WE WIN? LOOKS LIKE WE DID

Here is what President Trump said after Iran went through the motions of making missile attacks on two of our military bases in Iraq. He made a great speech here. Starts about 11 minutes 30 seconds.

Did we win? Well, check with a Liberal Democrat. If that Liberal Democrat is unhappy, you have your answer.

72 thoughts on “WE WIN? LOOKS LIKE WE DID

Add yours

        1. Obama.. Bush.. Clinton… pretty much all of them had some redeeming members here and there. In fact, I’ve pretty much always deferred to the sitting president and their administration. Oddly, it took Trump entering the picture to make me appreciate the others a bit more. Although baby Bush has proven a big disappointment in getting us involved in Iraq without a secure plan for getting us out. Not to mention the garbage reason for getting us involved there in the fist place. Although… the nation was pretty much wanting to kick someone’s ass for 9/11 so the public bears some responsibility there.
          Why would any of this matter, John?

          Like

  1. Trump hatred is very evident if you listen to the words of some of the Trump Hating commenters on here … and these are the very wacko voices that should probably be ignored by the sane and the thinking people of the world unless the sane and thinking people of the world are interested in living under a totally socialist regime disguising itself as democracy some sweet day. I think some of these comments are probably somehow related to a form of PTSD or some other relatively unknown mental aberration.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think some of these comments are probably somehow related to a form of PTSD or some other relatively unknown mental aberration.

      Undoubtedly TDS is real. See the discussion between Doug and me below.
      There’s no end to the mental gymnastics to prove to themselves right about Trump. When everything is going well, they invent imaginary possible futures.
      If he does something indisputably laudable, it’s a bad decision because the timing was wrong. Oh, of course we should do that! It was just the worst time….I mean, this guy has only been launching terrorist attacks for…well, whatever it is, CNN assures me this is a bad idea.

      Our enlisted soldiers (without officers present) have a private meeting with Trump in Iraq (to my knowledge, this is unprecedented…if nothing else it is highly unusual). A few short days later the General in charge of attacks against them on route Irish is killed. They rejoice, and Doug says:
      I am very sure there are many who travel that road that appreciate Trump risking further casualties and deaths in order to make the road safer.

      I am very sure Doug’s TDS is so profound it does not register with him what he is actually saying in that short statement and how it comes across. In fact, I’ll bet if the Doug from four years ago read that he wouldn’t like this Doug. But of course, it’s always Trump’s fault!!!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. @Liz

        It is amazing that in their eyes nothing Trump does — nothing — is right. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

        The killing of the Qud Force commander was executed just about as perfectly as possible. This guy was a murderous terrorist — no doubt about it. Iran did not take revenge. Still not good enough?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I only wish it were four years ago. While you see Trump as some messiah I’m watching my country go to hell because that “messiah” knows not what he does… and remains a clear & present danger to us all. But regardless… he’s still at the helm for now so we are all committed to the ride, so keep your seat belts fastened cause it ain’t over yet.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Well, Doug, I suspect when asked, “Are you better off today than four years ago?” The majority of people don’t agree with your perception.
          But if that fails always remember, “It’s the economy, Stupid!”

          Liked by 1 person

          1. The economy does impact how people vote. No argument there. Although the warnings from Wall Street for 2020 seem a bit ominous. I personally think the stable economy is the one factor keeping the national divisiveness in all aspects of American society at bay.

            Like

  2. Liberal Democrats are so unsettled and disorganized that I wouldn’t believe a thing they have to say whether they appear to be happy or unhappy — unless the decided to tell me that their big ambition in life is to make sure we all live under a Super Government that has its nose and its tentacles into every detail of our everyday life and that dictates all our comings, goings and exclamations — and, where possible, controls our every thought, word and deed. If they tell me that, then I will believe them.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I’m glad Trump has not (yet) bungled us into another war. However, if you think having our troops bug out, be dispersed and go underground while the Iranians hit them with ballistic missiles, then you’ve got a strange idea of what winning looks like.

    We have driven into the arms of the ayatollahs the Iraqi citizenry that had began protesting Iranian influence. An Iranian population that were sick of the sanctions are newly reinvigorated against us. Our allies who have been left in the dark don’t trust us and are pulling out and away from us. Iran is still on the path toward nuclear weapons (probably with further help from Pakistan and Russia). Perhaps Iran is winning the long game, but Putin is the only one winning in the short run.

    “Winning” means successfully meeting our strategic objectives where the long term benefits to us and our allies exceed our costs. I don’t even see a strategy here, much less a win, but I’m just an old retired naval line officer so maybe you can explain it to me if you write in little words.

    Like

      1. Spin is a little word, but it still isn’t a strategy.

        The game goes on and you don’t really win by declaring victory when you have actually won nothing. What did you call such a con job – oh yea, spin. The last President you spun so hard for that you must still be dizzy called it “Mission Accomplished”. Right…..

