Post by: Jellybelly on January 02, 2020, 08:10:10 PM
Is it a declaration of war?
Post by: Willie on January 02, 2020, 08:14:23 PM
Is it true?Source?
Is it a declaration of war?
Post by: EliJelly on January 02, 2020, 08:16:07 PM
Post by: Jellybelly on January 02, 2020, 08:17:22 PM
Which one? the head of the Revolutionary Guard Qasem Soleimani?Yes
(My) Source is @kolhaolam
Post by: Jellybelly on January 02, 2020, 08:18:55 PM
Post by: Tomorrow on January 02, 2020, 08:23:43 PM
Post by: whYME on January 02, 2020, 08:24:00 PM
Is it a declaration of war?Assassinated by who?
Post by: Willie on January 02, 2020, 08:24:06 PM
Now Kol haolam says the AP confirmed itOne America news is reporting it now also.... TRUMP!!
Post by: Jellybelly on January 02, 2020, 08:24:32 PM
Assassinated by who?US airstrike
Post by: Jellybelly on January 02, 2020, 08:25:17 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 02, 2020, 08:34:42 PM
ETA: Gold just had a spike.
Post by: CountValentine on January 02, 2020, 08:59:20 PM
Post by: Toasted on January 02, 2020, 09:04:50 PM
'כן יאבדו כל אויביך ה
Post by: Boruch Parnes on January 02, 2020, 09:09:47 PM
TRUMP starting the new decade with a BANG!and the dems are looking for problems must be its a huge win for trump
'כן יאבדו כל אויביך ה
Post by: good sam on January 02, 2020, 09:13:59 PM
Post by: how on January 02, 2020, 09:14:19 PM
Post by: shapsam on January 02, 2020, 09:16:05 PM
Post by: TimT on January 02, 2020, 09:18:26 PM
Why is this in JSBecause JS is the lowest it goes.
Post by: shapsam on January 02, 2020, 09:52:28 PM
Post by: grodnoking on January 02, 2020, 10:24:51 PM
Good thing Secretary Clinton isn't president.
Post by: Moshe123 on January 02, 2020, 10:37:07 PM
Post by: Boruch Parnes on January 02, 2020, 10:40:40 PM
No reaction in the markets.oil changed
Post by: CountValentine on January 02, 2020, 10:42:18 PM
oil changedGold was the first indicator.
Post by: yelped on January 02, 2020, 10:44:34 PM
Invalid Tweet IDWhat in the world? Sick.
Post by: Jellybelly on January 02, 2020, 10:50:37 PM
😂
Post by: good sam on January 02, 2020, 11:42:26 PM
Invalid Tweet IDCan't click. What's the headline?
Post by: CountValentine on January 02, 2020, 11:44:12 PM
What in the world? Sick.What is sick?
Post by: yitzgar on January 02, 2020, 11:45:46 PM
What is sick?I think they are referring to the wapo headline calling him a revered leader
Post by: luckyluck on January 02, 2020, 11:48:20 PM
Iraqis — Iraqis — dancing in the street for freedom; thankful that General Soleimani is no more. pic.twitter.com/huFcae3ap4
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 3, 2020
Post by: yitzgar on January 02, 2020, 11:48:28 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 02, 2020, 11:52:04 PM
I think they are referring to the wapo headline calling him a revered leaderThat's what he was. He was also a murderer that got what he deserved.
Post by: yitzgar on January 02, 2020, 11:53:00 PM
That's what he was. He was also a murderer that got what he deserved.I don't know if he was revered by Iranians or not, but if he was, I don't get what the big deal is
Post by: CountValentine on January 02, 2020, 11:54:54 PM
I don't know if he was revered by Iranians or not, but if he was, I don't get what the big deal isI didn't know either so that is why I asked. Him being revered makes this strike's message even stronger.
Post by: Toasted on January 03, 2020, 12:01:06 AM
I didn't know either so that is why I asked. Him being revered makes this strike's message even stronger.Poorly spun. Wapo is trying to frame this as if Trump wounded the Iranian population implying it was a bad move. Why not "US Airstrikes Take out Evil Archterrorist"?
Tomorrow they'll have an interview with his poor widow.
Post by: CountValentine on January 03, 2020, 12:08:15 AM
Poorly spun. Wapo is trying to frame this as if Trump wounded the Iranian population implying it was a bad move. Why not "US Airstrikes Take out Evil Archterrorist"?Your brain is mush.
Post by: yitzgar on January 03, 2020, 12:09:50 AM
Poorly spun. Wapo is trying to frame this as if Trump wounded the Iranian population implying it was a bad move. Why not "US Airstrikes Take out Evil Archterrorist"?Oh please. Wapo is ultra liberal, but this is pretty innocuous. Some people have sour milk on their glasses
Tomorrow they'll have an interview with his poor widow.
Post by: Jellybelly on January 03, 2020, 12:12:41 AM
🙄
Post by: CountValentine on January 03, 2020, 12:14:16 AM
Poorly spun. Wapo is trying to frame this as if Trump wounded the Iranian population implying it was a bad move. Why not "US Airstrikes Take out Evil Archterrorist"?This is FOX's headline. Why did they call him a Top General and not a scumbag killer?
Tomorrow they'll have an interview with his poor widow.
Trump orders US military attack that kills top Iranian general in Baghdad, Tehran blasts 'escalation'
Post by: whYME on January 03, 2020, 12:17:14 AM
Why did they call him a Top General and not a scumbag killer?"Top General" is an objectively true description.
"Most Revered Leader" is meant to draw a narrative. (As is " 'escalation' ")
Post by: CountValentine on January 03, 2020, 12:21:23 AM
"Top General" is an objectively true description.They are both accurate so I fail to see why someone would harp on the one word unless they wanted to spin it. What did the article say?
"Most Revered Leader" is meant to draw a narrative. (As is " 'escalation' ")
Post by: yitzgar on January 03, 2020, 12:21:36 AM
Now deblasio’s complaining about it in Twitter.
Post by: TimT on January 03, 2020, 12:22:50 AM
Now deblasio’s complaining about it in TwitterI hope he heads over there to show solidarity with them.
🙄
Post by: CountValentine on January 03, 2020, 12:24:12 AM
I hope he heads over there to show solidarity with them.What did he say?
Post by: chinagel on January 03, 2020, 12:30:16 AM
What did he say?
Worried for our city + our nation. Without the approval of Congress, the US Government effectively declared war on Iran tonight. The American people had no say in the matter, despite voting time + again to stop endless wars + bring our troops home. This one will not end soon.
— Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) January 3, 2020
Have spoken with Commissioner Shea + Dep Commissioner Miller about immediate steps NYPD will take to protect key NYC locations from any attempt by Iran or its terrorist allies to retaliate against America. We will have to be vigilant against this threat for a long time to come.
— Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) January 3, 2020
Post by: Toasted on January 03, 2020, 12:31:25 AM
Post by: ah giten on January 03, 2020, 12:38:28 AM
Headline excellence https://t.co/q2ngzUezHh
— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) January 3, 2020
actually suprising
Post by: CountValentine on January 03, 2020, 12:40:49 AM
Why they call him #1. They trying to say he is the best? @ToastedHeadline excellence https://t.co/q2ngzUezHh
— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) January 3, 2020
actually suprising
Post by: whYME on January 03, 2020, 12:43:55 AM
Post by: how on January 03, 2020, 12:44:36 AM
Because JS is the lowest it goes.ya I see it belongs here.
Post by: whYME on January 03, 2020, 12:51:04 AM
They are both accurateNot necessarily.
There's no denying he was the top general. There's probably quite a bit of disagreement over just how revered he was.
I fail to see why someone would harp on the one word unless they wanted to spin it.Saying he's the top general is giving straight factual information about who he was.
Saying he was the most revered leader is creating the story that killing him will anger the Iranian people
What did the article say?I wouldn't know, I didn't read the article, I only saw the headline. Just like so many other people -- which is why the wording of headlines is so important.
Post by: yuneeq on January 03, 2020, 12:54:17 AM
/rəˈvir/
verb
past tense: revered; past participle: revered
feel deep respect or admiration for (something).
Post by: CountValentine on January 03, 2020, 12:54:47 AM
Saying he was the most revered leader is creating the story that killing him will anger the Iranian peopleWe will find out then in the coming days if this is accurate or not.
Post by: CountValentine on January 03, 2020, 12:55:35 AM
re·vereWould that describe OBL?
/rəˈvir/
verb
past tense: revered; past participle: revered
feel deep respect or admiration for (something).
Post by: yuneeq on January 03, 2020, 01:09:28 AM
Would that describe OBL?
Of course it describes OBL perfectly. .
Along with other perfectly accurate descriptions such as
“In a quick last minute decision, Obama assassinates beloved father and courageous leader”
Post by: whYME on January 03, 2020, 01:10:58 AM
Now deblasio’s complaining about it in TwitterGood, in case we had any doubt it was the right move we can now be sure.
🙄
If he's against it, it must've been the right move.
Post by: whYME on January 03, 2020, 01:27:11 AM
https://www.haaretz.com/amp/israel-news/u-s-gives-israel-green-light-to-assassinate-iran-s-general-soleimani-1.5630156 (https://www.haaretz.com/amp/israel-news/u-s-gives-israel-green-light-to-assassinate-iran-s-general-soleimani-1.5630156)OK, I'm a idiot. Somehow I missed the year when I looked at the date of this story. Now I understand why nobody seems to think it's a big deal (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji15.png)
Post by: Proisrael on January 03, 2020, 02:55:49 AM
Post by: aygart on January 03, 2020, 07:58:11 AM
They are both accurateSource that he was revered? (other than Wapo and the like)
Post by: shwarmabob on January 03, 2020, 08:18:06 AM
Source that he was revered? (other than Wapo and the like)https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/iran-mourning-vows-revenge-qassem-soleimani-killing-200103100607193.html
Post by: yitzgar on January 03, 2020, 08:19:43 AM
Post by: aygart on January 03, 2020, 08:24:08 AM
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/iran-mourning-vows-revenge-qassem-soleimani-killing-200103100607193.htmlI don't see anything there saying he was revered.
Post by: CountValentine on January 03, 2020, 08:25:02 AM
Source that he was revered? (other than Wapo and the like)
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/iran-mourning-vows-revenge-qassem-soleimani-killing-200103100607193.html
We will find out then in the coming days if this is accurate or not.Pretty sad when individuals will try and discredit anything from anywhere if it doesn't fit their agenda. Focusing on one silly word in a headline. ::)
Post by: TimT on January 03, 2020, 08:37:56 AM
Post by: shwarmabob on January 03, 2020, 08:56:57 AM
Post by: Boruch999 on January 03, 2020, 09:00:17 AM
Headline excellence https://t.co/q2ngzUezHh
— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) January 3, 2020
actually suprising
They were surprised themselves. They've since corrected the error.
Clarification: This headline has been updated to reflect that this is an opinion column.
— CNBC (@CNBC) January 3, 2020
Post by: CountValentine on January 03, 2020, 09:08:02 AM
It's a military strike, leave the politics out of it. He was a very significant player, strategist of the other side. Not knowing who the enemy is is not good path to follow...and we should focus on what comes next.
Post by: aygart on January 03, 2020, 09:29:34 AM
They were surprised themselves. They've since corrected the error.You feel they should have kept an opinion piece labeled as news?
Post by: Boruch999 on January 03, 2020, 09:46:52 AM
You feel they should have kept an opinion piece labeled as news?
No, but CNBC routinely publishes as news pieces that are far more opinion and much less objective than that. I'd estimate that 90% of this piece could be included in a fairly objective news piece with style adjustments.
Post by: yitzgar on January 03, 2020, 01:04:19 PM
I'd estimate that 90% of this piece could be included in a fairly objective news piece with style adjustments.
What opinion pieces used to be.....
Post by: shapsam on January 03, 2020, 02:11:56 PM
Dronan? pic.twitter.com/Bv7kO7wN3b
— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) January 3, 2020
Post by: Luvisrael on January 03, 2020, 03:08:56 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
השם ישמור
Post by: CountValentine on January 03, 2020, 03:39:24 PM
In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.
...and how about this one?
Remember what I previously said--Obama will someday attack Iran in order to show how tough he is.
Post by: CountValentine on January 04, 2020, 03:18:34 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tucker-carlson-rips-soleimani-killing-washington-has-wanted-war-with-iran-for-decades/ar-BBYC249?ocid=spartandhp
Post by: CountValentine on January 04, 2020, 08:59:07 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/celebrity/rose-mcgowan-defends-tweet-apologizing-to-iran-after-strike/ar-BBYBZEt?ocid=spartandhp
Post by: Dan on January 04, 2020, 09:14:33 PM
“Dear #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us.”Sad!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/celebrity/rose-mcgowan-defends-tweet-apologizing-to-iran-after-strike/ar-BBYBZEt?ocid=spartandhp
People would probably say the same if Trump was the one that ordered a hit on Bin Laden.
Post by: CountValentine on January 04, 2020, 09:16:03 PM
Sad!Just a leftwing nut case. I thought it is kind of funny. Like she speaks for 52% on the nation.
People would probably say the same if Trump was the one that ordered a hit on Bin Laden.
Post by: how on January 04, 2020, 09:28:03 PM
Just a leftwing nut case. I thought it is kind of funny. Like she speaks for 52% on the nation.She should go to Iran to personally deliver the apology
Post by: CountValentine on January 04, 2020, 09:33:46 PM
She should go to Iran to personally deliver the apologyI volunteer Trump. :P
Post by: CountValentine on January 04, 2020, 11:28:08 PM
Post by: EliJelly on January 04, 2020, 11:30:30 PM
“Iran has been nothing but a problem for many years,” Trump tweeted. “Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!”Finally starting to appreciate Trump? ;)
Post by: CountValentine on January 04, 2020, 11:33:09 PM
Finally starting to appreciate Trump? ;)Times like this you don't play politics. This is an extremely dangerous situation. The killing was basically an act of war.
Post by: Mordyk on January 04, 2020, 11:33:41 PM
Times like this you don't play politics. This is an extremely dangerous situation. The killing was basically an act of war.next time wait until Benghazi?
Post by: EliJelly on January 04, 2020, 11:35:34 PM
quite sickening the tweets from pelosi and many other demcorats. and since when does deblasio understand international affairs? they are totally never trump and nothing he does will every be good for them #Trump2020So they don't follow..
next time wait until Benghazi?
Times like this you don't play politics. This is an extremely dangerous situation. The killing was basically an act of war.
Post by: CountValentine on January 04, 2020, 11:39:55 PM
next time wait until Benghazi?If their is a war are you going to volunteer or for that matter anyone shooting their mouth off going to volunteer?
Post by: yelped on January 04, 2020, 11:44:07 PM
If their is a war are you going to volunteer or for that matter anyone shooting their mouth off going to volunteer?Since when are you an appeaser? This guy is responsible for deaths of many and should be put out to the pasture. We shouldn't let things slide just to delay an inevitable conflict.
Post by: CountValentine on January 04, 2020, 11:46:33 PM
Since when are you an appeaser? This guy is responsible for deaths of many and should be put out to the pasture. We shouldn't let things slide just to delay an inevitable conflict.Appeaser? >:(
Taking out a terrorist not attached to a country is one thing. Taking out the second in command of a country is another thing.
Post by: aygart on January 05, 2020, 12:05:44 AM
Since when are you an appeaser? This guy is responsible for deaths of many and should be put out to the pasture. We shouldn't let things slide just to delay an inevitable conflict.Just think about what you would be saying if a different President did this.
Post by: aygart on January 05, 2020, 12:07:47 AM
Three guesses who said this and the first two don't count. :)2 and 3
In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.
...and how about this one?
Remember what I previously said--Obama will someday attack Iran in order to show how tough he is.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 12:10:36 AM
2 and 3...and the third guess that counts is? :)
Post by: shwarmabob on January 05, 2020, 09:50:33 AM
Post by: Pad18 on January 05, 2020, 10:27:24 AM
Flying over Syria and Iraq on a commercial flight is a bit scary a few days after this
not really a big change in "scary" .. i will be scary to travel over Syria from a good few years .
Post by: aygart on January 05, 2020, 10:50:09 AM
...and the third guess that counts is? :)We all know that DJT has a tweet for all occasions, but I wasn't counting guesses.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 10:54:25 AM
We all know that DJT has a tweet for all occasions, but I wasn't counting guesses.The problem is his tweets are an insight to the way he thinks. Hopefully this isn't the case or another Gulf of Tonkin.
I can see all the grasshoppers giving Google a work out. ;)
Post by: TimT on January 05, 2020, 11:06:35 AM
Post by: aygart on January 05, 2020, 11:49:50 AM
The problem is his tweets are an insight to the way he thinks. Hopefully this isn't the case or another Gulf of Tonkin.You know what I have to say about the sincerity of politicians.
I can see all the grasshoppers giving Google a work out. ;)
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 11:56:41 AM
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 12:38:23 PM
Post by: yelped on January 05, 2020, 02:24:36 PM
Just think about what you would be saying if a different President did this.The same exact thing. I am actually of the opinion that even Obama were he in the same position of Iran constantly pushing the most they can and escalating, would have done the same thing.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 02:54:23 PM
The same exact thing. I am actually of the opinion that even Obama were he in the same position of Iran constantly pushing the most they can and escalating, would have done the same thing.Past presidents (D and R) had the option but never went that route. They would not even give Israel the green light to take him out.
Post by: Boruch Parnes on January 05, 2020, 03:08:44 PM
Post by: yelped on January 05, 2020, 03:17:24 PM
Past presidents (D and R) had the option but never went that route. They would not even give Israel the green light to take him out.That was Obama in his single-minded quest to make a deal with Iran at all costs that left the Iranians laughing all the way to the bank. Nevermind the personal enmity with Netanyahu.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 03:21:18 PM
That was Obama in his single-minded quest to make a deal with Iran at all costs that left the Iranians laughing all the way to the bank. Nevermind the personal enmity with Netanyahu.How does a war with Iran with many US deaths benefit the US?
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 03:23:13 PM
Post by: yelped on January 05, 2020, 03:24:26 PM
How does a war with Iran with many US deaths benefit the US?What do you think Iran is looking for besides war with the West? Don't fool yourself. They only understand power. The problem with Trump is that he's mostly a paper tiger. He's a coward. Once in a while, he'll do something right.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 03:26:50 PM
What do you think Iran is looking for besides war with the West? Don't fool yourself. They only understand power. The problem with Trump is that he's mostly a paper tiger. He's a coward. Once in a while, he'll do something right.I didn't see an answer to my question.
Post by: yelped on January 05, 2020, 03:29:51 PM
I didn't see an answer to my question.I do.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 03:31:35 PM
I do.Where?
Post by: yelped on January 05, 2020, 03:36:38 PM
Where?Iran is seeking war. Period. Why wait until they are able to strengthen themselves? Why give them money and license to arm themselves? Why give them free reign to terrorize the world with impunity? Why should America's president be the next Chamberlain (or worse)?
Best case we could hope for is regime change. We bungled a few chances under Obama, as Obama and the European bureaucrats like the Mullahs better than the Iranian people, apparently.
Post by: gingyguy on January 05, 2020, 03:37:29 PM
Anybody know if neturei karta are sitting shiva here or in Iran ?Invalid Tweet ID
Post by: yelped on January 05, 2020, 03:39:47 PM
Invalid Tweet IDObviously a spoof account. Some funny stuff on there.
Post by: Dan on January 05, 2020, 03:51:40 PM
Hopefully this prevents further attacks from Iran and avoids a war by making them realize that America won't be bullied.
Post by: Moshe123 on January 05, 2020, 03:55:24 PM
This was a power play by Trump and he eliminated someone with American blood on his hands.
Hopefully this prevents further attacks from Iran and avoids a war by making them realize that America won't be bullied.
I am itching for a war, so America can crush Iran.
Post by: Dan on January 05, 2020, 03:56:23 PM
I am itching for a war, so America can crush Iran.Like we crushed Iraq and Afghanistan?
Post by: chinagel on January 05, 2020, 03:59:34 PM
Like we crushed Iraq and Afghanistan?Just need a COWARD president who will pull out after 3 weeks.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 04:13:14 PM
I am itching for a war, so America can crush Iran.You going to go fight?
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 04:15:41 PM
Iran is seeking war. Period. Why wait until they are able to strengthen themselves? Why give them money and license to arm themselves? Why give them free reign to terrorize the world with impunity? Why should America's president be the next Chamberlain (or worse)?All you keep doing is asking questions. Try answering the question or I will assume there is no benefit for the US.
Best case we could hope for is regime change. We bungled a few chances under Obama, as Obama and the European bureaucrats like the Mullahs better than the Iranian people, apparently.
How does a war with Iran with many US deaths benefit the US?
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 04:18:50 PM
This was a power play by Trump and he eliminated someone with American blood on his hands.A power play by basically declaring war on Iran?
Hopefully this prevents further attacks from Iran and avoids a war by making them realize that America won't be bullied.
How about an act by a bully that has great potential to fail miserably?
Post by: whYME on January 05, 2020, 04:19:35 PM
How does a war with Iran with many US deaths benefit the US?So you're coming with a premise that Iran/Sulameini weren't killing Americans until now and now there's going to be a full-blown war and things will get much worse.
The counter to that is that they were already killing Americans (mostly through their proxies) and doing this helps make the world a safer place in the long run -- even if there a short-term uptick in casualties.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 04:26:24 PM
So you're coming with a premise that Iran/Sulameini weren't killing Americans until now and now there's going to be a full-blown war and things will get much worse.Of course they have been plotting and killing Americans and others. No one is arguing should a person like that be killed. The question is will doing so start a war. You think the plotting and killing will stop?
The counter to that is that they were already killing Americans (mostly through their proxies) and doing this helps make the world a safer place in the long run -- even if there a short-term uptick in casualties.If there is a war it is not going to be just an uptick in casualties.
Post by: yelped on January 05, 2020, 04:32:41 PM
Post by: Dan on January 05, 2020, 04:34:44 PM
Of course they have been plotting and killing Americans and others. No one is arguing should a person like that be killed. The question is will doing so start a war. You think the plotting and killing will stop?If there is a war it is going to be just an uptick in casualties.Iran isn't dumb enough to get into a war. This will save American lives as they'll think twice before messing with us.
Shall we put $20 on it?
Post by: Boruch999 on January 05, 2020, 04:35:03 PM
ETA: Dan beat me to it.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 04:39:03 PM
Iran isn't dumb enough to get into a war. This will save American lives as they'll think twice before messing with us.I don't bet when it comes to American lives and I will assume you didn't mean it that way.
Shall we put $20 on it?
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 04:41:14 PM
Iran isn't dumb enough to get into a war.What happens if they take out an oil tanker? What if they attack Israel?
The US will have to respond and it will split this country like never before.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 04:44:00 PM
@Are you really not capable of understanding Middle Eastern culture and learning from history?Learning from history? Is this KAC using alternate history?
Post by: yelped on January 05, 2020, 04:46:12 PM
What happens if they take out an oil tanker? What if they attack Israel?They did both already. The US should respond forcefully and teach them a lesson. This is the language they speak. Not whining fearfully about war.
The US will have to respond and it will split this country like never before.
Post by: zagguru on January 05, 2020, 04:47:35 PM
What happens if they take out an oil tanker? What if they attack Israel?
The US will have to respond and it will split this country like never before.
Can we at least agree that Sanders and other left-wing politicians calling it an "assassination" is just wrong and anti-american?
Post by: Dan on January 05, 2020, 04:47:45 PM
I don't bet when it comes to American lives and I will assume you didn't mean it that way.We're not betting on American lives. You seem convinced this will lead to a declaration of war. I think the opposite is true.
Post by: whYME on January 05, 2020, 04:55:19 PM
If there is a war it is not going to be just an uptick in casualties.
Iran isn't dumb enough to get into a war.Exactly. They talk a big talk but at the end of the day their #1 goal is to stay in power. The last thing they want is all out war with the US. Because whatever the ultimate result of that would be, one thing that's absolutely certain is that the current regime will be knocked out.
I think we'll probably see more proxy attacks, probably primarily on Saudi Arabia & Israel.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 04:56:04 PM
We're not betting on American lives. You seem convinced this will lead to a declaration of war. I think the opposite is true.War will cause American deaths.
I am convinced like past R/D Presidents it is not worth the risk.
Post by: yelped on January 05, 2020, 04:58:33 PM
War will cause American deaths.You're putting on a very convincing case that you're burying your head in the sand.
I am convinced like past R/D Presidents it is not worth the risk.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 04:58:53 PM
I think we'll probably see more proxy attacks, probably primarily on Saudi Arabia & Israel.And then what? We do nothing or escalate our attacks?
Post by: yelped on January 05, 2020, 05:00:31 PM
And then what? We do nothing or escalate our attacks?Depends on how damaging their proxy attacks are.
Post by: Dan on January 05, 2020, 05:01:02 PM
Exactly. They talk a big talk but at the end of the day their #1 goal is to stay in power. The last thing they want is all out war with the US. Because whatever the ultimate result of that would be, one thing that's absolutely certain is that the current regime will be knocked out.+1. More proxy attacks. Fewer attacks on American targets and embassies.
