Kirk Gallaway Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) No I'd never heard of the guy. No I don't think it will make any difference, except of course, now they'll probably retaliate!!! . Now we hear how many of ours he's killed. And I'm hearing he was in the act of shuttle diplomacy breakthrough between the Saudi's and Iran. Who knows for sure? I am now much more interested in him rather than that guy they killed a month ago who looked, from his beard like he had run out of "Just for Men". It must be tough getting everything you need in exile! Edited January 6, 2020 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 Iranian government official raises eyebrows with tweet listing locations of Trump’s properties https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/iranian-government-official-raises-eyebrows-with-tweet-listing-locations-of-trumps-properties/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ty Carpenter Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Kooyman Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 9 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said: As an opposition party, I see nothing unusual about Pelosi wanting to be informed before the assassination and then trying to nip in the bud Trump's war powers. Maybe we'll see some vote on it in the future and we'll truly see in numbers where the Democrats are at. Greg, I wouldn't be too sure, to give you some historical perspective, the Democrats in the House voted 128-81 against support of GWB proposed War on Iraq. Unfortunately at that time they were the minority party. They aren't now. Hi Kirk, Not being adversarial here, but to clarify, the House Vote was 128 votes Republican 81 votes Democrat in favor of going to war in Iraq. The Nays were 26 votes Republican 126 votes Democrat with 1 vote Independent. That means 39% of House Democrats voted in favor of the resolution. It was even worse in the Senate with 59% of the Democrats voting in favor. Notable senators who favored going to war in Iraq include: Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Diane Feinstein. I'd say a fair amount of the senators on that list can be construed as Democratic party elites. My point here is once again, that we do not have anyone in the MSM nor in the Democratic Party that is willing to go out on a limb and question our country's role in foreign policymaking in places like the Middle East, or anywhere we feel our foreign interests lie. This country would never try to pull a regime change intervention in places like, Russia, China, or North Korea. But de-stabilizing countries like Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Venezuela, etc., (countries without Nuclear missile capabilities) we seem to be all in. Again, just my two cents..and BTW I am a veteran with 10yrs of service in the Navy. 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Kooyman Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said: I am curious how many posters here had heard of the assassinated Iranian prior to the drone attack. Maybe it doesn’t matter. I hadn’t. The War Machine went into full blown propaganda mode right after the assassination, making sure we all knew what an evil and dangerous leader their target had been. I agree with Greg that the Democrats usually sign on when consulted. I had heard of him, as he was initially mentioned about a year or two ago as being the one who headed up the Iranian guard who assisted the Iraqi government troops in taking back the towns in Iraq that were ISIS strongholds. In the US mainstream media, he wasn't given much press, and then it was in a negative light if I recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) Soleiman was Iran’s top military man, and a revered figure - not just famous, or accomplished, but revered - in what is known as the Arc of Resistance (the mid-east’s largely Shia resistance bloc allied against Zionist / US neo-conservative hegemonic ambitions). To put the possible consequence of this assassination in perspective - the Israelis had long wished his demise but considered an overt move far too dangerous. Apparently this was the brainchild of SecState Pompeo and SecDef Esper, and sold to Trump as a quick fix. The leader of Hezbollah declared today all US military personnel legitimate targets until all US forces are expelled from the region. But US/NATO policy in the region starts from an assumption of effectively permanent force positioning. Interestingly, Soleimani directed forces in alliance with America twice - in Afghanistan against the Taliban and in Iraq against ISIS. It’s not 2003 - the Arc of Resistance have extensive missile capability and now a revered martyr whose death will provide years of focussed motivation. Plus the Russians and Chinese are well-positioned to assume the mantle of rational alternative major players for the region. Edited January 6, 2020 by Jeff Carter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Kooyman Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 9 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said: Soleiman was Iran’s top military man, and a revered figure - not just famous, or accomplished, but revered - in what is known as the Arc of Resistance (the mid-east’s largely Shia resistance bloc allied against Zionist / US neo-conservative hegemonic ambitions). To put the possible consequence of this assassination in perspective - the Israelis had long wished his demise but considered an overt move far too dangerous. Apparently this was the brainchild of