline, I would not be critical of Trump.  There is an obligation to defend ourselves, obviously.  But the justification was somewhere between razor thin and non-existent for our first strike.  That's why I agree with the Reason article.  

@HughFreakingDillon not when you asked apparently.  I don't recall that yesterday, but htere was a boat load of traffic.  Here above. 

RIP - Neil Peart. 

but the US is framing this as at least partially retaliatory and also preemptively. so I don't see much difference at all. 

But it's not, in my mind.  So I can't justify it.  I'm not speaking for the administration or the "US", only me.  And what I outlined is the difference between what Obama did and this.  

fair enough, I just don't believe for one second that others here and elsewhere would be as critical of obama as they are of trump if the situation were the same. 

there are plenty of examples of obama making questionable military choices, and the usual suspects here never thought he was in the wrong. imagine if trump had killed as many civilians using drones as obama did. this place would be calling for his head. 

For the record, Trump has killed more people with drones in the first year of his presidency than Obama did in his whole 8 years.  http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/trump-has-killed-more-civilians-with-illegal-drone-strikes-in-9-months-than-obama-did-in-8-years  Not trying to contradict you for the sake of it, but don't want people walking around with bad info that I hear in more than a few places. 

But I agree with your overall assessment.  Obama did not make all the right calls militarily.  There were massive mistakes in Libya for sure.  At the same time, I generally feel like he was deliberate and thoughtful about his very, very tough decisions.  Trump strikes me as impulsive, lacking a moral center, lacking empathy, and generally devoid of any guiding principle other than his own personal benefit.  Being president is hard.  Wielding decisions concerning life and death are stressful to any normal human being.  I'm empathetic to such difficult choices that one has to make.  It's just that from a strategic standpoint, I was very critical of the decision that night, as I"m sure you know.  And add to it the collateral damage, and that's where I'm coming from.  And where are we now?  Trump says he wants to start negotiating for de-nuking.  What in the fuckity fuck?  He blows up long term policies, tries to put them back to precisely how they were, and claims victory.  It's really upsetting.  

tempo_n_groove

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

I’m not sure since nothing really happened by the killing of binladen was there any retaliation by anyone? I’m blaming the Baffoon’s actions for this mess! He always talks about bringing troops home yet by his decision to kill the general we had to send troops back into harms way! How is that sensible ...If you want peace you have to offer peaceful solutions period ...

i agree 100% that trump started this mess. there is no denying that. 

Wow. That was all I was saying in the beginning. He started this mess and is to blame. And it was a leap. 

I could see your side if the plane was inbound, but it was an outbound plane.  If in fact Iran did accidentally shoot an outbound plane down then that is a 100% on them and no one else.  

My understanding of the device which launched the missile, is that it's a mobile device, that can be deployed to specific areas as needed. Say, near an airport if another country threatens to indiscriminately drop bombs on cultural sites if a retaliatory force was used for the assassination of a major military icon. 

Obviously Iran is accountable for this, but to claim that this hasn't been catalyzed recklessly by this recent bout of American intervention, is really disregarding the obligation a POTUS has - of thinking beyond the impact that may occur in 24 hours. 

I get trying to anticipate collateral impact, but I'd disagree that any imaginable outcome is within scope. "They might blow a commercial airplane departing from their own airport out of the sky despite no offensive measures taking place" is way beyond that to me.

Mrussel's post is interesting because I love Reason and respect the hell out of Robby Soave, but I disagree with his point.

I think of a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, who was a POS in my mind, but an interesting figure nonetheless.  because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

With this strategic folly, Iraq voting to kick us should have been a known known.  Whereas the plane is a known unknown.  There had to be expected consequences or effects, but the specifics could not be anticipated.  Robby's point is right, in my mind.  When nations go to war, you have to expect collateral damage.  You don't know what it is, but it's coming.  In that respect, we have accountability, considering we struck first.  The paper attack on the embassy was not 1979, so I don't buy our assassination as a counter to an act of war.   

I think part of the challenge here is that the vast majority of us think Trump shouldn't have made the decision that he did.

Is it safe to assume we all feel Obama made the right call in giving the go-ahead to take out bin Laden? If al-Qaeda had purposefully or erroneously bombed a civilian passenger airplane while retaliating, would the US bear some responsibility? Or would we be ok laying that solely at the feet of al-Qaeda?

