IRGC leader Soleimani has been killed in targeted assassination near Baghdad

a reply to: Sillyolme

Iran's Mullahs loved him too. They have over a Billion reasons too..........in unmarked Bills.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
Which has nothing to do with the recent attacks and response.
I get the issue with SA, but this is a a different incident.

This isn't 'combating terrorism', this is politics. We selectively fight terrorists.

I think the selection on this one appears to be very obvious - the guy who facilitated an attack on the US gets droned a couple of days later. Selective? Sure. Based on retaliation.

Guy kills Americans, America kills guy, leftists mad. Hilarious. We should just roll over and let our people be killed apparently.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Spare me your bleeding heart.

The same people that soiled their tighty-whiteys over Trump leaving Syria are now soiling their panties over a retaliatory strike against a force that would harm us.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

Increase sanctions. Threaten sanctions for any country that comes to Iran's aid. Increase aid to Israel.

When this ends up with hundreds to thousands of dead US servicemen will you still claim this was the only/right move?

Why did the Right praise Trump's restraint when he bent over and spread his ample cheeks for Lil Kim after North Korea brutally tortured and essentially murdered a US citizen but with this Iran situation it's now right to risk WWIII?

The "Deep State's"/IC's/MIC's designs on Iran have been clear for decades. It's been pretty clear that Trump has been in the same boat for pretty much the entirety of his Presidency.

It's pretty clear this was inevitable. That doesn't mean there wasn't diplomatically preferable options that would've helped prevent more loss of life.

With sanctions already in place, which diplomatic solutions do you propose in response to the USA being attacked?

a reply to: LSU2018

You're right he wont start WWIII. He just needs a distraction for right now.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: face23785

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Last time I checked, Soleimani did not aid the terrorists in 9/11. In fact he was a key asset in helping the US' efforts in Afghanistan following that tragic day.

The AUMF doesn't only apply to people who had something to do with 9/11. The AUMF is broadly worded and has been used to justify non-9/11-related strikes before. This has already been adjudicated. Sorry, you're wrong. Blame Congress, not me.

a reply to: DBCowboy

And the people that were creaming their boxers over abandoning our allies in Syria because we needed to get our troops home are now creaming their boxers over sending those same troops to a more dangerous theater.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I don't think its going to lead to all out war. Its going to lead to a lot of little terrorist attacks where ever americans are.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

Increase sanctions. Threaten sanctions for any country that comes to Iran's aid. Increase aid to Israel.

When this ends up with hundreds to thousands of dead US servicemen will you still claim this was the only/right move?

Why did the Right praise Trump's restraint when he bent over and spread his ample cheeks for Lil Kim after North Korea brutally tortured and essentially murdered a US citizen but with this Iran situation it's now right to risk WWIII?

The "Deep State's"/IC's/MIC's designs on Iran have been clear for decades. It's been pretty clear that Trump has been in the same boat for pretty much the entirety of his Presidency.

It's pretty clear this was inevitable. That doesn't mean there wasn't diplomatically preferable options that would've helped prevent more loss of life.

With sanctions already in place, which diplomatic solutions do you propose in response to the USA being attacked?

Harsh language.

A Hashtag campaign.

Maybe unfriending them on Facebook.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
Which has nothing to do with the recent attacks and response.
I get the issue with SA, but this is a a different incident.

This isn't 'combating terrorism', this is politics. We selectively fight terrorists.

I think the selection on this one appears to be very obvious - the guy who facilitated an attack on the US gets droned a couple of days later. Selective? Sure. Based on retaliation.

Guy kills Americans, America kills guy, leftists mad. Hilarious. We should just roll over and let our people be killed apparently.

Seems like that is what Trump haters want.
Trump has got his detractors openly supporting Irans attacks on America...wow. Not even I thought they would sink that low.

a reply to: UKTruth

UKTruth, have we been given a decisive proof for the claim that he had ordered the attack? Of course not, and we are not going to get any, because they have learned from their previous fiasco. It's better to say that you have proof and decline to reveal it under the premise that it's classified, than to fabricate a fake image of mass destruction weapons as evidence for war.

