Reply With Quote
Nothing is fine unless they escalate the issue further
i agree that killing soleimani was a bad move. so we're past that
hard to know. and i'm asking you would you think the US response should have been to last night's strike.This attack that didn't kill anyone but did introduce a new, escalated method of attack that is potentially more dangerous than previously thought. The US response announced today seems weaker.
Hence my confusion and asking what the policy actually is.
Nothing is fine unless they escalate the issue further
If we were going by last week's policy, there should have been a proportionate response; giving them all the notice they apparently gave us.
The new policy makes us look like the initial aggressor, letting Iran respond to the Soleimani strike.
I know it seems evasive, but you're making me POTUS immediately after the POTUS did something neither of us would've done as POTUS. It's an odd hypothetical.
It's foolish to ask chumpy what to do. Obviously Chumpy's in favor of having a back and forth all night long for years and years. At the end of it nothing would have been done but there always has to be a response.
Iran: We are going to lob missiles into your country.
US: what do you mean missiles? Be specific
Iran: I am being specific
US: no you're not being specific. please be more specific
Ad nausem
Let us know if you want to discuss the topic.
lol that's the best you could think of
What's your analog?
As explicitly stated, I welcome a better one.
Let's see it.
The US did in essence the same thing, the iraqis got ed both times
That's true. The fallout in Iraq still remains to be seen. Iran apparently gave the Iraqis a heads up this time.
The biggest mistake we might be making is thinking last night will be Iran's only response. Their usual timeline for revenge is measured in years, not days-- and it's rarely a conventional military strike. Last night may have just been a fairly successful ballistic missile test.
This article paints a detailed picture, dunno about the MacArthur analogy,
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...adow-commander
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-08-2020 at 03:12 PM.
One would think we would have had patriot missiles to protect an important base like this one.
I was thinking of a controversial military hero with a fervent following penciled in by many to be the leader of the country.
Ali Soufan wrote a great profile about him and his schemes around the mideast awhile back. Will find it again if anyone is interested.
Never gonna happen. Too many ty, wealthy sociopaths have financial interests in the region.
Interesting read.
yes. trump is impulsive and inconsistent. we are in agreement there, and past that.
yes i am, it's a tough job cleaning up trump's mess. and yes its a tough hypothetical.I know it seems evasive, but you're making me POTUS immediately after the POTUS did something neither of us would've done as POTUS. It's an odd hypothetical.
nevertheless, either as a hypothetical president, or merely as a concerned citizen, what do you think the appropriate response would be to last night's strike? i, for one, am a fan of de-escalation
Right, as instant POTUS I would say the previous POTUS really screwed the pooch last week, so let's not start a war.
ok genius,
why do sanctions work now
instead of before the assassination?
just complete unnecessary bull lies to distract from impeachment
Repugs are in M/E for BigOil, and they will stay in the M/E for BigOil
Trash even gave the game away saying he would grab Syria's oil, said Iraq should give USA its oil from terminating Saddam.
It's all about oil.
ok. so ultimately you agree with the decision not to engage in further military retaliation.
Since I said I'm glad things didn't escalate further already, yeah.
Several times tbh.
But what is the policy if Iran does the same thing again?
What would you do?
I don't know what the you're on about. All I said was I think he made the right decision by not retaliating.
Grabbin' pussy and grabbin oil'. Sounds like a T-shirt idea.
a) i'd get out of the area tbh. we shouldnt be having a military presence in iraq anyway. that would eliminate that possibility.
b) right now i think the sides have some mutual understanding that this "exchange" is over. personally, i dont think for tat attacks are sound on any level... but that's the cards we've been dealt by current leadership.
c) if iran, or any other country, launches an attack on the US, that's a new incident/calculus.
he ordered an assassination and has yet to show evidence that it was necessary
iran retaliated weakly
trump declared victory then threatened further sanctions and lied about the obama deal again
iran considers the sanctions an attack on their country
you cheered his actions for not gaslighting further after his initial gaslighting started the entire episode
still ZERO ing plan for the USA middle east policy
he needs to be investigated for the assassination and provide evidence
iran is back to building nukes again
without limitations
how the is this a strategy?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
