pompeo Declines to Present Evidence of Imminent Threat From Iran

[Biff_Poindexter]

There was no imminent threat.

What makes you say that? Because you hate Trump?

I don't believe there was an imminent threat.

All trump does is lie. Pompeo has lied about the call trump made to Zelensky in July.

Both men are proven liars.

If trump had not spent the last 4 years lying through his teeth about everything, I wouldn't doubt his word.

When asked for proof of their claims, pompeo refuses to provide it. If there was proof he would have provided it when asked.

Finally it's being reported that the general was there on diplomatic business to discuss peace with Saudi Arabia.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. If it was just trump and his cohorts who had to deal with the consequences of this most people wouldn't care. But it's innocent people who are going to die or be harmed because of this.

Trump is not so powerful yet that the Department of Defense is his puppet. I do not believe that. This is what was released. Trump and his henchmen can expound as they will, but this is what it was based on.

Interestingly, the wording doesn't actually pinpoint any specific future attack, or imminent threat, so you are technically right. However, I don't see that minor detail--of the latest plan not being quite ready--as a great reason to hold off blowing the bastard up.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement by the Department of Defense
JAN. 2, 2020

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.

This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.

IMHO, the attack and killing of Soleimani was, more than anything else, a direct message to Iran: DON'T FUCK WITH US. From here on out, it's going to be tit for tat, we're going hit you back if you hit us, and we can hit harder. I do not know what Iran's next move is, or what the US might do in response but Trump has shown the willingness to meet force with force, appeasement is over. I seriously doubt we'll get into a war with Iran over this, unless they do something really stupid. I don't think they're any more of a military threat than Iraq was, these guys couldn't beat Iraq 25 years ago and we wiped them out in 2 weeks. I think Iran knows that; they've already got enough trouble at home, and they ain't got the money or the ability to do more than pin-prick us with terrorist attacks somewhere.

Does going tit for tat with Iran help us get out of Iraq sooner??

If so, why don't we just bomb Iran directly -- since this is supposed to be helpful

 

[Coyote]

There was no imminent threat.

What makes you say that? Because you hate Trump?

If there was I think we would have been given a lot more info after the fact. But we have not been. That paucity of actual info along with timing of it makes me skeptical. Add to thatmoneofour allies seem to have similar intelligence.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Wasn't it that dead fucks group who attacked out Iraqi embassy??

I'd call that an imminent threat.

Yup, that is close enough.....

 

[bodecea]

There was no imminent threat.

They have nothing to show.

 

[Olde Europe]

There was no imminent threat.

What makes you say that? Because you hate Trump?

The Trumpies themselves say so, alleging that Suleimani traveled the region "planning". No matter what he had been planning, anything in the planning stage is not "imminent". Pompeo rejected all questions as to the imminence of that "imminent attack" by deriding those who were making much about "imminent", as if it hadn't been the Trumpies themselves who inserted into their pronouncement the term "imminent" as their salient legal term "justifying" the murder of Suleimani.

Case closed.

 

[Desperado]

There was no imminent threat.

And you know this how?

 

[task0778]

There was no imminent threat.

What makes you say that? Because you hate Trump?

I don't believe there was an imminent threat.

All trump does is lie. Pompeo has lied about the call trump made to Zelensky in July.

Both men are proven liars.

If trump had not spent the last 4 years lying through his teeth about everything, I wouldn't doubt his word.

When asked for proof of their claims, pompeo refuses to provide it. If there was proof he would have provided it when asked.

Finally it's being reported that the general was there on diplomatic business to discuss peace with Saudi Arabia.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. If it was just trump and his cohorts who had to deal with the consequences of this most people wouldn't care. But it's innocent people who are going to die or be harmed because of this.

Trump is not so powerful yet that the Department of Defense is his puppet. I do not believe that. This is what was released. Trump and his henchmen can expound as they will, but this is what it was based on.

