SabreFan1

No thanks. She would have sucked at the job as well. I voted for a 3rd option. Hopefully at some point during the remainder of my life, there will actually be a viable 3rd option.

Name a modern US president that hasn't directly or indirectly assassinated a foreign figure. You'll have a tougher time than you think you will. It's just much easier to do these days with drones and real-time spy satellites.

Not illegally so much as exactly what the definition says. Clumsy, bungling. Instead of covertly killing him while he was in Iraq, he made a show of it for no good reason. Any US or allied special ops team could have made that guy history and left the rest of the world wondering who killed him. Instead Trump dropped a hellfire drone missile on his head at an airport leaving absolutely no doubt who did it.

I think you're confused on the meaning of ham-handed. It doesn't refer to the act of killing the general. It refers to the way he went about it.

Huh?

Ah ok. My bad. That's what I get for jumping in a conversation without reading the preceding posts first.

Trump was ham-handed in how he handled killing the Iranian general. As for abusing his office, Congressional Democrats don't have a leg to stand on with that charge. The legislative branch ceded it's war powers to the executive branch a long time ago.

You may be right. Time will tell.

I get what you are saying. What I'm saying is that they know that the missiles that they used aren't very accurate so even if they aimed them 1 mile north of the base into the open desert, there was always the possibility it could have struck one of the bunkers that the soldiers ran into. A direct hit on a bunker, on purpose or not, would have caused death. If they meant to just posture with the missile strike, Iran took a serious calculated risk. Even US cruise missiles can be slightly knocked off course because of environmental issues like sudden gusting winds.

Because Trump has never been known for his restraint in neither his personal life or his political. You're speculating. You may be right or maybe not. When you lob missiles that aren't known for their accuracy, you could easily hit something that you don't want to.

You one-upped me. A dancing pink elephant!

Holy crap. Trump is actually de-escalating the entire situation. He's decided to just fall back on leveling more sanctions against Iran by the looks of it. Maybe he was actually telling the truth all along about not wanting yet another war in the Middle East. If I see a pink elephant at some point today, I may just be able to say, "Now I've seen it all".

I know. The US didn't attack Pakistan because it would make no sense since there was way more to lose than to gain if it happened. I never actually thought it would happen and have always given Obama credit for how he handled it. Now that the Kashmir region split into two parts a couple of months ago and both territories chose to be administered by India, it's fairly obvious that at some point in the future, they'll likely become a part of India. It's just not going to happen any time soon because Pakistan would pitch a fit. *edit* Just checked to see if Pakistan still had control of any part of the Kashmir region and they do. So it looks like the region recently actually split into fourths and not in half. Each country now has control of 2 Kashmir territories. You too.

Because those 2 countries have gone to war several times. Pakistan insists the Kashmir region is theirs as does India and they even threatened each other over it again 2 or 3 years ago. If either country ever moves to take control of the Kashmir region, it will definitely mean yet another war between the two and now that they both have nukes, the possibility exists that whoever starts losing the war would then lob a nuke at the winning country. To make a comparison we're all more familiar with, Russia has openly said that it's official policy that if they are ever overwhelmed by foreign ground forces in Russia, they will strike back with nuclear weapons. So if the US had attacked Pakistan, there's a real possibility that India would move on Kashmir and since Pakistan couldn't hope to fight a 2 pronged war, the only option they'd have to retaliate against India would be their nuclear arsenal.

Those 2 countries hate each other with a passion. It's not a stretch to imagine India taking advantage of the situation had Pakistan been attacked. That wouldn't happen for the same reason that Obama didn't do anything overly punitive to Pakistan. The US doesn't want to lose the influence it has with their leaders in power. I don't know why you're continuing the conversation. This is all speculation. We could do this for days and it would go nowhere. Of course neither country truly gives 2 shakes of a lamb's tail about the US and wouldn't bother to aid us. India is allied with the US only because we're the biggest boy with the biggest stick. I fully expect them to cozy up to China in 25-35 years when they become the biggest boy with the biggest stick. I just don't think it would have been out of the realm of possibility that India would have immediately moved into and taken control of the contested parts of the Kashmir mountains which would have provoked a response by Pakistan which could have easily been nuclear.

That's exactly why they want them. If you have relatively weak armed forces, one way to ensure that bigger countries leave you alone is to have a few nukes laying around.

If the US had gone into Pakistan back then, I'm not sure they'd have had enough restraint to stay out of it. Once they got in, Pakistan may have thrown caution to the wind at that point and India would have to retaliate in kind. It's all speculation though since the US never even considered attacking Pakistan. Just p*ssed them off by violating their airspace and sovereignty. Though since they were hiding enemy #1 they couldn't exactly occupy the moral high ground.

Was I right or was I right....?

You think Iran is much more powerful than it is. It barely stalemated Iraq when those two countries warred each other for years. The US on 2 separate occasions cut through Iraq like a hot knife through butter.

It keeps them in check especially with showing restraint towards our allies in India. As for the OBL situation, I've always given Obama credit for the way he handled that. Things could have gotten real ugly real quick. India could have taken advantage and flooded into Pakistan had Obama decided to retaliate and those 2 countries would have lobbed nukes back and forth at each other.

The first thing the military will do is go after and cripple Iran's offensive capabilities including their mobile and stationary missile sites. Once you do that, you then clear the way for your warplanes to go in relatively unmolested by taking out any anti-aircraft weaponry.

That's not new. Presidents have always done that. I still think to this day that Bill Clinton would lob cruise missiles at other countries to distract people from his domestic issues. It was a running joke while he was president.. Trump's tribe (Republicans) supports him. The majority of the country doesn't. I doubt Trump will actually go so far as to put troops on the ground inside Iran. He'll most likely just strategically bomb Iran with cruise missiles, drones, and aircraft and go after it's leaders.

Trump has always been a practitioner of hyperbole. Eventually they'll release the numbers of casualties. It's not something that can be hidden for long. We buy influence there. As long as we continue to give them money and weapons we'll be semi-allied with the people in power. The people of Pakistan are definitely not fans of the US.

Sure they do. So does Trump. He said as recently as yesterday that he would attack Iran back if they retaliated. Right now they're deciding on targets. Same as every other president before him. Decide how hard and what you're going to hit and send in the weapons.

The US is semi-allied with Pakistan. That's why the US handles them with kid gloves. As for North Korea, they are safe because of China, not because they have low yield nukes.