Poll: Were we within days of a major attack from Iran? Justification for assassination of Suleimani

[randay]

Based on the lack of evidence?

I just feel bad for those other guys for being shit on for voting yes on an internet poll about something that we'll never know the truth on for real.

 

[HomerJS]

I changed my vote to yes.

What was the imminent threat?

 

[HurleyBird]

We still don't know what Putin told Trump in their one on one meetings because witnesses were removed from the room. No TDS there. Claiming Trump does lie would be TDS

Almost anything Trump-Putin related is TDS, but specifically in this instance you only need to rub a couple of brain cells together to realise how dumb it would be for Putin tell Trump something like that directly. Yes, Iran and Russia are allies which makes this entire endeavour unlikely-bordering-on-conspiracy theory, but just think for a second. Assuming Russia wants to backstab Iran for some reason, they certainly don't want to get caught doing so. If you're Putin do you trust Trump not to tweet something along the lines of "Even Russia, Iran's ally, agrees that Iran was about to attack our embassies!" which would effectively out himself while exposing your duplicity to your allies? Of course not.

Assuming Russia wanted to backstab Iran for whatever reason there'd be far more logical, subtle, and effective ways to go about it. Like manufacturing evidence for the US to find. And for that it helps that there are powerful warmongers in places of power just looking for an excuse. But Putin whispering in Trump's ear "Attack Iran" is a silly fever dream.

 

[ultimatebob]

What was the imminent threat?

That's the thing, we'll probably never know. We weren't in the room when they made the decision, so who knows what crazy intel they were given at the time.

If it was something stupid that was debunked days or even hours later, we would probably never know about it. The Trump administration isn't going to give Congress even more ammunition that they can use against him during his impeachment trial.

 

[HomerJS]

I just feel bad for those other guys for being shit on for voting yes on an internet poll about something that we'll never know the truth on for real.

Do the constantly changing stories indicate this administration is telling the truth? Unless you believe ALL the versions of their rationale.

 

[HomerJS]

That's the thing, we'll probably never know. We weren't in the room when they made the decision, so who knows what crazy intel they were given at the time.

If it was something stupid that was debunked days or even hours later, we would probably never know about it. The Trump administration isn't going to give Congress even more ammunition that they can use against him during his impeachment trial.

You would have to admit the constantly changing stories show at a minimum the administration is lying about the reason.

There were Senators who attended the classified briefing and NOBODY confirmed the embassy story.

 

[soundforbjt]

That's the thing, we'll probably never know. We weren't in the room when they made the decision, so who knows what crazy intel they were given at the time.

If it was something stupid that was debunked days or even hours later, we would probably never know about it. The Trump administration isn't going to give Congress even more ammunition that they can use against him during his impeachment trial.

Are you forgetting or haven't heard that Trump was given a list of other targets more responsible and sane and that assassinating Suleimani was put on there to make the others seem more reasonable. Trump & Co. picked the worst possible action they could.

 

[JWade]

for those who blame the President for taking out an enemy combatant, the man was briefed on intelligence, told where the enemy was, told of the courses of action. It ran up the chain of command to the top, which is the commander in chief, it went that high because the general IS/WAS a high value target. The President made a call based on the information he was given. If you dont like the decision he made, then blame those who gave him the information to make that call. He has military advisors, blame them, they are the ones that gave him the intelligence, they are the ones that told him what courses of action he could take. Just because you dont know all the information, doesnt mean it was wrong. I was in the army for 20 years, deployed overseas 8 times. I was in Iraq and saw with my own eyes the stock piles of chemical weapons years before the media finally admitted there indead where stockpiles of chemical munitions and indeed weapons of mass destruction in iraq. I saw with my own eyes the mass graves Hussein ordered. He indeed was an evil man, very evil, just becuse the media says one thing, try and actually think.

 

[HomerJS]

for those who blame the President for taking out an enemy combatant, the man was briefed on intelligence, told where the enemy was, told of the courses of action. It ran up the chain of command to the top, which is the commander in chief, it went that high because the general IS/WAS a high value target. The President made a call based on the information he was given. If you dont like the decision he made, then blame those who gave him the information to make that call. He has military advisors, blame them, they are the ones that gave him the intelligence, they are the ones that told him what courses of action he could take. Just because you dont know all the information, doesnt mean it was wrong. I was in the army for 20 years, deployed overseas 8 times. I was in Iraq and saw with my own eyes the stock piles of chemical weapons years before the media finally admitted there indead where stockpiles of chemical munitions and indeed weapons of mass destruction in iraq. I saw with my own eyes the mass graves Hussein ordered. He indeed was an evil man, very evil, just becuse the media says one thing, try and actually think.

