It has been a few days now and the so-called imminent threat excuse to partake in the assassinations of not just Soleimani but other Iranian military leaders, as it is currently now being reported, is definitely in doubt.  It appears the US made their decisions based on hasty generalizations rather than specific evidence, as evident in Secretary Pompeo's interview of this action.


https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pompeo-spars-with-reporters-over-imminent-soleimani-threat-097175


Aside from the tragic downed airliner in Iran, things have slowed down a bit, which is a good thing.  However, the killing of foreign nationals based on questionable overgeneralized information is dangerous and has set tragic precedents that the US may regret later.

It slowed down cause iran was going to name names in the deal.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I will make it simple.
If Soleimani wasn't killed, he would still be alive.

Yes we do have an empire as long as the dollar is the world reserve currency and we can force everyone else to buy our debt. Now that several empires have come and gone people have finally figured out that it is a doomed situation, calling oneself an Empire is not very fashionable. For instance instead of the German empire we call it the EU, etc. As far as empires go America was definitely not one of the worst ones, but if/when China takes over the number one spot their style might involve a little less carrot and a lot more stick. At least here we make a big show about pretending to care about human rights, etc.

As far as Trump vaporizing Solemani there are a lot more fans than Isis and American Conservatives. Iran has been hijacked by a religious extremist regime for decades now and their population is starting to get a lot bolder about showing their disdain for the Ayatollah. New protests are firing up after the Ukrainian passenger plane was shot down by mistake and initially lied about, at least until it became clear they could not hide the truth any more. Also Trump is using back channel communications with the regime that have more of a diplomatic tone than what is going out over Twitter.

Geopolitics is extremely complicated and boiling it down to Right Vs Wrong is an attack on reason.

Yes we do have an empire as long as the dollar is the world reserve currency and we can force everyone else to buy our debt. Now that several empires have come and gone people have finally figured out that it is a doomed situation, calling oneself an Empire is not very fashionable. For instance instead of the German empire we call it the EU, etc. As far as empires go America was definitely not one of the worst ones, but if/when China takes over the number one spot their style might involve a little less carrot and a lot more stick. At least here we make a big show about pretending to care about human rights, etc.

With the level of education, communication between people at long distances, and free information via the Internet, it is impossible for the old models of empire to exist from now and in the future.  The way the American empire operates today is a direct result of those new factors.  Moreover, once the other relevant powers are ready and decide to dump the US Dollar, the US will most likely balkanize according to the divisions already seen in the country.  Hence, I would go as far to say that the US is living on borrowed time as much as it funds itself on borrowed money.

As for China, I would not worry about them too much.  Yes, they are going to regain their status of empire, however, unlike other empires, they will be more focused on keeping their own people under control and making money rather than conquering others.

As for China, I would not worry about them too much.  Yes, they are going to regain their status of empire, however, unlike other empires, they will be more focused on keeping their own people under control and making money rather than conquering others.

That’s a huge mistake to not worry about China. Not only their perceived influence, but what the MSM doesn’t cover in terms of their influence and dealings. It’s what you don’t see...

That’s a huge mistake to not worry about China. Not only their perceived influence, but what the MSM doesn’t cover in terms of their influence and dealings. It’s what you don’t see...

I agree with you. At least for now. I believe the Chinese have been dealt a bigger blow by Trump than is readily known. Assuming they are no longer stealing our IP from our companies and assuming they are not able to readily steal our military technology as readily as they were, I believe they will start falling behind again in military technology and assets. Our budget is being used to advance our technological advantage. The Chinese are building new but stagnant technology that will be older and able to be defeated when they finally roll out their advanced technologies due to being cut off by Trump. Eventually, when China finds another way to steal our technology again, and they will, we will have to start worrying more about them again. But I agree, we should never stop worrying about them. That is why they are in the position they are now. We stopped paying attention to them and focussed on others.

With the level of education, communication between people at long distances, and free information via the Internet, it is impossible for the old models of empire to exist from now and in the future.  The way the American empire operates today is a direct result of those new factors.  Moreover, once the other relevant powers are ready and decide to dump the US Dollar, the US will most likely balkanize according to the divisions already seen in the country.  Hence, I would go as far to say that the US is living on borrowed time as much as it funds itself on borrowed money.

As for China, I would not worry about them too much.  Yes, they are going to regain their status of empire, however, unlike other empires, they will be more focused on keeping their own people under control and making money rather than conquering others.

