Why Did The Pentagon Ever Give Trump The Option Of Killing Soleimani?

[Kerry Won Ohio]

LOL
OMG
If there aren’t a hundred people in a conference room in a government building no decision should or can be made.
Say that to yourself and see if that makes any common sense.

Of course there have been zero discussion about Soleimani over the years.
I have to laugh once again

If I were to guess you believe Trump brought down the commercial jet.

From the article --

Instead, Trump reportedly relied on a few advisers for what may be the most consequential foreign policy decision of his presidency. Small-group decision-making limits the imagination and thwarts checks and balances — and it can be dominated by impassioned advocates. The resulting decisions tend to be more about the president’s preferences than about national security interests. Now Trump needs to hear from a broad range of advisers about what might come next.

 

[Outlook]

That's not what the article is stating. Learn to read.

The article is stating that all options should be properly vetted by experts working at lower levels. That way, the craziest options, such as killing Soleimani, don't make it to the President.

Wow
Are you tell me the option to kill Soleimani never made it passed the lower level experts to reach Obama’s desk?
LOL LOL
I’m still laughing from the prior post.

 

[Outlook]

From the article --

Great, from liberal Washington Post article that criticize Trump most of the time.
Every time I have to make an important decision, I can’t make it myself or with the help of my manager. I call everyone off the floor and we talk it out.

PS the article is not a fact piece, it’s an opinion that apparently you need more people to make decisions. You can’t make decisions with only a few advisers? OMG

 

[3leftsdoo]

Excellent article from the Washington Post. Excerpt below:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...cbed14-3316-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html

Obviously, our national security apparatus is broken. If generals give a dimwit nut job like Trump an ill-advised crazy option, it's highly likely he is going to choose the crazy option.

In this case, the Pentagon deserves just as much blame as Donald Trump.

Ridiculous garbage from Deep State conservative propaganda rag WaPo.

The Pentagon = Loves death/pain/destruction/war

Trump did what they wanted, and they just wish he would start World War III so the war crimes could flourish.

Hillary would have done it a long time ago.

:shrug:

 

[Bullseye]

Excellent article from the Washington Post. Excerpt below:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...cbed14-3316-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html

Obviously, our national security apparatus is broken. If generals give a dimwit nut job like Trump an ill-advised crazy option, it's highly likely he is going to choose the crazy option.

In this case, the Pentagon deserves just as much blame as Donald Trump.

The generals work for Trump, they would have guilty of dereliction of duty if they hadn't informed them they had Soleimani in their sights.

 

[Deuce]

He made the decision while at Mar-a-Lago but the decision making began several day's prior. Liberals will think this decision was ill-advised but most experts think it was a bold but correct move given the latest intelligence and recent Iranian attacks on American and allied interests.

The secretary of defense would like this evidence you claim exists because even he admits he hasn’t seen it.

You made up a fantasy. Why?

 

[Dayton3]

The military does not provide crazy-ass options unless the process is broken. Obviously, the process is broken.

This is what happens when all qualified, competent people refuse to continue working for a crazy mother ****er like Trump.

Killing a foreign general responsible for the deaths of at least hundreds of Americans is NOT a "crazy-ass option" by any standard. l

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Wow
Are you tell me the option to kill Soleimani never made it passed the lower level experts to reach Obama’s desk?
LOL LOL
I’m still laughing from the prior post.

No. Because it's a stupid option.

Iraq now wants us to withdraw all of our troops, and Iran will take over Iraq when we do. So how, exactly, was killing the man a good option?

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Killing a foreign general responsible for the deaths of at least hundreds of Americans is NOT a "crazy-ass option" by any standard. l

It's a stupid option. See my previous post.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Great, from liberal Washington Post article that criticize Trump most of the time.
Every time I have to make an important decision, I can’t make it myself or with the help of my manager. I call everyone off the floor and we talk it out.

PS the article is not a fact piece, it’s an opinion that apparently you need more people to make decisions. You can’t make decisions with only a few advisers? OMG

No, you can't. Trump and his stooges don't have a ****ing clue when it comes to the Middle East.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Ridiculous garbage from Deep State conservative propaganda rag WaPo.

The Pentagon = Loves death/pain/destruction/war

Trump did what they wanted, and they just wish he would start World War III so the war crimes could flourish.

Hillary would have done it a long time ago.

:shrug:

Trump did what the Pentagon wanted??? LOL.

Got it, Trump cultist. Go back under your bridge.

 

[Dayton3]

No. Because it's a stupid option.

Iraq now wants us to withdraw all of our troops, and Iran will take over Iraq when we do. So how, exactly, was killing the man a good option?

Much better than the option of leaving him alive.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

The generals work for Trump, they would have guilty of dereliction of duty if they hadn't informed them they had Soleimani in their sights.

Of course. Because we've had no idea where Iranian leaders have been hiding out for the last 40 ****ing years. Only now do we have that top secret information.

