Ask anybody who has deployed. When we first get there, it’s “omg run for cover we have rocket fire!”
6 months in, its “well if I go, I go but I just sat down to eat so oh well”.
Rocket attacks happen all the time.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The threat Friday by a top Iranian military leader to attack “vital American targets” in or near the Strait of Hormuz – the waterway through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil is transported – illustrates why President Trump’s pro-American energy policies are critical to our national security.
Fortunately, President Trump has aggressively pursued deregulation and other needed policies that have led to big increases in U.S. production of oil and natural gas. This makes us far less vulnerable to Iranian threats to block the Straits of Hormuz than we would be if a Democrat becomes president in 2021, because all the Democratic presidential candidates have called for actions that would sharply reduce U.S. fossil fuel production.
Brink of war? Democrats react to Soleimani killing
Fox News correspondent Kevin Corke reports.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a noted Iran hawk, is circulating a resolution in the Senate that would commend the Trump administration for killing Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, aides told Fox News on Friday.
An aide said the resolution is “structured and worded the same way as a 2011 resolution that commended the Obama administration for killing Bin Laden, which received unanimous support in the Senate.” Cruz is trying to get Democrats on the record supporting the mission.
ILHAN OMAR, TED CRUZ CLASH AS SENATOR CLAIMS DEMS 'OUTRAGED' OVER IRANIAN TERRORIST'S DEATH
It’s an apparent effort by Republicans to try to dare Democrats to oppose virtually the same resolution the Senate adopted to applaud then President Barack Obama in 2011 after the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Protesters rally outside United Nations office in Tehran in response to killing of SoleimaniVideo
The resolution honors “the members of the military and intelligence community who carried out the mission that killed Qasem Soleimani.”
Soleimani was killed in an airstrike near the Baghdad airport in Iraq. President Trump on Friday accused Soleimani of being involved in planning “imminent and sinister attacks” against Americans.
“Soleimani made the death of innocent people his sick passion,” Trump added, saying that "what the U.S. did yesterday should have been done long ago."
Democrats in Congress – and those seeking their party’s nomination for president -- have described the killing as a dangerous escalation. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., for example, called it a brazen decision that makes the region less stable.
Kaine called on Congress to act to “stop President Trump from entangling America in yet another unnecessary war in the Middle East.”
Trump and the GOP can try to manipulate the narrative here in the USA - but they don't and can't control the narrative in Iran. Anyone thinking Iranian logic and thought processes mean that if Trump rattles his saber then they will all settle down and behave is smoking something. Regardless of how some like to portray the USA as having some divine right to go around the world policing and in this case assassinating other sovereign nations leaders ... shockingly those other nations feel differently.
If there was clear evidence of an "imminent and sinister attacks" - then that needs to be shared immediately. Both within congress/senate - but also with our allies abroad. . . . . If not - then it looks like one more knee jerk reaction by Trump that potentially destabilizes the region and endangers US lives, and possibly done to detract from his political issues at home.
I'm still hoping for the best - but all I see is Trump being unstable and pouring gasoline on the flames.
Last edited by mgh888; 01/05/2010:02 AM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Anyone thinking Iranian logic and thought processes mean that if Trump rattles his saber then they will all settle down and behave is smoking something.
Actually if they all blazed one up, they may see the light.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
Just think about how much money we spent in that hellhole of a region, specifically Iraq.
Now I know posters will say “should’ve spent that money here at home instead”. And while I agree, let’s just say for big picture purchases that the money was gonna be spent SOMEWHERE overseas.
We would’ve been so much better off using that money in west Africa over the Middle East. It’s filled with people who WANT capitalism, WANT western democracy, and want to upgrade their quality of life.
But nope. Screw those Africans. Lets instead spend trillions of dollars in a region of the world who want NOTHING to do with America or western values. Who use spend every chance they get placing road side bombs to hit our convoys, and VBIEDs to hit our check points.
