Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut
it makes absolutely not militaristic sense to not have a number 2. especially for such a seasoned general. if anything, they did a great job of hiding #2's identity so they couldn't kill both of them.
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut
it makes absolutely not militaristic sense to not have a number 2. especially for such a seasoned general. if anything, they did a great job of hiding #2's identity so they couldn't kill both of them.
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut
it makes absolutely not militaristic sense to not have a number 2. especially for such a seasoned general. if anything, they did a great job of hiding #2's identity so they couldn't kill both of them.
Where are you getting your information from?
my post was not "information". it was just my opinion. do you think it makes sense to have no #2?
Killing Soleimani does nothing as far as Team America's quest to rid the world of terrorists goes. All it will do is make him a martyr, and inspire a violent Iranian response.
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut
it makes absolutely not militaristic sense to not have a number 2. especially for such a seasoned general. if anything, they did a great job of hiding #2's identity so they couldn't kill both of them.
Where are you getting your information from?
my post was not "information". it was just my opinion. do you think it makes sense to have no #2?
It's not a matter of whether it makes sense. The consensus is that the guy was unique and they can't just slide someone else in to coordinate a bunch of disparate militias. If you can point to someone reporting the opposite, please post.
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut
You misunderstand me. I'm not arguing that they don't have an equal #2 in place. I'm saying that the assassination does not "prevent a war" or kill an imminent threat (which again, I'm not buying). These are the reasons that the admin is floating through its media sources. Think about it for 2 minutes and explain to me how an assassination of a 30 year cultural figure in Iran can serve as a de-escalation. It makes no sense. For years, the policy goals of the US administration (Clinton, Bush (to a lesser extent) and Obama have been: 1. Contain nuclear proliferation of Iran 2. Westernize the youth of Iran, which is massive. They're like the damn baby boomers over there. 3. Wait out the Revolutionary movement
The trick has always been to balance the sanctions with the desire to westernize the youth. That has been a challenge, no doubt. But in the last year, as @Benjs rightly points out, we have managed to trash the JCPOA and push the youth (the people) into the arms of the old guard. Fucking stupid...stupid stupid stupid. And we don't have a plan to contain the nuclear ambitions. We don't have allies in Europe on the issue. Russia and China already support Iran. So where the fuck do we go?
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut
You misunderstand me. I'm not arguing that they don't have an equal #2 in place. I'm saying that the assassination does not "prevent a war" or kill an imminent threat (which again, I'm not buying). These are the reasons that the admin is floating through its media sources. Think about it for 2 minutes and explain to me how an assassination of a 30 year cultural figure in Iran can serve as a de-escalation. It makes no sense. For years, the policy goals of the US administration (Clinton, Bush (to a lesser extent) and Obama have been: 1. Contain nuclear proliferation of Iran 2. Westernize the youth of Iran, which is massive. They're like the damn baby boomers over there. 3. Wait out the Revolutionary movement
The trick has always been to balance the sanctions with the desire to westernize the youth. That has been a challenge, no doubt. But in the last year, as @Benjs rightly points out, we have managed to trash the JCPOA and push the youth (the people) into the arms of the old guard. Fucking stupid...stupid stupid stupid. And we don't have a plan to contain the nuclear ambitions. We don't have allies in Europe on the issue. Russia and China already support Iran. So where the fuck do we go?
Who are you arguing with? I didn't say 80% of that.
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut
it makes absolutely not militaristic sense to not have a number 2. especially for such a seasoned general. if anything, they did a great job of hiding #2's identity so they couldn't kill both of them.
Where are you getting your information from?
Common sense. Jesus Christ, this one isn't hard. And they would never travel together. You even do that in business. I can't travel with more than one other person from our executive team. It's in our contracts. This is pretty basic stuff here.
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut
it makes absolutely not militaristic sense to not have a number 2. especially for such a seasoned general. if anything, they did a great job of hiding #2's identity so they couldn't kill both of them.
Where are you getting your information from?
Common sense. Jesus Christ, this one isn't hard. And they would never travel together. You even do that in business. I can't travel with more than one other person from our executive team. It's in our contracts. This is pretty basic stuff here.
You misunderstand me. I'm not arguing that they don't have an equal #2 in place. I'm saying that the assassination does not "prevent a war" or kill an imminent threat (which again, I'm not buying). These are the reasons that the admin is floating through its media sources. Think about it for 2 minutes and explain to me how an assassination of a 30 year cultural figure in Iran can serve as a de-escalation. It makes no sense. For years, the policy goals of the US administration (Clinton, Bush (to a lesser extent) and Obama have been: 1. Contain nuclear proliferation of Iran 2. Westernize the youth of Iran, which is massive. They're like the damn baby boomers over there. 3. Wait out the Revolutionary movement
The trick has always been to balance the sanctions with the desire to westernize the youth. That has been a challenge, no doubt. But in the last year, as @Benjs rightly points out, we have managed to trash the JCPOA and push the youth (the people) into the arms of the old guard. Fucking stupid...stupid stupid stupid. And we don't have a plan to contain the nuclear ambitions. We don't have allies in Europe on the issue. Russia and China already support Iran. So where the fuck do we go?