I think we'll probably see more proxy attacks, probably primarily on Saudi Arabia & Israel.
But they about Trump's fondness for Israel and hopefully think twice there as well.
Iran's primary agenda is avoiding a war that will lead to regime change. They are still learning how much trouble they can cause without starting a war.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 05:02:19 PM
You're putting on a very convincing case that you're burying your head in the sand.Iran is no threat to the US.
Post by: whYME on January 05, 2020, 05:06:14 PM
And then what? We do nothing or escalate our attacks?1. I meant to say in the short-term.
2.
Depends on how damaging their proxy attacks are.
Ultimately it comes down to this
Iran's primary agenda is avoiding a war that will lead to regime change. They are still learning how much trouble they can cause without starting a war.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 05:07:35 PM
Why of this unheard of support for this action?
Post by: yelped on January 05, 2020, 05:10:25 PM
When you read this thread it is like 99% favoring what Trump did. Even from some who don't support Trump. I am going to guess the country is probably split over this.Because we know more about Iran and understand their thinking more than some random person on the street since we are very much involved in the region.
Why of this unheard of support for this action?
Post by: whYME on January 05, 2020, 05:11:29 PM
When you read this thread it is like 99% favoring what Trump did. Even from some who don't support Trump. I am going to guess the country is probably split over this.Because even those who don't support or like Trump (hopefully) dislike Iran a lot more.
Why of this unheard of support for this action?
Post by: PlatinumGuy on January 05, 2020, 05:16:08 PM
When you read this thread it is like 99% favoring what Trump did. Even from some who don't support Trump. I am going to guess the country is probably split over this.Because the current Iran regime is an existential threat to Israel, and there is no way they emerge stronger from this.
Why of this unheard of support for this action?
Post by: aygart on January 05, 2020, 05:19:47 PM
When you read this thread it is like 99% favoring what Trump did. Even from some who don't support Trump. I am going to guess the country is probably split over this.How did I know this would end up here?
Why of this unheard of support for this action?
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 05:20:23 PM
Because the current Iran regime is an existential threat to Israel, and there is no way they emerge stronger from this.Appreciate the honest answer.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 05:21:20 PM
How did I know this would end up here?Because it is hard for many here to look at this objectively.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 05:21:30 PM
Post by: whYME on January 05, 2020, 05:23:55 PM
Because the current Iran regime is an existential threat to Israel, and there is no way they emerge stronger from this.Wait, are you saying that we shouldn't have just shipped them more pallets of cash instead? (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji14.png)
(I'm so gonna regret going there, I really don't have time for this now
)Post by: Moshe123 on January 05, 2020, 05:24:57 PM
Like we crushed Iraq and Afghanistan?
Only need to crush the regime. I don't care if utter chaos follows there. In and out in a matter of weeks.
The only reason Iran can do as much damage as it's doing, is that there is a solid regime behind it all.
Post by: Dan on January 05, 2020, 05:28:57 PM
Only need to crush the regime. I don't care if utter chaos follows there. In and out in a matter of weeks.Not going to happen. Iran would have to do something really dumb to get to that point. And despite what some in this thread think, they won't. Because they're not dumb.
The only reason Iran can do as much damage as it's doing, is that there is a solid regime behind it all.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 05:39:44 PM
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!
Post by: Dan on January 05, 2020, 05:41:09 PM
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!Good. Make sure Iran knows that the USA won't be bullied and they won't kill more Americans.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 05:45:24 PM
Make sure Iran knows that the USA won't be bullied and they won't kill more Americans.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/three-americans-killed-in-kenya-terror-attack/ar-BBYDyAV?ocid=spartanntp
Post by: Mordyk on January 05, 2020, 05:54:03 PM
Worst fear has always been this idiot was going to get Americans killed needlessly. He just keeps adding to that fear. He really believes he is the "Chosen One".Gotta love him!!
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!
Post by: yelped on January 05, 2020, 06:37:49 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-ends-nuclear-limits-as-killing-of-iranian-general-upends-mideast/ar-BBYDdpd?ocid=spartandhpSo you really think they stuck to any limits until now?
Post by: Boruch Parnes on January 05, 2020, 06:49:10 PM
Worst fear has always been this idiot was going to get Americans killed needlessly. He just keeps adding to that fear. He really believes he is the "Chosen One".Im begining to think that its an impeachable offense
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!
Post by: TimT on January 05, 2020, 06:58:29 PM
Im begining to think that its an impeachable offenseEspecially if there was collusion involved.
Post by: Boruch Parnes on January 05, 2020, 07:01:14 PM
Especially if there was collusion involved.there was for sure collussion between trump and pompeo we dont even need an investigation for this
Post by: how on January 05, 2020, 07:18:00 PM
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!He prepared the notification articles for congress, he is just not sending them over until he is sure he will be treated fairly
Post by: ltttc on January 05, 2020, 07:22:01 PM
So far no Iranian response wonder if their just going to threatenThey issued 3 days of prayer and then revenge
Post by: EliJelly on January 05, 2020, 07:51:36 PM
Worst fear has always been this idiot was going to get Americans killed needlessly. He just keeps adding to that fear. He really believes he is the "Chosen One"."Only thing we should fear is fear itself" - FDR
Iran saw and exploited the fear that you and the likes have of going into war, now they'll rethink twice, ultimately lowering the actual likelihood for a war.
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 07:54:31 PM
Iran saw and exploited the fear that you and the likes have of going into war, now they'll rethink twice, ultimately lowering the actual likelihood for a war.The fear is not war, the fear is a needless war for his ego.
Post by: EliJelly on January 05, 2020, 07:57:43 PM
The fear is not war, the fear is a needless war for his ego.Thanks God Iran has a far greater fear of this.
Post by: zagguru on January 05, 2020, 08:10:58 PM
Just incredible
Post by: dealfinder11 on January 05, 2020, 08:24:38 PM
Past presidents (D and R) had the option but never went that route. They would not even give Israel the green light to take him out.
really well written article by Holman Jenkins
https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-iran-trump-says-yes-we-can-11578093606
Post by: dealfinder11 on January 05, 2020, 08:32:00 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 05, 2020, 08:42:15 PM
The smarter cable TV commentators spent Friday patiently disowning any particular forecast or insight into how events in the Middle East would play out now that the U.S. has assassinated Iran’s terrorist chief, Qasem Soleimani, with a drone strike on his car as he was leaving Baghdad’s airport.
Can we at least agree that Sanders and other left-wing politicians calling it an "assassination" is just wrong and anti-american?
Post by: aygart on January 06, 2020, 08:23:24 AM
Post by: Jellybelly on January 06, 2020, 08:27:47 AM
Trump is an idiot for threatening cultural sites. Besides the ethical issues and how it blurs the separation between us and ISIS, it is a great way to mobilize the Iranian public behind the current regime in any conflict.He says these things just to make the Dems crazy
Doubt he’d actually do it
Post by: yitzgar on January 06, 2020, 08:29:34 AM
He says these things just to make the Dems crazyDoesn't change anything
Doubt he’d actually do it
Post by: aygart on January 06, 2020, 08:30:53 AM
He says these things just to make the Dems crazyThe threat itself is problematic.
Doubt he’d actually do it
Post by: Dan on January 06, 2020, 08:32:41 AM
Trump is an idiot for threatening cultural sites. Besides the ethical issues and how it blurs the separation between us and ISIS, it is a great way to mobilize the Iranian public behind the current regime in any conflict.Yup
Post by: Boruch Parnes on January 06, 2020, 08:50:43 AM
Post by: aygart on January 06, 2020, 09:37:55 AM
If only Trump would be on DDF he would be doing everything perfectlySince when does he listen to advice?
Post by: dealfinder11 on January 06, 2020, 09:39:59 AM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-and-iran-11578262553?mod=opinion_lead_pos5
Post by: CountValentine on January 06, 2020, 11:47:59 AM
He says these things just to make the Dems crazyKeep enabling him.
Doubt he’d actually do it
This is who he is, a complete ego maniac idiot. He thinks he knows more than all our great military minds.
Post by: CountValentine on January 06, 2020, 12:06:51 PM
Post by: gozalim on January 06, 2020, 12:27:55 PM
ayatollahs would be cultural targets, no?
Post by: Dan on January 06, 2020, 12:28:54 PM
I think he said cultural targets, not necessarily sitesAre they revered and austere scholars?
ayatollahs would be cultural targets, no?
Post by: Dan on January 06, 2020, 01:18:12 PM
This is really a great article. From Joe Lieberman.Fantastic. Joe for President!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-and-iran-11578262553?mod=opinion_lead_pos5
Post by: CountValentine on January 06, 2020, 01:23:48 PM
Fantastic. Joe for President!You might get your wish. 😁
Post by: jj1000 on January 06, 2020, 01:52:04 PM
?s=19This Media Post will serve as a reminder that war powers reside in the Congress under the United States Constitution. And that you should read the War Powers Act. And that you’re not a dictator. https://t.co/VTroMegWv0
— House Foreign Affairs Committee (@HouseForeign) January 5, 2020
Post by: aygart on January 06, 2020, 02:38:54 PM
?s=19This Media Post will serve as a reminder that war powers reside in the Congress under the United States Constitution. And that you should read the War Powers Act. And that you’re not a dictator. https://t.co/VTroMegWv0
— House Foreign Affairs Committee (@HouseForeign) January 5, 2020
Every president since the passage of the War Powers Act over the veto of President Nixon has maintained that it was unconstitutional and that the president has the right as commander in chief to act unilaterally.
This is besides that action against Iran can easily be included in Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists)[/size] from 2001.
[/color]
Post by: Malachi on January 06, 2020, 02:39:01 PM
Keep enabling him.The same ones who told us that moving the embassy to Jerusalem would make the region more volatile? I am tired of the apologists for our enemies who are always afraid of hurting our enemies more than protecting us.
This is who he is, a complete ego maniac idiot. He thinks he knows more than all our great military minds.
Post by: Toasted on January 06, 2020, 03:05:33 PM
This is really a great article. From Joe Lieberman.Can someone help with the paywall?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-and-iran-11578262553?mod=opinion_lead_pos5
Post by: Shmobaum on January 06, 2020, 03:09:31 PM
The same ones who told us that moving the embassy to Jerusalem would make the region more volatile? I am tired of the apologists for our enemies who are always afraid of hurting our enemies more than protecting us.You’re so right!
Post by: EliJelly on January 06, 2020, 03:31:08 PM
Can someone help with the paywall?+1
Any volunteer to be the copy/paster?
Post by: CountValentine on January 06, 2020, 04:11:42 PM
The same ones who told us that moving the embassy to Jerusalem would make the region more volatile? I am tired of the apologists for our enemies who are always afraid of hurting our enemies more than protecting us.How did moving the embassy benefit the US? It sure didn't help the peace process. Who is "us" you are talking about?
Post by: Something Fishy on January 06, 2020, 04:25:10 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 06, 2020, 04:30:09 PM
Thread title updated.How about this for a title? Israel turns its back on the US?
<Ducks and runs>
But the response of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was particularly striking, as he has been one of Trump’s staunchest supporters on the world stage. He told a meeting of his security cabinet on Monday: “The assassination of Suleimani isn’t an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be dragged into it.”
ETA: I fully expect Israel to change its tune.
Post by: Something Fishy on January 06, 2020, 04:32:24 PM
How about this for a title? Israel turns its back on the US?
But the response of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was particularly striking, as he has been one of Trump’s staunchest supporters on the world stage. He told a meeting of his security cabinet on Monday: “The assassination of Suleimani isn’t an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be dragged into it.”
What does that have to do with anything?
I think that we can all agree that this was the taking out of a terrorist, not an assassination of a "military leader".
Post by: CountValentine on January 06, 2020, 04:34:58 PM
What does that have to do with anything?Everyone seems to be calling it an "assassination" even our so-called allies.
I think that we can all agree that this was the taking out of a terrorist, not an assassination of a "military leader".
Wouldn't the top terrorist be the leader of Iran?
Post by: Boruch Parnes on January 06, 2020, 04:57:00 PM
How about this for a title? Israel turns its back on the US?Bibi also said that trump deserves full credit
But the response of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was particularly striking, as he has been one of Trump’s staunchest supporters on the world stage. He told a meeting of his security cabinet on Monday: “The assassination of Suleimani isn’t an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be dragged into it.”
ETA: I fully expect Israel to change its tune.
Post by: CountValentine on January 06, 2020, 05:02:57 PM
Bibi also said that trump deserves full creditOf course he said that. He wants nothing to do with this.
Post by: jj1000 on January 06, 2020, 05:53:35 PM
Of course he said that. He wants nothing to do with this.Do you think what Bibi says to the public is what he says it trump? Great odds that they agreed before or right the assasination that Israel MUST distance themselves as FAR as possible from this.
(Why do you think the Pentagon took credit so fast? Because Israel really assassinated him, but that would mean certain war, so Trump takes credit to avert a war.)
Post by: CountValentine on January 06, 2020, 05:57:25 PM
Do you think what Bibi says to the public is what he says it trump? Great odds that they agreed before or right the assasination that Israel MUST distance themselves as FAR as possible from this.You missed your calling as a fiction writer. :)
(Why do you think the Pentagon took credit so fast? Because Israel really assassinated him, but that would mean certain war, so Trump takes credit to avert a war.)
Post by: as2 on January 06, 2020, 05:59:01 PM
You missed your calling as a fiction writer. :)While I'm somewhat impartial, I must say that there's more than just speculation pointing to what he's saying.
Post by: CountValentine on January 06, 2020, 06:04:55 PM
While I'm somewhat impartial, I must say that there's more than just speculation pointing to what he's saying.Fair enough, link please?
Post by: whYME on January 06, 2020, 06:06:47 PM
Do you think what Bibi says to the public is what he says it trump? Great odds that they agreed before or right the assasination that Israel MUST distance themselves as FAR as possible from this.First part sounds legit, second part makes no sense. (Mainly because it was in an area the US was already operating and Israel would need to fly through hostile territory to do it, what possible reason could there be for Israel to do it if the US is taking credit?)
(Why do you think the Pentagon took credit so fast? Because Israel really assassinated him, but that would mean certain war, so Trump takes credit to avert a war.)
Post by: CountValentine on January 06, 2020, 06:09:28 PM
First part sounds legit, second part makes no sense.Bibi has to stroke Trumps ego especially in public. Saying Trump "assassinated" someone is not the word he should have used.
Post by: whYME on January 06, 2020, 06:39:56 PM
Bibi has to stroke Trumps ego especially in public. Saying Trump "assassinated" someone is not the word he should have used.1. I'm not sure what the big deal with the word "assassinated" is. I think context / how it's being used is more important.
2. I imagine Bibi was speaking Hebrew and probably didn't use the word "assassinated."
3. Do we even know that your quote is accurate?
Post by: yitzf on January 06, 2020, 06:44:42 PM
Can someone help with the paywall?The Wall Street Journal
OPINION COMMENTARY
The Democrats and Iran
Why can’t the party’s candidates simply admit Qasem Soleimani’s death makes Americans safer?
By Joe Lieberman
Jan. 5, 2020 5:15 pm ET
President Trump’s order to take out Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats.
The president’s decision was bold and unconventional. It’s understandable that the political class should have questions about it. But it isn’t understandable that all the questions are being raised by Democrats and all the praise is coming from Republicans. That divided response suggests the partisanship that has infected and disabled so much of U.S. domestic policy now also determines our elected leaders’ responses to major foreign-policy events and national-security issues, even the killing of a man responsible for murdering hundreds of Americans and planning to kill thousands more.
After World War II, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, a Michigan Republican who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, formed a bipartisan partnership with President Truman that helped secure the postwar peace and greatly strengthened America’s position in the Cold War. “Politics stops at the water’s edge,” said Vandenberg when asked why he worked so closely with a Democratic president. He added that his fellow Americans undoubtedly had “earnest, honest, even vehement” differences of opinion on foreign policy, but if “we can keep partisan politics out of foreign affairs, it is entirely obvious that we shall speak with infinitely greater authority abroad.”
In their uniformly skeptical or negative reactions to Soleimani’s death, Democrats are falling well below Vandenberg’s standard and, I fear, creating the risk that the U.S. will be seen as acting and speaking with less authority abroad at this important time.
No American can dispute that Soleimani created, supported and directed a network of terrorist organizations that spread havoc in the Middle East. In Syria he made it possible for the Assad regime to respond with brutality to its own people’s demands for freedom. More than 500,000 Syrians have died since 2011 and millions more have been displaced from their homes.
During the Iraq war, Soleimani oversaw three camps in Iran where his elite Quds Force trained and equipped Iraqi militias. According to the U.S. government, these fighters have killed more than 600 American soldiers since 2003. In another time, this would have been a just cause for an American war against Iran, and certainly for trying to eliminate Soleimani. Within Iran, the Quds Force has worked with the supreme leader to suppress freedom and economic opportunity, jail dissident politicians and journalists, and kill protesters in the streets.
From the perspective of American values and interests, it’s impossible to mourn the death of such a man, and Democrats haven’t. Their response thus far has been “Yes, but . . .,” adding worries that Soleimani’s death will provoke a violent response from Iran. Democrats have also suggested that the Trump administration has no coherent strategy toward Iran or that Mr. Trump shouldn’t have acted without notice to and permission from Congress.
Yet if we allow fear of a self-declared enemy like Iran to dictate our actions, we will only encourage them to come after us and our allies more aggressively. Some Democrats have said that killing Soleimani will lead us into war with Iran. In fact, Soleimani and the Quds Force have been at war with the U.S. for years. It is more likely that his death will diminish the chances of a wider conflict because the demonstration of our willingness to kill him will give Iranian leaders (and probably others like Kim Jong Un) much to fear.
Some Democrats have also refused to appreciate Soleimani’s elimination because they say it isn’t part of an overall strategy for the region. But based on the public record, there is a strategy, beginning with the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement, the shift to maximum economic pressure, and now adding a demonstrated willingness to respond with military force to Iran’s provocations. The goal is to bring the Iranian government back into negotiations to end its nuclear weapons program and rejoin the world’s economy.
The claim by some Democrats that Mr. Trump had no authority to order this attack without congressional approval is constitutionally untenable and practically senseless. Authority to act quickly to eliminate a threat to the U.S. is inherent in the powers granted to the president by the Constitution. It defies common sense to argue that the president must notify Congress or begin a formal process of authorization before acting on an imminent threat.
On many occasions President Obama sensibly ordered drone strikes on dangerous terrorist leaders, including U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki. He did so without specific congressional authorization, and without significant Democratic opposition. Mr. Obama also “brought justice” to Osama bin Laden without prior, explicit congressional approval.
It is possible that anti-Trump partisanship isn’t behind Democrats’ reluctance to say they’re glad Soleimani is dead. It may be that today’s Democratic Party simply doesn’t believe in the use of force against America’s enemies in the world. I don’t believe that is true, but episodes like this one may lead many Americans to wonder whether it is. If enough voters decide that Democrats can’t be trusted to keep America safe, Mr. Trump won’t have much trouble winning a second term in November. That’s one more reason Democrats should leave partisan politics at “the water’s edge” and, whatever their opinion of President Trump on other matters, stand together against Iran and dangerous leaders like Qasem Soleimani.
Mr. Lieberman, a Democrat, was a U.S. senator from Connecticut, 1989-2013, and is chairman of No Labels, a national organization working to revive bipartisanship.
Post by: CountValentine on January 06, 2020, 06:44:56 PM
2 - Could be.
3 - Not sure.
Post by: CountValentine on January 06, 2020, 06:49:52 PM
Why can’t the party’s candidates simply admit Qasem Soleimani’s death makes Americans safer?Maybe because they don't believe it?
Post by: CountValentine on January 06, 2020, 07:05:10 PM
Seems someone understands the law: "We will follow the laws of armed conflict," Esper told CNN Monday. When pressed if that meant not targeting Iranian cultural sites, Esper replied, "That's the laws of armed conflict."
Post by: CountValentine on January 06, 2020, 07:10:29 PM
https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-general-says-letter-to-iraq-on-us-military-pullout-sent-by-mistake/
Post by: CountValentine on January 06, 2020, 10:04:17 PM
"In the tense hours following the American killing of a top Iranian military commander, the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made a rare appearance at a meeting of the government’s National Security Council to lay down the parameters for any retaliation. It must be a direct and proportional attack on American interests, he said, openly carried out by Iranian forces themselves, three Iranians familiar with the meeting said Monday."
Post by: Proisrael on January 07, 2020, 02:11:25 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/khamenei-wants-to-put-irans-stamp-on-reprisal-for-us-killing-of-top-general/ar-BBYGcIB?ocid=spartanntp
"In the tense hours following the American killing of a top Iranian military commander, the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made a rare appearance at a meeting of the government’s National Security Council to lay down the parameters for any retaliation. It must be a direct and proportional attack on American interests, he said, openly carried out by Iranian forces themselves, three Iranians familiar with the meeting said Monday."
I do not understand your basis for not supporting killing this guy. He probably is directly or indirectly responsible for more deaths of American troops then Osama ever was. He is the direct cause of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. Unfortunately there may be retaliation and we may be dragged into war (though I doubt troops would be used) but this guy deserved what he got at least as much as Osama.
You legit have TDS and it is clouding your judgement. Oh and about Bibi you have it completely wrong. He stood by Trump 100% when the story broke (I also read somewhere that the only world leader read into this was Bibi not even England). He was only sending a message to Iran that Israel was not responsible for this particular bombing as we are not interested in defending missiles from Iran at the moment.
Post by: Yammer on January 07, 2020, 02:44:27 AM
Maybe because they don't believe it?They can agree that him gone is a good thing, without agreeing on the method or timing.
Joe Leiberman is right. Everything is partisan.
Is targeting cultural sites an international war crime?I think we both believe that he's saying that try and scare Iran.
Seems someone understands the law: "We will follow the laws of armed conflict," Esper told CNN Monday. When pressed if that meant not targeting Iranian cultural sites, Esper replied, "That's the laws of armed conflict."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/khamenei-wants-to-put-irans-stamp-on-reprisal-for-us-killing-of-top-general/ar-BBYGcIB?ocid=spartanntpThis would be suicidal for them... Unless it's a Cyber attack, that causes chaos but not major damage ( or any casualties)
"In the tense hours following the American killing of a top Iranian military commander, the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made a rare appearance at a meeting of the government’s National Security Council to lay down the parameters for any retaliation. It must be a direct and proportional attack on American interests, he said, openly carried out by Iranian forces themselves, three Iranians familiar with the meeting said Monday."
There is one thing that drives me crazy though... Is how media outlets can use the term WWIII... The US vs Iran would cause the US pain but would leave Iran in shambles ( with their cultural sites intact )
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 06:08:40 AM
I do not understand your basis for not supporting killing this guy.This is your problem. You can't understand anything but the way you see it. Any reasonable person might not agree but at least they understand. You and most here can not look at this objectively.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 06:14:00 AM
They can agree that him gone is a good thing, without agreeing on the method or timing.The question was if it makes American safer.
I think we both believe that he's saying that try and scare Iran.No this idiot was no respect for the rule of law.
Post by: Proisrael on January 07, 2020, 06:26:37 AM
This is your problem. You can't understand anything but the way you see it. Any reasonable person might not agree but at least they understand. You and most here can not look at this objectively.
So tell me objectively (not that you can be) why it was worse to kill this terrorist then OBL?
Post by: PlatinumGuy on January 07, 2020, 06:38:04 AM
So tell me objectively (not that you can be) why it was worse to kill this terrorist then OBL?Nobody is claiming it is morally worse. The issue is the repercussions may be more severe. You are totally ignoring that by shifting the argument to which is more justifiable.
Post by: Proisrael on January 07, 2020, 06:40:24 AM
Nobody is claiming it is morally worse. The issue is the repercussions may be more severe. You are totally ignoring that by shifting the argument to which is more justifiable.
What repercussions can Iran do to the USA? They cant hit the USA with missiles. Leaving aside Israel..
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 06:41:41 AM
So tell me objectively (not that you can be) why it was worse to kill this terrorist then OBL?Many terrorist have been taken out by this and past presidents. This was a terrorist tied to a country and OBL was not. You need to way the consequences and the benefits of every action.
When the US took out Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi did you see me say this was not the right move? It was the right thing to do.
Do you understand why most of the world and probably at least half of the US thinks this was the wrong thing to do?
Post by: PlatinumGuy on January 07, 2020, 06:45:32 AM
What repercussions can Iran do to the USA? They cant hit the USA with missiles. Leaving aside Israel..Seriously?
They can hijack planes and fly them into US soil skyscrapers
They can attack the countless US personnel and assets in the region
They can attack key US allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia, hurting US interests
They can launch deadly cyber attacks against US soil
Granted, I support this murder, but I am not blinded enough to not consider the counterargument
Post by: Proisrael on January 07, 2020, 06:50:31 AM
Seriously?