I don’t want to get into a discussion regarding the “American empire” as I am sure you and I don’t agree on that. So I am going to stick to the one thing you mentioned here and that is the USD. The USD is backed by the US economy. We went off the gold standard and created the FED a long time ago. I don’t like the fact we went off the gold standard but I understand why we did. Also, I don’t necessarily agree with the FED tho I understand the idea behind it. The FED has too much power IMHO. And they are not voted into place. I also don’t like the fact that the dollar is backed by our economy. If we fall into a recession the world’s bad actors are going to do what they usually do and to bitch and moan about how the dollar dominates the world and how we should switch to their currency or one less valuable and less stable. Because let’s face it, even in a recession our currency is much weaker and less stable it is still stronger and and more stable than the next logical choices like the Yen or British Pound Sterling. Also, as the US economy goes, so does the rest of the world, generally speaking. The bad actors of the world have been trying for years to get the world to move to another currency. It will never happen unless the perfect storm happens. That would have to be a depression the likes the world has never seen, the stock market crashes for weeks and months on end, the confidence in the US economy crashes and the FED makes the wrong move before to help cause and afterwards in response to these happenings. I’m not saying this perfect storm cannot happen, just saying the chance of all of this happening at the same time is very unlikely. But it is not impossible. It only makes sense for the world to continue to use the strongest currency in the world. And our currency is the strongest by so far, no other currency comes close. It is also relatively stable.

The real issue, from my point of view only, for not switching from the dollar to another currency is that the world trusts that we will not manipulate our currency to change the value by unacceptable means. Meaning against the WTO/WBO/International rules and norms. All countries manipulate their currency one way or another including us. Those that are a part of international banking system abide by certain rules and accepted norms. The problem occurs when countries such as China and Russia manipulate their currencies to exact punishment on another country(s). In the same way China tried to do it in response to our tariffs. Trump called them out on it and the next day China undid their currency manipulation because they did it in a manner that is not accepted by international norms. They consider such immediate changes as illegal as it is considered to be unstable to the world’s currencies. Which is the reason the Yuan and the Ruble will never become the de facto currency standard. Can you imagine a bad actor having control over the value of the world’s accepted currency? Which is the argument for not going to the Yen or British Pound Sterling. It would be too easy for the bad actors of the world to gang up to try and destroy Japan’s or England’s economy in order to destabilize the world’s de facto currency and hence the world’s economies. Including the US’s economy. We won’t be switching anytime soon.

That’s a huge mistake to not worry about China. Not only their perceived influence, but what the MSM doesn’t cover in terms of their influence and dealings. It’s what you don’t see...

The reason why I do not worry about a China when she will regain her status as an empire is the fact that we have seen her historical behavior in her past with respect to her neighbors when she was an empire.  The only time China truly exhibited a penchant for global conquest was during the era when the Mongols ruled China.  Indeed, under Mongol leadership, the whole World saw what China could do if she wanted to rule the planet.  Fortunately and, as a continuing lesson for wannabe empires, such reign will be temporary, more so today than in the past.

Case-in-point, when the Yuan Dynasty (Mongols) itself collapsed, the subsequent Ming Dynasty did not seriously attempt any actions of reclaiming those territories that belonged to the previous dynasty.  If the contrary was the case, Mongol incursions notwithstanding, the Koreas and the majority of Southeast Asia would have become a part of China along time ago.

The basis of the American empire does not lie with its military machine, but with the US Dollar that is manipulated by the FED.  The US via the FED is the NUMBER 1 manipulator of currencies as well as economies around the Globe.

Basic macroeconomics here:

If the FED decides to increase the money supply in the US via the interest rate options that it has, the value of foreign currencies AUTOMATICALLY adjusts to the new exchange rate.  Hence, a country such as China that sells its products to the US, in this case, will have their products become more expensive overnight, since the value of the US dollar decreased and lost its purchasing power parity, resulting in a drop of exports that decreases China's GDP.

As you can see, this mechanism can theoretically be WEAPONIZED and has been used to attack China's exports to America in the past, in the explicit effort to make their items ARTIFICIALLY more expensive, and control their economic growth.  However, China has responded to those moves with its centrally controlled monetary policy, whose aims were to maintain the existing US-China exchange rate to defend their exports to America.

Consequently, the accusation of China manipulating its currency is very misleading and is obviously propagandized in the US as unfair.  Seeing that the US does the same currency manipulation, albeit, through the FED for its own geopolitical purposes, China is JUSTIFIED in its own monetary policy that is consistent with its own national interests.

The fact the US has currently resorted to tariffs exemplifies exactly what myself and other honest economists have said about Trump's trade war with China.  It is the US who can't compete economically with China FAIRLY, despite its own currency manipulation and has to resort to tariffs to prop up its lack of economic competitiveness.

