What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Do you agree with the airstrike? (1 Viewer)

Do you agree with the airstrike?

  • Yes

    Votes: 51 27.6%

  • No

    Votes: 45 24.3%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 89 48.1%
  • Total voters
    185
Too early to say.  Based on what I know right now, it strikes me as a high-variance play that I would have preferred not to see carried out, but I can understand the logic behind it.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Too early to say.  Based on what I know right now, it strikes me as a high-variance play that I would have preferred not to see carried out, but I can understand the logic behind it.
Click to expand...
Same here. I also lack the knowledge and understanding of what all went down to provide any sort of meaningful insight or critique.

ETA: I mean, on its face, any violent act - especially a purported assassination - is certainly something I'd naturally oppose if there was a plausible alternative but I don't know enough yet to definitively say.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I voted yes.  I will trust the DoD/Pentagon on their intel and that they wouldn't have gone to trump for the OK if they didn't feel this action was worth the risk.  

 
I know it does not mean anything in the big picture but I talked to 2  engineers from Iran today who I have done work with and they were ecstatic he was taken out and wish it would have happened years ago.  Said the man was pure evil and had killed thousands.  They said the people of Iran would be happy as well but you won`t see that in the streets. 

 
Heck yeah. Anytime you get the opportunity to kill a terrorist, you do it. Imagine if we called it off and then his plans get enacted and 100s or more are killed. 'Oh  (insert Presidents name) blew it. If he wouldn't have backed down this wouldn't have happened'. 

 
*sigh*​

Maybe as fellow Americans we can clear something up:

  • Here and now taking down this SOB? Absolutely. Yep.
  • Long term policy meaning even what happens next week? Nope.
Let's let the anti-Trumpers agree to the first and let's let the Trumpers say something about the 2nd.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's one of the few things people on Team Blue, Team Red, and Team Hate Them Both can agree. Nobody is mourning his passing from this world.

Is it actually going to do any good? Probably not, to use NFL term it's "next man up". The next leader may be even worse from a US perspective.  I'd say Iran would up their effort to build a nuke but I think they are already doing that as much as they can. I guess they could increase their terrorist attacks against American in the Mideast, Africa, Europe,and Asia.

The smart move for all the Deomocratic candidate is to say we're glad he's dead. In 2 weeks this will be completely forgotten by the US public. I doubt even 5% of likely voters would have known who this guy was before he got killed.

 
Insomniac said:
It's one of the few things people on Team Blue, Team Red, and Team Hate Them Both can agree. Nobody is mourning his passing from this world.

Is it actually going to do any good? Probably not, to use NFL term it's "next man up". The next leader may be even worse from a US perspective.  I'd say Iran would up their effort to build a nuke but I think they are already doing that as much as they can. I guess they could increase their terrorist attacks against American in the Mideast, Africa, Europe,and Asia.

The smart move for all the Deomocratic candidate is to say we're glad he's dead. In 2 weeks this will be completely forgotten by the US public. I doubt even 5% of likely voters would have known who this guy was before he got killed.
Click to expand...
5%?   Maybe 1-2 % and that is high.

 
TripItUp said:
I voted undecided as well.   Still collecting data points.
Click to expand...
This. 

A bad guy is gone which is good, but what are the reasons and ramifications. Taking out a country’s #2 is a massive deal.  The reason must be air tight. 

 
Insomniac said:
It's one of the few things people on Team Blue, Team Red, and Team Hate Them Both can agree. Nobody is mourning his passing from this world.

Is it actually going to do any good? Probably not, to use NFL term it's "next man up". The next leader may be even worse from a US perspective.  I'd say Iran would up their effort to build a nuke but I think they are already doing that as much as they can. I guess they could increase their terrorist attacks against American in the Mideast, Africa, Europe,and Asia.

The smart move for all the Deomocratic candidate is to say we're glad he's dead. In 2 weeks this will be completely forgotten by the US public. I doubt even 5% of likely voters would have known who this guy was before he got killed.
Click to expand...
In 2 weeks will it be forgotten by the Iranian public?

 
I agree. 

Complete dirt bag is gone from the earth.  Iran gave us no choice when they decided to attack our embassy.  Doing nothing was the absolute WRONG choice and I'm glad Trump made the right one.

 
Da Guru said:
5%?   Maybe 1-2 % and that is high.
Click to expand...
On 9-11 I knew who Bin Laden was. I wouldn't have been in the 1-2% on this guy. Maybe I just heard too many reports of the #2 or #3 guy in "generic evil terrorist group" getting droned to death over the last 15 years to care at all about keeping track of them.

 
I am 100% against doing it without informing Congress. 

In terms of the act:

Pros: He is a clear sponsor of terrorism.