There was an agreement Saddam was evil but we was our friend before the invasion of Kuwait. He didn't suddendly become a bad guy. Saddam was evil but he kept the factions inline in Iraq. We saw what happened when he was killed.

If my memory recalls, those weapons rendered inert because of their age?

As for the Trump decision, advisors bring the President multiple options. Trump chose the most extreme.

 

[randay]

Do the constantly changing stories indicate this administration is telling the truth? Unless you believe ALL the versions of their rationale.

Just stop. You didnt even try to read what I said. I said we will never know the truth. Then you posit that I believe EVERYTHING. You only want to tell people they are wrong. Just stop please.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I just feel bad for those other guys for being shit on for voting yes on an internet poll about something that we'll never know the truth on for real.

lol, the real victims.

 

[HomerJS]

Just stop. You didnt even try to read what I said. I said we will never know the truth. Then you posit that I believe EVERYTHING. You only want to tell people they are wrong. Just stop please.

I'm saying this administration is lying and their multiple versions of the so called imminent threat is proof.

If you are voting there was an imminent threat you must believe them. I ASKED if you believe everything. If you believe them which version is correct? If none of them are correct does that mean there was not an imminent threat? How can there be multiple versions of the same threat?

Senators have emerged from the classified briefings and have said there is no evidence of an imminent threat. The administration still has not told a consistent story what the threat was.

 

[randay]

I'm saying this administration is lying and their multiple versions of the so called imminent threat is proof.

If you are voting there was an imminent threat you must believe them. I ASKED if you believe everything. If you believe them which version is correct? If none of them are correct does that mean there was not an imminent threat? How can there be multiple versions of the same threat?

Senators have emerged from the classified briefings and have said there is no evidence of an imminent threat. The administration still has not told a consistent story what the threat was.

OOOOOOOPPPPS, youre still going!

 

[ivwshane]

That's the thing, we'll probably never know. We weren't in the room when they made the decision, so who knows what crazy intel they were given at the time.

If it was something stupid that was debunked days or even hours later, we would probably never know about it. The Trump administration isn't going to give Congress even more ammunition that they can use against him during his impeachment trial.

What you are essentially saying is that as long as you don’t know you don’t care what the justification was.

That’s a pretty horrible mentality to have as a citizen. Do you think there should be some accountability around this?

 

[HomerJS]

OOOOOOOPPPPS, youre still going!

Ok so we'll never know so let's just stop asking questions and move on. I get it

 

[woolfe9998]

WaPo article says Iran admits shooting down the plane because it "turned towards a sensitive military site."

 

[Indus]

Only the brainwashed voting yes I see!

 

[JWade]

There was an agreement Saddam was evil but we was our friend before the invasion of Kuwait. He didn't suddendly become a bad guy. Saddam was evil but he kept the factions inline in Iraq. We saw what happened when he was killed.

If my memory recalls, those weapons rendered inert because of their age?

As for the Trump decision, advisors bring the President multiple options. Trump chose the most extreme.

no, they werent inert, my friend who got bit by one in 2004 still suffers side effects to this day. The stuff doesnt degrade over time. Mustard Agent from WWI is still deadly. Some news agencies reported that the stuff found was non-serviceable and not usable, which is 100% false, majority of stuff found was indeed usable and deadly.

yeah he kept them inline by slaughtering and genocide.

 

[sandorski]

Imminent Threat = Target of Opportunity......I suspect that's True.

 

[Jhhnn]

for those who blame the President for taking out an enemy combatant, the man was briefed on intelligence, told where the enemy was, told of the courses of action. It ran up the chain of command to the top, which is the commander in chief, it went that high because the general IS/WAS a high value target. The President made a call based on the information he was given. If you dont like the decision he made, then blame those who gave him the information to make that call. He has military advisors, blame them, they are the ones that gave him the intelligence, they are the ones that told him what courses of action he could take. Just because you dont know all the information, doesnt mean it was wrong. I was in the army for 20 years, deployed overseas 8 times. I was in Iraq and saw with my own eyes the stock piles of chemical weapons years before the media finally admitted there indead where stockpiles of chemical munitions and indeed weapons of mass destruction in iraq. I saw with my own eyes the mass graves Hussein ordered. He indeed was an evil man, very evil, just becuse the media says one thing, try and actually think.