They can hijack planes and fly them into US soil skyscrapers They wouldn't dare
They can attack the countless US personnel and assets in the region That is the risk with any combatant in that part of the world
They can attack key US allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia, hurting US interests The US consulted with Bibi first and they gave the ok
They can launch deadly cyber attacks against US soil You are a fool if you think they have not tried to in the past
Granted, I support this murder, but I am not blinded enough to not consider the counterargument
Israel has been killing Iranian soldiers for the better part of 2 years. Granted they were not on this caliber but do you really think Iran would not hit back if they could??? Listen at the end of the day time will tell if they hit back, but I am of the opinion that even if they hit back (which I do not believe will be in any way a big attack) it was worth it.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 06:53:38 AM
Listen at the end of the day time will tell if they hit back, but I am of the opinion that even if they hit back (which I do not believe will be in any way a big attack) it was worth it.You could be right and no one is disagreeing with that. What I am asking is do you understand why some disagree with you?
Post by: Proisrael on January 07, 2020, 06:56:48 AM
You could be right and no one is disagreeing with that. What I am asking is do you understand why some disagree with you?
The part I do not understand is why we should be afraid of a possibility of repercussions for taking someone out that HAS killed and HAD plans to kill more. In talmud we have a saying ספק ובריא בריא עדיף. Which means when you have a possibility vs a guarantee the guarantee is better.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 07:03:51 AM
The part I do not understand is why we should be afraid of a possibility of repercussions for taking someone out that HAS killed and HAD plans to kill more. In talmud we have a saying ספק ובריא בריא עדיף. Which means when you have a possibility vs a guarantee the guarantee is better.This isn't about being afraid. It is about what is best for the US. A legit question is does this make the US safer? To a lesser extent does this make our allies safer, especially Israel?
We are still left with the question, why now? So far the WH has not answered that.
Post by: zagguru on January 07, 2020, 07:06:47 AM
This isn't about being afraid. It is about what is best for the US. A legit question is does this make the US safer? To a lesser extent does this make our allies safer, especially Israel?
We are still left with the question, why now? So far the WH has not answered that.
If he was planning and plotting additional attacks, then it makes the US safer
Post by: Proisrael on January 07, 2020, 07:07:24 AM
This isn't about being afraid. It is about what is best for the US. A legit question is does this make the US safer? To a lesser extent does this make our allies safer, especially Israel?
We are still left with the question, why now? So far the WH has not answered that.
I am curious would the question have been the same with Hitler? Why drag the US into a war they did not need?
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 07:18:53 AM
If he was planning and plotting additional attacks, then it makes the US saferI believe he (Iran) has been and is now plotting attacks. The question is did killing him reduce that or accelerate it? Do you really believe these attacks will stop?
Also no one has addressed the reason for killing him now. We are told it was because on imminent attacks against the US. Trump loves releasing info, even classified info to stroke his ego. So where is the info to support his claim?
Post by: yuneeq on January 07, 2020, 07:32:12 AM
All the TDS victims can calm down now.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 07:33:57 AM
It’s 4 days later and I still don’t see any war.Are you really that naďve?
Probably just a training exercise. ::)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-deploys-6-b-52-bombers-to-diego-garcia-in-indian-ocean-after-soleimani-strike/ar-BBYG1ij?ocid=spartanntp
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 07:46:56 AM
Or better yet use that same logic about the Messiah. >:(
Post by: Proisrael on January 07, 2020, 07:58:24 AM
I guess some are so short sighted they forget how long 911 took to plan. Lets all pound our chest and claim no attack has happened so far so we are right. For those individuals please see my signature.
Or better yet use that same logic about the Messiah. >:(
You have yet to answer me regarding Hitler.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 07:59:34 AM
You have yet to answer me regarding Hitler.If you need to bring him into this discussion you have no argument.
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 08:01:10 AM
This is your problem. You can't understand anything but the way you see it. Any reasonable person might not agree but at least they understand. You and most here can not look at this objectively.How is this congruent with this?
To a lesser extent does this make our allies safer, especially Israel?
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 08:05:13 AM
How is this congruent with this?What's the issue? Israel is one of our allies and this directly affects them.
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 08:07:18 AM
What's the issue? Israel is one of our allies and this directly affects them.If it affects them negatively then why would support of Israel cause someone to be unobjective to support this?
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 08:09:37 AM
If it affects them negatively then why would support of Israel cause someone to be unobjective to support this?Wait for Friday. :P
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 08:11:17 AM
Wait for Friday. :PIf it needs to wait for Friday then it most likely shows that it is wrong and simply an unobjective conclusion.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 08:15:26 AM
If it needs to wait for Friday then it most likely shows that it is wrong and simply an unobjective conclusion.What it shows is you not being honest in this discussion. It is extremely hard for individuals to be objective when it hits so close to home. I fully understand that, how about you?
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 08:17:56 AM
What it shows is you not being honest in this discussion. It is extremely hard for individuals to be objective when it hits so close to home. I fully understand that, how about you?You know that I regularly say that nobody is objective.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 08:18:54 AM
You know that I regularly say that nobody is objective.That is your problem not mine. Try getting out more. :)
You know that I said before you would make a terrible juror.
Post by: yuneeq on January 07, 2020, 08:20:12 AM
That is your problem not mine. Try getting out more. :)
That must be why anyone can predict just about every opinion of yours.
Post by: yitzgar on January 07, 2020, 08:26:12 AM
Do you understand why most of the world and probably at least half of the US thinks this was the wrong thing to do?
While I am sure there are some, and perhaps even many that genuinely think so, (which is fair), you must admit that a great percentage of those against, are against just because it was DJT. I won't even get into the rest of the world.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 08:26:38 AM
That must be why anyone can predict just about every opinion of yours.You mean how I could predict 99% of the members response here? Or how I could predict 99% of the members response to pardoning someone? Probably all lucky guesses on my part. You want 5, 10 or more examples?
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 08:28:08 AM
Of course some of it is because they hate Trump. Do you admit that some only support this because they support Trump?
While I am sure there are some, and perhaps even many that genuinely think so, (which is fair), you must admit that a great percentage of those against, are against just because it was DJT. I won't even get into the rest of the world.
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 08:29:06 AM
Of course some of it is because they hate Trump. Do you admit that some only support this because they support Trump?I most definitely do. I would place that as the root cause of the support of many here.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 08:30:38 AM
I most definitely do. I would place that as the root cause of the support of many here.So if a D president took this same action many here would not support it? :)
Post by: yitzgar on January 07, 2020, 08:31:27 AM
In addition, not to justify, but a big part of the reason many close their eyes and ears to potential arguments, is specifically because of the knee jerk reaction of the other side. (I imagine this happens both ways). However, there are many who see both sides, but support DJT's actions in this situation, and it doesn't mean they are biased because of Israel. In addition, many may not have given the green light if it was up to them, but now that it is done, are at least happy that he is gone, albeit somewhat apprehensive about possible repercussions.
While I am sure there are some, and perhaps even many that genuinely think so, (which is fair), you must admit that a great percentage of those against, are against just because it was DJT. I won't even get into the rest of the world.
Post by: yitzgar on January 07, 2020, 08:32:13 AM
Of course some of it is because they hate Trump. Do you admit that some only support this because they support Trump?Of course
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 08:33:09 AM
So if a D president took this same action many here would not support it? :)correct. They would suddenly be worried about repercussions.
Post by: yitzgar on January 07, 2020, 08:33:21 AM
So if a D president took this same action many here would not support it? :)That is an additional step
Post by: yuneeq on January 07, 2020, 08:36:26 AM
You mean how I could predict 99% of the members response here? Or how I could predict 99% of the members response to pardoning someone? Probably all lucky guesses on my part. You want 5, 10 or more examples?
Are you referring to how they have been right 99% of the time? Trump won the election, economy is doing great, and all the bad things never happened. And we ain’t tired of winning just yet.
Here’s a formula I concocted to save you time, you can repost as necessary:
MSM anti-trump reaction (1-10 scale) - 1 level = CV unbiased opinion.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 08:37:31 AM
Of courseYou have the nutcases on both sides that you need to exclude. That leaves a few R's/D's and mostly I's that can be objective. I will bet they are pretty much split. So when you see most here support this decision wouldn't it fair to say they are not being objective?
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 08:40:00 AM
Are you referring to how they have been right 99% of the time? Trump won the election, economy is doing great, and all the bad things never happened. And we ain’t tired of winning just yet.If you want to put your money where your mouth is instead of just shooting it off just let me know. Like every other time we get into this you will fold like a cheap suit.
Here’s a formula I concocted to save you time, you can repost as necessary:
MSM anti-trump reaction (1-10 scale) - 1 level = CV unbiased opinion.
Post by: yitzgar on January 07, 2020, 08:44:37 AM
You have the nutcases on both sides that you need to exclude. That leaves a few R's/D's and mostly I's that can be objective. I will bet they are pretty much split. So when you see most here support this decision wouldn't it fair to say they are not being objective?I agree that most posts I have seen on this topic have not been objective. As I said probably partially because of the other sides knee jerk reaction, people begun to close their eyes and ears to the other side. Likely so is because of support for DJT as aygart said, but even if so, I believe that in different times, people who are (in all likelihood), usually intellectually honest, would be so here as well.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 08:45:40 AM
That must be why anyone can predict just about every opinion of yours.You are so naďve you don't even know if I am a D/R/I.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 08:47:03 AM
correct. They would suddenly be worried about repercussions.We disagree and that is fine.
Post by: Yonah on January 07, 2020, 08:56:27 AM
So if a D president took this same action many here would not support it? :)
Soleimani has been at the top of the global most wanted terrorist list for a quarter of a century. I don't care which President took him out, the world is better off without him. I was not a big fan of President Obama's, but he did manage to have Bin Laden killed - props to him for that.
Regardless of which American president took them out, there are always repercussions. There is always a chance that it sparks a new wave of retaliation or escalation.
Post by: Dan on January 07, 2020, 09:00:45 AM
Soleimani has been at the top of the global most wanted terrorist list for a quarter of a century. I don't care which President took him out, the world is better off without him. I was not a big fan of President Obama's, but he did manage to have Bin Laden killed - props to him for that.+1.
Regardless of which American president took them out, there are always repercussions. There is always a chance that it sparks a new wave of retaliation or escalation.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 09:09:20 AM
Regardless of which American president took them out, there are always repercussions. There is always a chance that it sparks a new wave of retaliation or escalation.No one is disagreeing that he was a terrorist and deserved to be taken out. What about the leader of Iran that gave him his orders? Should we take him out since basically he is the top terrorist?
It a black and white world you just take them out but it doesn't work that way. You need to weight the consequences. This is where the disagreement comes in.
Unfortunately Trump just wants to spin this for his political gain: Trump struck a harshly partisan tone Monday that foreshadowed the political battles to come. Calling into Rush Limbaugh’s nationally syndicated radio show, the president maligned Democrats for “trying to make” Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani “sound like he was this wonderful human being” and argued that “elements of that party [are] openly supporting Iran, an enemy of the United States.”
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 09:10:40 AM
Was this a grabbed opportunity?
Was this because of a specific threat?
Did his influence in the region make him a valuable target?
How does this affect Iran's influence in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza?
What was his role in Iran's internal politics?
and more.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 09:14:28 AM
In general, I don't see how anyone thinks they have enough information to know whether or not this makes sense. There are so many questions here.We don't have enough information and that is the reason so many are split on this. If you can't even understand both positions on it that just compounds the problem.
Was this a grabbed opportunity?
Was this because of a specific threat?
Did his influence in the region make him a valuable target?
How does this affect Iran's influence in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza?
What was his role in Iran's internal politics?
and more.
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 09:17:08 AM
We don't have enough information and that is the reason so many are split on this. If you can't even understand both positions on it that just compounds the problem.Anyone who can't understand a differing opinion that their own always compounds the problem. It is usually because they don't really understand their own opinion either.
Having any opinion at all with the amount of questions is simply ludicrous. This should not result in a split but rather in people being undecided.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 09:36:58 AM
Anyone who can't understand a differing opinion that their own always compounds the problem. It is usually because they don't really understand their own opinion either.Some are so sure what will happen here they want to bet on it. Now me on the other hand who bets on mostly anything would not touch this one. :)
Having any opinion at all with the amount of questions is simply ludicrous. This should not result in a split but rather in people being undecided.
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 09:41:52 AM
Some are so sure what will happen here they want to bet on it. Now me on the other hand who bets on mostly anything would not touch this one. :)But the stated reason has nothing to do with the lack of information.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 09:44:54 AM
But the stated reason has nothing to do with the lack of information.Unless he has some inside info it sure is.
Lets not forget past presidents R/D did not go down this road. They did have inside info. ;)
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 09:59:19 AM
Unless he has some inside info it sure is.Who are you referring to as he?
Lets not forget past presidents R/D did not go down this road. They did have inside info. ;)
I don't see how this is relevant to your stated reason.
I don't bet when it comes to American lives and I will assume you didn't mean it that way.
Either way, The current POTUS has the same inside information that previous administrations had, but any previous POTUS only has outdated information.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 10:04:42 AM
Either way, The current POTUS has the same inside information that previous administrations had, but any previous POTUS only has outdated information.We have heard the current POTUS doesn't even read briefings. Also past presidents were not compulsive liars and ego maniacs like this one. How many past presidents claimed they knew more about everything that the experts?
You probably never watched the apprentice but you should. He making decisions the same way he did on that show. He believes he knows better than anyone else. Very dangerous to have someone in charge like that.
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 10:07:26 AM
We have heard the current POTUS doesn't even read briefings. Also past presidents were not compulsive liars and ego maniacs like this one. How many past presidents claimed they knew more about everything that the experts?So basically this all comes down to your previous opinions about Trump. Exactly what many here have been saying.
You probably never watched the apprentice but you should. He making decisions the same way he did on that show. He believes he knows better than anyone else. Very dangerous to have someone in charge like that.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 10:11:34 AM
So basically this all comes down to your previous opinions about Trump. Exactly what many here have been saying.1 - I believe this puts America at more risk no matter who made the decision.
2 - I don't trust Trump to make decisions in the best interest of the country and believe he is bad for the our country.
3 - Like many here you can't separate the two. You would never make an impartial juror.
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 10:12:35 AM
1 - I believe this puts America at more risk no matter who made the decision.I don't see how you would know #1 without current inside information.
2 - I don't trust Trump to make decisions in the best interest of the country and believe he is bad for the our country.
3 - Like many here you can't separate the two. You would never make an impartial juror.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 10:14:58 AM
I don't see how you would know #1 without current inside information.You didn't really just say that, did you? I could have a field day with this but won't. :)
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 10:15:40 AM
Seriously?
They can launch deadly cyber attacks against US soil
https://time.com/4270728/iran-cyber-attack-dam-fbi/
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/iran-cyber-attack-billionaire-adelson-170413240.html?
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 10:17:09 AM
You didn't really just say that, did you? I could have a field day with this but won't. :)You are right. I didn't write that well. There is no way of knowing the risk/reward comparison without current inside information.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 10:18:18 AM
You are right. I didn't write that well. There is no way of knowing the risk/reward comparison without current inside information.Thank you as we all believe certain things based on the info we have. Somethings we believe are out of this world. ;)
Post by: chinagel on January 07, 2020, 10:23:34 AM
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/colin-kaepernick-attacks-us-imperialism-154109880.html
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 10:32:33 AM
Still believe Kap's a good guy?Who said he was a good guy? Do you understand what he is saying.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/colin-kaepernick-attacks-us-imperialism-154109880.html
Post by: yelped on January 07, 2020, 11:12:51 AM
Who said he was a good guy? Do you understand what he is saying.He (Kap) definitely doesn't.
Post by: whYME on January 07, 2020, 11:21:28 AM
Now me on the other hand who bets on mostly anything would not touch this one. :)Probably because deep down you know we're right but your TDS won't accept it :P
Post by: whYME on January 07, 2020, 11:24:35 AM
So if a D president took this same action many here would not support it? :)In general I would agree that's often a problem, I don't think this is one of those cases.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 11:29:38 AM
Probably because deep down you know we're right but your TDS won't accept it :PKISS. You don't bet when it involves American lives.
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 11:31:03 AM
KISS. You don't bet when it involves American lives.I thought it was because you don't have enough information?
Post by: whYME on January 07, 2020, 11:31:21 AM
We are still left with the question, why now?Him attacking a US embassy last week might have a little something to do with it.
(Side note, but I have a theory that the Ds won't acknowledge this aspect of it because it shows how badly Obama F'ed up Benghazi)
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 11:31:51 AM
He (Kap) definitely doesn't.I will take that as a no. There is part of the problem.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 11:33:43 AM
Him attacking a US embassy last week might have a little something to do with it.Then say that but they he said imminent attacks. We have yet to see a shred on evidence about that.
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 11:37:01 AM
Then say that but they he said imminent attacks. We have yet to see a shred on evidence about that.And if we did we would hear all of the complaints about how it is endangering intelligence sources.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 11:40:38 AM
And if we did we would hear all of the complaints about how it is endangering intelligence sources.I agree but that has not stopped Trump from disclosing classified information before. Even the so-called briefing they gave congress there is no evidence. Pompeo when asked if it was days or weeks would not answer. DOD states it was to deter future attacks.
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 11:50:18 AM
I agree but that has not stopped Trump from disclosing classified information before. Even the so-called briefing they gave congress there is no evidence. Pompeo when asked if it was days or weeks would not answer. DOD states it was to deter future attacks.There is no question that the administration's messaging has been very convoluted to put it mildly.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 11:53:20 AM
There is no question that the administration's messaging has been very convoluted to put it mildly.This plays into the belief that Trump is a compulsive liar.
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 11:55:10 AM
This plays into the belief that Trump is a compulsive liar.You don't need to convince me about that one.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 11:57:52 AM
You don't need to convince me about that one.Not trying to. The problem is everything starts with he is a liar and goes from there. It should be just the opposite.
Post by: whYME on January 07, 2020, 12:00:52 PM
Is targeting cultural sites an international war crime?I heard a great line (I can't remember from who) way back in 2016. It was true back then and still holds true today.
"the left takes Trump literally, the right takes him seriously."
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 12:03:09 PM
"the left takes Trump literally, the right drinks the Kool-Aid.":)
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 03:01:03 PM
Nikki Haley: "The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership, and our Democrat presidential candidates,"
Post by: shapsam on January 07, 2020, 04:01:37 PM
Six hours apart. pic.twitter.com/rLgIGgPmtv
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) January 7, 2020
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 04:21:30 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 04:47:56 PM
Post by: yesitsme on January 07, 2020, 06:02:24 PM
Nikki Haley: "The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership, and our Democrat presidential candidates,"So true
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 06:07:23 PM
So trueKeep drinking the Kool-Aid.
Post by: Jellybelly on January 07, 2020, 06:19:42 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 06:40:33 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-republican-blocks-unanimous-consent-on-resolution-calling-targeting-cultural-sites-a-war-crime/ar-BBYIxZ0?ocid=spartanntp
Post by: Sam Finkelstein on January 07, 2020, 06:51:53 PM
Is this what this country stands for?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-republican-blocks-unanimous-consent-on-resolution-calling-targeting-cultural-sites-a-war-crime/ar-BBYIxZ0?ocid=spartanntp
Did you bother reading the article?
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 06:56:27 PM
Did you bother reading the article?I sure did and I can spot BS a mile away.
Post by: ah giten on January 07, 2020, 07:04:45 PM
Coalition base in iraq is currently under rocket attackand its not rockets, seems like ballistic missiles.
still unsure.
Post by: Sam Finkelstein on January 07, 2020, 07:07:04 PM
I sure did and I can spot BS a mile away.
BS or no BS, you basically believe that one senator is reflective of an entire party, correct?
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 07:14:35 PM
BS or no BS, you basically believe that one senator is reflective of an entire party, correct?Absolutely not. Did you read the part from POTUS?
"If that's what the law is, I like to obey the law. But think of it. They kill our people. They blow up our people and then we have to be very gentle with their cultural institutions. But I'm OK with it. It's OK with me," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 07:19:07 PM
Post by: Sam Finkelstein on January 07, 2020, 07:20:18 PM
Absolutely not. Did you read the part from POTUS?
"If that's what the law is, I like to obey the law. But think of it. They kill our people. They blow up our people and then we have to be very gentle with their cultural institutions. But I'm OK with it. It's OK with me," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
That's not what the article is chiefly about.
Post by: Jellybelly on January 07, 2020, 07:31:45 PM
I heard both America and Iran have jets in the air
Post by: yelped on January 07, 2020, 07:34:37 PM
Is there anywhere to get reliable updates on whats going in now?You'll have to wait until the dust settles.
I heard both America and Iran have jets in the air
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 07:35:38 PM
Is there anywhere to get reliable updates on whats going in now?Turn on any network station.
I heard both America and Iran have jets in the air
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 07:44:24 PM
Post by: yossig on January 07, 2020, 07:44:36 PM
Turn on any network station.
Is there anywhere to get reliable updates on whats going in now?
I heard both America and Iran have jets in the air
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 07:45:43 PM
Please go drink the Kool-Aid somewhere else. American lives are at stake here!!! >:( >:( >:(
Post by: yitzgar on January 07, 2020, 07:45:55 PM
There is never any way to be sure it's reliable until the dust settles. Not specific to this situation.
Post by: yitzgar on January 07, 2020, 07:46:22 PM
Please go drink the Kool-Aid somewhere else. American lives are at stake here!!! >:( >:( >:(Not sure what you think he meant....
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 07:47:57 PM
Not sure what you think he meant....He meant the same thing Trump means with #fakenews.
Post by: yitzgar on January 07, 2020, 07:49:03 PM
He meant the same thing Trump means with #fakenews.Possibly, but I didn't see that in his, or the quoted post
Post by: whYME on January 07, 2020, 07:51:03 PM
Turn on any network station.
Especially if you don't have a TV like most on DDF. :P
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 08:00:56 PM
Post by: ilherman on January 07, 2020, 08:10:30 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 08:12:04 PM
If the reports as of right now turn out to be true that there are no US Casualties, I believe if we were to take a national US vote I think most people would just say swallow what Iran just did to avoid an all out war.
12+ ballistic missiles at two different bases. We can only pray no Americans were killed and then both these lunatics can save face.Iran targeted the two bases with the least amount of Americans.
Post by: Shmobaum on January 07, 2020, 08:18:08 PM
Post by: yossig on January 07, 2020, 08:20:41 PM
If the reports as of right now turn out to be true that there are no US Casualties, I believe if we were to take a national US vote I think most people would just say swallow what Iran just did to avoid an all out war.I agree on your point,
But with not retaliating at all, the Iranians will take it as weakness and continue with there aggression.
Post by: yossig on January 07, 2020, 08:27:43 PM
Please go drink the Kool-Aid somewhere else. American lives are at stake here!!! >:( >:( >:(Chill, Nobody is dying from my posts AFAIK,
what has happened, happened already.
Was just a little tease ;) relax...
Post by: efflpetzel on January 07, 2020, 08:50:24 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 08:53:52 PM
Any word on casualties, I don't see any info anywherePrelim reports, no US casualties.
Post by: Dan on January 07, 2020, 09:00:36 PM
Prelim reports, no US casualties.BH. Calculated move I'm assuming.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 09:04:59 PM
FOX reporting POTUS probably will address the nation. That's not good.Now reporting he does not plan to address the nation. That's a good sign.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 09:05:28 PM
BH. Calculated move I'm assuming.It gives everyone an out.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 09:14:05 PM
The half that thinks it's the wrong thing to do, are the Democrats. I'm not saying that there isn't an argument against it, just pointing out that it's all about politics now...How about the I's or are they playing politics also?
Post by: dealfinder11 on January 07, 2020, 09:20:23 PM
Post by: whYME on January 07, 2020, 09:23:13 PM
Now who could've possibly seen that coming. :PBH. Calculated move I'm assuming.It gives everyone an out.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 09:26:09 PM
(I'm probably gonna regret speaking too soon, but)Not 99% of those in this thread. :)
It gives everyone an out.
Now who could've possibly seen that coming. :P
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 09:27:00 PM
Gotta start contemplating if this "response" was consented to by the US.Someone shoot me and put me out of my misery!!!
Post by: dealfinder11 on January 07, 2020, 09:29:54 PM
Someone shoot me and put me out of my misery!!!
who says no?
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 09:31:28 PM
who says no?So the US tells Iran you can attack these two bases but don't kill any Americans?
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 09:32:21 PM
How about the I's or are they playing politics also?In the age of Trump it has more to do with support of Trump than with party affiliation.
Post by: chinagel on January 07, 2020, 09:32:50 PM
So the US tells Iran you can attack these two bases but don't kill any Americans?I find this idea very funny, even if the whole situation isn't.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 09:34:12 PM
I find this idea very funny, even if the whole situation isn't.That's not my idea of what happened.
Post by: CountValentine on January 07, 2020, 09:35:57 PM
In the age of Trump it has more to do with support of Trump than with party affiliation.The I's go both way. They can love him on the economy and hate him on immigration.
Post by: aygart on January 07, 2020, 09:37:27 PM
The I's go both way. They can love him on the economy and hate him on immigration.Some
Post by: dealfinder11 on January 07, 2020, 10:16:26 PM
So the US tells Iran you can attack these two bases but don't kill any Americans?
Something to the effect of, Iran reaches out to the US and says we need a victory but don't want this to escalate, if we shoot some rockets and no americans get hurt, will you agree not to retaliate.