WOW.  The truth gets more damning by the day.

It seems America's Secretary of Defense Esper, himself, did not see specific evidence that Soleimani was planning "Imminent Attacks" that necessitated his immediate assassination by US missile strikes in a foreign country without Iraqi government approval.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/defense-chief-didnt-see-specific-evidence-of-iranian-threat-to-embassies/ar-BBYSovw?li=BBnbcA1

WOW.  The truth gets more damning by the day.

It seems America's Secretary of Defense Esper, himself, did not see specific evidence that Soleimani was planning "Imminent Attacks" that necessitated his immediate assassination by US missile strikes in a foreign country without Iraqi government approval.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/defense-chief-didnt-see-specific-evidence-of-iranian-threat-to-embassies/ar-BBYSovw?li=BBnbcA1

You're pushing a fake premise: that the only reason to take out a dangerous person that threatens our people is to prove "he was going to do it again tomorrow."

His history shows he's not about to stop the terrorism he's been visiting on the world for decades.  We obtained intelligence in April 2019 from a defector that included classified documents on those terror networks and plans.  To disclose details would risk SOURCES AND METHODS, which might logically include insiders who are helping the defector feed us current INTEL.

The US has a history of terminating foreign nationals who attack us.  We killed Osama Bin Laden.  Was he an "imminent threat?"  In 1943, we killed the Japanese officer who planned the Pearl Harbor attack, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, in "Operation Vengeance".  Was he an "imminent threat?"

My point is, you are creating some "rule" under which the President must operate when deciding whether to eliminate an enemy of the US or not.  Bill Clinton was given a large portion of the blame for the 9-11 World Trade Center attack because he chose more than once to not take out Bin Laden when presented with multiple opportunities.  Bin Laden WAS an imminent threat.  However, we had no way of knowing the timeline he was using.  So, by your reasoning, we must catch these guys IN THE ACT before justifying our response.

Just because someone is not telegraphing their plans to us does not mean the threat is not imminent.  It's so easy for people like you to make criticisms from your "Monday morning quarterback" vantage point.  But, when the opportunity to take out a KNOWN  and DESIGNATED TERRORIST who is GOING TO KILL AGAIN AND AGAIN (just a matter of when), the decision has to be made on the spot and inside often a very narrow window of opportunity.

He was orchestrating the attack on the Baghdad Embassy.  Sounds like an imminent threat to US citizens existed, especially when our INTEL said he was targeting more US embassies.  He's believed to have been behind the Benghazi attack that killed an ambassador and 3 other US diplomats.  Believing he planned attacks on other embassies is not unreasonable.

You're pushing a fake premise: that the only reason to take out a dangerous person that threatens our people is to prove "he was going to do it again tomorrow."

His history shows he's not about to stop the terrorism he's been visiting on the world for decades.  We obtained intelligence in April 2019 from a defector that included classified documents on those terror networks and plans.  To disclose details would risk SOURCES AND METHODS, which might logically include insiders who are helping the defector feed us current INTEL.

The US has a history of terminating foreign nationals who attack us.  We killed Osama Bin Laden.  Was he an "imminent threat?"  In 1943, we killed the Japanese officer who planned the Pearl Harbor attack, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, in "Operation Vengeance".  Was he an "imminent threat?"

My point is, you are creating some "rule" under which the President must operate when deciding whether to eliminate an enemy of the US or not.  Bill Clinton was given a large portion of the blame for the 9-11 World Trade Center attack because he chose more than once to not take out Bin Laden when presented with multiple opportunities.  Bin Laden WAS an imminent threat.  However, we had no way of knowing the timeline he was using.  So, by your reasoning, we must catch these guys IN THE ACT before justifying our response.

Just because someone is not telegraphing their plans to us does not mean the threat is not imminent.  It's so easy for people like you to make criticisms from your "Monday morning quarterback" vantage point.  But, when the opportunity to take out a KNOWN  and DESIGNATED TERRORIST who is GOING TO KILL AGAIN AND AGAIN (just a matter of when), the decision has to be made on the spot and inside often a very narrow window of opportunity.

He was orchestrating the attack on the Baghdad Embassy.  Sounds like an imminent threat to US citizens existed, especially when our INTEL said he was targeting more US embassies.  He's believed to have been behind the Benghazi attack that killed an ambassador and 3 other US diplomats.  Believing he planned attacks on other embassies is not unreasonable.

Do you realize what you truly arguing for?