God damn, how ****ing stupid.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Much better than the option of leaving him alive.

Really? How so? How did he pose an "imminent threat"? Even your sorry ass hero cult leader Trump can't answer that basic question.

You got nothin. As always.

 

[Bullseye]

Of course. Because we've had no idea where Iranian leaders have been hiding out for the last 40 ****ing years. Only now do we have that top secret information.

God damn, how ****ing stupid.

well, we knew where he was in 2015 and Israel was planning on taking him out. The made the mistake of telling Obama who warned Iran.

 

[Dayton3]

Really? How so? How did he pose an "imminent threat"? Even your sorry ass hero cult leader Trump can't answer that basic question.

You got nothin. As always.

1) Trump is not a cult leader.
2) Trump is not my hero.
3) I don't even like him in any way.
4) "imminent threat" is a matter of opinion and point of view.
5) to me any Iranian official who has had Americans killed in the past is an imminent threat.

 

[joko104]

Wow. You know absolutely nothing. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, working with the Pentagon, prepares different COAs (Courses of Action) briefings for the President during emergency situations. The President doesn't figure this **** out on his own.

Unsophisticated Repug bumpkin talk.

:lamo The military, the Pentagon and CIA go to exorbitant lengths for find that Iranian General, set up all needed to take him out at an exact time and place - and then runs to the president saying "we spent thousands of manpower hours and spent a few million over the last couple of months - and have everything ready to take out Iran's #1 general arranging attacks against our troops - but there will only be a few minutes of opportunity. We did all this because we absolutely think he is not threat whatsoever and that you shouldn't do anything. It all was just out of curiousity. There also is the shoe salesman in Chile that we spent about a thousand hours and a million bucks that we could take out today, but that also was just because we were curious. We have about 28,000 other people around the world - all poising no danger whatsoever - we could kill tomorrow too if you want, because that's what we do - we plan irrelevancies just for the hell of it. We don't really plan actual missions we think are a good idea - only pointless and bad ones."

I guess if you tried really, really hard you could post something as absurd as your your messages on this topic.

 

[JustHanging]

Soooooo broken:roll:

View attachment 67271700

"Oh Oh"? Signs saying "Make Iran Great Again" would be exactly what the Mullahs want to see. Failed political cartoon.

 

[Irwin Corey]

He made the decision while at Mar-a-Lago but the decision making began several day's prior. Liberals AND many conservatives and independents will think this decision was ill-advised but most a few experts think it was a bold but correct though questionable move given in spite of the latest intelligence and recent Iranian non military attacks on American and allied interests.

fixed it for ya.

 

[Irwin Corey]

1) Trump is not a cult leader.
2) Trump is not my hero.
3) I don't even like him in any way.
4) "imminent threat" is a matter of opinion and point of view.
5) to me any Iranian official who has had Americans killed in the past is an imminent threat.

1) Umm, yeah … he is.
2) If you say so.
3) OK, I'll call bull**** on that one.
4) True, but tRump did say he needed to placate Senators who's support he needed to beat impeachment.
5) I don't think you've got the Imminent concept down.

 

[Outlook]

No. Because it's a stupid option.

Iraq now wants us to withdraw all of our troops, and Iran will take over Iraq when we do. So how, exactly, was killing the man a good option?

We should not be in Iraq. We should not be in Syria.

 

[Outlook]

No. Because it's a stupid option.

Iraq now wants us to withdraw all of our troops, and Iran will take over Iraq when we do. So how, exactly, was killing the man a good option?

Question
Was it a good option to assassinate an America citizen in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki and 16 year old son and others in the family?

 

[Dayton3]

1) Umm, yeah … he is.

So you find it impossible to believe that a reasonable person can support President Trump despite finding him utterly repulsive and loathsome.?

You expect us to believe that you have never supported someone in politics that you can't stand?

 

[Deuce]

Much better than the option of leaving him alive.

You didn’t know who this guy was two weeks ago. He was not an imminent threat to our nation.

 

[Deuce]

:lamo The military, the Pentagon and CIA go to exorbitant lengths for find that Iranian General, set up all needed to take him out at an exact time and place - and then runs to the president saying "we spent thousands of manpower hours and spent a few million over the last couple of months - and have everything ready to take out Iran's #1 general arranging attacks against our troops - but there will only be a few minutes of opportunity. We did all this because we absolutely think he is not threat whatsoever and that you shouldn't do anything. It all was just out of curiousity. There also is the shoe salesman in Chile that we spent about a thousand hours and a million bucks that we could take out today, but that also was just because we were curious. We have about 28,000 other people around the world - all poising no danger whatsoever - we could kill tomorrow too if you want, because that's what we do - we plan irrelevancies just for the hell of it. We don't really plan actual missions we think are a good idea - only pointless and bad ones."

I guess if you tried really, really hard you could post something as absurd as your your messages on this topic.

All that time.... but the threat was imminent?