Who are you arguing with? I didn't say 80% of that.
I'm not saying you did. These are the counters to the argument that killing the general was a good decision. I'm saying it was utterly foolish, and here is why. So again, I'm not arguing that there is some equal #2 ready.. but there's a damn #2. There always is, and Iran will move on and now they have a martyr.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
All good points but WW3 isn't going to happen.
As I mentioned in another thread Soleimani was a general, not a leader. We won't kill Rouhani or Kim Jong un because they are leaders.
Your last sentence though I agree with. I don't understand why they sent missiles to Iran to kill the Iranian General either.
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut
it makes absolutely not militaristic sense to not have a number 2. especially for such a seasoned general. if anything, they did a great job of hiding #2's identity so they couldn't kill both of them.
Where are you getting your information from?
my post was not "information". it was just my opinion. do you think it makes sense to have no #2?
It's not a matter of whether it makes sense. The consensus is that the guy was unique and they can't just slide someone else in to coordinate a bunch of disparate militias. If you can point to someone reporting the opposite, please post.
I hear ya. obviously there are many people in the know, and I'm not one of them. I just would find it surprising if they had no contingency plan.
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut
it makes absolutely not militaristic sense to not have a number 2. especially for such a seasoned general. if anything, they did a great job of hiding #2's identity so they couldn't kill both of them.
Where are you getting your information from?
Common sense. Jesus Christ, this one isn't hard. And they would never travel together. You even do that in business. I can't travel with more than one other person from our executive team. It's in our contracts. This is pretty basic stuff here.
You should read more and spout off less
Believe me, I read a ton. I just don't take what I read at face value. This morning before work I read all the latest neocon points on National Review. I also read Dreher and Larison from AmConMag, which tend to be less interventionist. My responses to you are well informed. It's interesting that you have not countered my arguments at all. Perhaps you can explain to me how assassination furthers our 40 year strategic goals in Iran. I'll wait.
Romney comes out saying he wants Bolton to testify...
Yeah but he wont:
GOP moderates side with McConnell over Bolton testimony
Democrats are unlikely to get four Republicans to vote to subpoena John Bolton.
Romney said he was open to hearing testimony from Bolton, but he stopped short of saying he would vote with Democrats to subpoena him.
What does it matter if they vote to have witnesses now or later?
theres no garauntee mcconnell would allow a vote later, even following "the clinton model"
By Pelosi holding onto the articles it has put the republicans in a bind. It’s allowed more time for the public to consume this info and more recent polling has bolstered the fact that Americans are in favor of impeachment and removal. More importantly the polling is showing that a vast majority think witnesses should be called.
So now they either go against the will of the people which will make this look like a sham trial to most Americans and it will not only weaken the president but also purple state senators up for re-election this year. Or they can simply call witnesses relative to the case. Whether they agree to do that now or in a few weeks doesn’t really matter. My point is that her holding onto the articles has only strengthened the case to call witnessss, which was her most realistic goal.
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut
it makes absolutely not militaristic sense to not have a number 2. especially for such a seasoned general. if anything, they did a great job of hiding #2's identity so they couldn't kill both of them.
Where are you getting your information from?
Common sense. Jesus Christ, this one isn't hard. And they would never travel together. You even do that in business. I can't travel with more than one other person from our executive team. It's in our contracts. This is pretty basic stuff here.
You should read more and spout off less
Thanks to Mickeyrat. Here's their new janitor/general.
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut
it makes absolutely not militaristic sense to not have a number 2. especially for such a seasoned general. if anything, they did a great job of hiding #2's identity so they couldn't kill both of them.
Where are you getting your information from?
Common sense. Jesus Christ, this one isn't hard. And they would never travel together. You even do that in business. I can't travel with more than one other person from our executive team. It's in our contracts. This is pretty basic stuff here.
You should read more and spout off less
Thanks to Mickeyrat. Here's their new janitor/general.
Yes, was just reading about Esmail Ghaani . And he already has a plan: "“We tell everyone, be patient and see the dead bodies of Americans all over the Middle East.” Maybe not WWIII, but there very likely well be a shitstorm of unrest and more horrors in the middle east and elsewhere. Trump kicked the hornets nest.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
time and again, the west seems to willfully ignore the lessons the past can teach us. one of which is Sooooo many countries/cultures/tribes have a super long memory and revenge is a dish best served cold.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
time and again, the west seems to willfully ignore the lessons the past can teach us. one of which is Sooooo many countries/cultures/tribes have a super long memory and revenge is a dish best served cold.