Interestingly, the wording doesn't actually pinpoint any specific future attack, or imminent threat, so you are technically right. However, I don't see that minor detail--of the latest plan not being quite ready--as a great reason to hold off blowing the bastard up.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement by the Department of Defense
JAN. 2, 2020

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.

This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.

IMHO, the attack and killing of Soleimani was, more than anything else, a direct message to Iran: DON'T FUCK WITH US. From here on out, it's going to be tit for tat, we're going hit you back if you hit us, and we can hit harder. I do not know what Iran's next move is, or what the US might do in response but Trump has shown the willingness to meet force with force, appeasement is over. I seriously doubt we'll get into a war with Iran over this, unless they do something really stupid. I don't think they're any more of a military threat than Iraq was, these guys couldn't beat Iraq 25 years ago and we wiped them out in 2 weeks. I think Iran knows that; they've already got enough trouble at home, and they ain't got the money or the ability to do more than pin-prick us with terrorist attacks somewhere.

Does going tit for tat with Iran help us get out of Iraq sooner??

If so, why don't we just bomb Iran directly -- since this is supposed to be helpful

IMHO, there's a political difference between bombing or killing an Iranian(s) in Iraq who are there to attack us, and actually bombing installations or people in Iran itself. PC you know? I'll be honest, it kinda depends on what Iran decides to do, if they start messing with shipping in the Straits of Hormuz then I think we'd be justified in bombing the shit out of their Navy, wherever it is.

I do not think killing Soleimani had anything to do with getting out of Iraq, although I would agree with those who say that would be a good idea. If they want us gone, then we should leave, and actually I think we oughta GTFO anyway. As I mentioned in my thread in the Debate Forum, I ain't seeing a good reason to be there any longer, or in Afghanistan either.

 

[task0778]

There was no imminent threat.

They have nothing to show.

Or they do, but don't want to divulge anything that compromises our intel agencies sources and procedures. But let's be honest here, what's the definition of imminent, like how soon does it have to be? Soleimani has been planning and directing attacks against us for years, he wasn't going to stop. So, whether the next attack would have been tomorrow or next week or next month is kinda beside the point. He was going to continue doing what he's been doing and for that the bastard deserved to die.

 

[Dana7360]

Wasn't it that dead fucks group who attacked out Iraqi embassy??

I'd call that an imminent threat.

Yup, that is close enough.....

That attack already happened. A couple weeks ago. If the government was going to do something about that attack the should have done it before it happened. Not weeks afterward then say the threat was imminent.

That's not an imminent threat.

Imminent is something that has not happened yet. Not something that already happened.

 

[pknopp]

Saddam was an imminent threat........Assad was an imminent threat........Quadafi was an imminent threat.........

Deja Vue.

The reason Trump will get away with it though is because we allowed those who came before him get away with it.

 

[OldLady]

There was no imminent threat.

What makes you say that? Because you hate Trump?

I don't believe there was an imminent threat.

All trump does is lie. Pompeo has lied about the call trump made to Zelensky in July.

Both men are proven liars.

If trump had not spent the last 4 years lying through his teeth about everything, I wouldn't doubt his word.

When asked for proof of their claims, pompeo refuses to provide it. If there was proof he would have provided it when asked.

Finally it's being reported that the general was there on diplomatic business to discuss peace with Saudi Arabia.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. If it was just trump and his cohorts who had to deal with the consequences of this most people wouldn't care. But it's innocent people who are going to die or be harmed because of this.

Trump is not so powerful yet that the Department of Defense is his puppet. I do not believe that. This is what was released. Trump and his henchmen can expound as they will, but this is what it was based on.

Interestingly, the wording doesn't actually pinpoint any specific future attack, or imminent threat, so you are technically right. However, I don't see that minor detail--of the latest plan not being quite ready--as a great reason to hold off blowing the bastard up.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement by the Department of Defense
JAN. 2, 2020

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.

This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.