        Like

    1. However, if you think having our troops bug out, be dispersed and go underground while the Iranians hit them with ballistic missiles, then you’ve got a strange idea of what winning looks like.

      Two bases were attacked in Iraq just last month. They’ve been attacking our soldiers in numerous areas yet now, after we killed their command and control center, we’re “bugging out” somehow. Okay.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Liz,

        Their command and control center? Is that what you call him? Who was it that wrote that the grave yards are full of irreplaceable men? This won’t be over for decades to come, perhaps a century. Killing one man won’t end it. The question of involvement is a matter of strategy, and strategy is a matter of long term goals and effective influence to carry out those goals.

        Do you want us out of there or do you want us in the Middle East? Is there a middle strategy for effective influence toward our long term goals that is somewhere between the economic suicide of isolationism and the economic suicide of endless all out war? Or are you game for anything as long as Trump does it?

        Do you think this latest incompetence is all part of Trump’s strategy of a forced retreat? Do you think Trump actually has strategy? What is it?

        Like

          1. Yes Doug. When did we cease to be thinking citizens, and become so partisan that a lack of strategy or intellect or competence or voracity became secondary to just upsetting the libs? It would seem that there is no screw up too great and no mendacity too outrageous for partisans to cling to Trump as long as he continues to horrify Americans in the other party, and reason and virtue be damned. Hell of a way to run a country.

            Like

          2. @tsalmon and Doug

            And who would you “thinking” citizens have voted for in 2016? Hillary Clinton? And you think unthinking citizens voted for domeone who is dishonest and incompetent.
            🙄

            Like

          3. Oh Tom.. stop with the Hillary garbage already. The nation is way beyond that.. and Trump’s constant lamenting about Obama making His life hard as President. The buck stops with Trump and no one else.

            Like

          4. @Doug

            So speak the great Doug! Let’s worship the ground he strides upon. After all, this glorious pundit does not need any facts to support his arguments. He is way beyond facts.

            Like

          5. And sadly, the opinions echoed in here by your bro, et al, are fairly tame with some of the other Conservatives sites I follow. It’s truly scary the things these folks tend to say and believe. We’re not evening mentioning the emotionalism I am personally feeling in watching the nation sink into some Trumpian abyss. I ran into some folks I know here locally… and they are turning into preppers. I’m not likely to do that.. being old it’s rather like why bother surviving once the Big Macs are gone. 🙂

            Like

          6. And sadly, the opinions echoed in here by your bro, et al, are fairly tame with some of the other Conservatives sites I follow.

            Rather than following “wack jobs” who reinforce your view that everyone who likes what Trump is doing is an insane person, maybe you should read articles like Hanson’s below? Or perhaps read entire intelligence reports rather than tiny portions taken out of context and published by CNN, et al.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. I actually did read that and it was like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. It’s blind devotion.. and illustrative of the “two worlds” we live in when it comes to facts… and truth. It’s all just confirmation bias. One would think that given this guy’s academics in history, yada, yada, that he would have developed a sense for understanding the “why” events in history occurred. When Conservatives even venture a slight step into wondering why anti-Trumpers are so anti-Trump it kinda gets a bit too complicated so it’s far easier to fall back on the old “it’s-so-obvious sour grapes for 2016” ridiculousness. The reality there is that’s not the case at all. Hanson is just a Trumpian Conservative echo chamber.
            Now.. here’s the thing on all this, Liz. You might ask.. “Well, where is Hanson wrong in what he says?” Certainly Tom would ask that as he likes to argue “issues” and not Trump’s personal behaviors. So I could devote time to easily raise “facts” citing how all that he mentions was either not-Trump in the origins, or hasn’t worked at all. But here’s what Conservatives will say… “Where did you get your information?”. Whether I reply CNN, MSNBC, or the man-in-the-Moon it will never be enough, and would certainly never be credible enough for the average Conservative could comprehend… because it is attacking Trump. I can’t compete (nor do I wish to) with Trump being a holy grail.

            Like

          8. Whether I reply CNN, MSNBC, or the man-in-the-Moon it will never be enough
            Certainly CNN, MSNBC, and man-on-the-moon are the only possible options.
            When we have the world wide web it’s just better to post an excerpt from one of those than go to…gee, the original source. So that when you say “intelligence sources all agree..haha! I’m citing a source because CNN has this excerpt here…”
            you might also note everything else they say. Yes, this requires extra work. And might make you uncomfortable.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. Their command and control center? Is that what you call him? Who was it that wrote that the grave yards are full of irreplaceable men?
          Yes, the General was command and control. Yes people are replaceable.
          Command and Control can be replaced. Then again, maybe not. The Balkan war ended pretty quickly after we started bombing Milosevich at home.