There's a big difference, to me, because the strike on bin Laden was a retalitory strike on an individual who had planned and executed a very specific attack on our citizens.  Should the roles have been reversed, and the chronology was:  Iran fires missiles at our barracks ->we take out the general->Iran shoots down the airline, I would not be critical of Trump.  There is an obligation to defend ourselves, obviously.  But the justification was somewhere between razor thin and non-existent for our first strike.  That's why I agree with the Reason article.  

@HughFreakingDillon not when you asked apparently.  I don't recall that yesterday, but htere was a boat load of traffic.  Here above. 

RIP - Neil Peart. 

Neil Peart died?!?WTF!?!

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

I’m not sure since nothing really happened by the killing of binladen was there any retaliation by anyone? I’m blaming the Baffoon’s actions for this mess! He always talks about bringing troops home yet by his decision to kill the general we had to send troops back into harms way! How is that sensible ...If you want peace you have to offer peaceful solutions period ...

i agree 100% that trump started this mess. there is no denying that. 

Wow. That was all I was saying in the beginning. He started this mess and is to blame. And it was a leap. 

I could see your side if the plane was inbound, but it was an outbound plane.  If in fact Iran did accidentally shoot an outbound plane down then that is a 100% on them and no one else.  

My understanding of the device which launched the missile, is that it's a mobile device, that can be deployed to specific areas as needed. Say, near an airport if another country threatens to indiscriminately drop bombs on cultural sites if a retaliatory force was used for the assassination of a major military icon. 

Obviously Iran is accountable for this, but to claim that this hasn't been catalyzed recklessly by this recent bout of American intervention, is really disregarding the obligation a POTUS has - of thinking beyond the impact that may occur in 24 hours. 

I get trying to anticipate collateral impact, but I'd disagree that any imaginable outcome is within scope. "They might blow a commercial airplane departing from their own airport out of the sky despite no offensive measures taking place" is way beyond that to me.

Mrussel's post is interesting because I love Reason and respect the hell out of Robby Soave, but I disagree with his point.

I think of a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, who was a POS in my mind, but an interesting figure nonetheless.  because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

With this strategic folly, Iraq voting to kick us should have been a known known.  Whereas the plane is a known unknown.  There had to be expected consequences or effects, but the specifics could not be anticipated.  Robby's point is right, in my mind.  When nations go to war, you have to expect collateral damage.  You don't know what it is, but it's coming.  In that respect, we have accountability, considering we struck first.  The paper attack on the embassy was not 1979, so I don't buy our assassination as a counter to an act of war.   

I think part of the challenge here is that the vast majority of us think Trump shouldn't have made the decision that he did.

Is it safe to assume we all feel Obama made the right call in giving the go-ahead to take out bin Laden? If al-Qaeda had purposefully or erroneously bombed a civilian passenger airplane while retaliating, would the US bear some responsibility? Or would we be ok laying that solely at the feet of al-Qaeda?

There's a big difference, to me, because the strike on bin Laden was a retalitory strike on an individual who had planned and executed a very specific attack on our citizens.  Should the roles have been reversed, and the chronology was:  Iran fires missiles at our barracks ->we take out the general->Iran shoots down the airline, I would not be critical of Trump.  There is an obligation to defend ourselves, obviously.  But the justification was somewhere between razor thin and non-existent for our first strike.  That's why I agree with the Reason article.  

I think it's really hard to get the nuance of what I'm trying to say across in text.

Basically, I don't think the responsibility for a collateral incident changes based on the wisdom or legality of the original decision. I believe there are still retaliatory actions to come and I can think of *plenty* of scenarios where I'd feel that we shoulder some of the responsibility for them. This is not one.

But why not?  If we should bear some responsibility for collateral damage in a war theater, wouldn't the most obvious time be when a pre-emptive strike was not clearly necessary?

I'm going to leave it at "agree to disagree" and bow out. We're coming at it from different angles. This is the sort of conversation you need to have in person over a couple beers.

No problem, happy to get back to it.  These are the discussions I enjoy, the ones where we really challenge each other respectfully.  

pjl44

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

I’m not sure since nothing really happened by the killing of binladen was there any retaliation by anyone? I’m blaming the Baffoon’s actions for this mess! He always talks about bringing troops home yet by his decision to kill the general we had to send troops back into harms way! How is that sensible ...If you want peace you have to offer peaceful solutions period ...

i agree 100% that trump started this mess. there is no denying that. 