How will killing that man deter future attacks? It won't do a damn thing to prevent any attacks. They've already replaced him and the new general is bent on revenge. So is the whole nation of Iran.

The killing of this general will do nothing to stop attacks. It will cause more attacks to happen. Anyone who doesn't believe that, I have some wonderful ocean beach front property in Kansas to sell them cheap.

I don't believe anything trump says and I don't believe that there was an imminent threat.

Even the letter from the DOD didn't say there was any attack or threat much less imminent.

This is a repeat of the bush boy years. We've been down this road before.

The only way I'm going to believe any of this is with honest, solid factual proof.

As I said, if trump had not spent the last 4 years lying through his teeth about everything, I wouldn't doubt his word.

Many Americans are like me. Once we've been lied too over and over again we don't believe much from the liars with out honest, solid factual proof.

Okay. I believe this man was an important mastermind, though, and that it may actually have slowed them down some. Do you believe if Patton had been taken out that it would have made no difference? Even if it "doesn't matter" that he's gone, it is sure as hell going to make them think twice before they pull their next stunt. The leaders, I mean. No more sacrificing nobodies that are willing to strap on a bomb and blow themselves to hell. We are letting them know that THEY are putting their lives on the line with some of these decisions. About time.

 

[OldLady]

There was no imminent threat.

What makes you say that? Because you hate Trump?

Don't fall for it again Old Lady....

You are old enough to remember the Iraq invasion....

I'm not 100% sure Iraq didn't have WMD's, Biff. While we publicly squabbled about it, they had plenty of time to move them to Syria. Which Assad apparently saved, since he used some on his own people a couple years ago.

Actually, I was in college during the Iraq years, busy as hell, and didn't even have a tv. I vaguely knew we were at war but I never knew about the great debate about it until afterwards.

 

[pknopp]

There was no imminent threat.

What makes you say that? Because you hate Trump?

Don't fall for it again Old Lady....

You are old enough to remember the Iraq invasion....

I'm not 100% sure Iraq didn't have WMD's, Biff. While we publicly squabbled about it, they had plenty of time to move them to Syria. Which Assad apparently saved, since he used some on his own people a couple years ago.

Actually, I was in college during the Iraq years, busy as hell, and didn't even have a tv. I vaguely knew we were at war but I never knew about the great debate about it until afterwards.

The intelligence community that fed the above to us is the same intelligence community that lied to us under oath and came to the conclusion that Trump conspired with Russia to fix the election.

Tell me, how is it that you determine when they are telling the truth and when they are not?

 

[Dana7360]

There was no imminent threat.

What makes you say that? Because you hate Trump?

I don't believe there was an imminent threat.

All trump does is lie. Pompeo has lied about the call trump made to Zelensky in July.

Both men are proven liars.

If trump had not spent the last 4 years lying through his teeth about everything, I wouldn't doubt his word.

When asked for proof of their claims, pompeo refuses to provide it. If there was proof he would have provided it when asked.

Finally it's being reported that the general was there on diplomatic business to discuss peace with Saudi Arabia.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. If it was just trump and his cohorts who had to deal with the consequences of this most people wouldn't care. But it's innocent people who are going to die or be harmed because of this.

Trump is not so powerful yet that the Department of Defense is his puppet. I do not believe that. This is what was released. Trump and his henchmen can expound as they will, but this is what it was based on.

Interestingly, the wording doesn't actually pinpoint any specific future attack, or imminent threat, so you are technically right. However, I don't see that minor detail--of the latest plan not being quite ready--as a great reason to hold off blowing the bastard up.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement by the Department of Defense
JAN. 2, 2020

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.

This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.

How will killing that man deter future attacks? It won't do a damn thing to prevent any attacks. They've already replaced him and the new general is bent on revenge. So is the whole nation of Iran.

The killing of this general will do nothing to stop attacks. It will cause more attacks to happen. Anyone who doesn't believe that, I have some wonderful ocean beach front property in Kansas to sell them cheap.

