how Trump made his decision
13 responses | 0 likes
Started by GunterK - Jan. 4, 2020, 4:30 p.m.

he didn't just do it by himself....others were involved  (just not Pelosi)

By metmike - Jan. 4, 2020, 5:38 p.m.
Like Reply

Happy New Decade to you Gunter!

Gives one the complete opposite perspective of President Trump than how he is being painted by the MSM and dems. 

Those that don't like Trump, will believe that description to be made up because believing it, would cause them to have to admit they might be wrong about some things. 

While we should celebrate the death of this evil character who was responsible for countless deaths, including many patriotic, brave American soldiers,  the concern is about what happens now.

So much legit uncertainty and resulting speculation that pushes into some extremes.........that are actually possible because Iran doesn't act rationally and they will never accept this without seeking revenge.

So I'm concerned about what this means somebody that has been vehemently opposed to our military interventions in the Middle East for decades. 

Tucker Carlson actually summed up the important points on this on Friday.

Funny how Tucker has always been considered an enemy by CNN, is suddenly a credible source when he takes this view:

Fox's Tucker Carlson breaks with colleagues and criticizes Trump's strike on Iranian general

"While he mostly refrained from criticized Trump directly, Carlson condemned "chest-beaters" who advocate for foreign interventions. He asked four questions that made clear his anti-war point of view: "Is Iran really the greatest threat we face? And who's actually benefiting from this? And why are we continuing to ignore the decline of our own country in favor of jumping into another quagmire from which there is no obvious exit? By the way, if we're still in Afghanistan, 19 years, sad years, later, what makes us think there's a quick way out of Iran?"

"Nobody is thinking like that right now," Carlson added. "Instead, chest-beaters like Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska are making the usual war-like noises, the noises they always make."

By metmike - Jan. 4, 2020, 5:42 p.m.
Like Reply

Read more on this here:

                US strikes 5 facilities in Iraq and Syria                        

                15 responses |                       


                Started by metmike - Dec. 30, 2019, 3:39 p.m.    

                Oil taking off                        

                5 responses |         

                Started by patrick - Jan. 2, 2020, 9:32 p.m.


I am guessing that this topic might continue to be a top news story for most of 2020.........all depending on what Iran does.

By TimNew - Jan. 4, 2020, 6:29 p.m.
Like Reply

The BIG wildcard here is Iran's response. I won't pretend to be certain,  but I am pretty sure they(Iran)  know they won't end up with a  few pallets of cash. Quite the contrary.  I suspect we'll see lots of "sound and fury signifying nothing."

Trump is crazy,    but he's not stupid.

By metmike - Jan. 4, 2020, 7:03 p.m.
Like Reply

Agree Tim,

The biggest problems that Iran could cause relate to their ability to  cut off or damage oil supplies.

The one that I think nobody can stop would be bombing of Saudi Arabian oil wells like Iran(was accused of) did in September.  


Saudi oil attack: All the latest updates

"The pre-dawn attacks on September 14 knocked out more than half of the top global exporter's output - five percent of the global oil supply - or about 5.7 million barrels per day."

These very low altitude flying missiles and  drones are extraordinarily challenging to stop.

How Saudi Arabia failed to protect itself from drone and missile attacks despite billions spent on defense systems

A target like ‘a Christmas tree’

Quite simply, the kingdom’s defenses — no matter how high-tech — are designed for entirely different kinds of threats. The low-flying and relatively cheap drones and cruise missiles purported to have been used in Saturday’s attack are a fairly new challenge that many nation states are not in fact prepared to counter.

The Saudis have a lot of sophisticated air defense equipment. Given their general conduct of operations in Yemen, it is highly unlikely that their soldiers know how to use it.

It also doesn’t help that massive oil plants are just easy targets.

“Saudi oil assets are vulnerable for the simple reason that when flying over them at night, they stick out against the desert background like a Christmas tree,” Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and Middle East expert at the American Enterprise Institute, told CNBC in an email.

“This means that enemies don’t need high-tech GPS-guided drones, even though they might have them, but can also use relatively lower technology drones.”

By metmike - Jan. 4, 2020, 7:21 p.m.
Like Reply

I am thinking it would be unwise to try to block the flow of oil tankers in the Gulf. Unwise because the US has the capability of obliterating their navy. 

 Strait of Hormuz, the world’s biggest oil chokepoint, in focus as U.S.-Iran tensions flare    



About 21 million barrels of oil a day flowed through Strait of Hormuz in 2018

   The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway in the Middle East that marks the most sensitive transportation choke point for global oil supplies, was back in focus Friday after a U.S. airstrike killed a top Iranian military commander and heightened fears of a confrontation between the two countries.



List of current ships of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy

U.S. Navy Would 'Push, Shove, Stomp and Destroy' Iran 'In a Heartbeat,' GOP Congressman Warns


Even the NYTimes had an opinion that agreed with this:

The Pirates of Tehran

"If Iran won’t change its behavior, we should sink its navy."

metmike: I will guess that Iran knows that in the open waters, the US has the power to obliterate them several times over and it will not only make their navy go bye bye, it would be an embarrassing they will pick battles which they can claim victories over, if they go that path. 