Wow. That was all I was saying in the beginning. He started this mess and is to blame. And it was a leap. 

I could see your side if the plane was inbound, but it was an outbound plane.  If in fact Iran did accidentally shoot an outbound plane down then that is a 100% on them and no one else.  

My understanding of the device which launched the missile, is that it's a mobile device, that can be deployed to specific areas as needed. Say, near an airport if another country threatens to indiscriminately drop bombs on cultural sites if a retaliatory force was used for the assassination of a major military icon. 

Obviously Iran is accountable for this, but to claim that this hasn't been catalyzed recklessly by this recent bout of American intervention, is really disregarding the obligation a POTUS has - of thinking beyond the impact that may occur in 24 hours. 

I get trying to anticipate collateral impact, but I'd disagree that any imaginable outcome is within scope. "They might blow a commercial airplane departing from their own airport out of the sky despite no offensive measures taking place" is way beyond that to me.

Mrussel's post is interesting because I love Reason and respect the hell out of Robby Soave, but I disagree with his point.

I think of a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, who was a POS in my mind, but an interesting figure nonetheless.  because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

With this strategic folly, Iraq voting to kick us should have been a known known.  Whereas the plane is a known unknown.  There had to be expected consequences or effects, but the specifics could not be anticipated.  Robby's point is right, in my mind.  When nations go to war, you have to expect collateral damage.  You don't know what it is, but it's coming.  In that respect, we have accountability, considering we struck first.  The paper attack on the embassy was not 1979, so I don't buy our assassination as a counter to an act of war.   

I think part of the challenge here is that the vast majority of us think Trump shouldn't have made the decision that he did.

Is it safe to assume we all feel Obama made the right call in giving the go-ahead to take out bin Laden? If al-Qaeda had purposefully or erroneously bombed a civilian passenger airplane while retaliating, would the US bear some responsibility? Or would we be ok laying that solely at the feet of al-Qaeda?

There's a big difference, to me, because the strike on bin Laden was a retalitory strike on an individual who had planned and executed a very specific attack on our citizens.  Should the roles have been reversed, and the chronology was:  Iran fires missiles at our barracks ->we take out the general->Iran shoots down the airline, I would not be critical of Trump.  There is an obligation to defend ourselves, obviously.  But the justification was somewhere between razor thin and non-existent for our first strike.  That's why I agree with the Reason article.  

I think it's really hard to get the nuance of what I'm trying to say across in text.

Basically, I don't think the responsibility for a collateral incident changes based on the wisdom or legality of the original decision. I believe there are still retaliatory actions to come and I can think of *plenty* of scenarios where I'd feel that we shoulder some of the responsibility for them. This is not one.

But why not?  If we should bear some responsibility for collateral damage in a war theater, wouldn't the most obvious time be when a pre-emptive strike was not clearly necessary?

I'm going to leave it at "agree to disagree" and bow out. We're coming at it from different angles. This is the sort of conversation you need to have in person over a couple beers.

No problem, happy to get back to it.  These are the discussions I enjoy, the ones where we really challenge each other respectfully.  

Yeah, for sure. It's funny - the more posts after our dustup, the more I'm convinced that we're coming from a pretty similar spot. Maybe that was the problem!

CM189191

Not sure if anyone posted this yet.  Either way deserves a repost

https://twitter.com/MikeBeauvais/status/1215073526736195585?s=19

Halifax2TheMax

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

I’m not sure since nothing really happened by the killing of binladen was there any retaliation by anyone? I’m blaming the Baffoon’s actions for this mess! He always talks about bringing troops home yet by his decision to kill the general we had to send troops back into harms way! How is that sensible ...If you want peace you have to offer peaceful solutions period ...

i agree 100% that trump started this mess. there is no denying that. 

Wow. That was all I was saying in the beginning. He started this mess and is to blame. And it was a leap. 

I could see your side if the plane was inbound, but it was an outbound plane.  If in fact Iran did accidentally shoot an outbound plane down then that is a 100% on them and no one else.  

My understanding of the device which launched the missile, is that it's a mobile device, that can be deployed to specific areas as needed. Say, near an airport if another country threatens to indiscriminately drop bombs on cultural sites if a retaliatory force was used for the assassination of a major military icon. 