I don't believe anything trump says and I don't believe that there was an imminent threat.

Even the letter from the DOD didn't say there was any attack or threat much less imminent.

This is a repeat of the bush boy years. We've been down this road before.

The only way I'm going to believe any of this is with honest, solid factual proof.

As I said, if trump had not spent the last 4 years lying through his teeth about everything, I wouldn't doubt his word.

Many Americans are like me. Once we've been lied too over and over again we don't believe much from the liars with out honest, solid factual proof.

Okay. I believe this man was an important mastermind, though, and that it may actually have slowed them down some. Do you believe if Patton had been taken out that it would have made no difference? Even if it "doesn't matter" that he's gone, it is sure as hell going to make them think twice before they pull their next stunt. The leaders, I mean. No more sacrificing nobodies that are willing to strap on a bomb and blow themselves to hell. We are letting them know that THEY are putting their lives on the line with some of these decisions. About time.

I usually agree with what you post but not in this situation. We will have to agree to disagree.

Patton was taken out of combat when he slapped 2 soldiers in the hospital in Italy. He was out of combat for 11 months with the next in line in succession taking his place.

Which is what happened with this general when he died. Someone took his place. Which means any planning of any attack isn't stopped. Just someone else planning it.

I would like to say, planning some unknown attack in some unknown future is not an imminent threat. For it to be imminent it has to happen very soon.

Words really do have meaning. You can't just change the meanings of words to fit your own convenience.

Making the nation of Iran hate us even more isn't a good idea. Killing that general isn't going to stop some unknown person from strapping a bomb on their back and killing innocent people. Now we have countless crazy people in Iran wanting to do just that.

This isn't making America or the world safer.

 

[xyz]

Does this count as evidence? Soleimani called Trump a bartender and casino owner, as someone with that mentality. So he was a threat to Trump, who sees himself as the USA.

 

[pknopp]

What makes you say that? Because you hate Trump?

I don't believe there was an imminent threat.

All trump does is lie. Pompeo has lied about the call trump made to Zelensky in July.

Both men are proven liars.

If trump had not spent the last 4 years lying through his teeth about everything, I wouldn't doubt his word.

When asked for proof of their claims, pompeo refuses to provide it. If there was proof he would have provided it when asked.

Finally it's being reported that the general was there on diplomatic business to discuss peace with Saudi Arabia.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. If it was just trump and his cohorts who had to deal with the consequences of this most people wouldn't care. But it's innocent people who are going to die or be harmed because of this.

Trump is not so powerful yet that the Department of Defense is his puppet. I do not believe that. This is what was released. Trump and his henchmen can expound as they will, but this is what it was based on.

Interestingly, the wording doesn't actually pinpoint any specific future attack, or imminent threat, so you are technically right. However, I don't see that minor detail--of the latest plan not being quite ready--as a great reason to hold off blowing the bastard up.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement by the Department of Defense
JAN. 2, 2020

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.

This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.

How will killing that man deter future attacks? It won't do a damn thing to prevent any attacks. They've already replaced him and the new general is bent on revenge. So is the whole nation of Iran.

The killing of this general will do nothing to stop attacks. It will cause more attacks to happen. Anyone who doesn't believe that, I have some wonderful ocean beach front property in Kansas to sell them cheap.

I don't believe anything trump says and I don't believe that there was an imminent threat.

Even the letter from the DOD didn't say there was any attack or threat much less imminent.

This is a repeat of the bush boy years. We've been down this road before.

The only way I'm going to believe any of this is with honest, solid factual proof.

As I said, if trump had not spent the last 4 years lying through his teeth about everything, I wouldn't doubt his word.

Many Americans are like me. Once we've been lied too over and over again we don't believe much from the liars with out honest, solid factual proof.