It just shows time and again, that the US is the new kid on the block who thinks they can come in and scare everyone with their flag waving blow hard shit while countries and civilizations that have been around for thousands of years, patiently wait for us to move on to the next pop culture phenomenon.
time and again, the west seems to willfully ignore the lessons the past can teach us. one of which is Sooooo many countries/cultures/tribes have a super long memory and revenge is a dish best served cold.
time and again, the west seems to willfully ignore the lessons the past can teach us. one of which is Sooooo many countries/cultures/tribes have a super long memory and revenge is a dish best served cold.
It just shows time and again, that the US is the new kid on the block who thinks they can come in and scare everyone with their flag waving blow hard shit while countries and civilizations that have been around for thousands of years, patiently wait for us to move on to the next pop culture phenomenon.
You are both correct. Past fights and wars with other countries don't work on the middle east. They play by a different set of rules.
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying,
Common sense. Jesus Christ, this one isn't hard. And they would never travel together. You even do that in business. I can't travel with more than one other person from our executive team. It's in our contracts. This is pretty basic stuff here.
You should read more and spout off less
Believe me, I read a ton. I just don't take what I read at face value. This morning before work I read all the latest neocon points on National Review. I also read Dreher and Larison from AmConMag, which tend to be less interventionist. My responses to you are well informed. It's interesting that you have not countered my arguments at all. Perhaps you can explain to me how assassination furthers our 40 year strategic goals in Iran. I'll wait.
I didn't counter your argument because I agree with you on that. Nowhere in my post did I disagree with you. I was talking about one thing and you prattled on about a dozen other things. You just come on here and pontificate without absorbing what other people say.
I didn't counter your argument because I agree with you on that. Nowhere in my post did I disagree with you. I was talking about one thing and you prattled on about a dozen other things. You just come on here and pontificate without absorbing what other people say.
I disagreed and called bs on the statement that there wasn't a #2 ready. And low and behold, the new general is announced today. So im not sure how you can say that I didn't absorb what you wrote when I countered it directly. Those arguments are neocon talking points. And my apologies for extending the conversation into broader point. I guess next time you can just skip reading it if you can't keep up.
I didn't counter your argument because I agree with you on that. Nowhere in my post did I disagree with you. I was talking about one thing and you prattled on about a dozen other things. You just come on here and pontificate without absorbing what other people say.
I disagreed and called bs on the statement that there wasn't a #2 ready. And low and behold, the new general is announced today. So im not sure how you can say that I didn't absorb what you wrote when I countered it directly. Those arguments are neocon talking points. And my apologies for extending the conversation into broader point. I guess next time you can just skip reading it if you can't keep up.
That's not new news. They announced it within 24 hours. I need to keep up?
I didn't counter your argument because I agree with you on that. Nowhere in my post did I disagree with you. I was talking about one thing and you prattled on about a dozen other things. You just come on here and pontificate without absorbing what other people say.
I disagreed and called bs on the statement that there wasn't a #2 ready. And low and behold, the new general is announced today. So im not sure how you can say that I didn't absorb what you wrote when I countered it directly. Those arguments are neocon talking points. And my apologies for extending the conversation into broader point. I guess next time you can just skip reading it if you can't keep up.
That's not new news. They announced it within 24 hours. I need to keep up?
Im saying keep up with broader arguments of the wisdom of the action, and how it plays into strategic goals. The argument about no one ready to take the helm is absurd, and I don't need any reading resources to know that's a stupid argument. IThis new general can be assassinated tomorrow and the threat level isn't zero.
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
1. Contain nuclear proliferation of Iran
2. Westernize the youth of Iran, which is massive. They're like the damn baby boomers over there.
3. Wait out the Revolutionary movement
The trick has always been to balance the sanctions with the desire to westernize the youth. That has been a challenge, no doubt. But in the last year, as @Benjs rightly points out, we have managed to trash the JCPOA and push the youth (the people) into the arms of the old guard. Fucking stupid...stupid stupid stupid. And we don't have a plan to contain the nuclear ambitions. We don't have allies in Europe on the issue. Russia and China already support Iran. So where the fuck do we go?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
As I mentioned in another thread Soleimani was a general, not a leader. We won't kill Rouhani or Kim Jong un because they are leaders.
Your last sentence though I agree with. I don't understand why they sent missiles to Iran to kill the Iranian General either.
www.headstonesband.com
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51008996
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
https://www.foxnews.com/world/esmail-qaani-quds-force-iran-us-foe