Tiberius Posted January 7, 2020 Author Posted January 7, 2020 8 hours ago, Bakin said: The same advantage you get when you tear up any bad deal. You mean the bad deal Trump was yelling at the Iranians to stay in, AFTER he pulled us out of it? Yes!
Foxx Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 11 hours ago, John Adams said: ... How about Trump supporting bombing cultural sites? Nothing to say about that either? ... are you saying that Hezbollah and their ilk are not using cultural centers to house/train terrorists? nor are they using them for command control centers or to store ammunition? to use one of your lines... think before you answer.
Nanker Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 Lots of liberal handwringing after being triggered by a POTUS threat against our adversary who has until now had a free reign inside several other foreign nations to wreck havoc and wage proxy wars. Hopefully it will give the Ayatollah Kakamamie and his princes of darkness at least as much a pause to contemplate the possibility that their names might be on the business end of a Hellfire missile. Iran will lose its oil refining capabilities for decades if they fire back.
sherpa Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, Foxx said: are you saying that Hezbollah and their ilk are not using cultural centers to house/train terrorists? nor are they using them for command control centers or to store ammunition? to use one of your lines... think before you answer. I've thought before I'll answer. It is a grossly stupid idea that will never be carried out. The first rule of being Commander in Chief, or any military leader for that matter, is that you don't put people in harm's way if there is not a military benefit for doing so. If such a thing was directed, it would be strenuously advised against, and I have no doubt that not only would it not be carried out, but would result in the resignations of the Sect. of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It is a horrible, useless notion, and not what the US military does. Hopefully, just a giant red herring from a guy who doesn't think much before he talks. 1
Foxx Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, sherpa said: I've thought before I'll answer. It is a grossly stupid idea that will never be carried out. The first rule of being Commander in Chief, or any military leader for that matter, is that you don't put people in harm's way if there is not a military benefit for doing so. If such a thing was directed, it would be strenuously advised against, and I have no doubt that not only would it not be carried out, but would result in the resignations of the Sect. of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It is a horrible, useless notion, and not what the US military does. Hopefully, just a giant red herring from a guy who doesn't think much before he talks. that is all well and good. however, you answered without answering the question.
Gary M Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 11 hours ago, John Adams said: How about Trump supporting bombing cultural sites? Nothing to say about that either? I'm thinking that was Trump telling the Iranians that he knows where they are hiding.
Warren Zevon Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 49 minutes ago, billsfan_34 said: I don’t know about thousands tough to prove that. As long as our economy is strong and the leftist socialist looney’s are kept at bay then I am ok. Sad when people in our own country have such hatred they side with an Iranian murderous General over our own President. They're not siding with a murderous General. They're questioning the timing and if it needed to be done. It's not just the left, either.
John Adams Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 22 minutes ago, sherpa said: I've thought before I'll answer. It is a grossly stupid idea that will never be carried out. The first rule of being Commander in Chief, or any military leader for that matter, is that you don't put people in harm's way if there is not a military benefit for doing so. If such a thing was directed, it would be strenuously advised against, and I have no doubt that not only would it not be carried out, but would result in the resignations of the Sect. of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It is a horrible, useless notion, and not what the US military does. Hopefully, just a giant red herring from a guy who doesn't think much before he talks. Thank you. God forbid we call for honorable behavior. 1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said: Don't get me wrong, cyber operations threatening our power grid or some such are bad and all but not on the scale of Trump making inarticulate statements. Still, I think that there are some factors in this situation which tend to make Iran look less than totally innocent. 1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said: Please don't call me a moran. I'm probably just not fully up to speed about how much should be ignored because of high thresholds. I have recently learned that leading and organizing international terrorist operations for decades should be ignored if you are dapper and have salt and pepper eyebrows so I am coming along. Give me some time. All hail 4mer, the master of the strawman.
sherpa Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 42 minutes ago, Foxx said: that is all well and good. however, you answered without answering the question. I did answer the question, though it isn't what Trump said. I said "if there is no military benefit to doing so." It's silly to get into hypotheticals, so I won't. Gaming this think before anything happens is a really bad idea, but......... Iranian "ammunition" is not a threat. The US' strategic interest in anything Iranian related would be twofold. One is to protect shipping, which would involve eliminating the threat to the Strait of Hormuz, Persian gulf and Northern Arabian Sea. The other is to disrupt and delay their nuclear weapons program, which is almost entirely deeply underground and probably, (I'm guessing here), location known. Tactically, in order to do that, you have to do what the US always does at the onset, which is to take out command and control and air defense capability related to those two objectives. None of that relates to cultural sites, and using such places to train terrorists or store ammunition, per your hypothetical, probably isn't important enough to worry about. Nonetheless, going after a cultural site is anathema to a professional military, which the US is.