Okay. I believe this man was an important mastermind, though, and that it may actually have slowed them down some. Do you believe if Patton had been taken out that it would have made no difference? Even if it "doesn't matter" that he's gone, it is sure as hell going to make them think twice before they pull their next stunt. The leaders, I mean. No more sacrificing nobodies that are willing to strap on a bomb and blow themselves to hell. We are letting them know that THEY are putting their lives on the line with some of these decisions. About time.

I usually agree with what you post but not in this situation. We will have to agree to disagree.

Patton was taken out of combat when he slapped 2 soldiers in the hospital in Italy. He was out of combat for 11 months with the next in line in succession taking his place.

Which is what happened with this general when he died. Someone took his place. Which means any planning of any attack isn't stopped. Just someone else planning it.

I would like to say, planning some unknown attack in some unknown future is not an imminent threat. For it to be imminent it has to happen very soon.

Words really do have meaning. You can't just change the meanings of words to fit your own convenience.

Making the nation of Iran hate us even more isn't a good idea. Killing that general isn't going to stop some unknown person from strapping a bomb on their back and killing innocent people. Now we have countless crazy people in Iran wanting to do just that.

This isn't making America or the world safer.

Obviously it is not about making us safer. It's about propagating war. No, war does not make us safer.

 

[OldLady]

There was no imminent threat.

What makes you say that? Because you hate Trump?

Don't fall for it again Old Lady....

You are old enough to remember the Iraq invasion....

I'm not 100% sure Iraq didn't have WMD's, Biff. While we publicly squabbled about it, they had plenty of time to move them to Syria. Which Assad apparently saved, since he used some on his own people a couple years ago.

Actually, I was in college during the Iraq years, busy as hell, and didn't even have a tv. I vaguely knew we were at war but I never knew about the great debate about it until afterwards.

The intelligence community that fed the above to us is the same intelligence community that lied to us under oath and came to the conclusion that Trump conspired with Russia to fix the election.

Tell me, how is it that you determine when they are telling the truth and when they are not?

the same intelligence community that lied to us under oath and came to the conclusion that Trump conspired with Russia to fix the election.
The intelligence community never came to that conclusion.
You all on both sides of the fence can try to persuade me that our government is ALL liars and I'm never going to believe that ALL of them are. Save your breath.

 

[OldLady]

What makes you say that? Because you hate Trump?

I don't believe there was an imminent threat.

All trump does is lie. Pompeo has lied about the call trump made to Zelensky in July.

Both men are proven liars.

If trump had not spent the last 4 years lying through his teeth about everything, I wouldn't doubt his word.

When asked for proof of their claims, pompeo refuses to provide it. If there was proof he would have provided it when asked.

Finally it's being reported that the general was there on diplomatic business to discuss peace with Saudi Arabia.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. If it was just trump and his cohorts who had to deal with the consequences of this most people wouldn't care. But it's innocent people who are going to die or be harmed because of this.

Trump is not so powerful yet that the Department of Defense is his puppet. I do not believe that. This is what was released. Trump and his henchmen can expound as they will, but this is what it was based on.

Interestingly, the wording doesn't actually pinpoint any specific future attack, or imminent threat, so you are technically right. However, I don't see that minor detail--of the latest plan not being quite ready--as a great reason to hold off blowing the bastard up.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement by the Department of Defense
JAN. 2, 2020

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.

This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.

How will killing that man deter future attacks? It won't do a damn thing to prevent any attacks. They've already replaced him and the new general is bent on revenge. So is the whole nation of Iran.

The killing of this general will do nothing to stop attacks. It will cause more attacks to happen. Anyone who doesn't believe that, I have some wonderful ocean beach front property in Kansas to sell them cheap.

I don't believe anything trump says and I don't believe that there was an imminent threat.

Even the letter from the DOD didn't say there was any attack or threat much less imminent.

This is a repeat of the bush boy years. We've been down this road before.

The only way I'm going to believe any of this is with honest, solid factual proof.

