« First « Previous Comments 37 - 76 of 170 Next » Last » Search these comments
I know what lets do, let's politicize this.
Speaker Pelosi says President Trump carried out the US airstrike that killed a top Iranian commander in Iraq without the consultation of Congress. https://t.co/kGt3dZcjbl
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) January 3, 2020
.@brhodes: "We have to understand this cycle of escalation began when Pres Trump left that nuclear agreement over the objections of his intel community & defense dept. & that initiated all the consequences that Pres Trump, Pompeo & others said would be averted by their policy."
— Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) January 3, 2020
What always kept both Democratic and Republican presidents from targeting Soleimani himself was the simple question:
— Rep. Elissa Slotkin (@RepSlotkin) January 3, 2020
Was the strike worth the likely retaliation, and the potential to pull us into protracted conflict?
One sure result of the US strike is that the era of US-Iraq cooperation is over. The US diplomatic & mil presence will end b/c Iraq asks us to depart or our presence is just a target or both. The result will be greater Iranian influence, terrorism, and Iraqi infighting.
— Richard N. Haass (@RichardHaass) January 3, 2020
This is where having credibility — and having a president who didn’t lie about everything — would be really, really helpful. https://t.co/3haoOtmEWM
— Samantha Power (@SamanthaJPower) January 3, 2020
@JoeBiden statement on killing of Qassem Soleimani: ‘Tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox’. America needs a Commander-in-Chief with no learning curve. The stakes could not be higher. pic.twitter.com/VScRGDdKPg
— Greg Schultz 🥁 (@schultzohio) January 3, 2020
Stop Politicizing!
There is a distinction between politicizing it as many comments in this thread are, versus someone in government having an well informed opinion about what this leads to, and advocating for what they honestly think is right.
It was one thing to blow them up, but adding the hamburger helper was too much.
You wish for retaliation and an excuse for a wider conflict. Prepare for war? Is that what Trump supporters want?
What I don't like is that it's Trump behind it, becasue everything that intelligent objective observers know about Trump suggests that the politics of it likely enters his calculus more than it should. And that's very scary.
Well judging from the responses on this thread Trump supporters will follow Donald right into another mid eastern war. Dont know if it will come to that but the odds just went up significantly. More blood and treasure. For what?
Trump has proven that he wants to withdraw from the Middle East, not start another war.
But just remember that you don’t have all the information available to the President
Orange man bad so this must be bad.
CBOEtrader saysOrange man bad so this must be bad.
Dishonest or just stupid ?
marcus saysWhat I don't like is that it's Trump behind it becasue everything that intelligent objective observers know about Trump suggests that the politics of it likely enters his calculus more than it should. And that's very scary.
Orange man bad so this must be bad.
Brainwashing works.
Hey, on the bright side, you totally avoid weighing in entirely on my issue (probably not even considering it for a single second), which is being concerned about the degree to which Trump factors politics in to this and future war decisions.
How is this not orange man bad therefore this is bad?
"What I don't like is that it's Trump behind it, becasue everything that intelligent objective observers know about Trump suggests that the politics of it likely enters his calculus more than it should. And that's very scary. "
Trump is at risk of making terrible war related decisions becasue of ego, thirst for power and approval/popularity.
CBOEtrader saysHow is this not orange man bad therefore this is bad?
I would ask you to see if you can not read and comprehend an entire sentence ?"What I don't like is that it's Trump behind it, becasue everything that intelligent objective observers know about Trump suggests that the politics of it likely enters his calculus more than it should. And that's very scary. "
You might argue that even if politics did enter in to his rationale, it doesn't mean that it was strategically a mistake. Guess what ? I agree.
But yes even Trump himself was repeatedly making the point back in 2011 and 2012 that it's terrible and risky and just bad all around if a President makes war decisions based on a desire to be reelected.
So I stand by my fear, my concern, whatever you want to call it, that becasue of Trumps epic self contentedness and narci...
Scott Adams has an interesting angle on all of this. He might have been an impediment to peace and the Mullahs and Supreme Leader wanted him taken out:
« First « Previous Comments 37 - 76 of 170 Next » Last » Search these comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/iran-annihilates-any-aggresseror-and-the-us-is-aware-of-this-commander-of-iranian-revolutionary-guards-corps-threatens-us/
A few hours later he was tarmac paint.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/breaking-top-iran-commander-killed-in-airstrike-at-baghdads-intl-airport/
Trump don't Play!
This is the opposite of dumping in the ocean