In the last year, it seems like they have insisted that all the bad stuff happening was not from them. At this point, in order to save face, if there are attacks or damage, they may be wanting to take credit for it and even insist it was worse to prove they can't be pushed around. 

I am strongly against military and other interventions in the Middle East but if Iran were to mess with world oil supplies and disrupt the global markets, which goes well beyond just oil, then we would have no choice and hopefully would be backed by the Europeans.

By metmike - Jan. 4, 2020, 7:34 p.m.
Like Reply

A scary element to this is that Russia and China are allies of Iran. 

Russia, China Stand as Primary Impediments to Isolating Iranian Regime

By metmike - Jan. 4, 2020, 7:37 p.m.
Like Reply

Fortunately, the US is more energy independent now and this lessens the risk a bit with regards to that element. 

A decreased reliance on foreign oil made it easier for the US to kill Iran’s Qassem Soleimani

By mcfarm - Jan. 4, 2020, 7:54 p.m.
Like Reply

fully agree, a decrease on dependence of foreign oil gives us many options we wouldn't have had otherwise...most importantly keeping most of our young brave soldiers out of the mideast

By TimNew - Jan. 4, 2020, 8:42 p.m.
Like Reply

Trump is engaged. Good bad or indifferent, he will not disengage before Iran does.  I think Iran knows this.  Are they willing to engage in this chicken fight?

I'm betting not. The somewhat subdued reaction in equities tells me WallSt agrees.

By metmike - Jan. 5, 2020, 12:48 a.m.
Like Reply

White House notifies Congress of Soleimani strike under War Powers Act

"President Trump tweeted Saturday night that the U.S. has targeted "52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago)" for attack if Iran retaliates for Soleimani's death. "Let this serve as a WARNING," Mr. Trump wrote.

In a series of tweets, Mr. Trump wrote that Iran is "talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge." Mr. Trump said the sites targeted include "some at a very high level & important to Iran &  the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD."

Senator Elizabeth Warren responded to a tweet from President Trump in which he stated the United States has 52 Iranian sites targeted should Iran strike "any Americans, or American assets," saying that Mr. Trump was "threatening to commit war crimes."

"Speaking briefly outside his hotel in Iowa on Saturday, former Vice President Joe Biden sharply criticized President Trump's tweets from earlier in the day "warning" Iran."

Pelosi: "The Trump Administration's provocative, escalatory and disproportionate military engagement continues to put servicemembers, diplomats and citizens of America and our allies in danger," Pelosi's statement said. "This initiation of hostilities was taken without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran, without the consultation of the Congress and without the articulation of a clear and legitimate strategy to either the Congress or the public."

By metmike - Jan. 5, 2020, 12:52 a.m.
Like Reply

The NYT's predictably is very critical of President Trumps decision to assassinate this evil person.

Iranians Close Ranks Behind Leaders After U.S. Kills Popular General

The death of Qassim Suleimani strengthened the hand of hard-liners, experts say, and undermined those who have tried to normalize relations with the West.

As Tensions With Iran Escalated, Trump Opted for Most Extreme Measure

While senior officials argue the drone strike was warranted to prevent future attacks, some in the administration remain skeptical about the rationale for the attack.

Dear MSM,

President Trump did not come up with this idea and forced it on those that carried out the was more of being the other way around. 

"Defense and intelligence officials believed the Revolutionary Guard Quds force leader was plotting attacks on Americans inside Iraq and the region this based on an "intelligence assessment" the contents of which haven't been made public."

The experts......... defense and intel tracking this guy came up with the idea and were  advising him. They wanted to take him out and President Trump gave them the ok. 

Of course he could have told them no but the "opted for the most extreme measure" was also opting for what his expert advisores urged him to do. It's what they were set up and prepared to do and wanted to do.............needing only the green light from the president.  He actually agreed with them, not the other way around. 

By metmike - Jan. 5, 2020, 12:57 a.m.
Like Reply

Iran’s new Quds Force commander brings continuity to the post held by his slain predecessor

“Under Qaani’s leadership, there is likely to be greater continuity than change in the Quds Force,” Alfoneh said.

“I suspect he’ll have little difficulty filling Soleimani’s shoes when it comes to operations and strategy,” said Afshon Ostovar, author of “Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.”

metmike: One wonders what side the MSM and dems are on?

I am against a war with Iran so please don’t get the wrong impression. President Trump, so far has made what appears to be smart/good and sdecisions with our actions in the Middle East.

However, this situation could cause him to make  bad decisions at any time. I strongly believe that regardless of those decisions they will be inside of a range of options given to him, along with advise from his team of experts....that base it on what they think will be effective.

Unfortunately, generals and leaders in the military did not get to those positions by loving peace. They strongly lean towards using military force when its an option...they are hawks. It’s who they are.So President Trump will be getting an earful of advise on aggressively using military force.

The point is that before this incident, he has shown tremendous restraint and not followed the path of the many hawks in Washington......which upset the. Those same hawks will be pressing him to act aggressively , not the other way around, despite his blustery tweets and warnings.

President Trump wants to be elected again in 2020 more than anything a wide margin. Because of that, he is likely to do what he thinks most people want..

I could be wrong of course


By kermit - Jan. 5, 2020, 11:45 a.m.
Like Reply

Pelops I was advised of the strike.Trump sent an email to Hilary's server