Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Don't Toews Me

  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

437 Excellent

About Don't Toews Me

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    New York Jets

Recent Profile Visitors

768 profile views
  1. New one I've been doing: Randomly emphasize words in sentences that clearly shouldn't be emphasized Example: "Good AFTERNOON sir, how are YOU today?" "Can you PICK up bananas AND apples?" This one is pretty weird so I advise doing it on family first before doing it on random people........I've done it twice to random people and they act very confused and startled. Definitely a mainstay in my schtick repertoire however
  2. Former CIA officer on the embassy threat:
  3. In my opinion its a big giant grey area. You want to be able to move quickly against unconventional threats such as a terrorist organization while still keeping in line legally. But what constitutes "military force?" Boots on the ground? Direct strikes from us? If a team of Special Forces soldiers are deployed to train partner forces in order for the partner forces to go fight the terrorists, is that military force? Even if the team of Special Forces aren't directly fighting the terrorists? What does "boots on the ground" even mean? Conventional units? Does that include Special Operations? Guaranteed there's a lot more countries Special Operations are operating in that we don't know about. Does every single one of those need an AUMF? Each term needs to be clearly defined. Lots of grey areas in my opinion.
  4. Granted the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is privy to info we are not, but my hunch (and this is speculation on my part) is that the assumption was made that the Iranian missiles couldn't be as accurate as they were to avoid US casualties. If they were accurate enough to ensure no US casualties, that would mean their weapons system isn't as out of date as previously thought. But I think Gen. Milley likely thinks it isn't and therefore they intended to kill personnel, but didn't due to sheer luck. All depends on their intention.
  5. Doubt this is the end of this saga. Even if Trump doesn't retaliate, I struggle to see a scenario where the Iranians just drop this. We're in the area. They and their proxies are in the area. Struggle to see a scenario where our forces aren't attacked/endangered by their proxies. Proxy war via unconventional means. Attacking via proxies gives them some deniability even though everyone knows who's really calling the shots.
  7. Somewhat off topic, but I don't believe the 9/11 Commission Report fully got to the bottom of the foreign government connection to the attacks. Not saying one way or the other that so and so did this or that. A legitimate (not conspiracy driven) case can be made that the foreign government connection deserved more attention/scrutiny/investigation.
  9. I likely shouldn't have said it was Pompeo and Esper's "idea." So it wasn't Pompeo walking in a room with Trump and saying "Let's kill Suleimani" and Trump going with it. How I interpreted the Post article was that this was the option Pompeo and Esper pushed for/have been pushing for (says Pompeo has been talking about this for months). And one of the options presented by defense officials to Trump was killing Soleimani. The Post also seems to say something similar about presenting him a list of options: Trump goes with the option Pompeo and Esper have supported: killing Soleimani.
  10. Sounds like the Soleimani strike was Pompeo and Esper's idea. Says this wouldn't have happened with Mattis.
  11. Probably already posted but good thread nonetheless from former CIA and Assistant SEC DEF in Mary Beth Long. Re-reading that New Yorker piece on Suleimani for the first time since his death and very interesting information about the early days post 9/11 and the early days of the Iraq invasion in US-Iran relations.