          This won’t be over for decades to come, perhaps a century. Killing one man won’t end it.
          As compared to…what? Imagination land? Or the wonder way everything was going when Trump too office?

          The question of involvement is a matter of strategy, and strategy is a matter of long term goals and effective influence to carry out those goals.
          Do you want us out of there or do you want us in the Middle East?

          You’re asking a question I’ve already answered. I’d prefer we get the hell out of there (mostly…certainly in the “official” sense I’d like to see us out of the ME and not building more bases or adding boots on the ground to those bases).

          Is there a middle strategy for effective influence toward our long term goals that is somewhere between the economic suicide of isolationism and the economic suicide of endless all out war?
          I don’t understand the above. Are you asserting we are currently in either of those positions? Economic suicide? It seems to me we are closer now to any “middle strategy” than we have been for…pretty much any time in my memory.

          It is very difficult to take your (and Doug’s) charges of massive incompetence seriously in face of all evidence to the contrary.
          Someone on another forum posted the following, and I agree with it:
          Trump is the most policy-driven president of my lifetime. He is getting more done, objectively, of a beneficial nature to his supporters, than any politician I can identify. Very early I decided he was talking to the country as though the country were his bankers and board of directors (and of course we are). His rallies are recitations of works accomplished, works in progress, and works forthcoming.
          I don’t know if this term translates broadly, but a corporate manager or exec always has his “MBOs”; this is shorthand for “Management by Objective”, which became popular with the emerging business elite in the 1960s. An MBO (not the practice) is just shit you have to get done to get your bonus, and a good MBO is measureable, objective and plain.
          It’s administered by your boss, or if a CEO, your Board. Trump writes his own MBOs, sells them to the voters, then follows up and reviews his own behavior. His success, as articulated, is code for “I did what I promised. Now reward (re-elect) me.” Perhaps this is all too obvious for words, but I’ve never seen it in the political or government realm. Just the opposite, actually: they’re expert at getting paid for objectively accomplishing diddly-squat. (snip)

          Meanwhile, the great unwashed know what it means to say, “fix immigration, stop endless wars, kick China’s nuts up between their shoulder blades, repatriot $1 trillion of previously hostage offshore cash, fix Pentagon procurement, shame the corporations that abandon American production” etc. We know what that stuff means. And we know that he is the first president to articulate basic national needs and follow-up on all of them. So his outrageousness is accepted because the first obligation of telling the truth is to dispense with the straight jacket of PC behavior.

          Incidentally, I think the opposition party knows that Trump is succeeding, issue by issue, objectively — and has the ability and means to communicate it. That’s why this costume-party impeachment is here. They’re desperate to destroy him before the voters have a say, at which point it is not going to be sunshine and unicorns in their party and in the administrative state. There will be payback. Victor Davis Hanson expands on this hunch in his usual concise, educated manner.
          https://amgreatness.com/2019/12/29/trumps-failures/

          Like

          1. Just to add, I’m not sure if anyone else noticed the attack took place after a meeting with Trump and (only) enlisted soldiers. I don’t think that timing was coincidental.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Liz.. you might want to consider that we are very quickly going way beyond the “let’s blame Liberals for all our woes, and by the way, hating them helps too” Conservative mantra. If the economy starts to quake in 2020, which seems to be according to some genius predictions on Wall Street, and then adding that to the future Trumpian fanaticism… it’s gonna be less about hating Liberals and more about saving the country. Then again.. maybe that’s what we need to cure the national divide.

            Like

          3. I think I flushed a toilet at work at that exact time as well. Seems a little too coincidental to me too.

            I know you’re attempting humor here, but Route Irish (near the location of Soleimani’s death) was a vital transit corridor that Soleimani had turned into a death zone for US service members (from sniper fire to IEDs).

            Liked by 1 person

          4. The question is not that the bad guy needed to die for all he is being accused of.. no argument there. The issue is one of timing and the traditional Trump impulsiveness. We could have also spent a little time building up some sting to discredit him and get his own people to off him. It’s that same old thing that Trump Conservatives have no concept of… just because you can doesn’t mean you should. So far, the alleged “imminent danger” hasn’t shown up. The other fallacy there that rears up.. just because you kill the commander does not mean the mission is cancelled. If Bin Laden had been killed before 9/11, 9/11 still would have occurred. So it make this idea of “imminent” seem a tough one to prove.

            Like

          5. @Doug

            That’s nonsense. If Bin Laden had been killed soon enough before the Twin Towers were destroyed, they still might have been destroyed, but that outcome obviously becomes less likely.

            If Lincoln’s assassin had died during the Civil War, would Lincoln have been assassinated? Who knows, but one can only wish he had not shot Lincoln.