4merper4mer Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 20 minutes ago, John Adams said: All hail 4mer, the master of the strawman. Says the guy criticizing Trump for something he hasn't done. 2
row_33 Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 Just now, 4merper4mer said: Says the guy criticizing Trump for something he hasn't done. John Adams is filing a cease and desist order from using his name for stupid purposes
John Adams Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 Just now, 4merper4mer said: Says the guy criticizing Trump for something he hasn't done. He didn't threaten to attack cultural sites? Or he didn't subvert military justice for someone who was being brought to justice? Or his administration didn't tie killing Sulimani to 9-11? 0 for 3. 1 minute ago, row_33 said: John Adams is filing a cease and desist order from using his name for stupid purposes For a guy who "ignores" me, you certainly post a lot about me. Thanks for being a fan.
B-Man Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said: Says the guy criticizing Trump for something he hasn't done. History has shown us that, to the good folks on the Left, saying something is the same as doing it. . 1
John Adams Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, B-Man said: History has shown us that, to the good folks on the Left, saying something is the same as doing it. . I understood his point. We are the good guy, maybe. Or are you saying we should make empty threats that violate treaties and morality as a way of negotiating? Edited January 7, 2020 by John Adams
4merper4mer Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, sherpa said: I did answer the question, though it isn't what Trump said. I said "if there is no military benefit to doing so." It's silly to get into hypotheticals, so I won't. Gaming this think before anything happens is a really bad idea, but......... Iranian "ammunition" is not a threat. The US' strategic interest in anything Iranian related would be twofold. One is to protect shipping, which would involve eliminating the threat to the Strait of Hormuz, Persian gulf and Northern Arabian Sea. The other is to disrupt and delay their nuclear weapons program, which is almost entirely deeply underground and probably, (I'm guessing here), location known. Tactically, in order to do that, you have to do what the US always does at the onset, which is to take out command and control and air defense capability related to those two objectives. None of that relates to cultural sites, and using such places to train terrorists or store ammunition, per your hypothetical, probably isn't important enough to worry about. Nonetheless, going after a cultural site is anathema to a professional military, which the US is. I read somewhere, linked in this thread....not sure exactly where, that much of their cyber terrorism OP's are run from cultural/historical locations. If true, your thoughts on taking them out? My initial thought would that they could be "taken out" through means other than ordnance and without harming the structures. I'm not sure if that is viable but have to believe it would be.
row_33 Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, B-Man said: History has shown us that, to the good folks on the Left, saying something is the same as doing it. . they are good in rounding up and murdering all the people they don't like, if they get into power
4merper4mer Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, John Adams said: He didn't threaten to attack cultural sites? Or he didn't subvert military justice for someone who was being brought to justice? Or his administration didn't tie killing Sulimani to 9-11? 0 for 3. 1. Threatening is talking which is why I called him inarticulate. That is a far cry from actually carrying things out. Your panties are bunched as usual and you are taking leaps wrt what he would or would not actually do and under what circumstances. There is plenty of time for discussion/panty bunching if/when events actually occur. 2. I don't think I've been involved in discussing whatever you're talking about there. 3. Pence did say Sulamani was involved in parts of 9/11 and should back it up or not say it. I don't dismiss it out of hand or accept it blindly either. I also don't start threads about how Russia stole our election based on blind faith in the press. I don't see where Pence tied it directly to killing him. The reasons given for killing him were different and I'm sure the tragic loss of his dreamy eyebrows was factored in. Edited January 7, 2020 by 4merper4mer
4merper4mer Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, John Adams said: I understood his point. We are the good guy, maybe. Or are you saying we should make empty threats that violate treaties and morality as a way of negotiating? I don't have the treaty in front of me. Can you tell me what clause a threat, without action, violates? Can you also clarify whether running hostile operations from a designated cultural site violates the treaty too or whether it's okey dokey? Edited January 7, 2020 by 4merper4mer 1
B-Man Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 Now, if you want to argue that we possess no hard evidence that Soleimani himself was involved in this dealing, despite this kind of thing being his bailiwick, fine (though there is also evidence that Iran-al Qaeda relationship persisted after 9/11). If you want to argue that Iran’s actions back then aren’t justification for war today, fine. But nowhere does Pence allege that Iran had planned 9/11 or that it knew what hijackers were planning, or that Soleimani’s covert help to the 9/11 terrorists was the lone justification for killing him. He merely states that Iran gave clandestine safe passage to many of the same people who ended up murdering 3,000 Americans. This is inarguable, whether it bolsters your narrative or not. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/pence-is-mostly-right-about-iran-and-the-9-11-hijackers/
row_33 Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 He merely states that Iran gave clandestine safe passage to many of the same people who ended up murdering 3,000 Americans. Where does someone sitting at home in front of a computer even begin to think they can refute this, or that it will matter to refute it?
Recommended Posts