I think it’d be about half. It wouldn’t start out that way, but Inso0 would have posted something about Killary and 20 posts later it would have been about how sometimes you just gotta kill people, what are you a pacifist?
To a simpleton you could see how this option makes sense and appears proportional. They killed one American contractor, we kill one Iranian.
1 Like
Nah. Not even Bush was crazy enough to do something like this.
Hmm, I could definitely see Bush doing this.
Bush decided to invade and destroy Iraq murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians ffs
He literally could have and didn’t.
https://apnews.com/57b4e6ffca604eb010b3dfd29aeeed2b
It was a prime opportunity to take out Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who had been accused of aiding Shiite forces that killed thousands of American troops in Iraq. But ultimately, military leaders passed on a strike, deferring to deep concerns about the potential fallout of such a provocative attack.
“To avoid a firefight, and the contentious politics that would follow, I decided that we should monitor the caravan, not strike immediately,” retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal wrote last year in Foreign Policy.
Fears about the repercussions and reverberations of a targeted killing of Soleimani persisted throughout the administrations of President George W. Bush, a Republican, and President Barack Obama, a Democrat, according to officials who served under both. Soleimani, they calculated, was just as dangerous dead and martyred as he was alive and plotting against Americans.
3 Likes
yeah, but they were already getting their fix in Iraq at that point in time. In 2020, post-Benghazi, without a war running, it probably would have been too good to pass up.
NOT ANOTHER BENGHAZI, SHOW THEM WHO IS BOSS
1 Like
I would have. Because there was zero thought of the consequences. Trump was basically given a menu and kept making choices and kept getting madder. He undoubtedly chose to kill this guy because he knew he got some applause when he killed the last bad guy. Of course not understanding the differences between the two at all, he pushed ahead. Then they had to scramble to find him as he was offered as an option previously when Trump chose other retaliation.
I am not saying Clinton would not have found a way to escalate tensions, but I am saying there is no chance she would have done this and in this manner.
Plus unlike Trump and his moronic staff, nobody with Clinton would have said this was done to stop a war. They would have said he had WMDs.
She also wouldn’t have went around mar a lago for two days prior telling everyone he met to expect something big with Iran like a gossipy seven year old.
2 Likes
This is exactly what happened. In his mush brain he compared it to the Isis leader killed in Syria. He thought it was just like that. Unfortunately it is HIS job to know it is not just like that.
Tucker is a Bernie > Trump > Killary voter.
.
6ix in one hand
Half dozen in the other
1 Like
Pretty sure Carlson, Sanders and Buchanan would all dispute that vehemently.
1 Like
Bush was afraid of the repercussions of normalizing the killing high ranking government officials instead of just “people”.
Pretty much grunching today’s posts, but, whilst waiting for the football, am posting the take by the journalist I’ve been most wanting to see weigh in. He know the Iranian regime better than anyone I’m aware of, and often reports based on sources high up there. Not saying he’s infallible, and he’s certainly not neutral, but I don’t think you’ll get a more informed take on what the Iranian regime may be thinking than this (in English, at least).
His basic take is that Iran will respond, and they will try and respond in kind and in a way that makes it obvious it is Iran, but they will seek to steer clear of war, and will focus their efforts on getting Iraq to kick out the US and fall clearly into their orbit. That said, he outlines a little bit why Iran doesn’t necessarily have the inside track in Iraq.
2 Likes
Tucker thinks Guatemalans are the biggest threat.
1 Like