By your logic, the US should attempt an assassination of President Putin of Russia.  He is constantly being demonized by America as having orchestrated the independence of Crimea from America's ally Ukraine as well as the mastermind of the so-called meddling in the Presidential elections of the US.  If one believes in the evidence used to justify these accusations, President Putin is clearly a present danger to the US and her allies.

Does this mean the US has the legal justification to assassinate him?

Do you realize what you truly arguing for?

By your logic, the US should attempt an assassination of President Putin of Russia.  He is constantly being demonized by America as having orchestrated the independence of Crimea from America's ally Ukraine as well as the mastermind of the so-called meddling in the Presidential elections of the US.  If one believes in the evidence used to justify these accusations, President Putin is clearly a present danger to the US and her allies.

Does this mean the US has the legal justification to assassinate him?

Bullshit --- literally bullshit.

Has Putin attacked the US and taken American lives?  Has he taught militias like Hezbollah to use missiles and IEDs?  Has he attacked even ONE US Embassy?

You're pushing ANOTHER fake premise:  that all enemies of the US are the same.

You're delusional.  And I say that with all due respect for delusional people everywhere.

Bullshit --- literally bullshit.

Has Putin attacked the US and taken American lives?  Has he taught militias like Hezbollah to use missiles and IEDs?  Has he attacked even ONE US Embassy?

You're pushing ANOTHER fake premise:  that all enemies of the US are the same.

You're delusional.  And I say that with all due respect for delusional people everywhere.

If anything, it is you who appears to be a paid shill to act as an apologist for any illegal military action abroad or police brutality against Americans domestically, in order to brainwash everyone in compliance of any un-American injustices that occur.

If anything, it is you who appears to be a paid shill to act as an apologist for any illegal military action abroad or police brutality against Americans domestically, in order to brainwash everyone in compliance of any un-American injustices that occur.

or, he has a valid opinion...

or, he has a valid opinion...

Could you clarify what opinion are you referencing?

Is it his delusional personal attacks of my person?

If anything, it is you who appears to be a paid shill to act as an apologist for any illegal military action abroad or police brutality against Americans domestically, in order to brainwash everyone in compliance of any un-American injustices that occur.

Prove what "military action" Trump has taken that was "illegal."

Even the MSM has admitted Trump taking out Soleimani was 100%, undeniably legal.

Obama, on the other hand, droned American citizens while overseas.  No imminent threat reported.

Prove what "military action" Trump has taken that was "illegal."

Even the MSM has admitted Trump taking out Soleimani was 100%, undeniably legal.

Obama, on the other hand, droned American citizens while overseas.  No imminent threat reported.

What laws are you using to say the assassination of Soleimani was 100% legal?  If American laws, that's pretty bias to me.  Once more, it is becoming more and more clear every day that there was no "imminent threat" as was claimed.

Obama should have been brought up on war crimes as should Bush for their partaking in illegal wars of aggression.

What laws are you using to say the assassination of Soleimani was 100% legal?  If American laws, that's pretty bias to me.  Once more, it is becoming more and more clear every day that there was no "imminent threat" as was claimed.

Obama should have been brought up on war crimes as should Bush for their partaking in illegal wars of aggression.

The primary law that matters in the US -- our Constitution.

Ex-Obama DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson:
Trump had 'ample constitutional authority' to
take out Soleimani

Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson defended President Trump's order to kill Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani via drone strike last week, as members of the House prepared to vote on a War Powers Resolution meant to restrict Trump's ability to take further military action without congressional approval.

"What I have said is that under existing [Justice Department] Office of Legal Counsel [OLC] opinions on the
president's constitutional authority to engage the armed forces without a congressional authorization, if you
read those opinions, he had ample constitutional authority to take out General Soleimani, if you regard that
as an isolated strike," Johnson said on "Your World" Thursday. "What these OLC opinions say is that the
president can take lethal force so long as it's short of war if it's in the important national interest. And this
and this operation was."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/former-obama-dhs-secretary-trump-had-ample-constitutional-authority-to-take-out-soleimani

Once more, it is becoming more and more clear every day that there was no "imminent threat" as was claimed.

Once more, that's not a requirement.  It's so easy to pretend there was no imminent threat after he's dead because the threat was eliminated.

An armed person in a church killed a shotgun-wielding shooter, but not before two others were killed.  This event will not be included in the list of mass shootings for one reason:  the mass shooting was prevented.

Same thing with Soleimani.  He was taken out before another attack.  You seem to ignore the general's history and the fact that INTEL on his plans were acquired this year.  Obviously our INTEL on him was damn good, since we knew where and when we could get him.

Unless you have evidence that refutes the stated threat existed, you're just whining out of your ass.