            Like

          6. The issue is one of timing and the traditional Trump impulsiveness.

            Which you base on…nothing. The soldiers he met with who were using that route on a regular basis probably didn’t think he decision was rash.
            If nothing else, it certainly isn’t on par with the timing of your toilet flush.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. I am very sure there are many who travel that road that appreciate Trump risking further casualties and deaths in order to make the road safer.

            Like

          8. I am very sure there are many who travel that road that appreciate Trump risking further casualties and deaths in order to make the road safer.

            Whereas you, armed with monumental ignorance and no basis for judgment nor skin in the game whatsoever, have decided otherwise.
            And you call the rest of us blindly worshipping idealogs.
            Even when Trump’s policies eliminated ISIS territory, you said he didn’t.
            (kinda hard to have an Islamic State without a state)
            Then TSalmon’s own anti-Trump article proved his policies had been key to eliminating ISIS and you ignored that.

            It must be difficult to be continuously wrong about all your tightly held beliefs, so you must invent imaginary future terrible possibilities.
            And that is ALL you’ve brought for the past three years. “Trump is an imbecile so the sky MUST be falling! Oh, the economy will get worse and then what?!? Oh, this and that are bound to happen and then what?!?”

            Read that line you said at the top an really noodle on what that says about you.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. @Liz

            It is curious how Doug just piles on assertions. Why does he think we should believe him? I suppose that he believes the Truth is obvious based upon what he has seen and heard.

            Truth is in the eye of the beholder. This is why we must strive to see ourselves and our world as God sees us.

            Like

        1. From Thomas Gray’s poem, Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College (1742):

          “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.”

          Apparently, Tom, you may want to make this your blog slogan.

          Like

          1. And maybe Fleetwood Mac’s “Little Lies” might be a good theme song. Here are some lyrics:

            Tell me lies
            Tell me sweet little lies
            (Tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies)
            Oh, no, no you can’t disguise
            (You can’t disguise, no you can’t disguise)
            Tell me lies
            Tell me sweet little lies

            Like

          2. @tsalmon

            And the lies are?

            You voted for Barack Obama twice. I can point out the numerous lies that man told, the first being that he would support and defend the Constitution. Why did vote for that man? I do believe the lyrics explain well. He scratched your itchy ears.

            All you have said is that Trump lies. You have may a bunch of unsupported assertions

            Like

        2. Trump lies so often that It takes teams of fact checkers to count them daily. Trump lies in big and small things. He seems to prefer lies to truth when truth would work just as well.

          Trump told some whoppers during the little speech he gave the other day while capitulating to an Iranian ballistic missile attack on our troops. Even Republicans admit that there was no imminent threat of specific attacks that Trump claimed as his reason to assassinate Suleimani. If Trump’s reason for killing a foreign military leader in someone else’s country (along with one of Iraq’s military leaders) were for Suleimani’s uncontroverted sins of the past or the sins he reasonably may have committed in the future, why not just tell that truth rather than making stuff up:

          A. Maybe because it’s against the law?
          B. Maybe because it’s unconstitutional? C. Maybe just because it looks bad as a matter of foreign policy?
          D. All of the above?

          If you chose D you’d be most correct.

          Trump also told another “big fat lie” when he said that Obama paid Iran billions of dollars to get the nuclear peace accord. This one is up there with windmills causing cancer, that he actually won the popular vote and that the crowd size at his inauguration was the biggest ever. All these things are verifiably false, but that won’t stop Trump from repeating them over and over, or you from swallowing everything Trump says, now will it?

          Obama lies? Perhaps he overinflated a couple things, but with Trump you can’t keep up. One really gets nostalgic for the days when America was great enough that we could count our president’s lies on one hand rather than in the thousands. Well, Trump certainly has made America Great Again – he’s made us a great embarrassment, don’t you think?

          Like

          1. I feel totally bathed in Trump’s glory…. not. I don’t generally “bathe” with any politician to the extent a Trump follower does. In His (Trump’s) world there’s no room for the Constitution.

            Like

          2. A. Maybe because it’s against the law?
            B. Maybe because it’s unconstitutional?
            C. Maybe just because it looks bad as a matter of foreign policy?

            This is interesting, tell me more.
            We cannot possibly target the general in charge of terrorist attacks against our forces because…it’s bad foreign policy? It’s illegal? It’s unconstitutional?
            You must already know there have been hundreds of drone attacks and subsequent without direct, explicit Congressional authorization but somehow this one, the one targeting the source, is bad and unconstitutional, somehow.
            Our forces are just out there to serve as targets, apparently.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “Our forces are just out there to serve as targets, apparently.”
            Well.. is that not a role of the military in general? They are the ones trained and equipped to defend themselves from attacks. It’s a long accepted fact that our presence in the Middle East at all since 9/11 was, in fact, to keep the War on Terrorism away from the U.S.