As I said, if trump had not spent the last 4 years lying through his teeth about everything, I wouldn't doubt his word.

Many Americans are like me. Once we've been lied too over and over again we don't believe much from the liars with out honest, solid factual proof.

Okay. I believe this man was an important mastermind, though, and that it may actually have slowed them down some. Do you believe if Patton had been taken out that it would have made no difference? Even if it "doesn't matter" that he's gone, it is sure as hell going to make them think twice before they pull their next stunt. The leaders, I mean. No more sacrificing nobodies that are willing to strap on a bomb and blow themselves to hell. We are letting them know that THEY are putting their lives on the line with some of these decisions. About time.

I usually agree with what you post but not in this situation. We will have to agree to disagree.

Patton was taken out of combat when he slapped 2 soldiers in the hospital in Italy. He was out of combat for 11 months with the next in line in succession taking his place.

Which is what happened with this general when he died. Someone took his place. Which means any planning of any attack isn't stopped. Just someone else planning it.

I would like to say, planning some unknown attack in some unknown future is not an imminent threat. For it to be imminent it has to happen very soon.

Words really do have meaning. You can't just change the meanings of words to fit your own convenience.

Making the nation of Iran hate us even more isn't a good idea. Killing that general isn't going to stop some unknown person from strapping a bomb on their back and killing innocent people. Now we have countless crazy people in Iran wanting to do just that.

This isn't making America or the world safer.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, per se. I just worry that some of you who are protesting the President's actions are taking a more negative view than you might, if it had been a Democrat who made that decision. I don't know about you personally, but putting the most negative spin on this Administration's actions is sort of S.O.P. by a good many people, and it can influence people who aren't necessarily partisan themselves.

So we'll agree to disagree. My hawkish, uncivilized side comes out at times. I'm not thoroughly housebroken yet.

 

[pknopp]

There was no imminent threat.

What makes you say that? Because you hate Trump?

Don't fall for it again Old Lady....

You are old enough to remember the Iraq invasion....

I'm not 100% sure Iraq didn't have WMD's, Biff. While we publicly squabbled about it, they had plenty of time to move them to Syria. Which Assad apparently saved, since he used some on his own people a couple years ago.

Actually, I was in college during the Iraq years, busy as hell, and didn't even have a tv. I vaguely knew we were at war but I never knew about the great debate about it until afterwards.

The intelligence community that fed the above to us is the same intelligence community that lied to us under oath and came to the conclusion that Trump conspired with Russia to fix the election.

Tell me, how is it that you determine when they are telling the truth and when they are not?

the same intelligence community that lied to us under oath and came to the conclusion that Trump conspired with Russia to fix the election.
The intelligence community never came to that conclusion.
You all on both sides of the fence can try to persuade me that our government is ALL liars and I'm never going to believe that ALL of them are. Save your breath.

LOL.

Why Putin Is Smiling

 

[task0778]

Whether or not Iraq had WMDs almost 30 years ago doesn't matter at all to the current situation. We do know that they had them because they used them against Iran during that war in the 1980s. Raise your hand if you think Saddam got rid of all of them. I think not, he buried all of it under a mountain somewhere and then shot all of the workers who were involved. That's who he was. I ain't saying that's what happened, nobody really knows. Could be he buried them in Syria when they weren't looking.

In any event, that was then and this is now, and the justification for the Soleimani killing does not rest on whatever other attacks were imminent. Under his command, Iran and their proxies have been attacking US personnel and installations for quite some time, the Baghdad embassy was only the latest one. Who gives a shit whether his next target would have been this week or next, this month or next, attacking our people was his job and he wasn't going to stop. So, we blew his sorry ass to hell, and I for one will shed no tears.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the future the other Iranian military leaders decide to send their subordinates into Iraq and other places instead of going themselves. They say the only way they could identify Soleimani's remains was his watch. Took a licking, kept on ticking. Well, actually I dunno if the watch was still running, probably not. He wasn't, that's for sure.