Gawd. The only reason the Neocon GOP foreign policy assholes like Pompeo could convince Trump to do this is that he's ignorant as fuck. Doesn't know shit except for what they tell him. If he doesn't oust Pompeo here rather shortly it means he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

And, uhh, Saddam Hussein? Remember when we were pals?

https://rushdiecourse.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

 

[kage69]

for those who blame the President for taking out an enemy combatant, the man was briefed on intelligence, told where the enemy was, told of the courses of action. It ran up the chain of command to the top, which is the commander in chief, it went that high because the general IS/WAS a high value target. The President made a call based on the information he was given. If you dont like the decision he made, then blame those who gave him the information to make that call. He has military advisors, blame them, they are the ones that gave him the intelligence, they are the ones that told him what courses of action he could take. Just because you dont know all the information, doesnt mean it was wrong. I was in the army for 20 years, deployed overseas 8 times. I was in Iraq and saw with my own eyes the stock piles of chemical weapons years before the media finally admitted there indead where stockpiles of chemical munitions and indeed weapons of mass destruction in iraq. I saw with my own eyes the mass graves Hussein ordered. He indeed was an evil man, very evil, just becuse the media says one thing, try and actually think.

Only the brainwashed voting yes I see!

Yup.

It's like with most Trump self-inflicted wounds, his enablers get stuck trying desperately to justify and dress it up as something other than a clusterfuck. Never works, leads to posts like JWade's. Someone's been listening dutifully to radio and Faux. Takes some real partisan blinders to appeal back to the Reagan Age, Mr. The Buck Stops Here, while trying to do the exact opposite with your buckets here. Irony. Trump was given multiple scenarios he knew shit about because he's a moron with an 8 sec attention span for non Trump related topics. He went with what Pompeo wanted because it would make him look tough before an election and/or get him the war they want to hopefully stay in office. It's time some people wake the fuck up and realize how craven banana repubs are. Then again, if you can't even bring yourself to admit reality about Iraq back then, you're obviously not going to listen to facts about about Iran now. Alt facts and republicans histrionics seem to be more their speed, what a shame. They don't care that Trump has already changed his story about it multiple times, and already has zero credibility when it comes to citing numbers.

Btw, when do these fools start to care about foreign policy disasters as much as they do Clinton emails or blowjobs? This playing chess one move at a time is killing our odds of handling China in the future. I hope short sighted republican Putin servants are swept from office for the good of the Western world.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You know adolf Hitler had his minions attack German property and claim it was a different group of people to justify his going to war....lolol

 

[blackangst1]

Just curious here...were there imminent threats and congressional approval for Obama's over 500 drone strikes?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Just curious here...were there imminent threats and congressional approval for Obama's over 500 drone strikes?

Did President Obama Order More Than 500 Drone Strikes?

The drone program has ratcheted up with each successive administration.

www.snopes.com

The drone program under Obama and the strike that killed Soleimani are not apt comparisons. The U.S. has been carrying out drone warfare in the region since the administration of George W. Bush, Obama’s predecessor. Although such warfare has always been controversial, the fallout over the killing of Soleimani is the result of his status in the Iranian government. As Reuters reported, “Major General Qassem Soleimani was the second most powerful man in Iran. He answered only to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.” His killing, per Reuters, “struck at the heart” of leadership in Tehran.


In March 2018, Trump revoked an Obama executive order requiring an annual disclosure of civilian deaths resulting from drone strikes. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism also reported that the number of drone strikes ratcheted up during Trump’s first year in office, doubling in Somalia and tripling in Yemen.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just curious here...were there imminent threats and congressional approval for Obama's over 500 drone strikes?

So dishonest. Unlike the strike on Soleimani, the claim of imminent threat was not made & the targets weren't the second most powerful leader of Iran. High ranking officials of a strategic partner weren't killed, either. This is very different & you know it.