Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
It's political
MikeDamone
Member Posts: 37,781
in Tug Tavern
I don't know what the intelligence was that led Trump and his advisors in the CIA and state department to believe that Suleimani planned an imminent attack on Americans. None of us knows. However, I’m absolutely convinced that if Obama had taken out Suleimani and said that he had intelligence showing that Suleimani was planning a major attack to kill lots of people, the left including its media allies the N.Y. Times, the WaPo and others would be singing his praises.
If Trump continued to show restraint after Iran killed an American as he has been, like when Iran or its proxies recently shot down an American drone, bombed oil fields in Saudi Arabia where Americans were working, stopped allied ships in the Straits of Hormuz, and attacked bases in Iraq with US troops 10 times in the past two months, and Suleimani DID go through with a major attack killing lots of Americans and others and it came out later that Trump HAD intelligence that this was coming and did nothing, you can be sure that the left and its media allies would be furious about Trump’s inaction (they would call it incompetence) and so would everyone else, myself included.
Some history: In the early 1980s, Iran began planting explosive mines in the Straits of Hormuz, where much of the world’s oil passes through every day. We were far more dependent on oil from the Middle East then and have since become a net exporter of oil. Reagan warned Iran to stop or we would respond, just as Trump warned the Iranians multiple times, including last month, not to attack any American citizens or we would respond swiftly and decisively. Reagan ended up bombing the Iranian ships to stop them from planting the explosive mines. Democrats immediately accused Reagan of trying to start WWIII. This is politics and politics play an especially large role during an election year.
While hindsight is always 2020 and I don’t blame Bill Clinton, it’s interesting to note that according to Bill Clinton, the first thing that he thought when he heard about the planes hitting the World Trade Center on 9/11 was that Osama bin Ladin was behind it. It’s been well documented that Clinton had several opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin before 9/11 but for various reasons, which seemed very logical and reasonable at the time, he decided against it. Maybe appeasement, restraint and not confronting terrorists in an effort to avoid future conflict doesn’t always work out for the best does it?
If Trump continued to show restraint after Iran killed an American as he has been, like when Iran or its proxies recently shot down an American drone, bombed oil fields in Saudi Arabia where Americans were working, stopped allied ships in the Straits of Hormuz, and attacked bases in Iraq with US troops 10 times in the past two months, and Suleimani DID go through with a major attack killing lots of Americans and others and it came out later that Trump HAD intelligence that this was coming and did nothing, you can be sure that the left and its media allies would be furious about Trump’s inaction (they would call it incompetence) and so would everyone else, myself included.
Some history: In the early 1980s, Iran began planting explosive mines in the Straits of Hormuz, where much of the world’s oil passes through every day. We were far more dependent on oil from the Middle East then and have since become a net exporter of oil. Reagan warned Iran to stop or we would respond, just as Trump warned the Iranians multiple times, including last month, not to attack any American citizens or we would respond swiftly and decisively. Reagan ended up bombing the Iranian ships to stop them from planting the explosive mines. Democrats immediately accused Reagan of trying to start WWIII. This is politics and politics play an especially large role during an election year.
While hindsight is always 2020 and I don’t blame Bill Clinton, it’s interesting to note that according to Bill Clinton, the first thing that he thought when he heard about the planes hitting the World Trade Center on 9/11 was that Osama bin Ladin was behind it. It’s been well documented that Clinton had several opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin before 9/11 but for various reasons, which seemed very logical and reasonable at the time, he decided against it. Maybe appeasement, restraint and not confronting terrorists in an effort to avoid future conflict doesn’t always work out for the best does it?
Comments
At the very least, if Clinton had taken out bin laden, it would have kept the US out of Afghanistan though, would that have been worth it?