A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
No. She’s saying that we can’t trust anything uncorroborated coming out of this administration because they lie all the time so why should we believe them?
shes 100% right
American Embassy Iraq
- Thread starter Aloha Hoosier
- Start date
shes 100% right
No...she (and others) are struggling with how to turn a good thing into something negative without appearing to support terrorists. Zeke is one of the caricature examples that may actually hate Trump more than murderous terrorists.
And you’re the perfect example of a guy who knows NOTHING about others, yet constantly thinks he’s the only impartial, unbiased , and brightest person in the room. How very Trumpian of you. Can you go back and find where I have commented negatively about this? I’ll save you time. I haven’t. Your post is ignorant .
Wait, the guy who drew with a Sharpie on a hurricane map cannot be trusted? Who knew.
What I know about you is based on what you post. If that is not reflective then that is on you.
Actually Obama did the opposite. Part of the Obama-legacy-building Iranian Nuke deal was our lifting the individual sanctions and travel restrictions imposed on Soleimani. That action was buried in the fine print and arguably covered up with a false name confusion explanation. Perhaps had Obama not done that, Soleimani would be alive today. One has to wonder if there was a connection between the freedom given to Soleimani and the pallets of currency delivered as part of the deal. The image of Soleimani and his staff carrying satchels of cash around Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq as he visits his surrogate terrorist fighters isn’t too far-fetched.
So all liberals are clowns?
CoH, in your litany you forgot to include that car pooling was one of those liberal "clown"ideas which never panned out.
Your gonna need a bigger clown car, hoot.
In addition to banning all plastic, Biden wants to throw people he disagrees with in jail:
In order to curb the rate of pollution, Biden explained, we need to hold fossil fuel executives "liable for what they have done, particularly in those cases where there are underserved neighborhoods."
When they don't deliver, Biden offered, "put them in jail."
As an aside, did anyone notice that terrible Coca Cola ad on the NFL game yesterday? The one featuring the cute puffin and polar bears? They put a plastic straw in the Coke bottle. As soon as that came on I told my stoker that Coca Cola better get it’s PR people to work on an apology.When they don't deliver, Biden offered, "put them in jail."
Correct, I was simply stating he had the opportunity to do the best thing as he did with OBL but didn't.
I don't know about the connection of cash to Soleimani running free but I will be pissed if Americans are killed using the weapons Obama paid for.
Trump needs to take several responsible partners starting yesterday to keep this under control. I don't trust him to do so himself.
Why should Bush or Obama have done it? A policy of using the military to assassinate really bad people independent of the political/military implications is a stupid military policy. Killing bad guys is gratifying to kids playing video games and enjoyable for people reading fiction or watching movies. Such stupidity got us into Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. We could have avoided all those wars by negotiating AND we were on track to avoiding the current situation with Iran by negotiating. Obviously, the Saudis and the Israelis are happy to see us dump a couple trillion more into a ME morass. We shouldn't do it. That we have already effed up in Afghanistan and Iraq is no reason to triple our losses. The world is full of bad guys. Let's grow up and deal with it like adults who understand we aren't some kind of superheroes playing video games.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I’m sorry? We could have negotiated prior to Afghanistan? With whom?
A combination of military and diplomatic pressure on the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan could have achieved a better outcome at a much lower cost. Particularly if we hadn't effed that up with the Iraq war.
LOL. Yeah, right. Trump has told our NATO partners in the region to STFU and stay out of his way or they will be sanctioned. Who in their right mind would be willing to "partner" with this imbecile?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Hopefully our intelligence and military leadership. NATO is fine but not necessary.
I agree with Gary Kasparov:
Deterrence is based on standing up against small aggressions in order to prevent big ones, when the price will be much higher. Many years of success led Iran & Soleimani to feel invincible, to attack a US embassy, when of course a US president had to respond.
This is how appeasement kills. This is why inaction can be a deadly choice. It raises the stakes, postpones the inevitable, and encourages aggressors to assume they can act with impunity until the eventual response is massive and destabilizing.
Which NATO partner are you talking about? Turkey? Edrogan has been cozying up to Putin. Do you want Trump to make that a threesome?
