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.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Willtell
Weapons of weapons of mass destruction? You clearly know what you're talking about and aren't just regurgitating whatever snip your betters have attempted to feed you.
LOL!
our betters have attempted to
originally posted by: Willtell
The US started this by bombing a Shia militia. What right does the US have in Iraq TO BOMB A MILITIA. That was before the embassy riot.
Some security experts believe this killing is the most significant in U.S. history — for Charles Lister, a resident fellow at the Middle East Institute, it “far eclipses the deaths of [Osama] bin Laden or [Abu Bakr al-]Baghdadi in terms of strategic significance and implications ... there really is no underestimating the geopolitical ramifications of this.”
Regional analysts considered Soleimani to be the second-most-powerful leader in Iran, after only Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And the U.S. has pursued him for decades — his operations within Iraq since 2003 killed more than 600 American personnel, the State Department revealed last year.
originally posted by: okrian
originally posted by: Willtell
The US started this by bombing a Shia militia. What right does the US have in Iraq TO BOMB A MILITIA. That was before the embassy riot.
Why do people seem to ignore that the attack on the US embassy was a retaliation for the US bombing and killing almost 30 people and wounding over 50? Y'all seem to think that this started with Iranians just randomly attacking the US embassy cause they 'hate our freedom!'. Ugh, the US, and Trump are not clean in this. As per usual.
This didn't start with the embassy attack! How come the USA are the kings of cherrypicking information to push an agenda. And the public buys it hook line and sinker. And even at ATS. Stop the war drums. Deny ignorance.
originally posted by: Kapusta
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kapusta
I disagree with you. If you want to argue that Iran hasn't attacked another country in 200 years AND then throw in the qualifier "unprovoked" then I will argue that the US didn't attack Iran unprovoked as well. At some point threats, promises of death, and direct association to attackers of US interests, embassies, and allies in the region were going to provoke the US into action. This week's attacks were the US reaching their threshold of tolerance for Tehran's bullsnip.
From my understanding the attack on the embassy was from local Iraqis who were upset. Of course the MSM is pushing that it's an Iran Backed attack . You see how that works?
Your disagreement is noted .
I am very anti-war, but I don’t have enough information to make a good decision about this attack. If I were President and had access to the intelligence information and advisors I might be more qualified to speak to the decision. I don’t think anyone here has enough information to make an informed decision regarding these attacks either.
originally posted by: Willtell
You hear this from the same element that told you Sadam had weapons of WMD
You guys are just justifying the mess America has made of the ME.
You must be neocons
originally posted by: fleabit
I am very anti-war, but I don’t have enough information to make a good decision about this attack. If I were President and had access to the intelligence information and advisors I might be more qualified to speak to the decision. I don’t think anyone here has enough information to make an informed decision regarding these attacks either.
From this article, it seems as the assassination of the general was just a fringe option to make the other options seem more reasonable. And Trump selected it after getting PO'd at the actions at the embassy. And the Pentagon officials were shocked he selected that option. I can 100% believe this. It's the same thing when he saw images of children after a supposed gassing, and chose to launch missiles.
A POTUS that acts on emotion instead of rational thought is a dangerous person. Did he actually consider the ramifications? I seriously doubt it. He lacks foreign experience, and I don't think he has a real clue what the results of that decision might be. While many of his followers believe he is some sort of strategic genius at foreign policy, there is no basis in fact to think why he would be. Personally I think he just reacts, and makes crap up as he goes.
Pentagon Officials Reportedly “Stunned” by Trump’s Decision to Kill Soleimani
originally posted by: khnum
Donalds most recent tweet suggests that Congress is irrelevant when it comes to his declaration of war,would the Sergeant at Arms please arrest Caligula
originally posted by: BastogneFoxHole
a reply to: Kapusta
On the other hand, he is personally responsible for hundreds of our dead.
originally posted by: vonclod
originally posted by: BastogneFoxHole
a reply to: Kapusta
On the other hand, he is personally responsible for hundreds of our dead.
Right, wrong, or indifferent..I imagine he felt exactly the same!