Pawn Stars Best I Can Do

Nah the man just fooled you Dems into thinking that he was going to promote "pEAcE WITh ThE MiDDLe eAST" when he literally bombs Syria as a "warning."

YET, when TRUMP DOES IT to eliminate a deadly general, he is a "VILLAIN."

Labeling him as simply a "deadly general" seems misleading.. Dude trump had killed was the equivalent to our Secretary of Defense. If they had done that to us, idk if their country would still be on the map. Also Trump stated it was done allegedly due to an imminent threat... As far as I know that threat had never been revealed.

Feb. 15, 2021 fourteen 107-millimeter rockets slammed into Erbil airbase and the surrounding residential areas, killing a Filipino contractor, mortally injuring an Iraqi civilian and wounding around a dozen more civilians and personnel, including a Louisiana national guardsmen... [Forbes]

You want Biden to promote peace by giving them a hug or what? The relaliation was timed to avoid larger scale casualties.

No, it's just that if we can get mad at Trump's missile launch, why can't we get mad at Biden's? I believe both were justified, but it's just that one was done by Trump so that's automatically bad to many people.

As I said Trump had the equivalent of their Secretary of Defense killed... He was like their #3 dude in government. Both are attacks on foreign countries but this comparison is not exactly apples to apples.

If I recall correctly even Tucker Carlson thought that move was a little too cowboy for us at the time... and he's not exactly someone I would consider suffering from TDS.

That action was a little bit "cowboy" for us, sure, but who would you rather perish? Much of our military and (possibly) government thanks to the rising threat of Iran, or (as you mentioned), Iran's #3 man, along with a large number of people who already imposed plans to attack us?

I absolutely understand where you are coming from. Those people aside from the general DID NOT deserve to die, but if it was too late, the deaths caused by that general would've most certainly exceeded the deaths of those around him.

Also -- (Just speculations but it makes the most sense) They had their eye on the general for a while, so by launching that airstrike at that specific time would've most certainly been the right action to take since waiting any longer (as I mentioned) would've put the general in an even worse location where air striking could've potentially killed way more people than just the size of their secretary of defense.

Again, I completely feel you on the sad and terrible deaths of those innocent Iranians, I couldn't imagine my own family or friends dying for another country's government one day, but the risk was too high to let the general run around loose, especially if he were to secure himself after knowing our plot or even just because.

Why is that an either/or question? Did they disclose what the imminent threat was?

"the risk was too high to let the general run around loose"

What exactly was the risk? What was the imminent threat?

Soleimani was literally replaced the same day he was killed.

The fact that they actually did it in the first place on Iran's THIRD MAN (Like you MENTIONED), just shows that it indeed was a HUGE threat.

He was replaced -- doesn't mean that the new general is as big of a threat as he is. Soleimani was basically SET on fighting us.

Read this article please: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/world/middleeast/qassem-soleimani-iraq-iran-attack.html

"Suleimani was planning attacks on Americans across the region, leading to an airstrike in Baghdad, the Pentagon statement said. Iran’s supreme leader called for vengeance."

You can replace a man, but you can't bring him back.

You're right. It's better to bomb brown civilian children than the Major General of Iran, the largest state sponsor of Islamic terror on the planet.

:P

This is kind of old news now but I'm not sure what they had implied was accurate... (Unless the military was lying to us.. which is possible)..but as far as I know no children were killed when Biden bombed Syria.. and I even read something about him calling off a second strike because women and children had been seen in the area the military was considering striking.

the point is, as the president of the USA Biden IS the highest military official. (the president is over that branch of the US. recently (the past few decades) the president has stretched his power further than constitutional acceptable... but that is beside the point.) so the highest officials do not have a say in what comes out do they?

Now the other thing is, were we being attacked? probably not. it is seldom that a democrat gets into office and fails to bomb a few countries (also ,for fun, compare isis' during Obama's presidency to their presence during Trump's) On a random note, we couldn't possibly have been under attack if we weren't there in the first place.

I have made your point to others here and I remember one came back at me with stuff about the "Military Industrial Complex" aka the MIC, being the real ones pulling the strings regardless of president in the Whitehouse. I understand the President is technically "commander in chief" and that was essentially my argument in the discussion but they may have had a point too... If not directly being in control, I mean unless there are actual reporters there, the military and possibly other branches of govt feed the president information which he makes his decisions based on.. the military then tells him the results of whatever action or inaction. Basically on some level they control the information.

And speaking of which, allegedly at least one American serviceman was injured in the attack according to what I read. I could dig through my responses for more details if you like.

I would agree that we wouldn't have been attacked had we not been there. We seem to want to be world's police though. (Or the MIC does anyway)

a bomb is a bomb no matter who sent it. women and children pretty much die every time (almost everyone in my family is a vet, and one a radio operator on a c130 gunship locating targets for the bombers in the Middle East, and my boy is in the army). the military doesn't lie, the people in charge do (aka Biden) they have never been above that.

Trump didn't bomb them, Biden did, and people died. how is that to be praised? more men die defending bad investments on the plea of the investors than they do for the liberty of their own country.

To be clear when I say "the military" I mean the people at the highest levels... And speaking of which, if it is true that women and children die every time as you say, you would think we would hear about it..(?)

I think Biden was screwed no matter what.. if it got out that Iranian-backed militias were attacking US targets and Biden did nothing, he'd be a cuck. If he bombs them, that's obviously also problematic.

very glad we agree on somethings

I forgot to mention lol, there could have been a skirmish or a lunatic band of people emptying some mags on us resulting in a Purple Heart... but neither of those constitute a bombing. however if I am wrong, I don't mind being proved so just as long as it's a reliable and unbiased source (I regard all main stream media, right and left to be so).

The U.N has been one of the biggest movements toward world police lol

Nope. We think getting our tax money back is good, and we always knew bombing other countries was bad.