            I work in a government office that has the sole purpose of taking children away from their parents.(who allegedly abuse them). I stand out in the lobby to act as a deterrent to angry parents and family members wanting their kids back… with my primary role being that of a “bullet magnet” (and I can likely absorb many given my size.. hence my value) if necessary. The idea being, as long as the irate parent focuses on putting holes in me he (or she) for a few more seconds, he/she is not shooting office “innocents”.. thus buying time for staff to run and hide, and presumably the police to arrive to save the day. I am not armed, although I can throw my handcuffs and pepper spray can at any assailant. So.. by extension… I kinda have an inkling about a GI going to the Middle East to be a target to keep assailants from hitting America. But in their case they are better armed, trained, and supported to defend themselves in their mission than I am in my mission. And they get paid better than the minimum wage I get. Yet we are both doing our respective jobs out of a matter of personal choice, albeit likely for far different reasons. Them for a love of country.. and me for love of a job and a paycheck because society says I am too old and irrelevant for anything else.

            Like

          4. The fact that we were able to target this person to the square foot and second means our intelligence is probably pretty damn good. It means Iran has to know they are likely infiltrated on the inside. Let’s publish this information and eliminate the HUMINT for their perusal so liberals can debate what “imminent threat” might mean.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Liz,

            Interesting? Not really, unless one thinks those wonky constitutional checks and balances on the president’s war powers are necessary enough to be interesting. You’re smart enough to look this up for yourself though. There are at least two Republican senators that think that assassinating an Iranian state official without evidence of a specific and imminent threat (petty much an act of war against that state) falls outside of Trump’s constitutional mandate. That would be a good place to start your research.

            While you’re looking it up though, try if you can to imagine that Obama did exactly the same expansion of presidential power – would you still think that it’s ok? In my small way, I once made myself a target in the ME in support and defense of the Constitution. I believe your husband had too. Take the Constitution out of the equation out of some expediency, then what are we risking ourselves for anyway?

            Like

          6. One other thing worth thinking about. Why did Iran launch an impotent ballistic missile attack rather that something more direct and potent, or something asymmetrically indirect and potent (something they still may do)?

            Some are saying that the Iranians missed on purpose and may have even warned us ahead of time. Why waste the missiles? A show for their people? Perhaps, but I don’t think that’s the whole game. When the Iranians showed that they were accurate enough to miss, weren’t they also proving that they were accurate enough to hit?

            Thanks to Trump, some reports have the Iranians as little as six months from nuclear breakout. Now they have just proved to us that they can hit us with nuclear weapons. Do you think that that was an important message that they just sent with their supposedly impotent missile strike?

            Trump obviously just signaled that he is backing down from what he knows would be an unpopular (election losing?) war because he wants to negotiate. Given Trump’s brilliant (?) deal making with N. Korea, Trump has signaled that he will legitimize a nuclear status quo if he think he can somehow spin it as a victory of peace making and his enraptured base will buy it.

            Given all of that and all the other fallout with our allies over killing Suleimani, who do you think is actually winning their strategic objectives here? A. Us or B. our enemies?

            I’ll give you a hint? It isn’t all of the above this time.

            Like

          7. Our forces are just out there to serve as targets, apparently.”
            Well.. is that not a role of the military in general? They are the ones trained and equipped to defend themselves from attacks. It’s a long accepted fact that our presence in the Middle East at all since 9/11 was, in fact, to keep the War on Terrorism away from the U.S.

            Interesting? Not really, unless one thinks those wonky constitutional checks and balances on the president’s war powers are necessary enough to be interesting. You’re smart enough to look this up for yourself though. There are at least two Republican senators that think that assassinating an Iranian state official without evidence of a specific and imminent threat (petty much an act of war against that state) falls outside of Trump’s constitutional mandate. That would be a good place to start your research.

            Thanks. I’ve seen that dog and pony show so many times there’s no need. And I notice you did not answer my questions.
            see below.

            While you’re looking it up though, try if you can to imagine that Obama did exactly the same expansion of presidential power – would you still think that it’s ok?
            Every time there is a military action there is dissent about its legality. Some people say every combat engagement since WWII is illegal. Others stick to pure partisanship, or ideology (For example, a libertarian would never back combat action even if he calls himself a Republican, ditto any number of RINOs…for example, Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden).
            There remains, in my lifetime, only one military engagement that I questioned the constitutional legality of. That was the engagement that was directly vetoed by Congress.
            Never questioned the legality of Obama’s actions, though many many people did. I questioned the prudence of those actions, but not their legality. There are obvious practical limitations to requiring Congress to approve all military targets before any action can be taken. Our soldiers are in Iraq and Syria, hundreds are dead due to the actions of this individual who was in charge of these operations. Targeting him was the right thing to do.