Obviously Iran is accountable for this, but to claim that this hasn't been catalyzed recklessly by this recent bout of American intervention, is really disregarding the obligation a POTUS has - of thinking beyond the impact that may occur in 24 hours. 

I get trying to anticipate collateral impact, but I'd disagree that any imaginable outcome is within scope. "They might blow a commercial airplane departing from their own airport out of the sky despite no offensive measures taking place" is way beyond that to me.

Mrussel's post is interesting because I love Reason and respect the hell out of Robby Soave, but I disagree with his point.

I think of a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, who was a POS in my mind, but an interesting figure nonetheless.  because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

With this strategic folly, Iraq voting to kick us should have been a known known.  Whereas the plane is a known unknown.  There had to be expected consequences or effects, but the specifics could not be anticipated.  Robby's point is right, in my mind.  When nations go to war, you have to expect collateral damage.  You don't know what it is, but it's coming.  In that respect, we have accountability, considering we struck first.  The paper attack on the embassy was not 1979, so I don't buy our assassination as a counter to an act of war.   

I think part of the challenge here is that the vast majority of us think Trump shouldn't have made the decision that he did.

Is it safe to assume we all feel Obama made the right call in giving the go-ahead to take out bin Laden? If al-Qaeda had purposefully or erroneously bombed a civilian passenger airplane while retaliating, would the US bear some responsibility? Or would we be ok laying that solely at the feet of al-Qaeda?

i asked this exact same question and *crickets*. 

The two are not comparable.

if this general was as evil as everyone is making him out to be, having killed hundreds of americans, how is that not comparable? I find that HIGHLY comparable. 

One major difference, one was the leader of a nationless terrorist organization and the other was the number 2 “leader” of a sovereign nation. Believe it or not, there are rules of engagement for war and how nations treat one another. What Team Trump Treason did was tell anyone not happy with a country’s leadership, that it’s ok to drone strike them at an airport in a third party country.

Obama surely asked detailed and pertinent questions regarding risk, both immediate and 10 steps down the line. He analyzed and considered the potential ramifications. Team Trump Treason? Not so much. There should be a House investigation regarding the “imminent” threat justification and someone should ask those informing Team Trump Treason of the opportunity, what questions he asked during the deliberations.

Darth Cheney and Rumsfeld are responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Are you okay with them being drone striked in London or Paris or Denver?

mickeyrat

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

I’m not sure since nothing really happened by the killing of binladen was there any retaliation by anyone? I’m blaming the Baffoon’s actions for this mess! He always talks about bringing troops home yet by his decision to kill the general we had to send troops back into harms way! How is that sensible ...If you want peace you have to offer peaceful solutions period ...

i agree 100% that trump started this mess. there is no denying that. 

Wow. That was all I was saying in the beginning. He started this mess and is to blame. And it was a leap. 

I could see your side if the plane was inbound, but it was an outbound plane.  If in fact Iran did accidentally shoot an outbound plane down then that is a 100% on them and no one else.  

My understanding of the device which launched the missile, is that it's a mobile device, that can be deployed to specific areas as needed. Say, near an airport if another country threatens to indiscriminately drop bombs on cultural sites if a retaliatory force was used for the assassination of a major military icon. 

Obviously Iran is accountable for this, but to claim that this hasn't been catalyzed recklessly by this recent bout of American intervention, is really disregarding the obligation a POTUS has - of thinking beyond the impact that may occur in 24 hours. 

I get trying to anticipate collateral impact, but I'd disagree that any imaginable outcome is within scope. "They might blow a commercial airplane departing from their own airport out of the sky despite no offensive measures taking place" is way beyond that to me.

Mrussel's post is interesting because I love Reason and respect the hell out of Robby Soave, but I disagree with his point.

I think of a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, who was a POS in my mind, but an interesting figure nonetheless.  because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

With this strategic folly, Iraq voting to kick us should have been a known known.  Whereas the plane is a known unknown.  There had to be expected consequences or effects, but the specifics could not be anticipated.  Robby's point is right, in my mind.  When nations go to war, you have to expect collateral damage.  You don't know what it is, but it's coming.  In that respect, we have accountability, considering we struck first.  The paper attack on the embassy was not 1979, so I don't buy our assassination as a counter to an act of war.   

I think part of the challenge here is that the vast majority of us think Trump shouldn't have made the decision that he did.

