Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

US and Iran Relations (News and Discussion)


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

the dems certainly exist though....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


what’s wrong with those positions? If you say you want to de-escalate then immediately say you are going to punish them with new sanctions, it’s fair to be questioned. I know you don’t care about cultural sites, but it was ****ing terrible for an American President to state that as a threat. 
 

Neither of those pushbacks support your claims about Dems. I mean, your statement that people here don’t think Iran is a terrorist state because people don’t view ISIS and Iran as the same is really twisting things. Seems to be your specialty recently 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Now we're getting closer.  

 

Yes, I have no doubt that if you look hard enough, you can cherry pick some statements which you can pretend are kinda close to the claims being made.  

 

And stringing all of them together, and labeling the construct "the Dems" is still a straw man.  

Cherry pick? Heck a combine would probably more in order when it comes to finding the stupid assertions, hand wringing, theories etc made by Democrats or their supporters following the Soliemani killing.

Edited by nonniey
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Cherry pick? Heck a combine would probably more in order when it comes to finding the stupid assertions, hand wringing, theories etc made by Democrats or their supporters following the Soliemani killing.


nobody does more of that than king snowflake the dotard himself. 
 

how does that uranium one conspiracy taste?

 

😂😂😂😂

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, illone said:


nobody does more of that than king snowflake the dotard himself. 
 

how does that uranium one conspiracy taste?

 

😂😂😂😂

It's amazing how the GOP'ers love to proudly display their ignorance and gullibility at whatever their "leaders" lie to them about. If they could learn to think for themselves and ignore right-wing media which lies as much as trump, they might at least end up being independents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hardly surprising a majority disapprove of Trump's handling of Iran. He hardly "handles' anything.

 

He may have stumbled into strong decisive action, but as always there seems no coherent long-term plan to follow it up.  Just childish "I did it better than Obama" rantings and ravings. And military action like killing an Iranian general (for whom I shed NO tears) demands an idea or two about what happens next and how to deal with it. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StillUnknown said:
They still can't get on the same page


 

someone is being creative with the intelligence, and someone isn’t.

 

 

if they had of had they’re story straight from the beginning (hey, we just felt like killing him) the approval polls would be in the mid 60s for his handling of Iran.

 

he can’t get out of his own way.

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not a question of getting their story straight, it’s simply that Trump is lying and he’s not even capable of being honest. There isn’t a situation in which he won’t simply make something up. 
The volume of lies is staggering just as the full on acceptance by the GOP. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hersh said:

It’s not a question of getting their story straight, it’s simply that Trump is lying and he’s not even capable of being honest. There isn’t a situation in which he won’t simply make something up. 
 

Yes you got that right. He lies when he doesn't need to. And definitely didn't need to lie over the Soliemani killing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nonniey said:

Yes you got that right. He lies when he doesn't need to. And definitely didn't need to lie over the Soliemani killing. 

Better than telling the truth that he believed he needed to shore up support with Iran hawks for his impeachment or that he didn't want to look weak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nonniey said:

Yes you got that right. He lies when he doesn't need to. And definitely didn't need to lie over the Soliemani killing.

 

A large part of the problem here is that you can’t trust anything he says or his intentions because he lies about everything. You bemoan the conspiracy theories and bull**** the Dems “make up” but the fact is you really can’t trust this guy and that is the problem. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

A large part of the problem here is that you can’t trust anything he says or his intentions because he lies about everything. You bemoan the conspiracy theories and bull**** the Dems “make up” but the fact is you really can’t trust this guy and that is the problem. 

 

Look at the title of this thread, and the date it was started.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone interested in contrast with how the Bin Laden operation was prepared from a legal perspective

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/politics/obama-legal-authorization-osama-bin-laden-raid.amp.html

 

Quote

Weeks before President Obama ordered the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in May 2011, four administration lawyers developed rationales intended to overcome any legal obstacles — and made it all but inevitable that Navy SEALs would kill the fugitive Qaeda leader, not capture him.

 

Stretching sparse precedents, the lawyers worked in intense secrecy. Fearing leaks, the White House would not let them consult aides or even the administration’s top lawyer, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. They did their own research, wrote memos on highly secure laptops and traded drafts hand-delivered by trusted couriers.

 

This is where the bad hombre justification falls apart for me.  You can carry out military actions on foreign soil to execute terrorists.  But a responsible country and competent administration dots the i's and crosses the t's. 

 

One of the elements lacking here was the Congressional authorization for use of force, which of course existed for perpetrators of 9/11.  If you are going to off a military leader of another country, in the absence of exigency, you have to obtain Congressional authorization.  To hold otherwise would give US Presidents unilateral power to send the country into war.

 

You should also attempt to garner the support of the international community.  If offing Soliemani was a top goal, make your case to the international community.  We did that with perpetrators of 9/11, which is why no one could fault us for Afghan War or the execution of Bin Laden in Pakistan, despite the controversial international law grounds of the second operation.  

 

Trump's action with respect to Soliemani essentially made him judge, jury, and executioner.  No legal basis, domestic or international, exists to imbue him with such power.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are certain code words, which when spoken, functionally speaking, "activate" their base.

 

"Benghazi" is one of those words.  Sure, none of what he just said made any sense in the grander context of justifying the Soleimani killing, but so long as you slip that word in there, bam, base on board.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2020 at 9:51 PM, nonniey said:

...but I think some have gotten to the point where for many Trump as the bad guy trumps any other bad guy or bad guys no matter who they are.

Not true. Off the top of my head, there’s Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.😃

 

On 1/11/2020 at 10:42 PM, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

i mean, just go back and read through the tweets posted in the iran topic.... and @The Sisko saying our troops and citizens deserved to  be attacked because president trump killed a terrorist.  Several people here outright denied Iran was a terrorist state.  

 

Its not that hard to find.

I thought I made it clear in my follow-on post that I was referring to the country as a whole. No specific individual deserves to have something like that happen to them but IMO the consequences I was talking about are something we, i.e. Tя☭mp has brought upon us. Think of it this way. If the Iranians had popped Mark Esper in the name of taking out a terrorist, I’m sure you’d agree that our response, if any, should be measured. Expecting another govt. to react differently than you’d expect yours to under the same circumstances is patently silly and arrogant. 

Edited by The Sisko
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • visionary changed the title to US and Iran Relations (News and Discussion)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...