            When the Iranians showed that they were accurate enough to miss, weren’t they also proving that they were accurate enough to hit?
            Weren’t they also showing that all the OTHER times they attacked bases in Iraq?

            Thanks to Trump, some reports have the Iranians as little as six months from nuclear breakout.
            They announced they were done abiding by our agreement months ago, as a response to sanctions. You think we shouldn’t have imposed sanctions?

            Now they have just proved to us that they can hit us with nuclear weapons.
            They’ve proved the can hit Iraq, many times…many many times. They have a very rigorous chemical weapons program too, as well as improving ballistic missile systems…but we knew that when we made that agreement with them in 2015 and none of it was included in the agreement. Nor was an end to their sponsoring of terrorism.

            Like

          8. oops…please ignore the first paragraph. I was going to respond to Doug there but wanted to noodle on it (calm down, actually) a bit.
            Might get back to it later.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. Grr…my italics are wonky too.
            New, edited copy:
            Interesting? Not really, unless one thinks those wonky constitutional checks and balances on the president’s war powers are necessary enough to be interesting. You’re smart enough to look this up for yourself though. There are at least two Republican senators that think that assassinating an Iranian state official without evidence of a specific and imminent threat (petty much an act of war against that state) falls outside of Trump’s constitutional mandate. That would be a good place to start your research.
            Thanks. I’ve seen that dog and pony show so many times there’s no need. And I notice you did not answer my questions.
            see below.

            While you’re looking it up though, try if you can to imagine that Obama did exactly the same expansion of presidential power – would you still think that it’s ok?

            Every time there is a military action there is dissent about its legality. Some people say every combat engagement since WWII is illegal. Others stick to pure partisanship, or ideology (For example, a libertarian would never back combat action even if he calls himself a Republican, ditto any number of RINOs…for example, Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden).
            There remains, in my lifetime, only one military engagement that I questioned the constitutional legality of. That was the engagement that was directly vetoed by Congress.
            Never questioned the legality of Obama’s actions, though many many people did. I questioned the prudence of those actions, but not their legality. There are obvious practical limitations to requiring Congress to approve all military targets before any action can be taken. Our soldiers are in Iraq and Syria, hundreds are dead due to the actions of this individual who was in charge of these operations. Targeting him was the right thing to do.

            When the Iranians showed that they were accurate enough to miss, weren’t they also proving that they were accurate enough to hit?

            Weren’t they also showing that all the OTHER times they attacked bases in Iraq?
            Thanks to Trump, some reports have the Iranians as little as six months from nuclear breakout.
            They announced they were done abiding by our agreement months ago, as a response to sanctions. You think we shouldn’t have imposed sanctions?
            Now they have just proved to us that they can hit us with nuclear weapons.
            They’ve proved the can hit Iraq, many times…many many times. They have a very rigorous chemical weapons program too, as well as improving ballistic missile systems…but we knew that when we made that agreement with them in 2015 and none of it was included in the agreement. Nor was an end to their sponsoring of terrorism.

            Like

          10. More wonkiness.
            Note to self: Never post while on a break on the treadmill, wait until you are completely finished running. Last bit, fixed for clarity:

            When the Iranians showed that they were accurate enough to miss, weren’t they also proving that they were accurate enough to hit?

            Weren’t they also showing that all the OTHER times they attacked bases in Iraq?

            Thanks to Trump, some reports have the Iranians as little as six months from nuclear breakout.

            They announced they were done abiding by our agreement months ago, as a response to sanctions. You think we shouldn’t have imposed sanctions?

            Now they have just proved to us that they can hit us with nuclear weapons.

            They’ve proved the can hit Iraq. They’ve actually proved this many times…many many times over the course of decades.
            FWIW, They have a very rigorous chemical weapons program too, as well as improving ballistic missile systems…but we knew that when we made that agreement with them in 2015 and none of it was included in the agreement. Nor was an end to their sponsoring of terrorism.

            Don’t think I’ll get to Doug’s post today, except to say, no, our forces aren’t there to serve as targets. Not only was my spouse military, but now our oldest son is military.

            Like

          11. Oh, why not? I’ve calmed down, and I’m feeling chatty.

            “Our forces are just out there to serve as targets, apparently.”
            Well.. is that not a role of the military in general?

            No.

            They are the ones trained and equipped to defend themselves from attacks.
            Are they just out there to be targets or aren’t they?
            You say yes on the one hand and now you’re talking about training and equipping them to defend against attacks.
            This entire thread is about a defense against attacks by targeting the person in charge of them. So either you support the right of our soldiers to defend themselves against attack, or you believe they are there only to serve as targets…in which case, there’s no point in giving them bullets. History does teach us that threats of force lose their coercive ability if the party making the threat appears to be unwilling or unable to employ actual force.
            What you describe as your opinion of our military sounds more like the UN blue helmet force (who do sometimes serve in combat zones unarmed, with very bad results in general…but the brunt of those forces are often comprised of third world conscripts).