SecState Pompeo and SecDef Esper, and sold to Trump as a quick fix. The leader of Hezbollah declared today all US military personnel legitimate targets until all US forces are expelled from the region. But US/NATO policy in the region starts from an assumption of effectively permanent force positioning. Interestingly, Soleimani directed forces in alliance with America twice - in Afghanistan against the Taliban and in Iraq against ISIS. It’s not 2003 - the Arc of Resistance have extensive missile capability and now a revered martyr whose death will provide years of focussed motivation. Plus the Russians and Chinese are well-positioned to assume the mantle of rational alternative major players for the region. Well said Jeff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Greg Kooyman said: Hi Kirk, Not being adversarial here, but to clarify, the House Vote was 128 votes Republican 81 votes Democrat in favor of going to war in Iraq. The Nays were 26 votes Republican 126 votes Democrat with 1 vote Independent. That means 39% of House Democrats voted in favor of the resolution. It was even worse in the Senate with 59% of the Democrats voting in favor. Notable senators who favored going to war in Iraq include: Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Diane Feinstein. I'd say a fair amount of the senators on that list can be construed as Democratic party elites. My point here is once again, that we do not have anyone in the MSM nor in the Democratic Party that is willing to go out on a limb and question our country's role in foreign policymaking in places like the Middle East, or anywhere we feel our foreign interests lie. This country would never try to pull a regime change intervention in places like, Russia, China, or North Korea. But de-stabilizing countries like Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Venezuela, etc., (countries without Nuclear missile capabilities) we seem to be all in. Again, just my two cents..and BTW I am a veteran with 10yrs of service in the Navy. 😉 It does get confusing Greg. What I said was this. I wouldn't be too sure, to give you some historical perspective, the Democrats in the House voted 128-81 against support of GWB proposed War on Iraq. I was speaking specifically about the Democrats, and our figures are almost identical.Except you say 126-81 against. I appreciate your work on the Democrat roll call for the resolution, and I would add Nancy Pelosi, Gerald Nadler and Bernie Sanders as voting against the Iraq resolution. And now, I think you'll agree those are some prominent Democrats. Often on conspiracy websites there's a tendency to confound issues by playing advanced chess rather than checkers. One event that could happen where all bets are off is if Iran launches a successful attack on the U.S. at home.Then the pressure would be so great that the Democrats would not risk being seen as the Peace Party. It really is that simple. Edited January 6, 2020 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Kooyman Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said: It does get confusing Greg. What I said was this. I wouldn't be too sure, to give you some historical perspective, the Democrats in the House voted 128-81 against support of GWB proposed War on Iraq. I was speaking specifically about the Democrats, and our figures are almost identical.Except you say 126-81 against. I appreciate your work on the Democrat roll call for the resolution, and I would add Nancy Pelosi, Gerald Nadler and Bernie Sanders as voting against the Iraq resolution. And now, I think you'll agree those are some prominent Democrats. Often on conspiracy websites there's a tendency to confound issues by playing advanced chess rather than checkers. One event that could happen where all bets are off is if Iran launches an attack on the U.S. at home.Then the pressure would be so great that the Democrats would not risk being seen as the Peace Party. It really is that simple. Hi Kirk, I think we are trying to say similar things, but my numbers came from Wikipedia.. I was wanting to point out that a significant amount of Democrats in both houses were hawkish on the Iraq War resolution. Wikipedia Quote: Passage of the full resolution[edit] Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[3][8] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[9] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[10] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002. United States House of Representatives[edit] Party Ayes Nays Not Voting Republican 215 6 2 Democratic 81 126 1 Independent 0 1 0 TOTALS 296 133 3 215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution. 82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution. 6 (<2.7%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX). 126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution. The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT) Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution. United States Senate[edit] Party Yeas Nays Republican 48 1 Democratic 29 21 Independent 0 1 TOTALS 77 23 Final Congressional vote by chamber and party, October 2002 29 (58%) of 50 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution were: Sens. Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Breaux (D-LA), Cantwell (D-WA), Carnahan (D-MO), Carper (D-DE), Cleland (D-GA), Clinton (D-NY), Daschle (D-SD), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Edwards (D-NC), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Hollings (D-SC), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Miller (D-GA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Schumer (D-NY), and Torricelli (D-NJ). 