The war in Afghanistan is a net positive in your view? Looks like a big net negative to me. Iraq more so. American military misadventures look to me to be the result of very poor understanding and intuition by the American electorate. Really, if Americans had followed the rule “always listen to the dirty effing hippies” as opposed to the hawks and so-called moderates we would be better off. I admit that I was a supporter of the Afghan war but not Iraq so I blew that one too.
We are now seeing security theater in play. It's scary to imagine where this is heading. One most only look at our internal history.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-detains-more-60-iranian-americans-border
So if that’s true, Trump ordered an airstrike on a foreign diplomat engaged in peace talks... not a good look. Saudi Arabia might have double-crossed Iraq & Iran by giving us intel on Suleimani‘s arrival?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...11ea-be79-83e793dbcaef_story.html?arc404=true
Mike the Messianic nut is in charge. God help us.
You can see why atheism is on the rise. They give religion a bad name -- from Prosperity Christianity to these doomsday nuts...
If this goes belly up, this will be the fault of teh Pentagon. How could they have presented him with the 'nuclear' option knowing Trump?
It's a perfect case of 'knowing your audience' or not, in this clusterfeck.
From what I've been able to learn about Suleimani, characterizing him as "a foreign diplomat engaged in peace talks" is laughable.
You are wrong.
As Courtsense may be implying, we should nuke the entire Mideast. While at it, we might nuke China, thus leaving only good guys like Russia.
Kudos to Courtsense!
I am confused about the meaning of the word 'sense' now. Maybe I have been using it in an inappropriate manner all my life.
Quds Force is a unique full time extra-territorial military unit intended to spread Iranian terror, murder, mayhem, and chaos throughout the Middle East. We have spent billions and our military and civilians have died or been forever maimed in responding to these Iranian fanatics. And this doesn’t include the thousands of other civilians Suleimani killed or made into refugees. The Iranians even claim that Quds Force has a presence in North America.
We had no choice but to take decisive action. Hopefully this would tamp down Iranian foreign activities, it probably won’t. But this action is a message that Quds Force will not be winked at. We had somewhat of a lid on this years ago, but as part of the Iranian nuke deal, the lid was taken off. I don’t think further delay was an option.
So far:
Iran says they are resuming their nuclear program and retaliating against Americans.
Iraqis say all troops must leave .
US operations against Isis have been suspended.
Trump is golfing and tweeting about committing war crimes today.
All going according to plan, I presume.
Iran says they are resuming their nuclear program and retaliating against Americans.
Iraqis say all troops must leave .
US operations against Isis have been suspended.
Trump is golfing and tweeting about committing war crimes today.
All going according to plan, I presume.
Yeah...so don't speak for me Ace. Particularly given the reading comprehension issues you apparently have.
Politics at one time in our history ended at the nation's shore. This meant when it came to foreign policy, both parties were pretty much in agreement. In addition the executive branch consulted with committees of Congress such as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which tended to be bipartisan.
These days presidents come into office complaining about the foreign policies of their predecessors especially if the previous president was from a different party. Bipartisan foreign policy then goes out the window. Consistency and precedence from one administration to the next is replaced by each new president bent on reinventing the wheel. Politically appointed leaders by a new president of defense, state, and security find themselves confronted by bureaucrats with a conflicting perspective.
On top of this, the citizens tend to listen to politicians of their own party. When a new president bashes the former president of another party the partisans of each party take sides either for or against the new president.
Please note I am not saying the foreign policies of a more bipartisan (we are in this together) past were without mistakes. All I am saying is there was a time when the country left the huddle with all on the team believing the called play was the right play.
These days presidents come into office complaining about the foreign policies of their predecessors especially if the previous president was from a different party. Bipartisan foreign policy then goes out the window. Consistency and precedence from one administration to the next is replaced by each new president bent on reinventing the wheel. Politically appointed leaders by a new president of defense, state, and security find themselves confronted by bureaucrats with a conflicting perspective.
On top of this, the citizens tend to listen to politicians of their own party. When a new president bashes the former president of another party the partisans of each party take sides either for or against the new president.
Please note I am not saying the foreign policies of a more bipartisan (we are in this together) past were without mistakes. All I am saying is there was a time when the country left the huddle with all on the team believing the called play was the right play.
Last edited:
Similar threads
