It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sounds Like Leftists Are Disappointed Trump Called Off Strike On Iran

page: 6
91
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
Some in the press are comparing Trump’s move to Obama’s “red line” moment.

The Atlantic

But it’s a poor comparison, because Obama’s red line was the gassing of Syrian civilians, which was an empty threat with dire and murderous consequences both to the Syrians and American credibility.

On the other hand, Trump’s response is wholly appropriate.



More comparing the expected reaction to a wholesale slaughter of a city population (Syria) to the response to someone crashing an empty city bus into a brick retaining wall (Iran shooting down an unmanned drone). Seems like the two responses should be at different levels to me.

But then, I am just one deplorable in a basket.



Besides, years later Trump responded to Assad’s use of chemical weapons with a measured display of force and firepower, unlike Obama. Assad passed Obama’s red line again, and Trump showed how it’s done.




posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Trump called off the strike against Iran 10 minutes before launch.


Who does honestly believe that?

I mean, didn't Trump realize that launching missiles and bombs usually kills innocent bystanders?

Anyway, i'm glad it did not happen, i just don't believe the reasons.



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
Some in the press are comparing Trump’s move to Obama’s “red line” moment.

The Atlantic

But it’s a poor comparison, because Obama’s red line was the gassing of Syrian civilians, which was an empty threat with dire and murderous consequences both to the Syrians and American credibility.

On the other hand, Trump’s response is wholly appropriate.



More comparing the expected reaction to a wholesale slaughter of a city population (Syria) to the response to someone crashing an empty city bus into a brick retaining wall (Iran shooting down an unmanned drone). Seems like the two responses should be at different levels to me.

But then, I am just one deplorable in a basket.



Besides, years later Trump responded to Assad’s use of chemical weapons with a measured display of force and firepower, unlike Obama. Assad passed Obama’s red line again, and Trump showed how it’s done.


To be honest, that strike did very little. We gave Russia the heads up, which got relayed to Syria, so they moved their aircraft. We hit an airfield and it was repaired shortly after.

It didn't sway the war, it was just a show.

Edit: To be fair, since I'm anti war, I'm glad it was just for show, and it stopped there.
edit on 21-6-2019 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'm anti-war too, but without military action I'm not seeing Iran and the rest of the Sharia Law terrorist states ever becoming free of the disease that extremist Islam is.



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   
The fact that he came so close before calling it off is what is most worrisome to me. Then he uses 'well maybe it was a fat finger or something" to justify him calling it off. It never should have even been considered.



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ligyron
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'm anti-war too, but without military action I'm not seeing Iran and the rest of the Sharia Law terrorist states ever becoming free of the disease that extremist Islam is.


Or military action would just breed more of it.



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   
thinking moore trump was whissled back under pressure Russia and china ..
bet china would stop the trading negotions and moore if attackt !.

the 150 possible casulties is for the US peanuts …… looking at earlier actions over the world
edit on 21-6-2019 by ressiv because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: UniformKilo
I will just leave this here
www.thedailybeast.com...


Silly left... wait.


When are you guys gonna get it, Trump's doesn't answer to those azzhats either



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Planned psy-op war to put pressure on Iran imo.



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ligyron
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'm anti-war too, but without military action I'm not seeing Iran and the rest of the Sharia Law terrorist states ever becoming free of the disease that extremist Islam is.


So how did military intervention work in Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan? How do you kill an ideology?



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex

Appropriate response to what , has evidence been released that shows where the drone was when it was shot down ? , if it was flying over Iranian territory they have the right to protect themselves so the shooting down was justified but if it was an unprovoked act and the drone was in international airspace America has the right to respond.


You sure seem to know what is right or not....lol


Appropriate to any situation... We know where it was shot down and its location within 3 feet, but do you feel any of that should be released, if so why? Also, an unarmed drone is not something you need to "protect" yourself from and a radio call could have fixed any of this if (highly unlikely) the drone drifted into their airspace from mechanical or human error.

You also say "the right to respond" and I never argued that we don't, what do you think is the right response if they shot it down in international waters?



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

I’m right wing but can see this is propaganda.