Cons: It is not clear to me this actually hurts Irianian capabilities significantly. Maybe is such an amazing tactician that he is unreplacable, but more likely a deputy will step into his role with no significant change to operations.

It has put Iran in a position where they have to respond. This response will likely cost American lives.

 
TripItUp said:
Do you agree with the airstrike?
Click to expand...
Not enough info in this question.

On the surface...yes, if there is credible evidence of an imminent attack...

But dog deeper and what are the consequences?  Whats the next step?  Are our people or allies in more danger now?

Its a more complex situation than just do you agree or not IMO

 
Juxtatarot said:
I voted undecided but I think it's more likely the long-term cons will outweigh the long-term pros.
Click to expand...
I'm in this boat, honestly. I don't really see any major long term benefits from killing the guy, even as bad as he's purported to be. There's always somebody waiting to step up.

 
Drunken Cowboy said:
I am 100% against doing it without informing Congress. 

In terms of the act:

Pros: He is a clear sponsor of terrorism.

Cons: It is not clear to me this actually hurts Irianian capabilities significantly. Maybe is such an amazing tactician that he is unreplacable, but more likely a deputy will step into his role with no significant change to operations.

It has put Iran in a position where they have to respond. This response will likely cost American lives.
Click to expand...
Then the USA will respond, then Iran will respond back, then USA will respond...……………..

 
Drunken Cowboy said:
It has put Iran in a position where they have to respond. This response will likely cost American lives.
Click to expand...
My #1 concern here is that if Iran responds in a proportionate manner, it will result in an all-out war.  Iran seems to me to be in a position where either they visibly knuckle under, or they do something that results in a massive US response.

Because Iran is Iran, there is some possibility that they wait six months and blow up an airplane or something with plausible deniability.  

 
Pretty sure this Baghdad shock&awer has no more understanding of Shi'a v Sunni than the last one and this one being in bed w the Saudis disqualifies him from being able to pursue a proper course here even if he didn't act like he was in a Sandler movie most of the time. Driving a wedge between Iran's people & their leaders is a bit of geopolitical wrangling i've wanted to happen for a long time, but this ain't the cowboy.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
My #1 concern here is that if Iran responds in a proportionate manner, it will result in an all-out war.  Iran seems to me to be in a position where either they visibly knuckle under, or they do something that results in a massive US response.

Because Iran is Iran, there is some possibility that they wait six months and blow up an airplane or something with plausible deniability.  
Click to expand...
That the bolded is what we are hoping for is why this is so bad.

 
Like i said earlier, i have no problem killing soleimani.  What i have a problem with is the lack of any strategy.

Those that are upset we did this without notifying congress need to be upset with congress.  Congress basically gave cart blanche authority for bush/Obama/trump to act in the name of defeating terrorism.  Based on everything that's been said, this guy was promoting state sponsored terrorism.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rascal said:
Like i said earlier, i have no problem killing soleimani.  What i have a problem with is the lack of any strategy.

Those that are upset we did this without notifying congress need to be upset with congress.  Congress basically gave cart blanche authority for bush/Obama/trump to act in the name of defeating terrorism.  Based on everything that's been said, this guy was promoting state sponsored terrorism.
Click to expand...
I agree.  This guy killed over 300 of his own people who were protesting and for all accounts was a devious scoundrel. That being said even though he was hated by the masses or educated people of Iran he was revered by the leaders and as long as they are in power that is all that matters.

 
I voted no but probably should have said undecided.....I just can’t get past the wag the dog thoughts and the timing of taking out this bad guy that has been doing this for decades. The credibility of this administration is so low for me I can’t even fathom it ever being truthful. If there was a General Mattis and or National Intelligence Director Coats confirmed that an attack was imminent that would mean a lot but men of integrity for the most part have parted ways

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dickies said:
In 2 weeks will it be forgotten by the Iranian public?
Click to expand...
This. How many angry, radical extremists have we set on a collision course with their quest for 72 virgins? How many of those quests will be attempted on US soil?  On soft targets like schools, malls, theaters?

trump isn't known for being well-thought out and measured. He has the temperament of a three year old who was told he couldn't have another helping of ice cream (see his reaction to being removed from the Home Alone movies...five years ago). He thinks he knows more than generals yet can't locate southwest Asia on a map. Smarter, more measured people had the chance to take this guy out and the decision was made that the long term repercussions to our troops and allies in the region wasn't worth it.

Timing is suspect, and his history of acting in what is in the best interest of him and his family...he's old, won't have to deal with the aftermath for long...yeah, I don't like it one bit.

 
too soon to say, though my fear is this ends up escalating into some type of conflagration no one (including trump) wants, as these things sometimes do

 
Yes, but my main worry with trump all along has been him getting into a situation like this that he is not prepared emotionally or mentally to handle. Hope his advisors keep him steady. 