            And I’m done for the day, time to get off the internet.
            Hope you all have a good afternoon.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. Liz,

            If this is a war of words I feel a bit out-ammunitioned. I’ll give everything you wrote some careful thought.

            Please reconsider this though.

            Why ballistic missiles? Why such overkill just (apparently purposefully) not kill? It seems like they didn’t miss so much as they hit exactly what they wanted to hit so as to demonstrate their capabilities.

            As I wrote, according to reports, Iran may be as little as six months from enough fissile material for a weapon. Put those two things (nuclear warhead and accurate ballistic capability) together, and it sounds like the Iranians were sending a message that they want to negotiate. As a former negotiator, I see the missiles as leverage – an actual public missile test on us as a target that was a live demonstration of their negotiating strength.

            And the Iranians are looking at N. Korea to see how Trump negotiates. There Trump basically blamed Obama, legitimized the nuclear status quo, and declared himself a peace making victor. He already sounds like he is signaling the same deal to the Iranians.

            But who is actually winning this game, if we define winning as a state achieving its strategic objectives over its adversaries?

            Take off your partisan hat for a moment and look at it objectively.

            Like

          13. You can post comments while running on a treadmill?
            LOL no, but I can’t stop the ideas in my head. And since I still haven’t mastered (to say the least) running at high altitude, I take short breaks. That’s when I had my bout of logorrhea. 😆

            Liked by 1 person

          14. And the Iranians are looking at N. Korea to see how Trump negotiates. There Trump basically blamed Obama, legitimized the nuclear status quo, and declared himself a peace making victor.
            You asked me to take off my partisan hat and I’m trying.
            Can you do the same?
            If so, remember what you thought just after the attack, when you implied full out war was expected with Iran.
            Today you are saying Trump has simply continued with the status quo.
            It has literally been two days.
            They promised retaliation and the targeting of 38 sites.
            Trump said if they did that we’ll target 52 (one for each hostage).
            Retaliation depended on their response to quote one of the “experts”
            “It depends on what they hit. If they hit nothing, then the situation may de-escalate. If they hit something substantial and if they hurt Americans, then they can expect this will lead to a significant U.S. retaliation,”
            So there it goes.
            How anyone can turn this into either status quo or a win for Iran is truly beyond me.

            Yes, Iranians are looking at N Korea, and N Korea, you can bet…is looking at this.

            FWIW, the DPRK and Iran present very different sets of problems. Iran is expansionist, the DPRK is not..at least not in any way that will ever be feasible…they aren’t going to take over the south. The main security concern for the ROK is just millions of refugees spilling over into the south and the instability that comes with that. Also the selling of weapons (we’ve done about all we can there). At present the DPRK is contained…much more contained than it was four o five years ago. But you never know.

            Per nukes and Iran…since it was impossible to impose any real penalties on Iran for their behavior and expect them to abide by the joint agreement, the joint agreement wasn’t going to work. That was indeed money wasted. Iran has been “a year away from getting nuclear weapons” for more than a decade. By 2015 they were “only 3 months away”. We should probably assume they have enough fissile material for a weapon at this time.
            For years every time the DPRK threatened the world with nukes he was rewarded**. That set a bad precedent for other nations who might have otherwise disarmed. At present, we have not lifted any sanctions and won’t until we see progress. There’s also the little matter of Libya, which relinquished their weapons program and seven years later the leader who agreed was dead with our help. That’s kinda hard to forget too.

            To get back to your question: Were they sending a message with the missiles? Yes, probably. I don’t think our adversaries are dumb. They’re probably smarter than we are in a lot of ways.
            FWIW, My spouse spent a good bit time in the ME working with the populations (and training UAE, Saudi, and Kuwaiti pilots, at their bases…he has more than just a passing knowledge of the culture). His opinion is they respect strength, and he fully approved of the attack on that terrorist General.

            **examples available upon request

            Like

  4. Did we win? Well, check with a Liberal Democrat. If that Liberal Democrat is unhappy, you have your answer.

    Yep. But I’m kinda getting whiplash.
    Just a couple of short weeks ago folks were frothing at the mouth that we weren’t at war with Turkey (or accidentally with Russia…but who cares, right?!?!) to secure newly conquered territory for Kurds.

    Then they were up in arms because we killed a terrorist leader which was directly responsible for killing hundreds of our people.