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ressiv

the 150 possible casulties is for the US peanuts …… looking at earlier actions over the world


Maybe that has been our problem all along in thinking that. Seems Trump doesn't view 150 lives as peanuts.



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
Some in the press are comparing Trump’s move to Obama’s “red line” moment.

The Atlantic

But it’s a poor comparison, because Obama’s red line was the gassing of Syrian civilians, which was an empty threat with dire and murderous consequences both to the Syrians and American credibility.

On the other hand, Trump’s response is wholly appropriate.



More comparing the expected reaction to a wholesale slaughter of a city population (Syria) to the response to someone crashing an empty city bus into a brick retaining wall (Iran shooting down an unmanned drone). Seems like the two responses should be at different levels to me.

But then, I am just one deplorable in a basket.



Besides, years later Trump responded to Assad’s use of chemical weapons with a measured display of force and firepower, unlike Obama. Assad passed Obama’s red line again, and Trump showed how it’s done.


To be honest, that strike did very little. We gave Russia the heads up, which got relayed to Syria, so they moved their aircraft. We hit an airfield and it was repaired shortly after.

It didn't sway the war, it was just a show.

Edit: To be fair, since I'm anti war, I'm glad it was just for show, and it stopped there.


There was more than one strike, proving it was not just for show, but to force Syria into compliance with its international law.



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
The fact that he came so close before calling it off is what is most worrisome to me. Then he uses 'well maybe it was a fat finger or something" to justify him calling it off. It never should have even been considered.


I would be shocked if you ever thought anything Trump did one way or the other was the right things to do.



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ligyron

I'm anti-war too, but without military action I'm not seeing Iran and the rest of the Sharia Law terrorist states ever becoming free of the disease that extremist Islam is.


I'm a vegetarian, but I still eat meat...lol


edit on 21-6-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 01:58 PM
link   
The Left is no longer anti war since Obama.

Obama contributed to creating ISIS which unleashed hell in earth on the people of Syria as the Left stood silent. Obama's drone program killed thousands of innocent people, again the Left stood silent.

Trump doesn't attack Iran, the Left is up in arms.

The Left has no platform other than they hate Trump, everyone needs to be LGBTQ, have abortions and smoke dope.



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: IAMTAT
Oh bullsnap! There was no problem slaughtering over a hundred Syrian soldiers on two separate airstrike incidents six months apart,

Actually, I for one was very unhappy when Trump fell for the Syria false flag gas attack lie and attacked them.


but Iran parks soldiers at all of its installations and we get all sensitive?

So... you would have preferred Trump go ahead with the attack and kill some people over a downed drone?


They need to understand there are human costs to their hostile decisions against air and sea traffic.

It was a downed drone. No one died or was injured.


Maybe it was a measured response, but irgc are just going to double up their human staff now a d keep attacking in hopes of averting us military vengeance.

No idea what you said there...



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
with them blowing up a few ships that could have killed people, and attacking an American aircraft worth 130 million a piece does it really take a loss of a life to trigger retaliation?

Who said there will be no retaliation?

I was more concerned about the fact that he waited until the attack was 10 minutes out (if I have the timeline right?) to call it off, after apparently being informed at the last minute about the estimated collateral damage. The collateral damage should have been discussed hours before the operation was green lighted, while it was still in planning stages.

Then I realized, it was likely just a ploy. Make them sh#t their shorts, then call it off at the last minute.

Next will be the real payback... either cyber, or something that makes a lot of noise, but is still proportionate (no loss of life).



posted on Jun, 21 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

NO. You are the one who posted that opinion as TRUTH. I looked and found nothing. YOU are the one who needs to post the truth for your statement. I asked politely supposing my own inability to find what you stated as truth.
You cannot now say keep looking.

Likewise the suppostion that leftists are opposing Trumps decision rings false. I tuned into CNN to see what they were saying as I am told here that CNN is a leftist rag and you know what I heard? I heard Pelosi making a statement supporting Trumps decision.

So I am calling you out for being a false reporter, for pushing FAKE NEWS.




top topics



 
91
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join