The tweets that followed by both Trump and Zarif actually seem pretty telling .
Post by: Dan on January 07, 2020, 11:07:56 PM
https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=112622.msg2180855#msg2180855
Post by: ilherman on January 07, 2020, 11:32:52 PM
BH. Calculated move I'm assuming.Thought so too. However reports now are saying that there were US forces on the ground, thankfully they had enough time to run for cover because US radars picked up the incoming missile.
What were the iranians thinking? :o
If only a bunch of US soldiers would CH"V be killed there would've been a major war now...
Post by: dealfinder11 on January 07, 2020, 11:44:13 PM
Thought so too. However reports now are saying that there were US forces on the ground, thankfully they had enough time to run for cover because US radars picked up the incoming missile.
What were the iranians thinking? :o
If only a bunch of US soldiers would CH"V be killed there would've been a major war now...
If you believe that Iran missing US troops was either luck or bad aim then I have a bridge to sell you
Post by: ilherman on January 08, 2020, 12:01:24 AM
If you believe that Iran missing US troops was either luck or bad aim then I have a bridge to sell youThe point is that with radicals you never know.
The only conspiracy theory which could work is that the US secretly negotiated with Iran that they will let them attack a US base in order to go on with life and the US took precautions to make sure no lives are at risk and from the US side there is no need to respond militarily since no US lives were harmed and tensions calm down and life goes on.
But if this is not true, then Iran was just very lucky here. I mean even as careful as they try to be they should have thought that there is 1 percent chance that an American WILL somehow be in harms way and that would be the beginning of their end.
Hence my question. What were they thinking....
Post by: ilherman on January 08, 2020, 01:23:27 AM
Post by: Mountain Man on January 08, 2020, 01:45:27 AM
How did the US missile defense system fail so miserably?I wonder about that too. It did nothing toward protecting the Saudi refinery either.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 04:55:12 AM
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) appeared on Fox News saying that the Iranian attack on the Iraqi base that houses US military personnel was "an act of war" and that President Donald Trump had all the authority needed to retaliate.
Post by: Boruch999 on January 08, 2020, 05:37:25 AM
Post by: Proisrael on January 08, 2020, 06:48:31 AM
Post by: Jellybelly on January 08, 2020, 08:18:02 AM
The point is that with radicals you never know.I just find it hard to believe that Iran would make a rational decision like that. Usually you don’t think clearly when your so mad.
The only conspiracy theory which could work is that the US secretly negotiated with Iran that they will let them attack a US base in order to go on with life and the US took precautions to make sure no lives are at risk and from the US side there is no need to respond militarily since no US lives were harmed and tensions calm down and life goes on.
But if this is not true, then Iran was just very lucky here. I mean even as careful as they try to be they should have thought that there is 1 percent chance that an American WILL somehow be in harms way and that would be the beginning of their end.
Hence my question. What were they thinking....
Post by: Proisrael on January 08, 2020, 08:20:42 AM
I just find it hard to believe that Iran would make a rational decision like that. Usually you don’t think clearly when your so mad.
You are forgetting that Iran has been around for thousands of years....they are not as dumb as they appear....
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 08:25:23 AM
You are forgetting that Iran has been around for thousands of years....they are not as dumb as they appear....The country has been but the current government has not.
Post by: Jellybelly on January 08, 2020, 08:44:55 AM
You are forgetting that Iran has been around for thousands of years....they are not as dumb as they appear....But thus regime might be suicidal, They believe something about the 7th imam or something like that... ( some type of moshiach)
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 09:06:18 AM
Reminds me of the story earlier this year when Israel attacked Hezbollah and they shot back and Israel pretended that they hit a bunch of soldiers.....This most probbly is the end of this segment of the US-Iran tensions. We can now close this thread.....oh and Count Valentine stop being a hysteric. The world is still standing!Keep your head buried in the sand. You and many here have shown how clueless you have been so far.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 09:07:04 AM
Usually you don’t think clearly when your so mad.They are not Trump.
Post by: Proisrael on January 08, 2020, 09:24:54 AM
Keep your head buried in the sand. You and many here have shown how clueless you have been so far.
So far the only clueless one is you. I remember back when he moved the embassy how you were yelling about how bad it would be and how dangerous Israel would become. You said the same about the Iran deal...Like I said you are a hysteric.
Post by: Shmobaum on January 08, 2020, 09:28:22 AM
So far the only clueless one is you. I remember back when he moved the embassy how you were yelling about how bad it would be and how dangerous Israel would become. You said the same about the Iran deal...Like I said you are a hysteric.Why the labels? The term “democrat” suffices
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 09:41:48 AM
So far the only clueless one is you. I remember back when he moved the embassy how you were yelling about how bad it would be and how dangerous Israel would become. You said the same about the Iran deal...Like I said you are a hysteric.I said moving the embassy would make peace harder. CORRECT!!!
I said the pulling out of the Iran deal would make things worse. CORRECT!!!
I said the risk of war was not worth killing this guy. CORRECT!!!
Now Trump is in a bind. He can respond and bring us closer to an all out war or do nothing and look like a coward. This has been the biggest military blunder in modern history.
...and lets not forget the main issue now. Is Americans safer now?
Post by: Proisrael on January 08, 2020, 09:42:48 AM
Why the labels? The term “democrat” suffices
Even I would not stoop that low...
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 09:44:23 AM
Why the labels? The term “democrat” suffices...an anti-American for the rest. :P
Post by: Proisrael on January 08, 2020, 09:45:39 AM
I said moving the embassy would make peace harder. CORRECT!!!
I said the pulling out of the Iran deal would make things worse. CORRECT!!!
I said the risk of war was not worth killing this guy. CORRECT!!!
Now Trump is in a bind. He can respond and bring us closer to an all out war or do nothing and look like a coward. This has been this biggest military blunder in modern history.
LOL wow you really are insane.
Peace with the Palestinians was hard for 70 years it made nothing harder then it already was (if anything talks with Hamas seems to have been much more productive recently)
Iran was not keeping its end of the deal, turning our head would not have helped
There was NEVER a risk of WAR and there still is NO risk of war. Check the markets and you will see sane heads are prevailing.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 09:53:04 AM
LOL wow you really are insane.Insane is someone who asks a stupid question like this?
What repercussions can Iran do to the USA?
Insane is someone that thinks this terrorist cause more American deaths than OBL.
Please change your nic to Anti-American.
Post by: dealfinder11 on January 08, 2020, 10:00:15 AM
Now Trump is in a bind. He can respond and bring us closer to an all out war or do nothing and look like a coward. This has been the biggest military blunder in modern history.
This is going to be the funniest comment you see all day. Take a moment to appreciate it.
The biggest victory (even bigger than killing "the worlds number one bad guy) for Trump, is everyone in the media looking like a bunch of fools. Well played Mr president!!!
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 10:01:20 AM
This is going to be the funniest comment you see all day. Take a moment to appreciate it.Keep drinking the Kool-Aid!!!
The biggest victory (even bigger than killing "the worlds number one bad guy) for Trump, is everyone in the media looking like a bunch of fools. Well played Mr president!!!
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 10:04:52 AM
This is going to be the funniest comment you see all day. Take a moment to appreciate it.
The biggest victory (even bigger than killing "the worlds number one bad guy) for Trump, is everyone in the media looking like a bunch of fools. Well played Mr president!!!
It is very sad how with rockets flying and planes "crashing" what you care about is whether the media looks like fools.
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 10:05:29 AM
FTFY
I said the risk of war was not worth killing this guy. MORE INFO NEEDED!!!
Post by: dealfinder11 on January 08, 2020, 10:07:25 AM
It is very sad how with rockets flying and planes "crashing" what you care about is whether the media looks like fools.
great way to try and dramatize, but i'm not going to fall for it. Have yourself a wonderful day.
p.s. thoughts and prayers to those who perished on the plane crash, as well as to their families.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 10:08:59 AM
great way to try and dramatize, but i'm not going to fall for it. Have yourself a wonderful day.So you get called out and then try and clean it up.
p.s. thoughts and prayers to those who perished on the plane crash, as well as to their families.
Post by: dealfinder11 on January 08, 2020, 10:11:23 AM
So you get called out and then try and clean it up.
you as well. Blaming the plane crash on Trump and suggesting anyone else who doesn't as evil, is just par for the course.
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 10:20:36 AM
you as well. Blaming the plane crash on Trump and suggesting anyone else who doesn't as evil, is just par for the course.Where did he do that?
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 10:21:08 AM
you as well. Blaming the plane crash on Trump and suggesting anyone else who doesn't as evil, is just par for the course.Now you have to make up lies to try and cover your tracks. Who blamed the plane crash on Trump?
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 10:22:01 AM
FTFY
War will cause American deaths.
I am convinced like past R/D Presidents it is not worth the risk.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 10:23:51 AM
Blaming the plane crash on Trump and suggesting anyone else who doesn't as evil, is just par for the course.This is the danger with these Kool-Aid drinkers. Just like Trump they make up lies to try and discredit someone.
Lets see if is just like Trump he refuses to apologize for the made up lie.
Post by: Proisrael on January 08, 2020, 10:34:12 AM
This is the danger with these Kool-Aid drinkers. Just like Trump they make up lies to try and discredit someone.
Lets see if is just like Trump he refuses to apologize for the made up lie.
Was it Obamas fault that he did not deal with Russia when they invaded Ukraine and shot down the MH plane? Please leave Trump out of the picture when it comes to the Plane.
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 10:35:13 AM
Was it Obamas fault that he did not deal with Russia when they invaded Ukraine and shot down the MH plane? Please leave Trump out of the picture when it comes to the Plane.
He is not the one who brought up the plane.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 10:43:03 AM
Was it Obamas fault that he did not deal with Russia when they invaded Ukraine and shot down the MH plane? Please leave Trump out of the picture when it comes to the Plane.What are you talking about? Now you are believing and repeating the lies.
Post by: whYME on January 08, 2020, 10:48:06 AM
Ultimately it comes down to thisIran's primary agenda is avoiding a war that will lead to regime change. They are still learning how much trouble they can cause without starting a war.
I guess if WW3 really does break out I'll have to add a big serving of crow to all my other problems (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji1745.png)
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 10:50:54 AM
I guess if WW3 really does break out I'll have to add a big serving of crow to all my other problems (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji1745.png)With all the crow being served in this thread there will be none left for you if it does happen.
Post by: EliJelly on January 08, 2020, 10:59:21 AM
Post by: KSMH on January 08, 2020, 11:00:51 AM
Close up again processed by @MIIS shows BDA of the direct hit on what appears to be aircraft tent shelters. pic.twitter.com/8QuRjX6oUm
— Aurora Intel (@AuroraIntel) January 8, 2020
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 11:01:22 AM
@CountValentine as a side note. Please keep your cool. Don't repeatedly label everyone who disagrees with you as a kool-aid drinker & as head in sand burying.I am as cool as a cucumber. Can I label those who make up blatant lies as liars?
Post by: EliJelly on January 08, 2020, 11:02:44 AM
Can I label those who make up blatant lies as liars?Wasn't referring to that one
Post by: Yammer on January 08, 2020, 11:12:44 AM
How about the I's or are they playing politics also?
Pelocy first response is, we weren't notified etc.
My point is this is mostly a political theater. I'm not disagreeing that ppl have concerns.
How did the US missile defense system fail so miserably?
I wonder about that too. It did nothing toward protecting the Saudi refinery either.
I wondered the same.
Does the US have Patriots on all their bases?
You are forgetting that Iran has been around for thousands of years....they are not as dumb as they appear....
I believe this is correct. All the talk about being suicidal is part of their game.
They haven't done any like that. ( Up until last night. )
I said moving the embassy would make peace harder. CORRECT!!!
I said the pulling out of the Iran deal would make things worse. CORRECT!!!
I said the risk of war was not worth killing this guy. CORRECT!!!
Now Trump is in a bind. He can respond and bring us closer to an all out war or do nothing and look like a coward. This has been the biggest military blunder in modern history.
...and lets not forget the main issue now. Is Americans safer now?
1. I'm not sure it's harder. Sure they despise Trump, but the main reason is that have gotten legitimacy from those opposing the move, that Trump isn't fair to the peace process. ( In my opinion it's exactly the opposite, he could've pushed Isreal to a place that no former president would be able to.
2. You mean that they now control Syria? Or fire rockets from Yemen? Or how about the Iraq?
Insane is someone who asks a stupid question like this?
What repercussions can Iran do to the USA?
Insane is someone that thinks this terrorist cause more American deaths than OBL.
Please change your nic to Anti-American.
Caused enough death, that it ain't matter if he matches up to OBL. While I don't want to say that he caused more pain that OBL (as killing American solder's is the worst thig) he caused a great amount of pain to American interests worldwide.
It is very sad how with rockets flying and planes "crashing" what you care about is whether the media looks like fools.
Your taking him out of context...
I'm still standing by this.
I guess if WW3 really does break out I'll have to add a big serving of crow to all my other problems (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji1745.png)
This.
The fact that ppl even say WWIII for this, is absurd, stupidity and a victory for Iran.
Post by: Dan on January 08, 2020, 11:16:21 AM
So the US knew as well. This was all about saving face. It's exactly what I predicted.
Too bad some people didn't want to bet, but I'll still send the crow.
Back to your regularly scheduled Trump impeachment programming.
Post by: KSMH on January 08, 2020, 11:18:04 AM
"The Iraqi Prime Minister's office said it was given verbal notification from Tehran just before the attack happened."
So the US knew as well. This was all about saving face. It's exactly what I predicted.
Back to your regularly scheduled Trump impeachment programming.
I think its time for trump to start some new news cycle. I am getting bored of impeachment.
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 11:18:04 AM
Post by: whYME on January 08, 2020, 11:18:35 AM
With all the crow being served in this thread there will be none left for you if it does happen.Eh, even you can't eat so much all on your own, I'm sure there'll be some left over.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 11:19:25 AM
"The Iraqi Prime Minister's office said it was given verbal notification from Tehran just before the attack happened."I was going to let this go but you are completely delusional.
So the US knew as well. This was all about saving face. It's exactly what I predicted.
Too bad some people didn't want to bet, but I'll still send the crow.
Back to your regularly scheduled Trump impeachment programming.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 11:21:01 AM
Wasn't referring to that one...but I am. You brought the question of labels up so how about answering my question?
Post by: M218 on January 08, 2020, 11:22:27 AM
You guys are fools (@CountValentine) this is a free campaign for Trump he needs the media coverage and got it! he dosen`t need to strike back no one was killed yet and the more he does he will get more coverage people like a president what dosen`t sleep (They like him better playing Golf and Tweeting!) he keeps on making the headlines that will relect him 4 MORE YEARS!!!! :) :) :) :) :) :P :P :P
China +1 N. Korea +2 Jobs +3 Economy +4 Russian investigation +5 Justice Kavanagh +6 Shulem Rubashkin +7 Jerusalem embassy +10............ Iran +999999999999999!
The only bad thing he did was E-cigs which is -10
WE ALL WANT 4 MORE YEARS!!!!!
best of all @CountValentine will have what to cry about for 4 MORE YEARS!
Post by: Dan on January 08, 2020, 11:22:32 AM
I was going to let this go but you are completely delusional.Could be. But I'm of the few Americans not affected by Trumpster syndrome or TDS.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 11:27:36 AM
Could be. But I'm of the few Americans not affected by Trumpster syndrome or TDS....but when you try to spin something to fit your scenario it is just as bad. There is 10+ possibilities what happened and you pick one that fits your scenario.
Post by: Dan on January 08, 2020, 11:29:02 AM
Post by: yeshivabucher on January 08, 2020, 11:30:35 AM
Post by: whYME on January 08, 2020, 11:30:56 AM
By all means, prove I'm wrong.You just need to pull your head out of the sand and stop drinking the kool aid and you'll see that you're wrong.
Post by: M218 on January 08, 2020, 11:33:18 AM
trump just started speaking not fire and brimstone but not the most deescalating comments eitherLooks like he was warned not to divulge any secrets
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 11:34:36 AM
By all means, prove I'm wrong.One possibility is Iran sent a message to the US they can strike US anytime in the Middle East and we can't do anything about it. Our threats were completely meaningless. No one thought (even you) they would be so blatant and launch from Iran. I can give ten other scenarios that don't fit your position but is it really needed?
Post by: ah giten on January 08, 2020, 11:37:56 AM
Post by: yossig on January 08, 2020, 11:38:18 AM
You just need to pull your head out of the sand and stop drinking the kool aid and you'll see that you're wrong.I remember seeing these comments somewhere...LOL
Post by: Yammer on January 08, 2020, 11:38:30 AM
"The Iraqi Prime Minister's office said it was given verbal notification from Tehran just before the attack happened."While I don't know if they were tipped off, I think it's obvious that Iran knowing US capabilities knew that they would have time to run for cover...
So the US knew as well. This was all about saving face. It's exactly what I predicted.
Too bad some people didn't want to bet, but I'll still send the crow.
Back to your regularly scheduled Trump impeachment programming.
Don't forget that all the US bases we're on high alert and they were probably ready for such a response.
Post by: yeshivabucher on January 08, 2020, 11:39:20 AM
trump just started speaking not fire and brimstone but not the most deescalating comments eithercorrection was pretty deescalating
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 11:41:50 AM
Iran isn't dumb enough to get into a war. This will save American lives as they'll think twice before messing with us.For the record you would have lost this bet. They did mess with us. There action was war like. The reason we there is not a war now is because our coward president backed down after being attacked. See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to.
Shall we put $20 on it?
Post by: Yammer on January 08, 2020, 11:42:56 AM
For the record you would have lost this bet. They did mess with us. There action was war like. The reason we there is not a war now is because our coward president backed down after being attacked. See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to.No. The reason is because he feels that Americans will be safer now that if he doesn't respond...
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 11:43:19 AM
While I don't know if they were tipped off, I think it's obvious that Iran knowing US capabilities knew that they would have time to run for cover...They did not target American lives. Now you can spin this to fit your scenario as some have already done.
Don't forget that all the US bases we're on high alert and they were probably ready for such a response.
Post by: yeshivabucher on January 08, 2020, 11:43:53 AM
For the record you would have lost this bet. They did mess with us. There action was war like. The reason we there is not a war now is because our coward president backed down after being attacked. See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to.thats a pretty far right spin %95 of ppl agree with exactly what he just said
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 11:44:14 AM
No. The reason is because he feels that Americans will be safer now that if he doesn't respond...Thanks for proving my point on how this can be spun many different ways.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 11:47:06 AM
thats a pretty far right spin %95 of ppl agree with exactly what he just saidWhat is far fetched?
They messed with us! FACT!!!
Their action was war like! FACT!!!
He backed down after being attacked (left coward out)! FACT!!!
Looks like 95% of what I said is fact and 5% spin.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 11:48:42 AM
IDK about a war in Iran, what I certainly do see, is a war between @CountValentine alone against most DDF'ers.Bring it on!!! :)
Your Torah will tell you how this ends. ;)
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 11:50:17 AM
correction was pretty deescalatingThat's a PC way to put it.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 11:58:50 AM
What if someone launched 12+ ballistic missiles at Israel? What would their response be?
Post by: whYME on January 08, 2020, 12:09:31 PM
What if someone launched 12+ ballistic missiles at Israel? What would their response be?Well judging by last fifteen years, I would say usually pretty much nothing.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 12:13:16 PM
Well judging by last fifteen years, I would say usually pretty much nothing.Wow! I got the impression from members here they always respond and sometimes disproportionally.
Post by: Yammer on January 08, 2020, 12:30:10 PM
They did not target American lives. Now you can spin this to fit your scenario as some have already done.Not sure what your point is
Thanks for proving my point on how this can be spun many different ways.The ones that decried the attack with be the ones to call him coward now... There's no spin. You either hate him or love him..
Since I am clueless what goes on in that region can someone help me out?It depends.
What if someone launched 12+ ballistic missiles at Israel? What would their response be?
On a sunny day 12 rockets? There will be retaliation.
After taking out the a top guy? Nothing
Post by: BP16 on January 08, 2020, 12:34:22 PM
Since I am clueless what goes on in that region can someone help me out?FTFY
What if someone launched 12+ ballistic missiles at the US? What would their response be?
Post by: stooges44 on January 08, 2020, 12:42:54 PM
(https://i.gyazo.com/7d6bc8660fdd972d673fb9ec453b333b.png)
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 12:43:55 PM
Not sure what your point isThat you can spin it to fit your scenario.
Post by: whYME on January 08, 2020, 12:46:13 PM
That you can spin it to fit your scenario.So in other words they didn't do any real harm, everybody gets to claim victory, and we all go back home and argue about impeachment again.
So remind me again why this is all so terrible?
Post by: Dan on January 08, 2020, 12:47:35 PM
We're not betting on American lives. You seem convinced this will lead to a declaration of war. I think the opposite is true.
For the record you would have lost this bet. They did mess with us. There action was war like. The reason we there is not a war now is because our coward president backed down after being attacked. See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to.
Coming from Mr. Goalposts
As a wise man said:
...but we do goalposts!!!We just change them.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 12:56:12 PM
As a wise man said:We just change them.You conveniently left out your quote about the original offer.
Iran isn't dumb enough to get into a war. This will save American lives as they'll think twice before messing with us.Yes their action was dumb enough to get into a war. Just because Trump backed down does not change that fact.
Shall we put $20 on it?
No they didn't think twice about messing with the US. They even launched from Iran so there was no mistake who took this action.
So on those two points you were wrong. As far as saving American lives that needs to be seen.
I am sure like others here you can come up with a religious reason (coin thread) would you would not have to pay if there was a bet. :)
Post by: chief_mag on January 08, 2020, 01:01:15 PM
I am sure like others here you can come up with a religious reason (coin thread) would you would not have to pay if there was a bet. :)That's an unfair characterization. At least half of the DDFers in the thread were against backing out for all sorts of reasons, including religious ones.
Post by: whYME on January 08, 2020, 01:03:33 PM
You conveniently left out your quote about the original offer. Yes their action was dumb enough to get into a war. Just because Trump backed down does not change that fact.So you're saying you think that they were trying to cause more damage than they did with this strike, (something that would necessitate a strong US response) they just failed miserably?
No they didn't think twice about messing with the US. They even launched from Iran so there was no mistake who took this action.
So on those two points you were wrong. As far as saving American lives that needs to be seen.
I am sure like others here you can come up with a religious reason (coin thread) would you would not have to pay if there was a bet. :)
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 01:04:08 PM
That's an unfair characterization. At least half of the DDFers in the thread were against backing out for all sorts of reasons, including religious ones.I said "like others" meaning others made that argument which is accurate. With that said I was joking and don't think Dan or others I have bet with would ever do that.
Post by: yeshivabucher on January 08, 2020, 01:04:59 PM
That's an unfair characterization. At least half of the DDFers in the thread were against backing out for all sorts of reasons, including religious ones.i would say i lot of ppl talked the talk but didnt walk the walk
Post by: Dan on January 08, 2020, 01:06:50 PM
You conveniently left out your quote about the original offer. Yes their action was dumb enough to get into a war. Just because Trump backed down does not change that fact.Yes, it sure looks like war to give a warning and kill zero Americans.
No they didn't think twice about messing with the US. They even launched from Iran so there was no mistake who took this action.
So on those two points you were wrong. As far as saving American lives that needs to be seen.
I am sure like others here you can come up with a religious reason (coin thread) would you would not have to pay if there was a bet. :)
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 01:09:23 PM
So you're saying you think that they were trying to cause more damage than they did with this strike, (something that would necessitate a strong US response) they just failed miserably?No one knows at this point. I believe they targeted military assets. They made it clear this was Iran taking this action and not proxies as many of you predicted they would use. This was an act of war. I am grateful Trump backed down. You all say I never give Trump credit. He gets 100% credit for this not going further. So please bookmark this when the lies start/continue that I never give him credit.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 01:11:25 PM
Yes, it sure looks like war to give a warning and kill zero Americans.They targeted American military assets from Iran and you don't consider that an act of war. If that is way you look at it so be it.
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 01:13:17 PM
No one knows at this point. I believe they targeted military assets. They made it clear this was Iran taking this action and not proxies as many of you predicted they would use. This was an act of war. I am grateful Trump backed down. You all say I never give Trump credit. He gets 100% credit for this not going further. So please bookmark this when the lies start/continue that I never give him credit.
For the record you would have lost this bet. They did mess with us. There action was war like. The reason we there is not a war now is because our coward president backed down after being attacked. See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to.lol. Bookmarked this.
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 01:14:40 PM
This is of course 20/20 hindsight.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 01:15:55 PM
lol. Bookmarked this.Fine, I gave him 100% credit. What's your point that I called him a "coward"? What do you call a draft dodger?
I do appreciate your dishonesty taking a spin comment out of context. :)
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 01:20:02 PM
Fine, I gave him 100% credit. What's your point that I called him a "coward"? What do you call a draft dodger?Why didn't you call him "our orange haired president" or "IMPOTUS"? You were calling him a coward in that context. Then you felt the squeeze and
As a wise man said::D...but we do goalposts!!!We just change them.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 01:22:58 PM
Why didn't you call him "our orange haired president" or "IMPOTUS"? You were calling him a coward in that context. Then you felt the squeeze andWe just change them.You ignore this part of the comment "See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to" because you are dishonest.