Is it safe to assume we all feel Obama made the right call in giving the go-ahead to take out bin Laden? If al-Qaeda had purposefully or erroneously bombed a civilian passenger airplane while retaliating, would the US bear some responsibility? Or would we be ok laying that solely at the feet of al-Qaeda?

There's a big difference, to me, because the strike on bin Laden was a retalitory strike on an individual who had planned and executed a very specific attack on our citizens.  Should the roles have been reversed, and the chronology was:  Iran fires missiles at our barracks ->we take out the general->Iran shoots down the airline, I would not be critical of Trump.  There is an obligation to defend ourselves, obviously.  But the justification was somewhere between razor thin and non-existent for our first strike.  That's why I agree with the Reason article.  

@HughFreakingDillon not when you asked apparently.  I don't recall that yesterday, but htere was a boat load of traffic.  Here above. 

RIP - Neil Peart. 

Neil Peart died?!?WTF!?!

Jan 7. Glioblastoma. 3 1/2 yr fight...

gimmesometruth27

if trump did this at the behest of gop senators, who are the jury in the impeachment trial, i would argue this is another quid pro quo and impeachable in and of itself. abuse of power.

gimmesometruth27

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

I’m not sure since nothing really happened by the killing of binladen was there any retaliation by anyone? I’m blaming the Baffoon’s actions for this mess! He always talks about bringing troops home yet by his decision to kill the general we had to send troops back into harms way! How is that sensible ...If you want peace you have to offer peaceful solutions period ...

i agree 100% that trump started this mess. there is no denying that. 

Wow. That was all I was saying in the beginning. He started this mess and is to blame. And it was a leap. 

I could see your side if the plane was inbound, but it was an outbound plane.  If in fact Iran did accidentally shoot an outbound plane down then that is a 100% on them and no one else.  

My understanding of the device which launched the missile, is that it's a mobile device, that can be deployed to specific areas as needed. Say, near an airport if another country threatens to indiscriminately drop bombs on cultural sites if a retaliatory force was used for the assassination of a major military icon. 

Obviously Iran is accountable for this, but to claim that this hasn't been catalyzed recklessly by this recent bout of American intervention, is really disregarding the obligation a POTUS has - of thinking beyond the impact that may occur in 24 hours. 

I get trying to anticipate collateral impact, but I'd disagree that any imaginable outcome is within scope. "They might blow a commercial airplane departing from their own airport out of the sky despite no offensive measures taking place" is way beyond that to me.

Mrussel's post is interesting because I love Reason and respect the hell out of Robby Soave, but I disagree with his point.

I think of a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, who was a POS in my mind, but an interesting figure nonetheless.  because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

With this strategic folly, Iraq voting to kick us should have been a known known.  Whereas the plane is a known unknown.  There had to be expected consequences or effects, but the specifics could not be anticipated.  Robby's point is right, in my mind.  When nations go to war, you have to expect collateral damage.  You don't know what it is, but it's coming.  In that respect, we have accountability, considering we struck first.  The paper attack on the embassy was not 1979, so I don't buy our assassination as a counter to an act of war.   

I think part of the challenge here is that the vast majority of us think Trump shouldn't have made the decision that he did.

Is it safe to assume we all feel Obama made the right call in giving the go-ahead to take out bin Laden? If al-Qaeda had purposefully or erroneously bombed a civilian passenger airplane while retaliating, would the US bear some responsibility? Or would we be ok laying that solely at the feet of al-Qaeda?

There's a big difference, to me, because the strike on bin Laden was a retalitory strike on an individual who had planned and executed a very specific attack on our citizens.  Should the roles have been reversed, and the chronology was:  Iran fires missiles at our barracks ->we take out the general->Iran shoots down the airline, I would not be critical of Trump.  There is an obligation to defend ourselves, obviously.  But the justification was somewhere between razor thin and non-existent for our first strike.  That's why I agree with the Reason article.  

@HughFreakingDillon not when you asked apparently.  I don't recall that yesterday, but htere was a boat load of traffic.  Here above. 

RIP - Neil Peart. 

Neil Peart died?!?WTF!?!

Jan 7. Glioblastoma. 3 1/2 yr fight...

damn that is sad. fuck cancer.

Halifax2TheMax

gimmesometruth27 said:

if trump did this at the behest of gop senators, who are the jury in the impeachment trial, i would argue this is another quid pro quo and impeachable in and of itself. abuse of power.

