Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Americans by more than 2-1 say the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani has made the United States less safe, a nationwide USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds, amid broad concerns about the potential consequences ahead. A majority of those surveyed, by 52%-34%, called Trump's behavior with Iran "reckless.""
If a 52-34 majority think Trump is reckless, then they also think he's not fit for office. Bad news for Trump's reelection chances.
Wag the Dog: "By 47%-39%, those surveyed said Trump ordered the killing of Soleimani in an attempt to divert the focus from his impeachment." Given the poor reception by senators at the Iran briefing -- where evidence that Soleimani was an immenent threat was lacking -- the "wag the dog" theory moves from silly conspiracy theory to a plausible explanation.
If the press told people that curing cancer was bad in the long run and took a poll, most Americans would say finding a cure for cancer isn't really a good thing.
"Americans by more than 2-1 say the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani has made the United States less safe, a nationwide USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds, amid broad concerns about the potential consequences ahead. A majority of those surveyed, by 52%-34%, called Trump's behavior with Iran "reckless.""
If a 52-34 majority think Trump is reckless, then they also think he's not fit for office. Bad news for Trump's reelection chances.
Wag the Dog: "By 47%-39%, those surveyed said Trump ordered the killing of Soleimani in an attempt to divert the focus from his impeachment." Given the poor reception by senators at the Iran briefing -- where evidence that Soleimani was an immenent threat was lacking -- the "wag the dog" theory moves from silly conspiracy theory to a plausible explanation.
You need to weigh the costs and benefits before going after every bad actor out there.
Have you considered the possibility that the Bush and Obama administrations were wrong in how they weighed the risks and benefits of killing Suleimani, and Trump is right.
Democratic Congresswoman Slotkin served as a CIA analyst in both previous administrations has this to say about Suleimani:
Yes, but everyone in the Middle East is pretty much orchestrating attacks on us because we're invading occupiers. But when you take out top national leadership figures, it does raise stakes of war quite dramatically.
And if you go by the simple rationale of "we should kill all the terrorists," then basically you're saying we have to go to war with the entire Middle East and permanently occupy it. Not exactly the Trumper rhetoric last week before this all locked up.
We could have left the guy alone and further exitest the region at not much loss. Not sure what's so much in it for us.
The other key difficulty is that now Iran's regional influence grows as Iraq now wants us out. Maybe that's a good thing. We should stop being imperialists at some point.
Yes.
Few people seem to realize WHY the "terrorists" have it out for us.
Yes.
Few people seem to realize WHY the "terrorists" have it out for us.
Maybe America's failed attempts at nation building in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya might have something to do with it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