 
No. I’m sure the second in power in Russia or North Korea isn’t a good dude either.   You just don’t assassinate other countries leaders. 

Regarding informing Congress being an issue. Congress has been giving away their rights and our rights to the executive branch for years.  That ship has sailed. 

 
Osaurus said:
Why another thread? 
Click to expand...
To conduct a poll, I think.

I hadn’t realized this was a high-enough profile event that simply calling it “the air strike”, without further description, would be understood.

 
sho nuff said:
Not enough info in this question.

On the surface...yes, if there is credible evidence of an imminent attack...

But dog deeper and what are the consequences?  Whats the next step?  Are our people or allies in more danger now?

Its a more complex situation than just do you agree or not IMO
Click to expand...
This is why I voted No.  If I knew that the ramifications of the fallout were considered/planned for (e.g. discussions with our allies, next steps if Iran retaliates) then I'd have voted Yes, but my sense is this wasn't done and instead was a 'shoot first, figure out the rest later' situation by our President.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do I object to killing the Terrorist NO.. DO I object to how it was done with out at least notifying Congress outside of Trumps buddies.. like Graham (while golfing??).  Hell Yes.   Look there is politics and there is national security and those are different.  

The question is did the President lie to the US public by saying there was a imminent attact, which there are reports there was not.   Also was this discussed with Putin on Trumps call with him?  lots of questions for this President and adminstration who tend not to release the full story..  

 
I have no confidence that Trump gave any kind of thought and consideration to the action.  And just like the killing of all terrorist leaders, all it will do is leave a temporary vacuum which will be filled by someone just as bad but now with another martyr by which to rally the radicals that follow them.

But this time the guy we took out was also a high ranking political official of a sovereign country and an act of war.

The American public needs to see the imminent threat this guy posed so we can all know it was worthwhile.  Like if he was planning another 911, totally worth it.

 
James Daulton said:
I have no confidence that Trump gave any kind of thought and consideration to the action.  And just like the killing of all terrorist leaders, all it will do is leave a temporary vacuum which will be filled by someone just as bad but now with another martyr by which to rally the radicals that follow them.

But this time the guy we took out was also a high ranking political official of a sovereign country and an act of war.

The American public needs to see the imminent threat this guy posed so we can all know it was worthwhile.  Like if he was planning another 911, totally worth it.
Click to expand...
I agree but Trump only  says yes or no to info given to him.  Who is the main person or group that took this to Trump to give the go ahead?  So many people have come and gone I have no idea.   Had to be some military people who thought this action needed to be taken.

 
greenroom said:
Do I object to killing the Terrorist NO.. DO I object to how it was done with out at least notifying Congress outside of Trumps buddies
Click to expand...
What constitutes notifying congress for an attack like this?  I keep seeing this complaint. 

I think they should have notified Pelosi. I can agree with that. She isnt a gum flapper, but some people in congress are. There is at least a non zero probability one of them would mess up, even unintentionally. 

 
Stealthycat said:
I think it was air strike or send another airplane full of cash or wait for more attacks ... 
Click to expand...
Exactly.  Obama just sent Iran cash and let them attack us daily.  It's not like they were engaged in a nuclear agreement with the US and our allies or anything.  It's not like the US embassy wasn't routinely attacked under Obama.

SMH

 
parasaurolophus said:
What constitutes notifying congress for an attack like this?  I keep seeing this complaint. 

I think they should have notified Pelosi. I can agree with that. She isnt a gum flapper, but some people in congress are. There is at least a non zero probability one of them would mess up, even unintentionally. 
Click to expand...
The gang of 8 are not gum flappers... I believe they take that role very seriously.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
greenroom said:
Do I object to killing the Terrorist NO.. DO I object to how it was done with out at least notifying Congress outside of Trumps buddies.. like Graham (while golfing??).  Hell Yes.   Look there is politics and there is national security and those are different.  

The question is did the President lie to the US public by saying there was a imminent attact, which there are reports there was not.   Also was this discussed with Putin on Trumps call with him?  lots of questions for this President and adminstration who tend not to release the full story..  
Click to expand...
Isn’t it interesting how the President disagreed with all the our government intelligence agencies in that Russia meddled in our elections , despite all of them saying Ukraine did not meddle he believes they did, but now he is all in when  intelligence says General Soleimani was an imminent threat. Seems like he believes what he wants to and wants us to do the same.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Do most of your friends agree with your political views?
2
Replies
83
Views
2K
Jayrod
Jayrod
C
  • Poll Poll
Is Letitia James a racist?
2
Replies
71
Views
3K
Coach Beard
C
(HULK)
Kiwi Farms: Hopefully we can agree to condemn them
Replies
25
Views
1K
eoMMan
E

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top