And surprise surprise, we’re about to do it AGAIN.
As someone who has spend way more time than I cared to deployed in Iraq, I understand Iraqis anger and can’t blame them one bit for trying to kick us out. Because ONCE AGAIN, like so many other times throughout recorded history, their country is about to be ground zero for yet another military conflict involving people who don’t actually live in the country.
Poor Iraqis. Their country constantly being treated like a neutral site to some college national title game.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Hezbollah told the Iraqi troops to be now where near the compounds where American troops are after Sunday
On Sunday the Iranian Regime just offered an $80 million bounty for anyone who brings in the head of President Donald Trump for killing Qassam Soleimani.
Pentagon Officials Reportedly “Stunned” by Trump’s Decision to Kill Soleimani By DANIEL POLITI
JAN 05, 20209:29 AM
When top American military officials presented President Donald Trump with the option to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani, Iran’s most powerful commander, they didn’t actually think he would take it, reports the New York Times. Pentagon officials usually include a far-out option when they present possibilities to the president in order to make the others seem less extreme. The other options presented to Trump in Mar-a-Lago, his Palm Beach resort, included strikes against Iranian ships or missile facilities or militias backed by Iran that are operating in Iraq. “The Pentagon also tacked on the choice of targeting General Suleimani, mainly to make other options seem reasonable,” reports the Times.
At first, it seemed everything was going according to plan. Trump rejected the option to kill Soleimani to respond to a wave of recent Iranian-sponsored violence in Iraq . Instead, he authorized airstrikes against an Iranian-supported militia group, Kataib Hezbollah. The strikes ended up hitting three locations in Iraq and two in Syria.
Then things changed when protesters gathered outside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday. Iranians saw the U.S. response as disproportionate but Trump became increasingly angry at the images he saw on television as protesters stormed the embassy. Suddenly, Trump was worried that failing to respond to the protests would look weak. By Thursday, Trump had decided to go forward with the killing of Soleimani and “top Pentagon officials were stunned,” reports the Times. CNN also reports that “some officials emerged surprised” when the president decided to target Soleimani as many expected he would go for a less risky option. There was immediate concern about what kind of retaliation that could spark from Iran, but it is unclear whether top military officials pushed back against Trump’s decision.
Although top U.S. national security officials continue to insist that the killing of Soleimani was in response to an imminent threat against Americas, there continues to be skepticism about that claim as the administration has failed to provide convincing evidence to make its case. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley also made clear that the attacks could still happen, meaning that killing Soleimani did not get rid of the supposed imminent threat. Several Democratic lawmakers have expressed skepticism at the president’s claims. “My staff was briefed by a number of people representing a variety of agencies in the United States government and they came away with no feeling that there was evidence of an imminent attack,” Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico said.
How Republican hawks primed Trump to strike back at Iran By Michael Warren, Zachary Cohen, Jamie Gangel and Kevin Liptak, CNN
Updated 11:48 AM ET, Sun January 5, 2020
Washington (CNN)On the night of June 19, President Donald Trump approved and then abruptly called off military strikes against Iran in retaliation for a downed US surveillance drone.