21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution. Those voting against the resolution were: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR). 1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI). The only independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT) Edited January 6, 2020 by Greg Kooyman grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 What's 2 votes out of a total of 207? We've always been saying exactly the same things. Greg said: that a significant amount of Democrats in both houses were hawkish on the Iraq War resolution. Yes 39% is significant, but where are they now? Just Joe Biden, right? But I hope I've shown you the flip side, that the most powerful Democrats, including the current Speaker of the House and a current strong 2020 Presidential candidate (Bernie Sanders) voted against it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Kooyman Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 4 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said: What's 2 votes out of a total of 207? We've always been saying exactly the same things. Greg said: that a significant amount of Democrats in both houses were hawkish on the Iraq War resolution. Yes 39% is significant, but where are they now? Just Joe Biden, right? But I hope I've shown you the flip side, that the most powerful Democrats, including the current Speaker of the House and a current strong 2020 Presidential candidate (Bernie Sanders) voted against it! Yes you did show me the flip side. 😊 But Joe Biden was one of the Senate hawks as was Hilary Clinton at the time. The Clinton's influence on the Democratic party is still being felt in 2020 in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) Elizabeth Warren today became the first to point out that Trump ordered the Suleiman strike in the middle of the impeachment hearings. Suleiman's daughter advised today that US military personnel today would soon be waiting for their children to die. Sleep tight. Meanwhile, taking his military cues from ISIS, Trump is threatening Iranian cultural sites: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jan/06/trump-threat-destruction-iran-heritage-war-crime Edited January 6, 2020 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 7 minutes ago, David Andrews said: Elizabeth Warren today became the first to point out that Trump ordered the Suleiman strike in the middle of the impeachment hearings. I wonder if the strike is what woke up John Bolton to testify if subpoened. I know Bolton is a war hawk but I don't think he's stupid. He may see this as another "drug deal" but far worse than holding up aid to Ukraine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) Ryan Cristián — The Last American Vagabond — on the Assassination of Soleimani, What You Need to Know https://www.activistpost.com/2020/01/ryan-cristian-the-last-american-vagabond-on-the-assassination-of-soleimani.html TOPICS:Foreign PolicyIranIraqJames CorbettMilitaryRyan Cristián January 6, 2020 By corbettreport Ryan Cristián of The Last American Vagabond joins us to discuss his ongoing coverage of the situation surrounding the events that led to the assassination of Soleimani. What is the context of this event, how are we being lied to, and what does it mean for the future of the Middle East? https://youtu.be/gvaBgW_YU8s Edited January 7, 2020 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted January 7, 2020 Author Share Posted January 7, 2020 7 hours ago, Jeff Carter said: Soleiman was Iran’s top military man, and a revered figure - not just famous, or accomplished, but revered - in what is known as the Arc of Resistance (the mid-east’s largely Shia resistance bloc allied against Zionist / US neo-conservative hegemonic ambitions). To put the possible consequence of this assassination in perspective - the Israelis had long wished his demise but considered an overt move far too dangerous. Apparently this was the brainchild of SecState Pompeo and SecDef Esper, and sold to Trump as a quick fix. The leader of Hezbollah declared today all US military personnel legitimate targets until all US forces are expelled from the region. But US/NATO policy in the region starts from an assumption of effectively permanent force positioning. Interestingly, Soleimani directed forces in alliance with America twice - in Afghanistan against the Taliban and in Iraq against ISIS. It’s not 2003 - the Arc of Resistance have extensive missile capability and now a revered martyr whose death will provide years of focussed motivation. Plus the Russians and Chinese are well-positioned to assume the mantle of rational alternative major players for the region. Though I started this thread in anger I'm certainly no expert on the subject. Martyr is what he was made by Trump for way beyond our lifetimes. That's already evident, a rallying cry against the great satan in the region, not just Iran or Iraq. What is perplexing is why. He helped us against the Taliban and ISIS? According to this NYT article he may have been in Iraq to discuss regional accommodations, including Saudi Arabia(?). I don't think the powers that be want Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia working together. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/khamenei-wants-to-put-irans-stamp-on-reprisal-for-us-killing-of-top-general/ar-BBYGcIB?li=BBnb7Kz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now