President Defends Actions

[Jostler]

3 minutes ago, other one said:

as for killing Qassem Soleimani if my memory serves me correctly there are UN sanctions that forbid him from leaving Iran at any time.    He had no business in Iraq for any reason whatsoever.

 

 

Yet he was in Iraq.  Soleimani has moved freely, whereabouts well known through two 8 yr  presidencies covering both sides of the  US political  divide, the question isn't ''why?".....it's "why now?"

 

Quote

Oddly I haven't heard anyone complain about the other people in the vehicle who went up in the blast with him....    I guess they were not important to Iraq....

I'm not sure where you've been listening then.  The complaints have been loud....including some very pointed comments/accusations made by  the  Iraqi Prime Minister  in the  Iraqi Parliament.   Iran just demonstrated unequivocally that direct military action against them will  cost a great deal.   Their missile stockpiles are capable of extracting painful consequences, cannot be eliminated  by a first  strike and cannot be stopped  by either US forces at the 30+ bases within range, nor  Israel and their  air defenses.   They know they'd pay dearly too..far more than the US, but they've still proven they have a very strong deterrent to conventional attacks  on their  soil...very strong.

The proxy forces Soleimani has spent the  last 20 years building are still there, and now represent an existential  threat to every American in the  region....military or diplomatic.   The cost of the occupation just rose dramatically, because safe ground transport, resupply convoys...etc is now a thing of the  past. 

 

[other one]

15 minutes ago, Jostler said:

Yet he was in Iraq.  Soleimani has moved freely, whereabouts well known through two 8 yr  presidencies covering both sides of the  US political  divide, the question isn't ''why?".....it's "why now?"

 

I'm not sure where you've been listening then.  The complaints have been loud....including some very pointed comments/accusations made by  the  Iraqi Prime Minister  in the  Iraqi Parliament.   Iran just demonstrated unequivocally that direct military action against them will  cost a great deal.   Their missile stockpiles are capable of extracting painful consequences, cannot be eliminated  by a first  strike and cannot be stopped  by either US forces at the 30+ bases within range, nor  Israel and their  air defenses.   They know they'd pay dearly too..far more than the US, but they've still proven they have a very strong deterrent to conventional attacks  on their  soil...very strong.

The proxy forces Soleimani has spent the  last 20 years building are still there, and now represent an existential  threat to every American in the  region....military or diplomatic.   The cost of the occupation just rose dramatically, because safe ground transport, resupply convoys...etc is now a thing of the  past. 

 

well, they can certainly shoot down civilian airplanes....   and I wasn't aware that we had anywhere in Iraq that was safe for us for the past three years.   Friends even in the Green Zone tell me that they are not really safe.    But I'm not there so I can't positively say one way or the other.

I don't know anyone who believes that attacking Iran would be bloodless....    but then again when Bush 43 didn't go into Bagdad they told us it was because we would loose a lot of people.....    didn't work out that way, and Iran could not do to Iraq what we did to them, so I'm not so sure what they could do to us....   their missiles don't seem to be very accurate, but they do supposedly have a bunch of them.....    but then again Saddam was supposed to have a lot of things he didn't....   or we never found anyway.

 

[Jostler]

2 hours ago, other one said:

well, they can certainly shoot down civilian airplanes....   and I wasn't aware that we had anywhere in Iraq that was safe for us for the past three years.   Friends even in the Green Zone tell me that they are not really safe.    But I'm not there so I can't positively say one way or the other.

I don't know anyone who believes that attacking Iran would be bloodless....    but then again when Bush 43 didn't go into Bagdad they told us it was because we would loose a lot of people.....    didn't work out that way, and Iran could not do to Iraq what we did to them, so I'm not so sure what they could do to us....   their missiles don't seem to be very accurate, but they do supposedly have a bunch of them.....    but then again Saddam was supposed to have a lot of things he didn't....   or we never found anyway.

 

the almost unbelievable accuracy of those missiles is part of the "message".    