The move, which came after months of escalating tensions, confused and frustrated many of the President's more hawkish advisers and allies, who had hoped he would take a stronger stand against Iran and were concerned that his pull back would send a signal of weakness and only embolden the government in Tehran. In the six months since, many of those hawks have largely felt justified in their concern as Iran has continued to attack and threaten the United States and its allies in the region, according to two Republicans who acknowledged they were troubled by what they had come to believe were empty words from Trump. Through private conversations and carefully calibrated public statements, they have tried to push the President to match his often tough rhetoric toward Iran with equally tough action. The next time an opportunity arose to strike back at Iran, the hawks hoped, Trump would be primed to act. Pompeo backs Trump's threats to Iran as US braces for possible retaliation Pompeo backs Trump's threats to Iran as US braces for possible retaliation That strategy appears to have paid off after Trump gave the go ahead to target Qasem Soleimani, the top military leader in Iran, who was killed last week in a US drone strike near the Baghdad airport. Along with the successful October raid to take out the head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Trump's decision to kill Soleimani has many GOP hawks expressing confidence that they have begun to win over the President in the struggle between his isolationist instincts and his aggressive impulses. "He's learning that Americans like it when America acts like a superpower," one Republican congressional aide told CNN. Hawks winning over Trump Sen. Tom Cotton, left, is among a group of vocal Republicans who have pushed President Trump to take a harder stance on Iran. Sen. Tom Cotton, left, is among a group of vocal Republicans who have pushed President Trump to take a harder stance on Iran. When it comes to Iran, Sens. Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham have consistently advised Trump that the consequence of inaction would only make Iran's behavior worse. One GOP aide told CNN that the message from these lawmakers was that this is a region that "understands force as a language and you have to be able to speak it if you want to have an impact on the outcome of events." Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who had supported the strike on Iran in June, has been a particularly strong voice for taking out Soleimani as a deterrence. And the nonpolitical military leaders, particularly Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, backed up the hawks' perspective in the days leading up to the strike and after, echoing the sentiment that the US could not afford to do nothing, according to congressional aides and a person familiar with internal discussions within the administration on Iran. The fact that the strike was carried out by the US military rather than the intelligence community, as part of a covert operation, offers some indication that Trump embraced the idea he needed to send a clear message of strength to Iran. A covert operation, however, could have achieved the same outcome while allowing the Trump administration to maintain some level of strategic deniability, former intelligence officials told CNN. Instead, Trump opted to allow the military to take the lead -- a move that suggests he fully intended to take credit for the killing given the order had presidential authorization. Skepticism mounts over evidence of 'imminent' threat that Trump says justified Soleimani killing Skepticism mounts over evidence of 'imminent' threat that Trump says justified Soleimani killing That was part of the pitch Cotton and others have made to Trump privately in recent months to send a clear message to Iran with a show of US force -- an argument that was buoyed by the fact that the President was unhappy with the negative coverage he received for his lack of response to the drone downing in June. All these factors appear to have beaten back the advances of Sen. Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican who encourages the President's isolationist instincts. Paul admitted his disadvantage in a Friday interview on Fox News, lamenting that Trump was "getting unfortunate counsel" from Iran hawks. The hawkish Republican aide noted that two recent decisions on which Trump sided with Paul -- the withdrawal of US forces from Syria and the subsequent abandonment of Kurdish forces there -- resulted in significant blowback from most of his other allies in Washington and with his base. Trump, the aide asserted, was starting to realize the benefits of siding with the hawks. Impulse to protect the troops Pro-Iranian militiamen and their supporters set a fire while U.S. soldiers fired tear gas during a sit-in in front of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Pro-Iranian militiamen and their supporters set a fire while U.S. soldiers fired tear gas during a sit-in in front of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. According to a Republican congressional source familiar with the Trump's decision making, the past week of aggression - the attack on December 27 by an Iranian-backed militia group in Iraq that injured four US servicemen and killed an American civilian contractor had a particularly strong impact on the President. Following that attack, and the subsequent protests at the US embassy in Baghdad, Trump did not have to be talked into the strike by advisers, according to the Republican source. Killing of American contractor crossed line for Trump, source says Killing of American contractor crossed line for Trump, source says While in the past, the source acknowledged that the President "has been reluctant to take military action," in this case, the killing of an American contractor, the wounding of others, and the subsequent embassy protests "crossed his line." His advisers also pointed out to the President that if he "didn't respond now, they (Iran) will continue to cross it." "I am very confident he was not reluctant," said the source. When Trump finally gets ready to act, the source added, "you can't out escalate him." In an interview with CNN Friday morning, Pompeo cited "imminent threats to American lives" in the region as a primary reason for the timing of the attack, but it's also clear that the strike was at least being considered for several days beforehand. Trump himself weighed the decision for a few days, officials told CNN, while at Mar-a-Lago. Graham, who golfed with the President during that time, later said Trump informed him of the plans. How Trump's decision unfolded to kill a top Iranian general How Trump's decision unfolded to kill a top Iranian general After a meeting Sunday in Mar-a-Lago where Trump was briefed by senior members of his national security team on options regarding Iran, some officials emerged surprised the President chose to target Soleimani, according to a source familiar with the briefing. The officials who briefed Trump included Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Pompeo, National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien and Milley. The source said that some aides expected Trump to pick a less risky option, but once presented with the choice of targeting Soleimani he remained intent on going forward. When asked about whether there was intelligence that Iranian attacks were imminent, the Republican congressional source said top administration officials confirmed there was "no doubt he was there to plan attacks against the US," referring to Soleimani. As to the timing of the attack and whether it was politically motivated, the source said, "If an American hadn't died, I don't think any of this would have happened." On Saturday, Trump drew a significant red line in a three-part tweet, vowing specific military action against Iran if it "strikes any Americans, or American assets." "We have ... targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture" and "if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets... Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD," Trump wrote. Israel as a model In the previous year, Trump has "acted with restraint" regarding Iran, Retired Army Maj. Gen. James "Spider" Marks, told CNN. This series of events, however, changed the administration's calculus. That's when the chance to hit a "known, high-valued target" like Soleimani arose. "This suddenly became an opportunity, and the President took it," said Marks, a CNN contributor. "The intel was pretty doggone good." Mark Dubowitz, the chief executive at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think tank that takes a hawkish view toward Iran, said the idea of taking out Soleimani has long been an option for the US government. Increasingly within the administration, it had become a viable one. "I think this was months in the making, not days or hours in the making," Dubowitz told CNN. Dubowitz also speculated that the President may have been influenced by the example set by Israel's defense forces. Over the past several months, the Israelis have successfully destroyed Quds Force targets in Syria, including a possible headquarters for Solomeini's operation in that country. "To what extent has Israel's success at going after the Quds force provided Trump with the confidence that he could do that too and handle the blowback?" Dubowitz said. "If the Israelis can do it, why can't we?"
Are you for Trump attacking Iranian culture sites?
I’m not. No war crimes for this guy.
What does everyone else say?
Trump won't attack cultural sites. He doesn't want sissy Democrats jumping off buildings.. He will just sit on his butt while they attack our embassy ....Oh wait that was Hill and O. He will not be praised like O for killing Bin Laden but will work on for America..
Trump will be insulted by little girls and called a Terrorist. You know the ones voted in by crazy lefties.
Why don't you guys just admit it. This all about you trying to get back in power. Calling Trump a war criminal and O a hero is ridiculous.
Trump stood up to a bully and it will make other bullies less likely to act out ...
John 3:16 Jesus said "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
Iran puts an $80m BOUNTY on Donald Trump's head, threatens to attack the White House, tears up nuclear deal and calls the US president a 'terrorist in a suit' amid fury at killing of Soleimani
Iran puts an $80m BOUNTY on Donald Trump's head, threatens to attack the White House, tears up nuclear deal and calls the US president a 'terrorist in a suit' amid fury at killing of Soleimani
targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
Iran puts an $80m BOUNTY on Donald Trump's head, threatens to attack the White House, tears up nuclear deal and calls the US president a 'terrorist in a suit' amid fury at killing of Soleimani
This is why we can’t just take the president and his teams words at face value. Because of the constant BS they put out there to justify their actions.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Iraq’s Parliament calls for expulsion of US troops from the country following drone attack
Iraqi lawmakers approved a resolution Sunday calling to expel U.S. troops from the country, following an American drone attack that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
The resolution asks the Iraqi government to end the agreement under which Washington sent forces to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State terror group.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
yea, its lets us know he hasnt been paying much attention.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