House intelligence committee should subpoena every ambassador and ask them if they were put on a high level “imminent” threat alert. Start with Iraq and work out from there. Subpoena all State Department emails and documents from 10 days prior to 10 days post. Then bring Pompouspeo before the committee.

dignin

gimmesometruth27 said:

if trump did this at the behest of gop senators, who are the jury in the impeachment trial, i would argue this is another quid pro quo and impeachable in and of itself. abuse of power.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/report-trump-cited-impeachment-pressure-to-kill-soleimani.html

gimmesometruth27

trump is giving americans PTSD. i shit you not.

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

I wonder.....if after Obama had Bin Laden killed.......what if the US experienced another 9/11 level event as a result? or some type of accident as a result of the heightened tensions/paranoia? would you all have blamed obama? or the ones who perpetrated the attack/made the mistake?

I can take a wild guess. 

I’m not sure since nothing really happened by the killing of binladen was there any retaliation by anyone? I’m blaming the Baffoon’s actions for this mess! He always talks about bringing troops home yet by his decision to kill the general we had to send troops back into harms way! How is that sensible ...If you want peace you have to offer peaceful solutions period ...

i agree 100% that trump started this mess. there is no denying that. 

Wow. That was all I was saying in the beginning. He started this mess and is to blame. And it was a leap. 

I could see your side if the plane was inbound, but it was an outbound plane.  If in fact Iran did accidentally shoot an outbound plane down then that is a 100% on them and no one else.  

My understanding of the device which launched the missile, is that it's a mobile device, that can be deployed to specific areas as needed. Say, near an airport if another country threatens to indiscriminately drop bombs on cultural sites if a retaliatory force was used for the assassination of a major military icon. 

Obviously Iran is accountable for this, but to claim that this hasn't been catalyzed recklessly by this recent bout of American intervention, is really disregarding the obligation a POTUS has - of thinking beyond the impact that may occur in 24 hours. 

I get trying to anticipate collateral impact, but I'd disagree that any imaginable outcome is within scope. "They might blow a commercial airplane departing from their own airport out of the sky despite no offensive measures taking place" is way beyond that to me.

Mrussel's post is interesting because I love Reason and respect the hell out of Robby Soave, but I disagree with his point.

I think of a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, who was a POS in my mind, but an interesting figure nonetheless.  because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

With this strategic folly, Iraq voting to kick us should have been a known known.  Whereas the plane is a known unknown.  There had to be expected consequences or effects, but the specifics could not be anticipated.  Robby's point is right, in my mind.  When nations go to war, you have to expect collateral damage.  You don't know what it is, but it's coming.  In that respect, we have accountability, considering we struck first.  The paper attack on the embassy was not 1979, so I don't buy our assassination as a counter to an act of war.   

I think part of the challenge here is that the vast majority of us think Trump shouldn't have made the decision that he did.

Is it safe to assume we all feel Obama made the right call in giving the go-ahead to take out bin Laden? If al-Qaeda had purposefully or erroneously bombed a civilian passenger airplane while retaliating, would the US bear some responsibility? Or would we be ok laying that solely at the feet of al-Qaeda?

There's a big difference, to me, because the strike on bin Laden was a retalitory strike on an individual who had planned and executed a very specific attack on our citizens.  Should the roles have been reversed, and the chronology was:  Iran fires missiles at our barracks ->we take out the general->Iran shoots down the airline, I would not be critical of Trump.  There is an obligation to defend ourselves, obviously.  But the justification was somewhere between razor thin and non-existent for our first strike.  That's why I agree with the Reason article.  

@HughFreakingDillon not when you asked apparently.  I don't recall that yesterday, but htere was a boat load of traffic.  Here above. 

RIP - Neil Peart. 

Neil Peart died?!?WTF!?!

Jan 7. Glioblastoma. 3 1/2 yr fight...

Damn... Unlike Buck, I love everybody.  Well maybe not halifax, so almost everybody...

Yeah maybe Halifax too, what the hell...

mcgruff10

dignin said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

if trump did this at the behest of gop senators, who are the jury in the impeachment trial, i would argue this is another quid pro quo and impeachable in and of itself. abuse of power.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/report-trump-cited-impeachment-pressure-to-kill-soleimani.html

Didn’t Clinton make the same play in ‘98?  I can’t rememer the damn country he bombed. Somewhere in Africa maybe?  (Disclaimer: Not deflecting, honest question.  Clinton is the best president I have lived through.)