[other one]

9 hours ago, Jostler said:

the almost unbelievable accuracy of those missiles is part of the "message".    

Iranian missiles????     their accuracy is +-1/2 mile....    and if we have our antimissile stuff guarding things the way we would if we were to attack them very few of them would cause any harm.

Wild Weisels would take out their anti-aircraft batteries and the F-35's/F-22's would take out the radar and air planes and if we do so before they get nuclear weapons there would not be much more to fear than what Saddam had...     But with the unrest that is there now, we may be able to let the public there overthrow the Islamic government.   There are huge numbers of Christian's in Iran and those who are not are getting really disturbed about how living under Sharia is....   And President Trump unlike the last three presidents is not turning a blind eye to those who are rebelling.   He will assist them in any way he can.   I think it depends on how far into the end times we really are.....   whichever case it will bring things to a head pretty soon in my opinion and we'll see where it goes.

The religious leaders of Iran would sacrifice their whole population to be able to destroy Israel, and we should not let that happen if we can stop it.    God himself as I understand his message to us in the Word will not let that happen again (assuming we are where I think we are in prophecy) but other countries will be treated as they treat Israel through it all.

[Jostler]

2 hours ago, other one said:

Iranian missiles????     their accuracy is +-1/2 mile....   

 

That isn't what the satellite imagery shows.  It's not  what the recent attack  on the Saudi oil refinery tells us.  Quite the opposite.  I'd love  to talk about what the real situation on the ground there is and how this latest attack changed it.  But i'm not willing to  fight all the rah-rah confirmation bias and regurgitated neocon propaganda points to do  it.

Just brace yourself for more rocket attacks on US bases, they're coming....very likely  with increased frequency  and intensity.  It's not a proxy war  any  longer, but the proxies will play the role they were intended  to  in it. 

[other one]

2 hours ago, Jostler said:

 

That isn't what the satellite imagery shows.  It's not  what the recent attack  on the Saudi oil refinery tells us.  Quite the opposite.  I'd love  to talk about what the real situation on the ground there is and how this latest attack changed it.  But i'm not willing to  fight all the rah-rah confirmation bias and regurgitated neocon propaganda points to do  it.

Just brace yourself for more rocket attacks on US bases, they're coming....very likely  with increased frequency  and intensity.  It's not a proxy war  any  longer, but the proxies will play the role they were intended  to  in it. 

satellite images didn't show much directed damage, just that the area that it hit was rather large and several were spaced out in different areas....   and noting of real note was destroyed as far as I could see.     We can hit a camel in the but from half way across the world.

As far as the Saudi refinery, that was just across the gulf and maybe I'm wrong but those were not ballistic missiles but some kind of cruise missile.    I didn't bother to check any real details on the accuracy of those....   but ours could poke a camel in the eye while it was running across the desert.

If we want to bring Iran totally down we could do so in less than a half a day by destroying their oil production and refineries....   and do so with a couple of submarines.     I doubt the president would do so for it would kill a bunch of civilian workers and he has already shown he isn't up for that.    We'll just do it without killing anyone with sanctions which will have the same effect over time.

The general public there is already very unrestful and the last large groups yelling death to something was to their own government, not us....    and we can help that along.

I'm kind of lost on our conversation and where it's headed for it seems it's way off the OP as to whether or not the president should have killed whatshisface…    still say that he drew a line in the sand and it being don't kill Americans....    they crossed it and he killed the two people responsible for doing or having that done.    And he did it legally and in the open so they know not to do that again....    and when they didn't kill any of us he did not retaliate against their missile attack that didn't really do much.

I would have to go back and look through some history, but as I remember reading Sharia Law, they are not allowed to start a war that they can't win.  Jihad doesn't work that way, and I'd have to refer to some old books to see if they are allowed to start the chaos to bring in the Mahdi in their end time beliefs...    The fight between Shia and Sunni has been going on for about 1,300 years and that's a different set of scenarios.