:D
Why do you always back up other Jews against anything I say? Do you hate now Jews that much?
Post by: whYME on January 08, 2020, 01:24:11 PM
They made it clear this was Iran taking this action and not proxies as many of you predicted they would use.You're totally ignoring the main part of those predictions.
Iran's primary agenda is avoiding a war that will lead to regime change. They are still learning how much trouble they can cause without starting a war.
They talk a big talk but at the end of the day their #1 goal is to stay in power. The last thing they want is all out war with the US. Because whatever the ultimate result of that would be, one thing that's absolutely certain is that the current regime will be knocked out.then there's also this:
Proxies never made sense. That would be a real revenge not just a continuation of their loud mouthing and they wouldn't be showing their citizens that anything was done. Now they can tell their citizen that they did something.I agree with this (20/20 hindsight) although I still think they'll use proxies to try for some real revenge.
This is of course 20/20 hindsight.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 01:26:52 PM
You're totally ignoring the main part of those predictions.Are you disagreeing that attacking American military assets from Iran is not an act of war?
This might help you: “This was an act of war, Sean, by any reasonable definition,” Graham continued, before declaring that “the President has all the authority he needs under Article II to respond. How he responds is yet to be determined.”
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 01:30:06 PM
You ignore this part of the comment "See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to" because you are dishonest.How do you lose a bet based off of a spin.
Why do you always back up other Jews against anything I say? Do you hate now Jews that much?Problems is, I only see you arguing with Jews.
See how easy it is to spin it the way you want to;D
It's mainly that I disagree with most of what you say, the end result is I'm backing a Jew.
ETA: Just to make you happy I will say I think it was an act of war. But, I don't like getting involved in these endless arguments. I just like pointing out when you twist yourself into a pretzel.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 01:33:12 PM
How do you lose a bet based off of a spin.You lose a bet by being wrong. Read the original bet and stop trying to spin it.
Was Iran's action an act of war?
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 01:35:07 PM
You lose a bet by being wrong. Read the original bet and stop trying to spin it.See my edit. I wasn't getting involved in the actual argument.
Was Iran's action an act of war?
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 01:41:44 PM
See my edit. I wasn't getting involved in the actual argument.No you were trying to twist the outcome of a bet that I never took.
You agree it was an act of war but say I would have lost the bet? That I am trying to twist into a pretzel when you agree it was an act of war. ::)
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 01:43:55 PM
Yes, it sure looks like war to give a warning and kill zero Americans.
Post by: whYME on January 08, 2020, 01:47:25 PM
Are you disagreeing that attacking American military assets from Iran is not an act of war?Gee, well if Lindsey Graham said it's an act of war, then I guess we should send in the troops ::)
This might help you: “This was an act of war, Sean, by any reasonable definition,” Graham continued, before declaring that “the President has all the authority he needs under Article II to respond. How he responds is yet to be determined.”
Let's ignore all the posturing and strutting on both sides and focus on the bottom line. So far Iran seems to be trying to (push the envelope as far as can and still) avoid a real war. Which is what Dan & I have both been saying all along they would do. It seems to me the "bet" was whether it escalates into a full-blown war, not whether Iran commits an "act of war" without killing Americans.
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 01:53:48 PM
No you were trying to twist the outcome of a bet that I never took.My point was not the bet at all. My point was that originally you were criticizing Orangutan for being a coward and not responding. Then, for whatever reason, when it was convenient for you, you give him credit for the very same act. And made sure to loudly proclaim the
You agree it was an act of war but say I would have lost the bet? That I am trying to twist into a pretzel when you agree it was an act of war. ::)
You all say I never give Trump credit. He gets 100% credit for this not going further.
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 01:56:00 PM
Why don't you attack Dan who claims it wasn't an attack of war? You disagree with him so whats up? Can it be he is a Jew and I am not? @chinagelDon''t bite the hand that feeds you. ;D
I don't usually get involved in the main arguments, I find them boring. Just your pretzels.
Post by: yuneeq on January 08, 2020, 02:00:52 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 02:03:19 PM
My point was not the bet at all. My point was that originally you were criticizing Orangutan for being a coward and not responding. Then, for whatever reason, when it was convenient for you, you give him credit for the very same act. And made sure to loudly proclaim theHe is the reason we are not at war and he gets 100% of the credit. If I call him coward, scumbag, Kool-Aid drinker or a 100+ different names how does that change what I said about giving him credit?
Post by: Ergel on January 08, 2020, 02:07:53 PM
Post by: Dan on January 08, 2020, 02:09:20 PM
Gee, well if Lindsey Graham said it's an act of war, then I guess we should send in the troops ::)So simple to understand, I'm surprised anyone can get this wrong.
Let's ignore all the posturing and strutting on both sides and focus on the bottom line. So far Iran seems to be trying to (push the envelope as far as can and still) avoid a real war. Which is what Dan & I have both been saying all along they would do. It seems to me the "bet" was whether it escalates into a full-blown war, not whether Iran commits an "act of war" without killing Americans.
Everyone said they would retaliate and figure out how far they can push our buttons. They will keep doing that. That doesn't mean the US is entering into a war.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 02:10:09 PM
Thankfully, I don't think too many are confused about the difference between war and an act of war. Most people wouldn't call someone drunk because they sipped an oz of beer, which is indeed part of the process of getting drunk. Most people here have been saying these escalations will not become a war, and that seems to be likely.To have a war you need two participants. US started with an act of war, Iran responded with an act of war. Trump decided to back down and I am grateful he came to his senses after this major blunder.
Post by: Dan on January 08, 2020, 02:11:25 PM
To have a war you need two participants. US started with an act of war, Iran responded with an act of war. Trump decided to back down and I am grateful he came to his senses after this major blunder.None of which means we are at war.
Post by: Ergel on January 08, 2020, 02:11:34 PM
To have a war you need two participants. US started with an act of war, Iran responded with an act of war. Trump decided to back down and I am grateful he came to his senses after this major blunder.So you are grateful he is a coward?
Honestly, I usually find you to be sensible. But you are like a bull in a china shop in this discussion
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 02:12:43 PM
@CountValentine You really think he is a coward for not responding to the missile strike?NO!!! It was the right thing to do and in the best interest of the US.
He is a coward for being a draft dodger. If you know anyone that serve in the US military ask them if they consider a draft dodger a coward.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 02:13:30 PM
So you are grateful he is a coward?Give me time to respond to one question before asking another. ;)
Post by: whYME on January 08, 2020, 02:14:08 PM
To have a war you need two participants. US started with an act of war, Iran responded with an act of war. Trump decided to back down and I am grateful he came to his senses after this major blunder.
So in other words they didn't do any real harm, everybody gets to claim victory, and we all go back home and argue about impeachment again.
So remind me again why this is all so terrible?
Post by: as2 on January 08, 2020, 02:14:46 PM
To have a war you need two participants. US started with an act of war, Iran responded with an act of war. Trump decided to back down and I am grateful he came to his senses after this major blunder.Not involving myself in this argument, just honestly wondering...Didn't Iran attack the US embassy (twice?) prior to this attack? Wouldn't that be the initiating act of war?
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 02:16:24 PM
Not involving myself in this argument, just honestly wondering...Didn't Iran attack the US embassy (twice?) prior to this attack? Wouldn't that be the initiating act of war?You mean by proxies?
Post by: PlatinumGuy on January 08, 2020, 02:18:39 PM
Post by: as2 on January 08, 2020, 02:18:41 PM
You mean by proxies?Still genuinely wondering, not stoking the flames, but why would that make a difference? I don't think anyone questioned who was behind those attacks. Can war not spur from proxy attacks?
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 02:19:46 PM
NO!!! It was the right thing to do and in the best interest of the US.So when you called him a coward it had nothing to do with his not responding to the missiles?
He is a coward for being a draft dodger. If you know anyone that serve in the US military ask them if they consider a draft dodger a coward.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 02:20:00 PM
None of which means we are at war.I think I got it now. What you meant was that Iran is dumb enough to commit an act of war but Trump would not bite? :)
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 02:20:42 PM
So when you called him a coward it had nothing to do with his not responding to the missiles?Seriously, no.
Post by: whYME on January 08, 2020, 02:21:09 PM
Not involving myself in this argument, just honestly wondering...Didn't Iran attack the US embassy (twice?) prior to this attack? Wouldn't that be the initiating act of war?Apparently in the anti-Trump world Iran & Suleimani were just sitting around minding their own business when all of the sudden, out of the blue, Trump decided to randomly kill Suleimani because he wanted to start WW3.
(and then when they sent a few missiles to Iraq Trump saw the harm they caused and got all scared of their tremendous military might and backed down like a coward.)
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 02:22:55 PM
Still genuinely wondering, not stoking the flames, but why would that make a difference? I don't think anyone questioned who was behind those attacks. Can war not spur from proxy attacks?It gives them deniability and something the members here love, word games.
Post by: whYME on January 08, 2020, 02:24:38 PM
You mean by proxies?Well to be fair, Suleimani was killed while in Iraq in the company of said proxies.
Had he been killed in Iran (which never would've happened) it would be a whole different ball game.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 02:25:04 PM
Apparently in the anti-Trump world Iran & Suleimani were just sitting around minding their own business when all of the sudden, out of the blue, Trump decided to randomly kill Suleimani because he wanted to start WW3.Wait Trump been president for 3 years and all of a sudden he decides to take out this bad guy? The 3 previous years he didn't kill anyone?
(and then when they sent a few missiles to Iraq Trump saw the harm they caused and got all scared of their tremendous military might and backed down like a coward.)
Post by: whYME on January 08, 2020, 02:26:21 PM
Wait Trump been president for 3 years and all of a sudden he decides to take out this bad guy? The 3 previous years he didn't kill anyone?It must be because he wanted to divert attention from impeachment, considering how impeachment has been killing him in the polls and decimating his fundraising.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 02:26:44 PM
Well to be fair, Suleimani was killed while in Iraq in the company of said proxies.So killing a government official outside their country is not as serious as killing them in their country?
Had he been killed in Iran (which never would've happened) it would be a whole different ball game.
Post by: Dan on January 08, 2020, 02:27:54 PM
I think I got it now. What you meant was that Iran is smart enough to commit an act of war, without casualties that would compel Trump to bite? :)ftfy
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 02:28:05 PM
It must be because he wanted to divert attention from impeachment, considering how impeachment has been killing him in the polls and decimating his fundraising.We still have no reason except conflicting reports from the WH and DOD. So while you joke do have the reason why it happened now?
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 02:30:37 PM
ftfyMan that is a ton different from what you wrote in the original bet. Since you are a fair person I will take your word that is what you meant. Just like Trump I will respond no further on this. :)
Post by: Dan on January 08, 2020, 02:33:14 PM
Man that is a ton different from what you wrote in the original bet. Since you are a fair person I will take your word that is what you meant. Just like Trump I will respond no further on this. :)It's not at all. But OK.
If you think we are at war, that's cool.
Post by: dealfinder11 on January 08, 2020, 03:14:23 PM
Now you have to make up lies to try and cover your tracks. Who blamed the plane crash on Trump?
It is very sad how with rockets flying and planes "crashing" what you care about is whether the media looks like fools.
Unless amidst your [seemingly perpetual state of] rage you decided to throw every unrelated topic against the wall to see what stuck, you did sir.
Best week for Trump since the Muller report.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 03:17:25 PM
Unless amidst your [seemingly perpetual state of] rage you decided to throw every unrelated topic against the wall to see what stuck, you did sir.Why do you keep quoting me in your lies?
Are you going to man enough to apologizes for your lies against me?
Post by: dealfinder11 on January 08, 2020, 03:19:28 PM
Why do you keep quoting me in your lies?
Are you going to man enough to apologizes for your lies against me?
Do you even know what your talking about?
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 03:21:45 PM
Do you even know what your talking about?I never mentioned planes or blamed Trump for any plane crash but you keep making up lies saying I did. Why do you keep quoting me perpetuating this lie?
Post by: EliJelly on January 08, 2020, 03:24:08 PM
So when you called him a coward it had nothing to do with his not responding to the missiles?
Seriously, no.
I won't say you're a liar but you're definitely getting lost in this turmoil
Now Trump is in a bind. He can respond and bring us closer to an all out war or do nothing and look like a coward. This has been the biggest military blunder in modern history.
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 03:24:38 PM
Unless amidst your [seemingly perpetual state of] rage you decided to throw every unrelated topic against the wall to see what stuck, you did sir.Are you confusing him with me?
Best week for Trump since the Muller report.
Amazing all you can go to is how this affects Trump politically.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 03:26:25 PM
I won't say you're a liar but you're definitely getting lost in this turmoilHow about @dealfinder11 you going to call him a liar for making up lies against me?
As far as lost trying reading what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. ;)
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 03:27:20 PM
How about @dealfinder11 you going to call him a liar for making up lies against me?Depends if he's Jewish, ;)
Post by: EliJelly on January 08, 2020, 03:28:00 PM
How about @dealfinder11 you going to call him a liar for making up lies against me?Be happy I'm holding you to higher standards ;D
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 03:31:08 PM
Depends if he's Jewish, ;)Try an put yourself in my position if you want to be fair. I member makes up blatant lies against me and no responds except for one honest member. Then out of no where a member shows up takes something out of context and inserts the word "liar".
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 03:32:23 PM
Try an put yourself in my position if you want to be fair. I member makes up blatant lies against me and no responds except for one honest member. Then out of no where a member shows up takes something out of context and inserts the word "liar".With you on this one. Don't take it to heart. :P
Post by: BP16 on January 08, 2020, 03:32:50 PM
Now let me say this, if it would have started with Iran targeting the American military bases in Iraq even if there were no deaths then there would have been a major retaliation on Iran, but the fact that it happened after they killed Soleimani the US/Trump feels that if by not retaliating would stop an all out war even tho Iran could feel proud that they attacked a military base then so be it. But if they try attacking again in a few weeks a few months they would suffer a great response.
Just my thoughts!
Post by: EliJelly on January 08, 2020, 03:33:13 PM
Try an put yourself in my position if you want to be fair. I member makes up blatant lies against me and no responds except for one honest member. Then out of no where a member shows up takes something out of context and inserts the word "liar".Talk about taking words out of context
I won't say you're a liar but you're definitely getting lost in this turmoil
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 03:34:22 PM
With you on this one. Don't take it to heart.I will try not to as long as you don't take anti-Semitism to heart. ;D
Putting the grin makes the comment ok, right?
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 03:36:19 PM
Talk about taking words out of contextMaybe you should read what the great ones on this board have said about using "but".
It is not the Jews fault they are getting attacked but...
You get the picture?
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 03:37:20 PM
I will try not to as long as you don't take anti-Semitism to heart. ;DI don't.
Putting the grin makes the comment ok, right?
IDK, ask someone who gets out a little bit more.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 03:39:55 PM
Lets put it like this: An Iran proxy shot at a US military base killing an American contractor and wounding some US serviceman, So the US went and killed 25 of that terrorists proxy, Then based on the American intelligence this Soleimani guy organized the attack on the US embassy, So Trump took the bold move to finely eliminate him as he was also responsible for 100s of deaths of American Soldiers, So as of now Iran targets American military bases In Iraq and may have damaged some stuff there, but thank G-D no deaths.You are late to the party but very well thought out.
Now let me say this, if it would have started with Iran targeting the American military bases in Iraq even if there were no deaths then there would have been a major retaliation on Iran, but the fact that it happened after they killed Soleimani the US/Trump feels that if by not retaliating would stop an all out war even tho Iran could feel proud that they attacked a military base then so be it. But if they try attacking again in a few weeks a few months they would suffer a great response.
Just my thoughts!
Post by: EliJelly on January 08, 2020, 03:40:09 PM
Maybe you should read what the great ones on this board have said about using "but".Haha.. But in this case you should appreciate the "but", I don't think anyone else understood it otherwise and still I tried my best not accusing you as a liar ;)
It is not the Jews fault they are getting attacked but...
You get the picture?
Post by: whYME on January 08, 2020, 03:41:17 PM
So while you joke do have the reason why it happened now?I have no idea.
On the face of it, doing it to distract from impeachment doesn't make sense.
My gut feeling is that there wasn't any one big reason for it being now, it just worked out this way.
It's probably something that's been on the table for a while, the embassy attack may have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
There's also the opportunity factor; how often is he in Iraq and they know exactly where he is?
And as for whatever he's been planning going forward, I'm not convinced it's anything significantly worse than what he's been doing until now. (i.e. it explains why he's a legit target but doesn't answer why now specifically)
So why are there "conflicting reports from the WH and DOD?" (I'm gonna take your word for it that this is the case, I really haven't paid much attention to what anyone was saying.)
1. Messaging has never been this administration's strong point.
2. they're trying a little too hard to blow up the importance of doing it right now, even if the reason is as I said above, primarily to avoid accusations of it being to distract from impeachment.
3.for Trump there's no such thing as "now is when it just happened to all come together' it has to be "This is the best, most appropriate, time there ever was and ever will be for this"
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 03:43:24 PM
Haha.. But in this case you should appreciate the "but", I don't think anyone else understood it otherwise and still I tried my best not accusing you as a liar ;)The best why to do that was not to mention the word. Still waiting for you to call out @dealfinder11 lies. I can provide links so there is no confusion if you like.
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 03:45:40 PM
The best why to do that was not to mention the word. Still waiting for you to call out @dealfinder11 lies. I can provide links so there is no confusion if you like.You can provide links to something you never said? :-\
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 03:47:53 PM
I have no idea.We agree on this one.
WH says it was because on imminent attacks and DOD say because of future planned attacks. Pompeo when asked if imminent meant days or weeks he would not answer the question.
With Trumps comments about how the past president would start a war (completely false) to get reelected it brings into question if this was his mindset.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 03:51:23 PM
You can provide links to something you never said? :-\This is how you twists things continually. I can provide links to his lies.
You sure you are not a white supremacist to get people to hate Jews? ;D
I put a grin so that makes the comment ok.
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 03:53:17 PM
This is how you twists things continually. I can provide links to his lies.No need, comment was fine without it. ;D
You sure you are not a white supremacist to get people to hate Jews? ;D
I put a grin so that makes the comment ok.
Post by: as2 on January 08, 2020, 03:53:38 PM
Try an put yourself in my position if you want to be fair. I member makes up blatant lies against me and no responds except for one honest member. Then out of no where a member shows up takes something out of context and inserts the word "liar".Just a thought. I agree with you at times, and disagree at times. I have different views than many here have. I don't get involved in the political arguments, because people decide to think things of others based on their political stances, secondly, because I can't recall a time when a political argument ended with one side agreeing with the other, and 3rd, because most of these arguments come from emotion, over facts (which are typically unavailable to some extent.) You tend take up opinions that differ from most here (quite possibly a result of the different upbringing/lives you, and many here lead) which leads to you getting "ganged up on" as it would appear. I don't think it's a Jewish/not Jewish thing, but more of a difference in opinion. Part of it is probably also how you tend to argue. If you believe what you say (you seem to) why have these arguments here? This isn't the first time (IIRC) that you've made a comment like this, so why bother engaging with those individuals who you often call "cool aid drinkers" or "head in the sand"? Not trying to argue, agree, disagree, or hate, just trying to offer some insight. Hope this doesn't come across different from how I intended it to.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 04:01:59 PM
Just a thought. I agree with you at times, and disagree at times. I have different views than many here have. I don't get involved in the political arguments, because people decide to think things of others based on their political stances, secondly, because I can't recall a time when a political argument ended with one side agreeing with the other, and 3rd, because most of these arguments come from emotion, over facts (which are typically unavailable to some extent.) You tend take up opinions that differ from most here (quite possibly a result of the different upbringing/lives you, and many here lead) which leads to you getting "ganged up on" as it would appear. I don't think it's a Jewish/not Jewish thing, but more of a difference in opinion. Part of it is probably also how you tend to argue. If you believe what you say (you seem to) why have these arguments here? This isn't the first time (IIRC) that you've made a comment like this, so why bother engaging with those individuals who you often call "cool aid drinkers" or "head in the sand"? Not trying to argue, agree, disagree, or hate, just trying to offer some insight. Hope this doesn't come across different from how I intended it to.What you say makes sense and I fully understand. This is my outlet while I MS/trade from my computer (no PM's). So far I did a ton of trades today.
My point is if you are in these discussions and you see me make something up about someone call me out on it. Also if the opposite happens call them out on it also. The problem is the second part rarely if ever happens.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 04:05:35 PM
Post by: chevron on January 08, 2020, 04:06:33 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 04:08:46 PM
Like others said, I think it was just an opportunity to do it now and they figured aw what the heckLOL "but" it seems the way this WH operates.
Post by: as2 on January 08, 2020, 04:13:22 PM
What you say makes sense and I fully understand. This is my outlet while I MS/trade from my computer (no PM's). So far I did a ton of trades today.I hear ya. This thread didn't start as a hardcore political conversation, which is the only reason I clicked on it. I can't speak for others, or other threads that I'm not involved in. My guess is, that being that so many are arguing with you specifically (a direct result of you voicing your differing opinion, which is a minority opinion here it seems) , anything you say, will be torn apart much more than someone throwing in a random comment. More people are focusing on your comments than others as they are directly engaging with you ;D
My point is if you are in these discussions and you see me make something up about someone call me out on it. Also if the opposite happens call them out on it also. The problem is the second part rarely if ever happens.
Post by: as2 on January 08, 2020, 04:20:55 PM
Maybe this isn't over...
Quote
BREAKING: Initial reports of a rocket attack in or near the U.S. embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 04:25:45 PM
Maybe this isn't over...Where is that from.
Post by: as2 on January 08, 2020, 04:27:38 PM
Where is that from.I was forwarded it from Belaaz. Not sure where they got it.
ETA: It's all over twitter from multiple news agencies as well.
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 04:28:29 PM
https://www.voanews.com/extremism-watch/look-key-figures-killed-qassem-soleimani-us-strike
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 04:32:57 PM
You can provide links to something you never said? :-\yes. Just like he did over here.
Unless amidst your [seemingly perpetual state of] rage you decided to throw every unrelated topic against the wall to see what stuck, you did sir.
Best week for Trump since the Muller report.
Are you confusing him with me?
Amazing all you can go to is how this affects Trump politically.
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 04:33:48 PM
the past president8)
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 04:35:33 PM
What you say makes sense and I fully understand. This is my outlet while I MS/trade from my computer (no PM's). So far I did a ton of trades today.Sounds like you need to get out more.
My point is if you are in these discussions and you see me make something up about someone call me out on it. Also if the opposite happens call them out on it also. The problem is the second part rarely if ever happens.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 04:35:42 PM
8)Amazing how silent you have been since then. :)
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 04:36:34 PM
Sounds like you need to get out more.Mostly at night but I am do for a vacation.
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 04:36:40 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 04:37:52 PM
Does the US have no missile defense capabilities?Not after they sent them all to Israel. :P
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 04:38:56 PM
Amazing how silent you have been since then. :)not the case.
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 04:39:13 PM
Not after they sent them all to Israel. :PSo that's a no?
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 04:39:20 PM
Not after they sent them all to Israel. :PThey were developed by Israel IIRC.
Post by: Mordyk on January 08, 2020, 04:39:47 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 04:40:36 PM
They were developed by Israel IIRC.The original during the Iraq war?
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 04:41:08 PM
im so thankful that This guy was taken out. it gave @CountValentine another thread to be busy with! :DThe guy's head coming off was just a psik reisha d'nicha lei :)
Post by: stooges44 on January 08, 2020, 04:41:18 PM
im so thankful that This guy was taken out. it gave @CountValentine another thread to be busy with! :D
I want to know how you all have so much time for this?? This thread has been active almost every minute for the last 24 - 36 hours
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 04:42:04 PM
im so thankful that This guy was taken out. it gave @CountValentine another thread to be busy with! :DI will be back in the others. Just a temporary detour. Going to have to harp on the COWARD part in the political thread. :P
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 04:43:02 PM
I want to know how you all have so much time for this?? This thread has been active almost every minute for the last 24 - 36 hours
Never take a job, it takes up too much free time.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 04:43:25 PM
I want to know how you all have so much time for this?? This thread has been active almost every minute for the last 24 - 36 hoursMarkets, Netfix and Amazon Prime.
Are you one of those that have an actual job?
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 04:46:31 PM
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 04:49:41 PM
I would give you guys movie suggestions but kind of useless without a TV.Market suggestions?
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 04:54:33 PM
Market suggestions?To late now but short Au.
Post by: Yonah on January 08, 2020, 05:11:10 PM
To late now but short Au.
:D :D :D
a) I love it when threads come together
b) If it's unethical for you to trade it, surely its unethical for you to advise someone else to do it
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 05:19:51 PM
:D :D :DI said unethical for me to buy when I need a war for it to go up. No issue shorting it when you are hoping for peace to make money.
a) I love it when threads come together
b) If it's unethical for you to trade it, surely its unethical for you to advise someone else to do it
Edit so no one thinks I am uptight. :)
Post by: as2 on January 08, 2020, 05:22:11 PM
Please don't misrepresent what I said. I said unethical for me to buy when I need a war for it to go up. No issue shorting it when you are hoping for peace to make money.I get that you're on edge, but loosen up a little. I understood your previous comment the same way he did. Thanks for clarifying ;D
Post by: aygart on January 08, 2020, 05:23:59 PM
Please don't misrepresent what I said. I said unethical for me to buy when I need a war for it to go up. No issue shorting it when you are hoping for peace to make money.The differences between buying and shorting. lol.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 05:26:14 PM
I get that you're on edge, but loosen up a little. I understood your previous comment the same way he did. Thanks for clarifying ;DI am loose. I didn't say liar. :)
We discussed this in the ethical thread and we are cool as cucumbers!
Post by: as2 on January 08, 2020, 05:31:24 PM
I am loose. I didn't say liar. :)Ok Mr. Cumber! ;D
We discussed this in the ethical thread and we are cool as cucumbers!
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 06:24:09 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/insulting-and-demeaning-lawmakers-rip-trump-administration-after-iran-briefing/ar-BBYL4Pu?ocid=spartanntp
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 08:31:33 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/joint-chiefs-chairman-iran-intended-to-kill-american-troops-in-missile-attacks/ar-BBYLfEx?ocid=spartandhp
Post by: dealfinder11 on January 08, 2020, 08:49:01 PM
This is going to be the funniest comment you see all day. Take a moment to appreciate it.
The biggest victory (even bigger than killing "the worlds number one bad guy) for Trump, is everyone in the media looking like a bunch of fools. Well played Mr president!!!
It is very sad how with rockets flying and planes "crashing" what you care about is whether the media looks like fools.
@aygart responds, suggesting it's wrong for me to complement trump when there was a plane crash. i assume he is suggesting there is a cause and effect here because why else mention?
great way to try and dramatize, but i'm not going to fall for it. Have yourself a wonderful day.
p.s. thoughts and prayers to those who perished on the plane crash, as well as to their families.
I refute the notion they are connected. Plane crash is sad. Trump still had a good day. Capeesh?
So you get called out and then try and clean it up.
@CountValentine jumps in (because obviously) and suggests i was backing off my comment. Though only reason to back off if Trump is responsible for plain crash.
you as well. Blaming the plane crash on Trump and suggesting anyone else who doesn't as evil, is just par for the course.I once again refute that notion. "par for the course" was refering back to @aygart comment that my statement was "sad", insinuating those with my opinion are heartless.
I never mentioned planes or blamed Trump for any plane crash but you keep making up lies saying I did. Why do you keep quoting me perpetuating this lie?
No you did not. I wasn't talking to you. I was commenting back to @aygart. sheesh.
Are you confusing him with me?
Amazing all you can go to is how this affects Trump politically.
Not confusing anyone.
as i mentioned on my original post, please have yourselves a wonderful evening. Consider this conversation over. I'm done with having to dumb things down
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 09:32:33 PM
No you did not. I wasn't talking to you. I was commenting back to @aygart. sheesh.Let me explain it so even someone with a half a brain cell can understand. Hopefully that will be dumbed down enough for you to understand.
You don't quote someone and then try and say you were not talking to them. Just say you accidently quoted the wrong person. The problem now is you dug your whole so deep you can't get out of it. Either way have yourself a good evening.
Post by: dealfinder11 on January 08, 2020, 10:23:25 PM
Let me explain it so even someone with a half a brain cell can understand. Hopefully that will be dumbed down enough for you to understand.
You don't quote someone and then try and say you were not talking to them. Just say you accidently quoted the wrong person. The problem now is you dug your whole so deep you can't get out of it. Either way have yourself a good evening.
You just enhanced it even more! Thank you for the wishes!
Post by: Mountain Man on January 08, 2020, 11:10:57 PM
I think @BP16 is spot on. I think that despite the media portraying Trump to be a warmonger he's been very cautious about ratcheting up the violence. But since he has a reputation for being unhinged Iran is also pretty nervous about how far they can go before all hell breaks loose. To @Dan point there is clearly no war yet and it looks like smarter heads in Iran might not want a war.
But there is also the chance that hot heads in Iran like those in the Quds (Jerusalem / Holy) force trying to start the Shiite (twelver) version of Armageddon. I think that's why taking out Soleimani was so important. Aside from what was very likely a threat to American troops (how imminent is yet tbd) it's pretty clear that for the past decade plus he's been at the helm moving all sort of pieces in place for an Armageddon push to topple the zionist regime so to speak.
I really don't like describing secular things biblically but with Iran it really seems there is a biblical aspect to what they do. I know very little about Islam and even less about Shia but it seems they have messianic beliefs (Mahdi) very similar to Judaism. And just like there's a bunch of evangelicals down in Texas that support Israel out of some sort of religious drive it seems the same is true with some Shi'ites in Iran. I bring this up because there are plenty of curveballs that could be thrown right now from various militia groups to nasrallah to some quds generals looking to set a name (or bring along the Mahdi). So I would not rule out a hot direct conflict with Iran. They have a tendency to blow up Israeli embassies (or tour buses) which can suck everyone back in pretty quickly.
I do think there will be a pause right now (from Iran not necessarily militias) if for no other reason than the downing of the Ukrainian jet. Cooler heads in Iran need to figure out a way to blame this on someone fast or risk losing whatever international support they have left. I hope the pause lasts a while. (I kind of feel bad for the soldier that shot the missile thinking he was a hero for downing an American aircraft and he and his family might likely have already been executed soviet style???)
For the longest time I've considered someone like Zarif in Iran to be a lying snake I also think that he's a moderate force who might actually be needed by the US if we were to try another regime change. I think Zarif and many others might actually be relieved that Soleimani is gone in a KGB sort of way where you can't express relief for fear of reprisal but boy do you feel it. He likely has eyes on Rouhani's seat which should be available to him next year. If someone like Biden wins the election next year and assuming we're not in a full out war I can see Zarif and Biden being in a position to redraw a nuclear agreement (which would likely be the same mess as under Obama but maybe not).
But Trump is a wild card and I think that regardless of what the media is saying, this is really helping him out politically. Also, North Korea never gave their "christmas present" which makes me think they're pretty nervous and want to finalize something too. If he gets some sort of real treaty out of North Korea I don't see how he could possibly lose the election.
So to end my rambling I really hope there won't be a war but I think it's way to early to write it off. If this becomes protracted I see this also helping get Trump reelected but if that's the case then I think the next Iranian president will tilt more Ahmadinejad and less Rouhani which could make this conflict get really really hot.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 11:17:06 PM
What is this about shooting down the plane, link?
Post by: Mountain Man on January 08, 2020, 11:24:57 PM
I am going to take a wild guess from your post as say you are a Trump supporter?Not really.
What is this about shooting down the plane, link?
https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=112622.msg2181526#msg2181526
Post by: Mountain Man on January 08, 2020, 11:30:17 PM
I am going to take a wild guess from your post as say you are a Trump supporter?
To clarify it's slim pickings in the political world now. I do think the media is very unfair to him. But i also think he's obtuse and not fit for the office he holds. The world has been moving to strong man leaders over the past decade or two, he's just a symptom of that.
I do wonder how Hillary would've handled these situations. I feel like we'd already be neck deep in another conflict.
Post by: CountValentine on January 08, 2020, 11:32:19 PM
Post by: chinagel on January 08, 2020, 11:39:05 PM
Depends on the size donation the now defunct Clinton Foundation would've gotten.
I do wonder how Hillary would've handled these situations.
Post by: Proisrael on January 09, 2020, 12:34:55 AM
No one knows at this point. I believe they targeted military assets. They made it clear this was Iran taking this action and not proxies as many of you predicted they would use. This was an act of war. I am grateful Trump backed down. You all say I never give Trump credit. He gets 100% credit for this not going further. So please bookmark this when the lies start/continue that I never give him credit.
Like I said earlier in the thread. This attack is the same thing that happened after Israel killed a top hezbollah commander. They retaliated and Israel pretended that soldiers got hurt and that was the end of it. The US just did the same thing. Seems to have worked based on Mr Valentines hysterics that we were attacked with war like attacks.....well played Mr President!
Post by: chinagel on January 09, 2020, 12:37:09 AM
Like I said earlier in the thread. This attack is the same thing that happened after Israel killed a top hezbollah commander. They retaliated and Israel pretended that soldiers got hurt and that was the end of it. The US just did the same thing. Seems to have worked based on Mr Valentines hysterics that we were attacked with war like attacks.....well played Mr President!Do you really believe firing missiles at a US army base isn't warlike?
Post by: Proisrael on January 09, 2020, 12:40:26 AM
Do you really believe firing missiles at a US army base isn't warlike?
If it was just a random attack it would definitely be warlike but after what we did to them I think its just allowing the children to fight back a little and then say enough.
Post by: chinagel on January 09, 2020, 12:43:01 AM
If it was just a random attack it would definitely be warlike but after what we did to them I think its just allowing the children to fight back a little and then say enough.Why does it change based on what we did before?
Post by: Proisrael on January 09, 2020, 12:44:25 AM
Why does it change based on what we did before?
it is called tit for tat. See what I wrote about Israel and Hezbollah.
Post by: chinagel on January 09, 2020, 12:45:19 AM
it is called tit for tat. See what I wrote about Israel and Hezbollah.Tit for tat doesn't make it less warlike.
Post by: M218 on January 09, 2020, 02:07:12 AM
Mob storming an embassy is very different from ballistic missiles attacking US forces.I still don`t see which forces were attacked if no one got killed and they warned before
Like I said earlier in the thread. This attack is the same thing that happened after Israel killed a top hezbollah commander. They retaliated and Israel pretended that soldiers got hurt and that was the end of it. The US just did the same thing. Seems to have worked based on Mr Valentines hysterics that we were attacked with war like attacks.....well played Mr President!Well said!
Post by: M218 on January 09, 2020, 02:15:55 AM
Post by: Proisrael on January 09, 2020, 02:18:13 AM
Tit for tat doesn't make it less warlike.
Warlike means we go to war over what happens. Tit for Tat is letting them tell their constituents (like @CountValentine ) that they have harmed/killed/destroyed US forces, even though its a lie. Dictators need these type of victories in order to impress and quiet down the people.....It really is quite simple to understand.
Post by: Dan on January 09, 2020, 02:33:56 AM
Warlike means we go to war over what happens. Tit for Tat is letting them tell their constituents (like @CountValentine ) that they have harmed/killed/destroyed US forces, even though its a lie. Dictators need these type of victories in order to impress and quiet down the people.....It really is quite simple to understand.+1
Post by: aygart on January 09, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Bottom line is that Mr. Trump has everybody in his pocket and does what he wants without asking. Everytime he does something everyone barks but do nothing (I forgot about impeachment) and he stays the winner by his people. Whatever critics ever said bad about him came out to be good. Now about the killing I think it was a great think to get rid of that trash, and it costed the US some money in damage... which that murder would have and had done more himself. Best of all Trump got his media coverage he needed.... so for now lets go back on disscusing impeachment etc.Busy with lives on the line and best of all Trump got his media coverage? I can't believe how so many couldn't care less about US lives as long as Trump.... :o :o :o
Post by: Proisrael on January 09, 2020, 08:20:31 AM
Busy with lives on the line and best of all Trump got his media coverage? I can't believe how so many couldn't care less about US lives as long as Trump.... :o :o :o
Dont be stupid, nobody doesn't care about US lives. They were in more danger with the terrorist alive then with him dead. The overall good outweighed the risk of a few missiles.
Post by: Boruch999 on January 09, 2020, 08:38:58 AM
Dont be stupid, nobody doesn't care about US lives. They were in more danger with the terrorist alive then with him dead. The overall good outweighed the risk of a few missiles.
An argument could be made, in my opinion a legitimate one, that the good of Soleimani dead outweighs the risk of retaliation which could potentially kill Americans, a major consideration being how many. It is a decision that must be taken with utmost deliberation and your use of the words "a few missiles" conveys a cavalierness that I hope was unintentional, even though in this particular case, so far, no Americans were killed.
Post by: M218 on January 09, 2020, 09:10:56 AM
Busy with lives on the line and best of all Trump got his media coverage? I can't believe how so many couldn't care less about US lives as long as Trump.... :o :o :oIn my opinion the most lifes on the line were when this arch terrorist was alive!
Post by: M218 on January 09, 2020, 09:19:05 AM
An argument could be made, in my opinion a legitimate one, that the good of Soleimani dead outweighs the risk of retaliation which could potentially kill Americans, a major consideration being how many. It is a decision that must be taken with utmost deliberation and your use of the words "a few missiles" conveys a cavalierness that I hope was unintentional, even though in this particular case, so far, no Americans were killed.Again no one knows what will be or whould have been, this terrorist killed in the last decade much more people then you could count but some signs you may pick up like that the US new before the attack and that no one got killed like the Americans need to be fed news so do the Iranians.
would you want the embassy to be attacked first again with 20 killed and then everyone will scream Trump didn`t do anything last time so they picked it up a notch?
Post by: aygart on January 09, 2020, 09:25:47 AM
Dont be stupid, nobody doesn't care about US lives. They were in more danger with the terrorist alive then with him dead. The overall good outweighed the risk of a few missiles.
In my opinion the most lifes on the line were when this arch terrorist was alive!Very possible but then leave Trump and the media out of it. If it saved American lives isn't that the best part and not some stupidity between Trump and the media?
Even with lives saved all you seem to care about is Trump not the lives saved.
Post by: Boruch999 on January 09, 2020, 09:26:10 AM
Again no one knows what will be or whould have been, this terrorist killed in the last decade much more people then you could count but some signs you may pick up like that the US new before the attack and that no one got killed like the Americans need to be fed news so do the Iranians.
would you want the embassy to be attacked first again with 20 killed and then everyone will scream Trump didn`t do anything last time so they picked it up a notch?
Did you read my post? This has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Post by: aygart on January 09, 2020, 09:29:00 AM
Did you read my post? This has nothing to do with what I wrote.Yeah but Trump pulled one on the media.
Post by: M218 on January 09, 2020, 09:57:08 AM
Very possible but then leave Trump and the media out of it. If it saved American lives isn't that the best part and not some stupidity between Trump and the media?Don`t get me wrong there is two ways we could look at it or in anything what Trump does. He does things which you could take as a benefit for USA or for his benefit or both
Even with lives saved all you seem to care about is Trump not the lives saved.
But you cannot say because your`e anti-trump that whatever he does is not good. What you could say is that he puts a focus on things for his benefit.
In short: There were 2 good things out of it... and because of that most critics would complain while looking away from the good side
My Opinion: There are enough people taking care on this thread for Trumps Foreign policy so I should be taking care of the second benefit!
Post by: chinagel on January 09, 2020, 10:02:23 AM
Warlike means we go to war over what happens.Not true. But if that's what you meant then I get your point.
Post by: yungermanchik on January 09, 2020, 10:11:20 AM
Quote
More sanctions placed on IranHOW CAN THEY HAVE NOT PLACED EVERY POSSIBLE SANCTION ON THIS EVIL REGIME YET???!!!
Post by: aygart on January 09, 2020, 10:30:20 AM
Don`t get me wrong there is two ways we could look at it or in anything what Trump does. He does things which you could take as a benefit for USA or for his benefit or both
But you cannot say because your`e anti-trump that whatever he does is not good. What you could say is that he puts a focus on things for his benefit.
In short: There were 2 good things out of it... and because of that most critics would complain while looking away from the good side
My Opinion: There are enough people taking care on this thread for Trumps Foreign policy so I should be taking care of the second benefit!
That is like talking about a prospective shidduch who has so many maalos. She is a yirei shomayim, has good middos, is smart, etc. But all you talk about is how she knows how to play a cello.
Post by: Yonah on January 09, 2020, 10:33:17 AM
- The Sky is Red
- The sky is blue
We all know which one is true, and which is false. Yet somehow I feel that how much you believe each statement depends on which side you are on and which side it came from. If your side said the sky is red, you'd believe it wholeheartedly.
You'd completely ignore the true facts (or convince yourself that they were false) to support "your side"
Post by: CountValentine on January 09, 2020, 10:36:54 AM
Post by: aygart on January 09, 2020, 10:38:50 AM
I really find it odd so many here believe killing this terrorist will save lives. Like the guy who took his place isn't just as bad or worse. Or the orders don't come from the top. Was this guy some great master mind that was irreplaceable?There are those discussing how his influence was integral to the relationships with Syria and Hezbollah
Post by: CountValentine on January 09, 2020, 10:40:37 AM
There are those discussing how his influence was integral to the relationships with Syria and HezbollahSo he was a great military mind that can't be replaced that easily?
Post by: aygart on January 09, 2020, 10:41:39 AM
So he was a great military mind that can't be replaced that easily?Not sure if it was the military aspect of it but that is what some are saying. A bunch of underlings were also killed with him.
Post by: CountValentine on January 09, 2020, 10:44:14 AM
Not sure if it was the military aspect of it but that is what some are saying. A bunch of underlings were also killed with him.There is this saying about cockroaches. ;)
Post by: M218 on January 09, 2020, 10:53:28 AM
That is like talking about a prospective shidduch who has so many maalos. She is a yirei shomayim, has good middos, is smart, etc. But all you talk about is how she knows how to play a cello.well it depends how many people are repeating the same thing
Post by: Boruch999 on January 09, 2020, 10:55:16 AM
So he was a great military mind that can't be replaced that easily?
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/476736-targeting-soleimani-trump-was-justified-legally-and-strategically
"President Trump’s strategy is to remove the enemy’s most effective military asset (who will not be easily replaceable), to demonstrate to the mullahs what can happen when resolve backs our exponentially superior capabilities and to continue squeezing the regime with punishing economic sanctions — as it is pressured by the increasingly restive Iranian people."
Post by: CountValentine on January 09, 2020, 11:00:18 AM
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/476736-targeting-soleimani-trump-was-justified-legally-and-strategicallyHas that worked with other terrorist groups? As we pull out of the ME don't they just come back.
"President Trump’s strategy is to remove the enemy’s most effective military asset (who will not be easily replaceable), to demonstrate to the mullahs what can happen when resolve backs our exponentially superior capabilities and to continue squeezing the regime with punishing economic sanctions — as it is pressured by the increasingly restive Iranian people."
Did I tell you the cockroach story? :)
Post by: M218 on January 09, 2020, 11:02:46 AM
Reading through the comments, and don't mean to hijack this thread, but take the two statements:I think you got it all wrong.
- The Sky is Red
- The sky is blue
We all know which one is true, and which is false. Yet somehow I feel that how much you believe each statement depends on which side you are on and which side it came from. If your side said the sky is red, you'd believe it wholeheartedly.
You'd completely ignore the true facts (or convince yourself that they were false) to support "your side"
They would go over the same point... for example it`s RED by sunset so that they could turn the story around to their side facts are only facts when talking about the same thing.
In our case there are multiple intrests so everyone is saying the story in their version some facts might be true but they don`t even come into the picture (not talking about the people who write out of boredom like me :)) hope you get the point!
Post by: Boruch999 on January 09, 2020, 11:03:53 AM
Has that worked with other terrorist groups? As we pull out of the ME don't they just come back.
Did I tell you the cockroach story? :)
Do you believe you should never kill a cockroach since you'll never get them all?
Since there is currently no obvious total solution to Islamic Terrorism should we surrender to it's desire to impose a worldwide caliphate?
Post by: M218 on January 09, 2020, 11:05:54 AM
Has that worked with other terrorist groups? As we pull out of the ME don't they just come back.In Israel it works the only things the leaders are scared from is death and removal of their positions when Israel starts Target killings they always come to the table and I hope US will start the same tactic
Did I tell you the cockroach story? :)
Post by: aygart on January 09, 2020, 11:06:02 AM
well it depends how many people are repeating the same thingAhh okay does your wife play cello?
Post by: CountValentine on January 09, 2020, 11:06:46 AM
Do you believe you should never kill a cockroach since you'll never get them all?Yes you kill the cockroaches after you calculate risk vs reward.
Since there is currently no obvious total solution to Islamic Terrorism should we surrender to it's desire to impose a worldwide caliphate?
There are situations where risk vs reward does not come into play.
Post by: M218 on January 09, 2020, 11:09:12 AM
Yes you kill the cockroaches after you calculate risk vs reward.Never saw a risk in killing cockroaches unless youre a smaller BUG!!
There are situations where risk vs reward does not come into play.
Ahh okay does your wife play cello?Meanwhile not! you could go teach it to her because she is somewhere around DDF looking for me
Post by: aygart on January 09, 2020, 11:10:09 AM
Meanwhile not! you could go teach it to her because she is somewhere around DDF looking for meHow do you manage without such an important maalo?
Post by: CountValentine on January 09, 2020, 11:13:26 AM
Never saw a risk in killing cockroaches unless youre a smaller BUG!!So you believe might makes right?
Post by: M218 on January 09, 2020, 11:30:14 AM
So you believe might makes right?If you will put all your points together you see that your`e wrong
No bullying allowed but when someone attacks you and and you have the opportunity to hit/kill him you do it when he is only a cockroache
but since your`e only writing to get at&t keep on going well played
Post by: CountValentine on January 09, 2020, 11:35:29 AM
If you will put all your points together you see that your`e wrongSo your sky is red? :)
Post by: chinagel on January 09, 2020, 11:38:47 AM
So your sky is red? :)The sky is colorless, it's merely a reflection of what it is facing.
Post by: CountValentine on January 09, 2020, 11:44:48 AM
The sky is colorless, it's merely a reflection of what it is facing.Ok your sky is colorless so now we have three choices so far.
Post by: chinagel on January 09, 2020, 11:49:09 AM
Ok your sky is colorless so now we have three choices so far.4. There's no such thing as a sky, you're merely staring into the abyss.
5. The sky is really pink, there's just something blue/red/colorless blocking your view of the sky.
Any options I missed?
Post by: CountValentine on January 09, 2020, 11:56:55 AM
4. There's no such thing as a sky, you're merely staring into the abyss.I am sure you are.
5. The sky is really pink, there's just something blue/red/colorless blocking your view of the sky.
Any options I missed?
Post by: M218 on January 09, 2020, 01:41:22 PM
p.s. at least you switched the topic to something more productive
Post by: CountValentine on January 09, 2020, 01:51:22 PM
I don`t know what color the sky is I think youre all right because there are 7 skys (or more) and G-d is on top and I let each of you have a pick for oneWe have 39 pages of everyone protecting their own corner and you want something more productive?
p.s. at least you switched the topic to something more productive
You want to discuss how this tit for tat resulted in a plane of innocent people dying?
Post by: Mountain Man on January 09, 2020, 02:12:15 PM
I really find it odd so many here believe killing this terrorist will save lives. Like the guy who took his place isn't just as bad or worse. Or the orders don't come from the top. Was this guy some great master mind that was irreplaceable?Of course it will. Soleimani had a very strong handle on numerous militias. The next guy will at the very least have to do a lot of leg work to build trust across numerous factions who, in other circumstances, would be enemies. And that's assuming that the Quds have a smooth transition and there isn't any internal vying for power.
Post by: aygart on January 09, 2020, 02:14:50 PM
We have 39 pages of everyone protecting their own corner and you want something more productive?What corner am I protecting?
You want to discuss how this tit for tat resulted in a plane of innocent people dying?
Post by: CountValentine on January 09, 2020, 02:26:43 PM
What corner am I protecting?You were the guy with gasoline going to each corner. :)
Post by: aygart on January 09, 2020, 02:55:07 PM
You were the guy with gasoline going to each corner. :)I took your spot?
Post by: gingyguy on January 09, 2020, 02:57:31 PM
I took your spot?Hey, there's room for The both of you.
Post by: aygart on January 09, 2020, 02:59:52 PM
Hey, there's room for The both of you.Maybe I am being ghost writer?
Post by: CountValentine on January 09, 2020, 04:37:57 PM
I took your spot?Imitated but never duplicated. :P
Post by: Mountain Man on January 09, 2020, 05:00:26 PM
Post by: yossig on January 09, 2020, 05:19:10 PM
Lolonly 12%?
Probably fake!
Post by: CountValentine on January 09, 2020, 07:39:15 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-claims-iranian-general-was-plotting-to-blow-up-our-embassy/ar-BBYNggv?ocid=spartanntp
Post by: EliJelly on January 09, 2020, 07:42:41 PM
Anyone believe him?The Iranians do. Based on their weak response.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-claims-iranian-general-was-plotting-to-blow-up-our-embassy/ar-BBYNggv?ocid=spartanntp
Post by: dealfinder11 on January 10, 2020, 12:02:21 AM
Post by: EliJelly on January 10, 2020, 12:58:23 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/us/politics/trump-iran-suleimani.htmlVery nice wrap up. Thanks.
I am quoting this two parts;
"In the days before General Suleimani’s death, Ms. Haspel had advised Mr. Trump that the threat the Iranian general presented was greater than the threat of Iran’s response if he was killed"
"Though Ms. Haspel took no formal position about whether to kill General Suleimani, officials who listened to her analysis came away with the clear view that the C.I.A. believed that killing him would improve — not weaken — security in the Middle East."
The dems and the left played a petrified game how this egoist unstable POTUS is stirring up a peaceful Middle East and putting american lives at risk, well this report proves them wrong.
The NYT is not a proponent of president Trump, but sometimes you have no choice but to report the bitter truth.
Post by: Proisrael on January 10, 2020, 02:05:50 AM
Anyone believe him?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-claims-iranian-general-was-plotting-to-blow-up-our-embassy/ar-BBYNggv?ocid=spartanntp
Well if the Demotraitors in Congress don't subpoena the intelligence that led to it....they obviously believe him....
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 11:08:13 AM
Are these the same sanctions past presidents have used against Iran and NK that he said didn't work? :)
Post by: aygart on January 10, 2020, 11:22:29 AM
Trump announces massive response to the airstrike. Putting sanctions on Iran. ROFLMAOWhat would you have preferred he do?
Are these the same sanctions past presidents have used against Iran and NK that he said didn't work? :)
Post by: itunes on January 10, 2020, 11:23:06 AM
Quote
Trump announces massive response to the airstrike. Putting sanctions on Iran. ROFLMAOHey waiter, some of your finest Iranian Kool-Aid please
Are these the same sanctions past presidents have used against Iran and NK that he said didn't work? :)
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 11:26:44 AM
What would you have preferred he do?Not cancel the Iran deal. Now they will try harder than ever to get the bomb.
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 11:30:15 AM
Hey waiter, some of your finest Iranian Kool-Aid pleaseHaven't you drank enough already? :P
Post by: as2 on January 10, 2020, 11:30:50 AM
Not cancel the Iran deal. Now they will try harder than ever to get the bomb.You're joking, right?
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 11:38:25 AM
Not cancel the Iran deal.So allowing them to make the bomb, but having them wait a few years first, during which they can work on all the technology they need to deliver the bomb, while giving them the cash they need for this and opening up their economy making everything easier, would've been a lot better than at least trying to stop them -- even if it's ultimately unsuccessful.
(https://i.gyazo.com/5a27e46dcae6f32e5cba21b301ea1045.png)
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 11:45:34 AM
You're joking, right?
So allowing them to make the bomb, but having them wait a few years first, during which they can work on all the technology they need to deliver the bomb, while giving them the cash they need for this and opening up their economy making everything easier, would've been a lot better than at least trying to stop them -- even if it's ultimately unsuccessful.There is a reason that most of the US and the world backs the deal.
Most here are against the deal. You going to tell that is because they support Trump also. PC Friday at its best. :)
Post by: aygart on January 10, 2020, 11:51:05 AM
There is a reason that most of the US and the world backs the deal.They were against the deal prior to Trump as well.
Most here are against the deal. You going to tell that is because they support Trump also. PC Friday at its best. :)
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 11:51:50 AM
There is a reason that most of the US and the world backs the deal.Right, take everything you're constantly saying about Trump's supporters and apply it to Obama and support for the deal makes sense. Although I disagree with you about most of the US being pro the deal, definitely not those who actually know what the deal is.
There is a reason...If there's actually a good reason I'm open to hearing it.
Post by: as2 on January 10, 2020, 11:52:18 AM
There is a reason that most of the US and the world backs the deal.Hey, don't associate me with either side of the fence. Iran is a complete joke, and there have already been instances of them breaching their deal. The deal seemed to be a sham. You can't negotiate with terrorists. I don't care which president is involved, the loss of the deal isn't anything to mourn. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the sanction put on Iran in the past few years, were a result of them not holding up their end of the agreement.
Most here are against the deal. You going to tell that is because they support Trump also. PC Friday at its best. :)
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 12:00:07 PM
They were against the deal prior to Trump as well.Exactly, think about it.
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 12:01:51 PM
Hey, don't associate me with either side of the fence.I don't.
Post by: as2 on January 10, 2020, 12:06:02 PM
I don't.Bless you.
Post by: Mountain Man on January 10, 2020, 12:33:05 PM
Not cancel the Iran deal. Now they will try harder than ever to get the bomb.They were going for the bomb regardless. The deal gave Iran a ton of breathing room to let soleimani build militias and support throughout the middle east and beyond. If Iran got a bomb without having a strong network it would be much more susceptible to say an airstrike or similar campaign. It's actually kind of neat how Iran has so many proxies it can use to carry out mischief to distract the world.
Post by: Mountain Man on January 10, 2020, 12:35:07 PM
They were going for the bomb regardless. The deal gave Iran a ton of breathing room to let soleimani build militias and support throughout the middle east and beyond. If Iran got a bomb without having a strong network it would be much more susceptible to say an airstrike or similar campaign. It's actually kind of neat how Iran has so many proxies it can use to carry out mischief to distract the world.Like for example Israel would be very careful about a preemptive strike now that Hezbollah has 100,000+ rockets aimed at them and waiting for Iran's word. Same with Saudi Arabia with the Houthi's, same with America now with all the militia activity occurring in Iraq.
Post by: mercaz1 on January 10, 2020, 12:42:53 PM
There is a reason that most of the US and the world backs the deal.
Most here are against the deal. You going to tell that is because they support Trump also. PC Friday at its best. :)
Same as Chamberlain and Hitler-
Iran was either not going to abide by the treaty or just use the years that the treaty was in effect to do everything to further their goal to get nukes
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 12:46:31 PM
Same as Chamberlain and Hitler-He knows all this. He's only for JCPOA because Trump pulled out.
Iran was either not going to abide by the treaty or just use the years that the treaty was in effect to do everything to further their goal to get nukes
(See, two can play this game :P )
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 12:51:01 PM
(See, two can play this game :P )Except your data base is one and mine is hundreds if not thousand of members. ;)
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 12:52:15 PM
...do everything to further their goal to get nukesWithout the treaty it just makes there job that much easier, no?
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 12:53:35 PM
Without the treaty it just makes there job that much easier, no?No, the
ETA: It wasn't a treaty.
Post by: mercaz1 on January 10, 2020, 12:53:59 PM
Without the treaty it just makes there job that much easier, no?
the continued sanctions and continued exclusion from major world commerce makes it much harder than if they would have had access and grown their economy and were able to do everything to get ready till treaty expired which is pretty soon anyways
also they were violating the treaty pretty soon afterwards IIRC
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 01:00:59 PM
No, thetreatydeal makes it much easier for them but with a small delay.
ETA: It wasn't a treaty.
the continued sanctions and continued exclusion from major world commerce makes it much harder than if they would have had access and grown their economy and were able to do everything to get ready till treaty expired which is pretty soon anywaysNot looking to go round and round even if it is Friday. Would it be fair to say nobody really knows and that is why the US is split on this?
also they were violating the treaty pretty soon afterwards IIRC
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 01:10:40 PM
Quote
Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, ... because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.
For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one.
Post by: mercaz1 on January 10, 2020, 01:11:50 PM
Not looking to go round and round even if it is Friday. Would it be fair to say nobody really knows and that is why the US is split on this?
history will judge
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 01:12:12 PM
Would it be fair to say nobody really knows and that is why the US is split on this?No.
Obama having a huge fanbase is not an argument in favor of the deal.
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 01:14:26 PM
So allowing them to make the bomb, but having them wait a few years first, during which they can work on all the technology they need to deliver the bomb, while giving them the cash they need for this and opening up their economy making everything easier, would've been a lot better than at least trying to stop them -- even if it's ultimately unsuccessful.I know I was being snarky here, but I still believe the underlying point is very valid and you haven't even attempted to offer an opposing argument.
(https://i.gyazo.com/5a27e46dcae6f32e5cba21b301ea1045.png)
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 01:18:01 PM
No.How about military experts? You think they can be swayed by charm?
Obama having a huge fanbase is not an argument in favor of the deal.
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 01:18:53 PM
Since in this thread you seem to be focusing on who said/did what, rather than the substance of the matter, how aboutI love when others make my point.
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 01:23:52 PM
I love when others make my point.When your point is so unclear and all over the map I guess almost anything someone says can be making your point (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji1745.png)
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 01:25:57 PM
How about military experts? You think they can be swayed by charm?Yes, of course. (and yes, that does work for both sides.)
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 01:26:54 PM
When your point is so unclear and all over the map I guess almost anything someone says can be making your point (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji1745.png)Now you know how I feel. ;)
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 01:28:38 PM
Yes, of course. (and yes, that does work for both sides.)I tend to believe our military puts our country first not politics.
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 01:30:44 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 01:36:02 PM
Anyways, when you have an actual argument why it's better to allow --even help them ($150billion + loosened sanctions) -- get the bomb in 10 years (5 more years from now) is better than at least trying to stop them, wake me up. until then I'm out. :)I don't have a better argument than anyone else. What I do know is this is a divided issue that transcends politics.
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 01:37:45 PM
I don't have a better argument than anyone else. What I do know is this is a divided issue that transcends politics.Translation: "I can't make an argument why it was a good idea, but my guy did it so it must be good." :P
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 01:39:06 PM
Yes, of course. (and yes, that does work for both sides.)
I tend to believe our military puts our country first not politics.I do believe those two statements can generally both be true at the same time, but I'm not going down this rabbit hole.
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 01:41:00 PM
I'm already done with all this after 4 days, I don't know how you guys are keeping at it for 4 years already.
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 01:41:25 PM
Translation: "I can't make an argument why it was a good idea, but my guy did it so it must be good." :PTranslation: I defer to higher authorities. Something I figured you would agree with.
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 01:42:20 PM
Translation: I defer to higher authorities. Something I figured you would agree with.Translation: "Obama is God"
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 01:45:42 PM
Translation: "Obama is God" (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji13.png)Alternative translation: "I'm just a Kool-Aid drinker." (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji13.png)
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 01:47:13 PM
Translation: "Obama is God"If he is then I never voted for G-d. Sorry if this square peg does not fit in your round hole but you are welcomed to keep hammering away. :)
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 01:57:16 PM
If he is then I never voted for G-d. Sorry if this square peg does not fit in your round hole but you are welcomed to keep hammering away. :)Alright, I'll give you the last word here, but
when you have an actual argument why it's better to allow --even help them ($150billion + loosened sanctions) -- get the bomb in 10 years (5 more years from now) is better than at least trying to stop them, wake me up. until then I'm out. :)
Post by: as2 on January 10, 2020, 02:00:18 PM
Gosh this is why I've been avoiding the politics thread like the plague.Right?! This damn thread had a deceptive look, and roped me in as well. Sheesh.
I'm already done with all this after 4 days, I don't know how you guys are keeping at it for 4 years already.
Post by: aygart on January 10, 2020, 02:05:12 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 02:12:34 PM
Right?! This damn thread had a deceptive look, and roped me in as well. Sheesh.LOL
Post by: as2 on January 10, 2020, 02:14:34 PM
LOL>:(
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 02:15:56 PM
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/10/not-one-senate-democrat-joins-resolution-commending-u-s-military-for-soleimanis-death/Political stunt backfires as he could not even get all the R's onboard.
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 02:22:37 PM
Political stunt backfires as he could not even get all the R's onboard.did you say the same thing about the D's with impeachment?
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 02:24:01 PM
Did you say the same thing about the D's with impeachment?
Damn it! (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji35.png)
Right?! This damn thread had a deceptive look, and roped me in as well. Sheesh.
Post by: whYME on January 10, 2020, 02:33:43 PM
I'm out.Ok, this time for real.
Post by: CountValentine on January 10, 2020, 02:36:50 PM
Ok, this time for real.You don't want to see the next train wreck? :)
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 06:48:05 PM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/09/killing-soleimani-made-us-less-safe-trump-reckless-iran-poll/2835962001/
Post by: yuneeq on January 14, 2020, 06:50:36 PM
By a large margin the result is we are less safe. Wonder what most here would say, NOT!!! :)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/09/killing-soleimani-made-us-less-safe-trump-reckless-iran-poll/2835962001/
How about military experts?
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 06:53:04 PM
Have not seen them polled, have you?
Trump is lies right and left why he did this and the poll shows that. Kool-Aid drinkers just keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
Post by: grodnoking on January 14, 2020, 07:11:45 PM
By a large margin the result is we are less safe. Wonder what most here would say, NOT!!! :)As Ben Shapiro says "Facts don't care about your feelings"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/09/killing-soleimani-made-us-less-safe-trump-reckless-iran-poll/2835962001/
Just because Americans "feel" unsafe, doesn't make them less safe.
I was doing so well not posting here
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 07:13:57 PM
As Ben Shapiro says "Facts don't care about your feelings"Mr BS has some facts that show we are safer?
Just because Americans "feel" unsafe, doesn't make them less safe.
I was doing so well not posting here
Post by: grodnoking on January 14, 2020, 07:18:17 PM
Mr BS has some facts that show we are safer?No, I was simply using a quote from Mr. Shapiro, not a quote he used on this topic.
FACT: America had Intel that Solimani had plans to attack Americans. Solimani was a mastermind behind past and future terrorist attacks.
Deduction: The lack of Mastermind Solimani should therefore make Americans SAFER, regardless of how 1000 random americans FEEL.
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 07:23:31 PM
No, I was simply using a quote from Mr. Shapiro, not a quote he used on this topic.You used his quote in response to the poll I posted.
Mr BS is just another mouthpiece like all the other idiots on MSN and FOX.
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 07:27:51 PM
Trump: "Doesn't really matter" if there was an imminent threat from Soleimani
Post by: yitzgar on January 14, 2020, 07:29:56 PM
HRC all over again!!!Not a great comparison.
Trump: "Doesn't really matter" if there was an imminent threat from Soleimani
Post by: grodnoking on January 14, 2020, 07:30:01 PM
You used his quote in response to the poll I posted.Ignore the quote if you want. The rest of my post holds its water without it.
Mr BS is just another mouthpiece like all the other idiots on MSN and FOX.
Post by: EliJelly on January 14, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Have not seen them polled, have you?
I am quoting this two parts;BUMP
"In the days before General Suleimani’s death, Ms. Haspel had advised Mr. Trump that the threat the Iranian general presented was greater than the threat of Iran’s response if he was killed"
"Though Ms. Haspel took no formal position about whether to kill General Suleimani, officials who listened to her analysis came away with the clear view that the C.I.A. believed that killing him would improve — not weaken — security in the Middle East."
The dems and the left played a petrified game how this egoist unstable POTUS is stirring up a peaceful Middle East and putting american lives at risk, well this report proves them wrong.
The NYT is not a proponent of president Trump, but sometimes you have no choice but to report the bitter truth.
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 07:35:07 PM
Ignore the quote if you want. The rest of my post holds its Kool-Aid without it.FTFY :)
The "deduction" by most Americans disagree with your "deduction".
FACT: Your deduction is right inline with most here for whatever that is worth.
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 07:37:46 PM
BUMPIs this the same Ms Hasple?
The Trump administration’s nominee to be CIA director, Gina Haspel, personally supervised the torture of a CIA detainee in 2002 leading to at least three waterboard sessions, subsequently drafted the cable that ordered destruction of the videotape evidence of torture, and served as a senior CIA official while the Agency was lying to itself, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the Congress, and the public about the effectiveness of torture in eliciting useful intelligence, according to declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 07:51:16 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/13/kevin-mccarthy-to-introduce-resolution-in-support-of-iran-protesters/
Post by: RobsPoints on January 14, 2020, 07:57:44 PM
This idiots wants a resolution to support the protester's. He claims we need to let the protesters know the US stands with them. NO YOU IDIOT the US doesn't stand with those that want to kill us.The Iranian people don't want to kill us, the regime does. That's the reason for the support of the iran protestors of the regime that are happening now. Not the protesters the regime staged that burned U.S. flags right after the funeral of Sulimani.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/13/kevin-mccarthy-to-introduce-resolution-in-support-of-iran-protesters/
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 07:59:23 PM
The Iranian people don't want to kill us, the regime does.They probably love us? ROFLMAO
Post by: aygart on January 14, 2020, 08:03:37 PM
HRC all over again!!!4
Trump: "Doesn't really matter" if there was an imminent threat from Soleimani
Post by: aygart on January 14, 2020, 08:04:01 PM
Is this the same Ms Hasple?Whee is this from?
The Trump administration’s nominee to be CIA director, Gina Haspel, personally supervised the torture of a CIA detainee in 2002 leading to at least three waterboard sessions, subsequently drafted the cable that ordered destruction of the videotape evidence of torture, and served as a senior CIA official while the Agency was lying to itself, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the Congress, and the public about the effectiveness of torture in eliciting useful intelligence, according to declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 08:14:27 PM
4?
Post by: grodnoking on January 14, 2020, 08:54:00 PM
FTFY :)Do me a favor and stop fixing my posts.
The "deduction" by most Americans disagree with your "deduction".
FACT: Your deduction is right inline with most here for whatever that is worth.
My deduction is not solely mine, it is of most military experts. No one came out yelling that they told Trump not to do it and he didn't listen. Any other time he did something that someone said he shouldn't do the world heard about it. The only people who say that he should not have done it are those dumb idiot liberals in Congress who know nothing about the situation in Iran (and they even complained after that they didnt know and it's not fair no one told them, but somehow their the experts
) and as the poll stated, the answers fell just about on party lines, and if I could deduce again, probably because of all the brain washing the "war experts who know nothing about war" liberals Congress people preached to them. So in essence the people who say they are more unsafe just have their FEELINGS they got off TV from some idiots in congress and some blonde woman how has her own FEELINGS and if you'd have an actual argument with them on why they are actually safer they will never be able to back up their Warmaid.
Post by: whYME on January 14, 2020, 08:57:03 PM
if you'd have an actual argumentDon't even bother :)
Post by: as2 on January 14, 2020, 09:05:09 PM
Don't even bother :)
Ok, this time for real. (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji16.png)>:( I'm watching you!
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 09:12:30 PM
My deduction is not solely mine, it is of most military experts.I see military experts all over the place on this. Where are you getting most military experts thinks this makes us safer?
The poll about making us safer is not just along party lines. A 1/3 of R's said it made us less safe. Now you can say the poll is wrong but lets not spin the results.
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 09:12:59 PM
Don't even bother :)
>:( I'm watching you!Watching is worse than posting. :)
Post by: grodnoking on January 14, 2020, 09:36:40 PM
I see military experts all over the place on this. Where are you getting most military experts thinks this makes us safer?
The poll about making us safer is not just along party lines. A 1/3 of R's said it made us less safe. Now you can say the poll is wrong but lets not spin the results.
I'm not talking about experts on TV. I'm talking about OUR GREAT MILITARY MINDS, the people who run the army, not they people who just sit in an armchair and talk about it.
The results of the poll showed that more people supported the decision to attack then people did not. Why was the headline not "Exclusive: Americans say Soleimani's killing was justified"?
Oh right, because then no one would click it.
Who are these people polled anyways? "By 52%-8%, those polled said the attack made it more likely that Iran would develop nuclear weapons." Oh yeah? Really? Let's see these polled people answer a simple question: How will it make them more likely? They've been in violation of most agreements and won't do much to make other countries put back sanctions. They've try thier hardest before and they'll continue to try. Not having a lead general who knew all the programs they where brewing makes it HARDER for them (sorry I forgot to put in random words in CAPS in this paragraph).
The American government isn't keen on telling the American people what DIDN'T happen because of back channeling and black ops because it'll cause the WEAK 21st century humans to get NERVOUS. No one knows how many lives where saved by killing this MONSTER (yep, not even me), but GREAT MILITARY MINDS did math we don't know of and knew that killing this MONSTER was a better alternative, so who are these 1003 Americans do decided they are less safe?
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 09:51:50 PM
So the great military minds of the last two presidents were wrong? Were they wrong because they don't agree with you?
I'm not talking about experts on TV. I'm talking about OUR GREAT MILITARY MINDS, the people who run the army, not they people who just sit in an armchair and talk about it.
The results of the poll showed that more people supported the decision to attack then people did not. Why was the headline not "Exclusive: Americans say Soleimani's killing was justified"?
Oh right, because then no one would click it.
Who are these people polled anyways? "By 52%-8%, those polled said the attack made it more likely that Iran would develop nuclear weapons." Oh yeah? Really? Let's see these polled people answer a simple question: How will it make them more likely? They've been in violation of most agreements and won't do much to make other countries put back sanctions. They've try thier hardest before and they'll continue to try. Not having a lead general who knew all the programs they where brewing makes it HARDER for them (sorry I forgot to put in random words in CAPS in this paragraph).
The American government isn't keen on telling the American people what DIDN'T happen because of back channeling and black ops because it'll cause the WEAK 21st century humans to get NERVOUS. No one knows how many lives where saved by killing this MONSTER (yep, not even me), but GREAT MILITARY MINDS did math we don't know of and knew that killing this MONSTER was a better alternative, so who are these 1003 Americans do decided they are less safe?
Most of the country believes pulling out of the Iran deal was wrong. Now put this on top of that. Maybe they think Iran will be more determined than ever to get the bomb.
When you get a situation where most are split on it is easy to see who are the Kool-Aid drinkers. You survey them and instead of getting something in the middle it is slanted way to one side. Just poll the members here. :)
You are correct the poll shows most supported to take him out. Don't confuse that with them saying it made us safer because that was not even close.
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 10:17:37 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/state-department-security-officials-werent-notified-of-imminent-threats-to-us-embassies/ar-BBYUXUX?ocid=spartandhp
Post by: grodnoking on January 14, 2020, 10:19:35 PM
1) So the great military minds of the last two presidents were wrong? 2) Were they wrong because they don't agree with you?
3) Most of the country believes pulling out of the Iran deal was wrong. Now put this on top of that. Maybe they think Iran will be more determined than ever to get the bomb.
4) When you get a situation where most are split on it is easy to see who are the Kool-Aid drinkers. You survey them and instead of getting something in the middle it is slanted way to one side. Just poll the members here. :)
5) You are correct the poll shows most supported to take him out. Don't confuse that with them saying it made us safer because that was not even close.
1) Who said they didn't think it was a good idea? I think maybe the previous president was a wuss.
2) No. But situations change, and we do know now there where plans that had to be stopped.
3) I guess most of the country didnt watch Netanyahu pretty much prove Iran was following jack diddley squat of the deal.
4) I have some deep philosophical things to talk about on this one, but we'll save it for if we ever meet in person.
5) if it didn't make us safer why did we do it?
I'm out. I'm not continuing the conversation on a public forums, as it is way to tedious to type and as always can be misconstrued however the reader wants. I think we have another conversation on the back burner that I ditched for the same reason, but I forget what.
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 10:23:10 PM
5) if it didn't make us safer why did we do it?Great question. First we should start with why did he lie about the reason. His history has shown he lies, gets caught and then tries and spin it.
Post by: yelped on January 14, 2020, 10:28:24 PM
Great question. First we should start with why did he lie about the reason. His history has shown he lies, gets caught and then tries and spin it.Could we stop bringing in Trump here? Trump is a habitual lier, but I don't care if a threat was imminent or not. Soleimani was a threat to the US and now he's gone. Case closed.
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 10:31:28 PM
Could we stop bringing in Trump here? Trump is a habitual lier, but I don't care if a threat was imminent or not. Soleimani was a threat to the US and now he's gone. Case closed.Not that simple. No one is disagreeing he was a threat. You just can't kill anyone that is threat. The reason he was taken out is extremely important.
Post by: yelped on January 14, 2020, 10:37:16 PM
Not that simple. No one is disagreeing he was a threat. You just can't kill anyone that is threat. The reason he was taken out is extremely important.Why not? Have confidence in the US and in doing what's right. Be a proud, strong and courageous American. Being afraid, and second guessing yourself just gives the evil people strength. ABCs of life.
Post by: CountValentine on January 14, 2020, 10:41:55 PM
Why not? Have confidence in the US and in doing what's right. Be a proud, strong and courageous American. Being afraid, and second guessing yourself just gives the evil people strength. ABCs of life.You just told me the leader of our great country is a "habitual liar". How can anyone have confidence he is doing what is right?
Post by: yelped on January 14, 2020, 11:56:24 PM
You just told me the leader of our great country is a "habitual liar". How can anyone have confidence he is doing what is right?I didn't say to have confidence in Trump. Leave Trump out of the picture. It does not matter who is President. Killing an evil person is the right thing to do.
Post by: Yammer on January 15, 2020, 12:59:49 AM
Is this the same Ms Hasple?
The Trump administration’s nominee to be CIA director, Gina Haspel, personally supervised the torture of a CIA detainee in 2002 leading to at least three waterboard sessions, subsequently drafted the cable that ordered destruction of the videotape evidence of torture, and served as a senior CIA official while the Agency was lying to itself, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the Congress, and the public about the effectiveness of torture in eliciting useful intelligence, according to declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
Isn't that the one that had 6 Dems vote for her, at the confirmation hearing?
This idiots wants a resolution to support the protester's. He claims we need to let the protesters know the US stands with them. NO YOU IDIOT the US doesn't stand with those that want to kill us.How about the ones that refused to walk on the American and Israeli flags?
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/13/kevin-mccarthy-to-introduce-resolution-in-support-of-iran-protesters/
And while Pelosi, doesn't think that the protests have anything to do with Sulameni, does she agree that it has to do with the sanctions that are killing the Iranian economy?