    Now, it looks like they’re kinda disappointed we didn’t get into WWIII. Yesterday on Yahoo there were reports the “selective service computer seized up from so much activity! Your boys and girls are gonna get drafted!”
    But none of that is stupid. Nah, it’s just Trump. Such a nincompoop.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Liz

      Some people managed to hate and crucify the wisest man who ever lived. His crime. He threaten powerful people because He knew more than they.

      Trump surely is not that person, not Jesus. Still, it seems he is being persecuted just because he is a threat to powerful, incompetent people.

      Like

      1. And this reply you just made, Tom.. is the centerpiece reason for Trump supporters… heralding him as some divine entity. There is not one soul on this entire planet that I would give such total devotion to and accept everything they say (or Tweet), even if I admired their accomplishments. I don’t give a tinker’s damn if some 2016 “alternative” would have been worse. He is certainly living up to my expectations for sure three years into this… and it’s going to get far worse with this guy. I think what amazes me is that for a political demographic that portends to wave the Bible… you are all sure anxious to kill people.. if not in other countries, then here will do if necessary.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. @Doug

          You keep accusing me of deifying Trump, but so what? You keep making angry accusations without any evidential support. So who cares?

          You got mental problems? Should we take your guns away from you? That would be the Liberal Democrat thing to do.

          Frankly, Trump is exceeding expectation. I am happy with what he is doing. You don’t like it? What did you do, invest with the expectation that the economy would crumple? Well, if you listened to Paul Krugman, that’s a pity.

          Am I anxious to kill people? Because I approved of the execution of General Soleimani? Seriously?

          Liked by 1 person

  5. Tom
    0Now we heard the other side of the story and reasoning by Trump instead of a bunch of speculative hyperbole opinions from people who have no knowledge of why the decision was made to kill the Italian General.

    Regards and goodwill blogging

    Thanks for the

    Liked by 2 people

  6. I think Doug doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    Iran has been a thorn in our side since Carter.
    And the payment was US cash money, loaded up literally on wooden pallets onto a cargo plane.
    What government does that?
    Shades of something taken from the black market and mafia playbooks.
    Paying for and buying appeasement.
    And they still vowed we were the Evil Satan.

    Trump has merely inherited a mess from both the Bush and Obama administrations.
    I rather like his no-nonsense, to the point, approach.
    No hemming and hawing.
    It is refreshing in the wake of the 8 years of a weak apology ridden President who spent his time making the circuits with the global US Apology tour.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. You have no idea what you are talking about, Tom. The speech was typical Trumpian garbage. The “money given by the previous administration” was Iran’s own money that had been frozen.. and released per the treaty negotiations. There was no payment in U.S. tax dollars. Also… the first sentence in the first treaty Trump terminated without a replacement was that Iran would not develop or seek to obtain any nuclear weapons. They had already signed off and agreed to the concept. In addition…. the intel agencies have confirmed that Iran had been living up to the treaty and inspections until Trump pulled the plug. The treaty was to assure Iranian compliance out to 2030. When Trump pulled the plug without any repleacement treaty.. all he did was make that date 2020. Trump pulled the treaty ONLY because it had Obama’s name on it. There is no “win” here until time reveals future events. Get a grip.. and quit kissing the ring.

    Like

    1. @Doug

      Don’t really care where the money came from. Obama gave it to a terrorist regime, and he got nothing. He just funded a bunch of terrorists. The treaty was a piece of carp.

      Want to know how awful that treaty was. The Senate wouldn’t pass it, not with 2/3 vote. So they perverted the approval process and let people call that piece of crap a treaty.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. We already know Iran wouldn’t abide by the 2015 agreement because they announced it just a few short months back.
        The agreement required we issue no sanctions for any reason, so they could continue state sponsored terrorism, and if we wanted to impose penalties this would nullify the arrangement. That was the fatal flaw in the agreement. I thought the money was a terrible precedent, but it would’ve been worth it for a better real deal. But as long as they’re launching attacks against us (though, according to Doug our troops are selfish to want an end to those attacks), the arrangement was unworkable
        Might work for a non-terrorist sponsoring states.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

The Best Christian Website

The Best Christian Website.

The Curmudgeon

Not afraid to offend

LINES BY LIMING

IMPORTANT STUFF

Faithful Steward Ministries and FSM Women's Outreach

Christian Outreach Ministry to those Incarcerated, with Addictions and our Military

On the Pilgrim Road

“If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave.” - Fulton Sheen

Jesus Quotes and God Thoughts

“God’s wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes.” ~Apostle Paul

We gathered life only to find...

...'Twas just the willow-wisp of time

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.

Theo-Logis

Supplying the Light of Love

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

TLP

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

Amatopia

Author Alexander Hellene - Sci-Fi - Fantasy - Culture - Art - Entertainment - Music - Fun

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

Because The Bible Wasn't Written In English

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

College Professor

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: