|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Jan 7, 2020 20:18:52 GMT -5
And... fasten up the seat belts. Things are getting salty over there.. Pfft... 10 rockets. When they get more than twenty two in one attack, call me. How many rockets did it take to hit Suleimani? Mike
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 7, 2020 20:23:59 GMT -5
The Secretary of State referred to this kind of retaliation as “a little noise” and the President said “if it happens, it happens.” I would like to take this opportunity to let it be known that I voted for Hillary F@@@ing Clinton. F@&$k Trump and his nitwit supporters. Welp, no news there. “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.” No duh, Hillary! Things are working out great, though. PS- Hillary was never my first choice. But I would have, then and now, voted for a sewer rat over Trump.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2020 20:30:22 GMT -5
Pfft... 10 rockets. When they get more than twenty two in one attack, call me. How many rockets did it take to hit Suleimani? Mike Zero. It was a missile.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Jan 7, 2020 20:49:12 GMT -5
How many rockets did it take to hit Suleimani? Mike Zero. It was a missile. Well, that’s a relief. Mike
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 7, 2020 21:04:35 GMT -5
“A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.” No duh, Hillary! Things are working out great, though. PS- Hillary was never my first choice. But I would have, then and now, voted for a sewer rat over Trump. Good for you. That and a quarter might buy you a cup of coffee.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 7, 2020 21:32:03 GMT -5
“A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.” No duh, Hillary! Things are working out great, though. PS- Hillary was never my first choice. But I would have, then and now, voted for a sewer rat over Trump. Good for you. That and a quarter might buy you a cup of coffee. Yep. There are not enough quarters, however, to buy an explanation for how what the world is going through tonight is good for anybody, anywhere. This did not have to happen. It would not have happened if Hillary or ANYBODY else was in the Oval Office. We are in a crisis that will not end well. We are in a crisis created by fools who thought that- somehow- this malignant con man might be a... President? Jesus Christ on a Chimichanga! Feel free to explain why the current state of affairs Is better than having any sentient 12 year old making foreign policy decisions.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 7, 2020 22:12:46 GMT -5
You do not know what Hillary would have done if faced with the same information Trump was faced with. I don't know, you don't know, not even Hillary can know.
We do know that two administrations had Sulieman on a "should we hit him or not" list and decided against it. We do not know what new information was presented to Trump that caused him to follow his advisors recommendation to move Sulieman from the "should we hit him or not" list to the "hit him right away" list. We don't know.
We do know that Hillary is and has always been one of the more "hawkish" Democrats of the last twenty years or so. We also know that Iran has been "stepping up" its military action, interference and subterfuge in the region and directing all three against our interests and allies, a "stepping up" that can be fairly described as "emboldened".
What we do not know is what "new" information about Iran and its plans was presented to Trump. And we also do not know how another president, in this specific case, Hillary Clinton, would have acted given the same information while seated in the same chair.
Hate can displace reason, but it shouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 7, 2020 22:28:44 GMT -5
You do not know what Hillary would have done if faced with the same information Trump was faced with. I don't know, you don't know, not even Hillary can know. We do know that two administrations had Sulieman on a "should we hit him or not" list and decided against it. We do not know what new information was presented to Trump that caused him to follow his advisors recommendation to move Sulieman from the "should we hit him or not" list to the "hit him right away" list. We don't know. We do know that Hillary is and has always been one of the more "hawkish" Democrats of the last twenty years or so. We also know that Iran has been "stepping up" its military action, interference and subterfuge in the region and directing all three against our interests and allies, a "stepping up" that can be fairly described as "emboldened". What we do not know is what "new" information about Iran and its plans was presented to Trump. And we also do not know how another president, in this specific case, Hillary Clinton, would have acted given the same information while seated in the same chair. Hate can displace reason, but it shouldn't. I DO know that Hillary - or any other functioning adult- would have asked, “ OK, what comes after we do this?” You think Trump bothered to pause and ask that basic question?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 7, 2020 22:52:05 GMT -5
I said exactly what I think. Resaying it won't make it any clearer. (well, it might, but I'm not going to bother)
and, btw, I voted for Hillary. And I do believe, if the Iran information she was presented warranted it in her mind, she would have pulled the same trigger Trump did. "If".
And I am most clearly not saying Trump's decision was right. I don't know. It may be a complete and utter disaster. Time will tell in that regard. All I am saying is we do not know what information was presented to Trump and we do not know how another president would have reacted to this information we are not privy to.
Just saying it is wrong because Trump did it is of no more worth than saying it is right because Trump did it. Both views are in the same goddamn boat. And that boat don't float.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 7, 2020 23:04:31 GMT -5
“A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.” No duh, Hillary! Things are working out great, though. PS- Hillary was never my first choice. But I would have, then and now, voted for a sewer rat over Trump. Good for you. That and a quarter might buy you a cup of coffee. DANG ! Where the hell are you buying your coffee ? ? ?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jan 7, 2020 23:12:01 GMT -5
Michael, your description of how you get the information that forms the basis for your understanding sounds a lot like what journalists and researchers do--except the not subscribing to any "newspapers, magazines, or print journals" part. You do cultivate sources that you trust, presumably the "actual, vetted people with verified experience and subject matter expertise on the topic." If you were to synthesize and publish what you get from those sources, you would be a journalist. Just sayin'.
(I've done both journalism and research, though not of the news/public-affairs kind, so I have an idea of how things work. But the Soundhole also harbors an actual hard-news journalist or two. Somebody tell me if I'm wrong about this.)
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jan 7, 2020 23:17:47 GMT -5
... We do know that two administrations had Sulieman on a "should we hit him or not" list and decided against it. ... Same for bibi, and the israelis have clearly backed away from this move, wanting no part of it. ... We do know that Hillary is and has always been one of the more "hawkish" Democrats of the last twenty years or so. We also know that Iran has been "stepping up" its military action, interference and subterfuge in the region and directing all three against our interests and allies, a "stepping up" that can be fairly described as "emboldened". What we do not know is what "new" information about Iran and its plans was presented to Trump. And we also do not know how another president, in this specific case, Hillary Clinton, would have acted given the same information while seated in the same chair. Hate can displace reason, but it shouldn't. Trump's whole schtick has been to antagonize and escalate. He simply withdrew from the nuke agreement, rather than asking for more/modification. Then he slaps sanctions on iran--and not the lightweight kind. Tho something could have changed in the intervening three years, Hillary would not have done either of those. And gee, it was trump who was claiming that obama would start a war with iran to get re-elected.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jan 7, 2020 23:21:22 GMT -5
And those people in pyeongyang? They've just been given a free pass--another year or so of development and testing. Maybe they could even probe a little, just to see.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 7, 2020 23:53:21 GMT -5
... We do know that two administrations had Sulieman on a "should we hit him or not" list and decided against it. ... Same for bibi, and the israelis have clearly backed away from this move, wanting no part of it. At what point did you start taking Israeli PR statements at face value? When and only when it suits an argument you want to make? You know darn well that Israel has many reasons for saying what it says in the Middle East shark tank, some of which are intended only to deny, distract, and dissemble. True dismay or false? Cover for a source? A simple "Not me, nope, no way, I was against it, cross my heart"? You do seem a little over eager sometimes in your hoped for failure of any U.S. action. If the U.S. did exactly what you wanted, whatever that might be, would you still hope for it to backfire horribly?
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jan 8, 2020 0:27:16 GMT -5
..hope for failure of and US action...?!?
How many beers/whiskeys have you had?
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Jan 8, 2020 0:52:41 GMT -5
If you were to synthesize and publish what you get from those sources, you would be a journalist. Just sayin'. If I were to synthesize and publish some of what I get, I’d A) be irresponsible, b) soon lose respect, friends, and sources, and c) scare the piss out of many of the people I know socially. It’s a difference with a distinction. Respectfully, you are applying theoretics to relationships that you are not privy to.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 8, 2020 1:03:37 GMT -5
..hope for failure of and US action...?!? How many beers/whiskeys have you had? Three of each. Maybe four. Did I misread you? Dragging in NK at this point not only seemed gratuitous, I thought I detected an undertone of glee in adding it to the compounding of troubles that would be generated by this event. Maybe I missed the boat and just unfairly dumped some accumulated irritation on you. Sorry. Of all the Americans I know living in Japan, you are clearly my favorite!
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Jan 8, 2020 1:13:35 GMT -5
Got to agree with Epaul. This day has been coming for years. How much was the US going to take from Iran? How many weapons distributed to terrorists, how many rockets fired into camps, how many ships attacked? I’d also opine that there it was very unclear as to whether the Iranians had any intention of sticking with the agreement on nukes. I always found it kind of incredible that they agreed to anything, but it got sanctions lifted.
And I think Trump is a complete asshat. But might as well fire the bullet now. Do I love the fact that the middle east could be going up in flames? No. This might be terrible. Or everyone could just back down, which I think might be fatal fro the Iranian leadership.
Be interesting to see what else the Iranians have. The two rockets they fired in the north, one landed in a part of the base where there were no Americans, he other 20 miles away. As Paul said, rockets, not missiles. Set them off and hope they hit something.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jan 8, 2020 1:36:07 GMT -5
Ukrainian airliner goes down in flames after takeoff from Tehran. WTF?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 8, 2020 1:47:39 GMT -5
Within the realm of the possible... the Iranians intended to miss, fired at empty buildings. Firing the rockets satisfied honor without provoking an either untimely or unwanted escalation (and they can always claim, for domestic release, that there were massive casualties covered up by the lying dog Americans). Rhetoric seems to be cooling.
Or they are just bad shots and all hell is still waiting to breakout.
Time will tell.
I would still like to negotiate with Iran. I would trade them Saudi Arabia for an acceptance of Israel. Perhaps a homeland for the Palestinians could be located on one the Saudi oil fields.
|
|