Plus, we know there are those in Trump's administration who have been pushing for war with Iran for a very long time. Guess they are going to get one now.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

Increase sanctions. Threaten sanctions for any country that comes to Iran's aid. Increase aid to Israel.

When this ends up with hundreds to thousands of dead US servicemen will you still claim this was the only/right move?

Why did the Right praise Trump's restraint when he bent over and spread his ample cheeks for Lil Kim after North Korea brutally tortured and essentially murdered a US citizen but with this Iran situation it's now right to risk WWIII?

The "Deep State's"/IC's/MIC's designs on Iran have been clear for decades. It's been pretty clear that Trump has been in the same boat for pretty much the entirety of his Presidency.

It's pretty clear this was inevitable. That doesn't mean there wasn't diplomatically preferable options that would've helped prevent more loss of life.

With sanctions already in place, which diplomatic solutions do you propose in response to the USA being attacked?

Harsh language.

A Hashtag campaign.

Maybe unfriending them on Facebook.

Maybe pay them billions of dollars... they might like the West then and leave us alone.
But failing that, I agree - a major poster campaign could do the trick... or how about an apology tour?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

And the people that were creaming their boxers over abandoning our allies in Syria because we needed to get our troops home are now creaming their boxers over sending those same troops to a more dangerous theater.

If Iran didn't attack our embassy, then there'd be no need to send troops.

But you don't want to blame Iran for some reason.

Wonder why.

hmmm. . . . .

a reply to: face23785

It's a bit more complicated than that and you know it.

If one of the many countries where we killed innocents with our drone strikes decided to respond by assassinating Mike Pompeo, would you not expect a massive retaliation on our part?

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: UKTruth

UKTruth, have we been given a decisive proof for the claim that he had ordered the attack?

What decisive proof would you take? Even if we had him on tape talking about it, Trump's opponents would say it was doctored.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I don't think its going to lead to all out war. Its going to lead to a lot of little terrorist attacks where ever americans are.

I think you are right.
I wouldn't be surprised if a civilian flight is blown out of the sky in the coming days/weeks.
Irans regime have done that before,dirty tactics which they can deny.
Hope I am wrong.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: face23785

It's a bit more complicated than that and you know it.

If one of the many countries where we killed innocents with our drone strikes decided to respond by assassinating Mike Pompeo, would you not expect a massive retaliation on our part?

Nice goalpost moving. The strike was authorized by the AUMF from 2001. Thanks for playing.

a reply to: Sillyolme

You are correct, Obama's legacy will never be forgotten; the worst, most corrupt president in US history since Bill Clinton. No conspiracy theory will ever change that. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Coal sanctions, pay for play international diplomacy, bailing out private industry banks and GM with Federal taxpayer dollars (which they then gave as bonuses to the execs), and the biggest of all; Polarization of America (to be fair Trump is using this too). Much of what he did came to fruition in his last two years and is even happening now. I liked him as person, I think most people did and do, but as a president he was beyond terrible....

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: UKTruth

UKTruth, have we been given a decisive proof for the claim that he had ordered the attack? Of course not, and we are not going to get any, because they have learned from their previous fiasco. It's better to say that you have proof and decline to reveal it under the premise that it's classified, than to fabricate a fake image of mass destruction weapons as evidence for war.

Plus, we know there are those in Trump's administration who have been pushing for war with Iran for a very long time. Guess they are going to get one now.

Well that is a different, and far more useful, debate to have.
I have symathy with an argument that questions the US intelligence community, but no sympathy with any argument that criticises the right of the US to retailiate against an attack.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Maybe it has to with the lack of proof and our country's long history of justifying war through lies.

Even then, I still don't see why we should sacrifice thousands of US citizens when there is no kind of tangible goal. Tell me, how many Iranians need to die to sate your bloodlust? Should that number increase with every US soldier that will inevitably killed?