I see military experts all over the place on this. Where are you getting most military experts thinks this makes us safer?
The poll about making us safer is not just along party lines. A 1/3 of R's said it made us less safe. Now you can say the poll is wrong but lets not spin the results.
Most Americans never heard about him before the strike...
I'm not debating now whether the strike was justified, simply pointing out why it's flawed.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 06:24:55 AM
Isn't that the one that had 6 Dems vote for her, at the confirmation hearing?So you completely avoid the question with a question. I will take that as a yes to my question.
As far as your question that had nothing to do with mine the answer would be yes. I believe some R's voted against her also.
How about the ones that refused to walk on the American and Israeli flags?Then have a resolution for those few. Iran's actions have shown they hate America. If you somehow want to try and twist that into they are our friends, go right ahead. Maybe while you are at it try and twist that Palestine is Israel's friend? I am sure there are a few of them that refuse to walk on the American flag.
And while Pelosi, doesn't think that the protests have anything to do with Sulameni, does she agree that it has to do with the sanctions that are killing the Iranian economy?You would have to ask her.
Most Americans never heard about him before the strike...Unless they been living under a rock (or sheltered from the real world) they know who he is. A terrorist that is responsible for killing Americans. So what is flawed is your logic.
I'm not debating now whether the strike was justified, simply pointing out why it's flawed.
I will say I am confused about how many. It started at 600 and moved to thousands just like he was planning to attack one embassy then became four embassies.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 06:32:07 AM
I didn't say to have confidence in Trump. Leave Trump out of the picture. It does not matter who is President. Killing an evil person is the right thing to do.You said to trust the US and want to leave the person who is making the decisions for the US out of the picture? You are joking I hope.
So you are saying it is OK to kill every evil person?
I ask this before but no one answered. Why not take out the leader on Iran who gave him his orders?
What about killing Putin who is an evil person that is responsible for American deaths?
Post by: RobsPoints on January 15, 2020, 06:51:52 AM
They probably love us? ROFLMAOI've got about 15 family members who have lived in Iran their entire lives and ya...they love us, they want to come here or London, they want to wear western fashion, makeup, listen to western music, build a business (mostly auto mechanics, don't ask me why) and would love nothing more than to drag the mullahs into the street and hang them. But they can't. They don't have weapons and the mullahs do. But that is just my assessment from 50 years of conversations with people that live there, so I guess I could be wrong.
Post by: Boruch999 on January 15, 2020, 07:04:41 AM
Iran's actions have shown they hate America. If you somehow want to try and twist that into they are our friends, go right ahead. Maybe while you are at it try and twist that Palestine is Israel's friend? I am sure there are a few of them that refuse to walk on the American flag.
Are you really not able to understand that a majority or large minority of people living under a dictatorship may have views vastly different than that of their dictators'?
The Palestinians are not the Iranians and it just may be that most Palestinians agree with the anti-Israel rhetoric of the Palestinian leadership and the majority of Iranians do not agree with the anti-US an anti-Israel rhetoric of the Iranian leadership.
Post by: gingyguy on January 15, 2020, 08:27:21 AM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obama-national-security-adviser-says-trump-absolutely-correct-to-kill-soleimani
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 10:10:07 AM
I've got about 15 family members who have lived in Iran their entire lives and ya...they love us, they want to come here or London, they want to wear western fashion, makeup, listen to western music, build a business (mostly auto mechanics, don't ask me why) and would love nothing more than to drag the mullahs into the street and hang them. But they can't. They don't have weapons and the mullahs do. But that is just my assessment from 50 years of conversations with people that live there, so I guess I could be wrong.
Are you really not able to understand that a majority or large minority of people living under a dictatorship may have views vastly different than that of their dictators'?They sound like an excellent candidate for regime change. Almost as good as Iraq. How is that working out? :)
The Palestinians are not the Iranians and it just may be that most Palestinians agree with the anti-Israel rhetoric of the Palestinian leadership and the majority of Iranians do not agree with the anti-US an anti-Israel rhetoric of the Iranian leadership.
There is one thing this strike did do. It unified the hatred all Iranians have for the US.
Don't be so naive to think that hating a dictatorship means they love the US.
Post by: zh cohen on January 15, 2020, 10:15:19 AM
There is one thing this strike did do. It unified the hatred all Iranians have for the US.
Do you have evidence for this claim?
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 10:21:24 AM
Do you have evidence for this claim?When I see millions marching in the street screaming death to America that is evidence to me.
Now do you have any evidence it didn't?
Post by: EliJelly on January 15, 2020, 10:23:07 AM
They sound like an excellent candidate for regime change. Almost as good as Iraq. How is that working out? :)Iran is a total different story, Iran had a western like civilization just 40 years ago, the entire population was against the Shah but the radicals let the fight, replacing one dictatorship with another. It is known that millions of Iranians were bitterly upset with the outcome. Until today Iran is still a much more civilized country than Iraq and Libya, they have collages, industries etc and the country functions very well. So it's not a comparison to Iraq at all, they are Persians, a total different culture.
There is one thing this strike did do. It unified the hatred all Iranians have for the US.
Don't be so naive to think that hating a dictatorship means they love the US.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 10:27:42 AM
Iran is a total different story, Iran had a western like civilization just 40 years ago, the entire population was against the Shah but the radicals let the fight, replacing one dictatorship with another. It is known that millions of Iranians were bitterly upset with the outcome. Until today Iran is still a much more civilized country than Iraq and Libya, they have collages, industries etc and the country functions very well. So it's not a comparison to Iraq at all, they are Persians, a total different culture.I am sure they still have not forgot the US's part with the Shah. I guess our chances are with the younger Iranians.
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 10:29:19 AM
When I see millions marching in the street screaming death to America that is evidence to me.30 seconds hate?
Now do you have any evidence it didn't?
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 10:30:53 AM
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 10:31:56 AM
30 seconds hate?30 year hate?
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 10:34:01 AM
30 year hate?I guess you are not getting my reference (although it should have been 2 minutes hate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate))
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 10:41:54 AM
I guess you are not getting my reference (although it should have been 2 minutes hate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate))Thought it was a play on "30 seconds of fame".
Post by: Yammer on January 15, 2020, 11:45:09 AM
So you completely avoid the question with a question. I will take that as a yes to my question.
As far as your question that had nothing to do with mine the answer would be yes. I believe some R's voted against her also.Then have a resolution for those few. Iran's actions have shown they hate America. If you somehow want to try and twist that into they are our friends, go right ahead. Maybe while you are at it try and twist that Palestine is Israel's friend? I am sure there are a few of them that refuse to walk on the American flag.You would have to ask her.Unless they been living under a rock (or sheltered from the real world) they know who he is. A terrorist that is responsible for killing Americans. So what is flawed is your logic.
I will say I am confused about how many. It started at 600 and moved to thousands just like he was planning to attack one embassy then became four embassies.
So you completely avoid the question with a question. I will take that as a yes to my question.
As far as your question that had nothing to do with mine the answer would be yes. I believe some R's voted against her also.Then have a resolution for those few. Iran's actions have shown they hate America. If you somehow want to try and twist that into they are our friends, go right ahead. Maybe while you are at it try and twist that Palestine is Israel's friend? I am sure there are a few of them that refuse to walk on the American flag.You would have to ask her.Unless they been living under a rock (or sheltered from the real world) they know who he is. A terrorist that is responsible for killing Americans. So what is flawed is your logic.
I will say I am confused about how many. It started at 600 and moved to thousands just like he was planning to attack one embassy then became four embassies.
1. I was pointing out that she couldn't have been that bad if 6 Democrats voted for her.
2. First off, my overall understanding always was that the US supports anyone around the world that's wants freedom. Whether it's in Syria, Libya, Egypt, North Korea, Hong Kong, or Iran. It doesn't mean that we need get involved militarily.
But I was simply pointing out, that in a country that's been indoctrinated with anti American propaganda for 40 years, to have ppl not step on an American flag is pretty significant, and perhaps worthy to show our support.
( Either way I think it's a play from Trump to show that he didn't just back down...and/or to show I Iran that if they attack us we can get involved in toppling the govt etc.
Lastly
3. It struck me as well, but I remember that a few articles ( if I remember correctly one was a NYT article ) stated that while most Americans haven't heard of Qassam etc, the military establishment etc..
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 11:56:25 AM
1. I was pointing out that she couldn't have been that bad if 6 Democrats voted for her.How many D's or R's voted one way or the other does not determine what she did or didn't do. You can argue about EIT's but that doesn't change her participation.
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
"Enhanced interrogation techniques" or "enhanced interrogation" is a euphemism for the U.S. government's program of systematic torture of detainees by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and various components of the U.S. Armed Forces at black sites around the world, including Bagram, Guantanamo Bay, and Abu Ghraib, authorized by officials of the George W. Bush administration. Methods used included beating, binding in contorted stress positions, hooding, subjection to deafening noise, sleep disruption, sleep deprivation to the point of hallucination, deprivation of food, drink, and withholding medical care for wounds, as well as waterboarding, walling, sexual humiliation, subjection to extreme heat or extreme cold, and confinement in small coffin-like boxes. A Guantanamo inmate's drawings of some of these tortures, to which he himself was subjected, were published in The New York Times. Some of these techniques fall under the category known as "white torture." Several detainees endured medically unnecessary "rectal rehydration", "rectal fluid resuscitation", and "rectal feeding". In addition to brutalizing detainees, there were threats to their families such as threats to harm children, and threats to sexually abuse or to cut the throat of detainees' mothers.
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 12:04:32 PM
How many D's or R's voted one way or the other does not determine what she did or didn't do. You can argue about EIT's but that doesn't change her participation.This sounds like an opinion piece.
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
"Enhanced interrogation techniques" or "enhanced interrogation" is a euphemism for the U.S. government's program of systematic torture of detainees by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and various components of the U.S. Armed Forces at black sites around the world, including Bagram, Guantanamo Bay, and Abu Ghraib, authorized by officials of the George W. Bush administration. Methods used included beating, binding in contorted stress positions, hooding, subjection to deafening noise, sleep disruption, sleep deprivation to the point of hallucination, deprivation of food, drink, and withholding medical care for wounds, as well as waterboarding, walling, sexual humiliation, subjection to extreme heat or extreme cold, and confinement in small coffin-like boxes. A Guantanamo inmate's drawings of some of these tortures, to which he himself was subjected, were published in The New York Times. Some of these techniques fall under the category known as "white torture." Several detainees endured medically unnecessary "rectal rehydration", "rectal fluid resuscitation", and "rectal feeding". In addition to brutalizing detainees, there were threats to their families such as threats to harm children, and threats to sexually abuse or to cut the throat of detainees' mothers.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 12:11:28 PM
This sounds like an opinion piece.The opinion would be if you consider it torture. The EIT used are well documented and undisputable. Plenty of documents released with more info being unclassified. Documentaries also made about it. Simple Google search will bring them up for anyone to come to their own conclusion.
A couple things about EIT. They are now banned and our great American War Hero John McCain called EIT torture.
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 12:20:01 PM
The opinion would be if you consider it torture. The EIT used are well documented and undisputable. Plenty of documents released with more info being unclassified. Documentaries also made about it. Simple Google search will bring them up for anyone to come to their own conclusion.That she participated in what was US policy at the time does not really tell us much. That they are banned means nothing. Policies often change with a change of administrations. McCain was a war hero but that doesn't mean that every word he says is the word of G-d.
A couple things about EIT. They are now banned and our great American War Hero John McCain called EIT torture.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 12:27:40 PM
That she participated in what was US policy at the time does not really tell us much. That they are banned means nothing. Policies often change with a change of administrations. McCain was a war hero but that doesn't mean that every word he says is the word of G-d.Spin it anyway you want but it doesn't change the fact what I post was accurate. My original question was this the same person. The answer is YES.
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 12:38:00 PM
Spin it anyway you want but it doesn't change the fact what I post was accurate. My original question was this the same person. The answer is YES.Okay therefore what?
Post by: chinagel on January 15, 2020, 12:44:53 PM
Spin it anyway you want but it doesn't change the fact what I post was accurate. My original accusation was this the same person. The answer is YES.FTFY
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 01:05:41 PM
Okay therefore what?It was a simple question and not a therefore. If someone is incapable of answering a simple question they won't be able to have an honest discussion.
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 01:10:20 PM
It was a simple question and not a therefore. If someone is incapable of answering a simple question they won't be able to have an honest discussion.Bringing in irrelevant ad hominem attacks is a great way to show that someone is not having an honest discussion. Not checking into the ad hominem attack shows nothing and definitely not confirming that it was exactly that before checking into it.
Post by: yelped on January 15, 2020, 01:24:01 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 01:24:32 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 01:41:03 PM
@CountValentine You've really been spinning your wheels in this thread...We are talking about issues that the country is divided on and most here see it as one-sided. This happens on so many issues and you accuse me as the one spinning things. Someone is out of touch with reality. ;)
I did learn one thing from this discussion. The Iranians love the US. :)
Post by: yelped on January 15, 2020, 01:42:55 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 01:46:14 PM
You're just asking questions and never responding to any.If you have a question then ask it. Don't ask a question to avoid one.
I asked this one and you can hear a pin drop.
Does the majority of Iran hate Israel?
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 02:07:34 PM
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 02:10:38 PM
@CountValentine Does the assessment of the CIA director carry any wieght with you?Yes, see how simple that was?
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 02:11:59 PM
Yes, see how simple that was?So then why are you ignoring what she says and mking ad hominem attacks?
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 02:17:25 PM
So then why are you ignoring what she says and mking ad hominem attacks?I am not ignoring what she said or making ad hominem attacks no matter how you try and spin it.
You need to know something about the person to decide how much weight to give them. You took that as an attack.
I took no position if I agree or disagree with what she did. All I did is point out what she did and you and others ran with your assumptions.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 02:19:46 PM
I asked this one and you can hear a pin drop.
Does the majority of Iran hate Israel?Bump!
Post by: as2 on January 15, 2020, 02:21:26 PM
Bump!I don't think any human can factually answer that question, but I'd say it can go either way.
Post by: whYME on January 15, 2020, 02:21:59 PM
Bump!If I had to guess, I would say probably a majority of those who support the regime hate Israel, a majority of those apposed to the regime, probably not.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 02:25:25 PM
I don't think any human can factually answer that question, but I'd say it can go either way.
If I had to guess, I would say probably a majority of those who support the regime hate Israel, a majority of those apposed to the regime, probably not.Are you two the same person? You both disappear and then show up together. :)
Post by: as2 on January 15, 2020, 02:26:30 PM
Are you two the same person? You both disappear and then show up together. :)United we stand, united we fall
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 02:46:43 PM
I am not ignoring what she said or making ad hominem attacks no matter how you try and spin it.You only quoted a negative opinion piece about her. Why would someone think you were attacking her?
You need to know something about the person to decide how much weight to give them. You took that as an attack.
I took no position if I agree or disagree with what she did. All I did is point out what she did and you and others ran with your assumptions.
Post by: yelped on January 15, 2020, 02:51:17 PM
If I had to guess, I would say probably a majority of those who support the regime hate Israel, a majority of those apposed to the regime, probably not.+1.
Increasingly, people in the Middle East are starting to realize that they are being fed Anti-Israel hate to distract from the failures of their governments.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 02:54:13 PM
You only quoted a negative opinion piece about her. Why would someone think you were attacking her?It is only negative if you disagree with what she did.
Do you agree with EIT's as listed in my post?
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 02:56:24 PM
It is only negative if you disagree with what she did.What you quoted was an opinion piece that also had some alleged facts mixed in.
Do you agree with EIT's as listed in my post?
I have no idea whether or not she participated nor to the extent if she did. I also do not see the relevance of that to our conversation.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 03:03:03 PM
What you quoted was an opinion piece that also had some alleged facts mixed in.As usual you won't answer my question but then accuse me of not answering yours. Unbelievable, NOT!
I have no idea whether or not she participated nor to the extent if she did. I also do not see the relevance of that to our conversation.
What I posted was mostly confirmed facts (like waterboarding) but you just want to spin it.
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 03:11:21 PM
As usual you won't answer my question but then accuse me of not answering yours. Unbelievable, NOT!I told you that I have no idea whether or not she participated.
What I posted was mostly confirmed facts (like waterboarding) but you just want to spin it.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 03:16:26 PM
I told you that I have no idea whether or not she participated.I know what you told me but that is not what I asked. I didn't ask if she participated as that is all a matter of record. I asked if you agreed with the EIT's used.
Do you agree with EIT's as listed in my post?
Post by: whYME on January 15, 2020, 03:20:49 PM
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 03:20:54 PM
I know what you told me but that is not what I asked. I didn't ask if she participated as that is all a matter of record. I asked if you agreed with the EIT's used.How do I agree with a verb? I am not sure what your question is.
Post by: gozalim on January 15, 2020, 03:31:44 PM
How about Israel. Does the majority of Iran hate Israel? If they got a new leader you would all be OK with them getting the bomb?an israel-hating democracy is infinitely less of a threat than an israel-hating theocratic dictatorship.
for one- their choice to pursue the bomb will be considerably more susceptible to international pressure and sanctions
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 03:41:27 PM
So now we've gotten all the way to "It was bad to have killed Suleimani because ...Gina Haspel may have supported waterboarding?"I am going to assume you are all drinking the same Kool-Aid. Where did I say this?
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 03:43:31 PM
How do I agree with a verb? I am not sure what your question is.Do YOU agree with use of EIT's that the post listed?
Post by: mercaz1 on January 15, 2020, 03:54:13 PM
I am not ignoring what she said or making ad hominem attacks no matter how you try and spin it.
You need to know something about the person to decide how much weight to give them. You took that as an attack.
I took no position if I agree or disagree with what she did. All I did is point out what she did and you and others ran with your assumptions.
most asinine comment ever
just post a link to her wikipedia page
Post by: gingyguy on January 15, 2020, 03:55:20 PM
I am going to assume you are all drinking the same Kool-Aid. Where did I say this?how else did it become part of the conversation. People assumed you are saying her opinion that Suleimani had to go , gets negated by the fact that she was involved with EITs.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 03:59:50 PM
People assumed you are saying her opinion that Suleimani had to go , gets negated by the fact that she was involved with EITs.Then as usual they assumed wrong again.
Post by: as2 on January 15, 2020, 04:07:27 PM
Then as usual they assumed wrong again.Do you realize you often make comments/statements that everyone seems to understand one way, yet you somehow have a hidden meaning to make them all look wrong at the end? At some point, the person being misinterpreted is the problem, not the ones who misinterpret.
Post by: PlatinumGuy on January 15, 2020, 04:09:35 PM
He was simply used as a card for retaliation and deterrence.
His death being both highly beneficial to the West and highly offensive to Iran, he was the perfect target, but he wasn't assassinated until the need to retaliate arose and if they couldn't get him they would've attacked a different Iranian target.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 04:17:29 PM
Do you realize you often make comments/statements that everyone seems to understand one way, yet you somehow have a hidden meaning to make them all look wrong at the end?So now my posts have a hidden meaning? They can ask to clarify as @aygart just did but they would rather just assume.
Example: I post info that Pompeo is a military hawk. It will be twisted or assumed that the info is negative to try and discredit him. No the info was posted as relevant to the way he makes decisions.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 04:20:27 PM
I think many people (including POTUS) are masquerading as if the assassination was motivated by the necessity to eliminate Suleimani.Then they should just say this instead of all the BS on an imminent threat that went grew from one embassy to four.
He was simply used as a card for retaliation and deterrence.
His death being both highly beneficial to the West and highly offensive to Iran, he was the perfect target, but he wasn't assassinated until the need to retaliate arose and if they couldn't get him they would've attacked a different Iranian target.
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 04:20:50 PM
Do YOU agree with use of EIT's that the post listed?I think that at least some crossed the line and should not have been used based on what I know.
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 04:32:13 PM
So now my posts have a hidden meaning? They can ask to clarify as @aygart just did but they would rather just assume.I only asked to clarify after it became clear that the way I understood it was wrong. Quoting hit pieces talking about how someone tortured people is gonna make people think that way.
Example: I post info that Pompeo is a military hawk. It will be twisted or assumed that the info is negative to try and discredit him. No the info was posted as relevant to the way he makes decisions.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 04:41:28 PM
I only asked to clarify after it became clear that the way I understood it was wrong. Quoting hit pieces talking about how someone tortured people is gonna make people think that way.So assume first ask later? :)
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 04:49:40 PM
So assume first ask later? :)Understand as written first then allow you to correct yourself later. :P
Post by: mercaz1 on January 15, 2020, 05:41:39 PM
So assume first ask later? :)
what reason could you have for posting the piece about EIT
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 05:48:57 PM
what reason could you have for posting the piece about EITDid you even read the other post you quoted?
"You need to know something about the person to decide how much weight to give them."
Post by: yelped on January 15, 2020, 05:50:25 PM
Post by: aygart on January 15, 2020, 05:51:01 PM
What a waste of a thread. Literally mind bending tricks taking place here. Nothing else.JS
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 05:52:07 PM
JSDid you mean to hit "B". :)
Post by: mercaz1 on January 15, 2020, 05:55:21 PM
Did you even read the other post you quoted?so why not post her whole life story instead of just one piece that gives her a bad look
"You need to know something about the person to decide how much weight to give them."
if your trying to educate ppl on this forum then give the whole story and not one little piece
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 06:04:24 PM
so why not post her whole life story instead of just one piece that gives her a bad lookI tried to find if she supported the Iraq war. It is not my place to educate anyone.
if your trying to educate ppl on this forum then give the whole story and not one little piece
I can't believe how this one post has been blown up. Her assessment carries a lot of weight. If she was a dove instead of a hawk that would carry even more weight.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 06:07:05 PM
Post by: gingyguy on January 15, 2020, 07:56:47 PM
I tried to find if she supported the Iraq war. It is not my place to educate anyone.Why should it matter if she supported the Iraq war or not? That has nothing to do with the fact that she thought soleimani was bad news
I can't believe how this one post has been blown up. Her assessment carries a lot of weight. If she was a dove instead of a hawk that would carry even more weight.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 08:08:40 PM
Why should it matter if she supported the Iraq war or not? That has nothing to do with the fact that she thought soleimani was bad newsI have yet to see anyone say this guy wasn't "bad news".
Assessments are very subjective. I would expect a dove and a hawk to have different assessments.
Clarification before this gets twisted. Different does not mean opposite. :)
Post by: EliJelly on January 15, 2020, 08:51:59 PM
Post by: gingyguy on January 15, 2020, 08:54:49 PM
I have yet to see anyone say this guy wasn't "bad news".But it still has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
Assessments are very subjective. I would expect a dove and a hawk to have different assessments.
Clarification before this gets twisted. Different does not mean opposite. :)
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 09:10:37 PM
CV, I hope the people you're taking on a roller coaster ride are enjoying it.More like a merry-go-round.
I am done with this one.
Post by: CountValentine on January 15, 2020, 09:10:53 PM
But it still has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
I am done with this one.
Post by: mercaz1 on January 17, 2020, 10:55:06 AM
I tried to find if she supported the Iraq war. It is not my place to educate anyone.
I can't believe how this one post has been blown up. Her assessment carries a lot of weight. If she was a dove instead of a hawk that would carry even more weight.
clown show
Post by: whYME on January 20, 2020, 07:32:23 PM
Post by: yuneeq on January 21, 2020, 01:01:45 AM
Thought it was a play on "30 seconds of fame".
I was thinking 30 seconds to Mars
Post by: Jellybelly on November 27, 2020, 08:56:59 AM
This time it was the head of the nuclear program
Post by: Kobe Bryant on November 27, 2020, 08:59:52 AM
According to YWN, another top Iranian was assassinated today.Reports a senior Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh has been assassinated east of Tehran.
This time it was the head of the nuclear program
Post by: Jellybelly on November 27, 2020, 10:07:59 AM
Post by: justaregularguy on November 27, 2020, 03:10:16 PM
Now they’re reporting that he’s alive but in serious conditionnow they’re reporting he’s dead but only slightly.
Post by: yesitsme on November 27, 2020, 03:22:46 PM
now they’re reporting he’s dead but only slightly.Huh
Post by: Jellybelly on December 06, 2020, 02:57:52 PM
Post by: yungermanchik on December 06, 2020, 03:05:12 PM
Now there are reports that Ayatollah khameni has died and his kid is taking over, not sure if that’s good or badsource?
Post by: justaregularguy on December 06, 2020, 03:50:50 PM
Now there are reports that Ayatollah khameni has died and his kid is taking over, not sure if that’s good or badall I’ve seen is transfer of power to son not that he died
Post by: TimT on December 08, 2020, 10:41:17 AM
“Thank you Mossad.”
— Alireza Nader علیرضا نادر (@AlirezaNader) December 7, 2020
Israeli flag in Tehranpars (Tehran suburb), #Iran. pic.twitter.com/DWfkZ9KpxC
Post by: Kobe Bryant on December 09, 2020, 05:29:40 AM
?s=20Mount Nomore pic.twitter.com/C34ACpP7L5
— Punked Fakert (@PunkedFakert) November 29, 2020