We are heading out for Italian tonight. Now, if we change our mind en-route because of unforeseen circumstances, please refrain from calling me a liar and having your hair ignite.
did i claim otherwise? im looking at YOUR comment and your blatant hypocrisy. YOU made the post saying nothing was damaged, so trump shouldnt retaliate.
well then why did you support the assassination to begin with? im calling you out on how much of a flip flopper you are. nobody got hurt with the embassy protest. sso by your OWN logic, you should be calling trump out.
but you arent. because thats what fake people do.
Quote:
I'm not fake, thanks. I might ask you the same question, but I won't.
What happened in 1953? Some 15-16 years before I was born? The cia helped overthrow the iranian gov't.
What's the point you were trying to make?
im making this point:
Originally Posted By: archbolddawg
Iran: Since somewhere around 1978: DEath to America.
so YOU brought up the past. and yet now that i asked about the past, no its not suppose to be relevant in this discussion?
again, thats being a fake ass.
you're the one who brought up way back in 1978, and you decided to start history there as some sort of proof to iran's hostility to America.
apparently you and others dont seem to understand that its most certainly a two way street, and i brought up 1953 as the example. you cant just look at iran's history of aggression toward the US without ALSO looking at america's history of aggression toward Iran.
unless of course Arch is going on record claiming only one perspective matters. which wouldnt be surprising as the level of tunnel vision you display around here is astonishing.
and now you're once again making false narratives claiming people are upset about it "simmering down"?
like who? who on this board is upset about that? im looking through the thread, and see ZERO evidence of that.
i see plenty of evidence of you being fake and a flip flopper, though.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
We are heading out for Italian tonight. Now, if we change our mind en-route because of unforeseen circumstances, please refrain from calling me a liar and having your hair ignite.
I got this. Trump got that.
another clueless post from the master of blind loyalty: 40.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
22 missiles, about 10% failed to detonate. No mention of casualties. No mention of any damage of any kind. Al Jezeera said there was speculation they were deliberately targeted to cause no casualties. I question whether or not they have that level of accuracy.
In dessert environments, a large facility such as an airbase will be largely composed of, and totally surrounded by, empty sand. So, it is, in fact, quite likely that they hit nothing but empty sand.
This was nothing but a face-saving gesture. Empty, meaningless posturing, like many posters here do and about as valuable.
They are scared and we no longer need their oil. The next time we blow up half their infrastructure, we are not going to rebuild it for them.
“I think you have to ask yourself the general question, are attacks more or less likely now that Soleimani is gone?” Paul responded. “The person who has replaced them has been his assistant general for 22 years, is a hard-liner, and now the whole country of Iran is consumed with revenge.”
The Kentucky lawmaker went on to say that Soleimani’s assassination has “taken diplomacy off the table” and that the only possibility moving forward will be military escalation. Hemmer, meanwhile, wondered if there was much diplomacy with Iran to begin with.
“There was with the Iran agreement,” Paul pushed back. “The Iran agreement wasn’t perfect, and I was a critic of the Iran agreement, however, I think it was a big mistake to pull out of the agreement. You should have tried to build upon the Iran agreement.”
The Republican senator, who has become one of Trump’s biggest supporters on Capitol Hill, further criticized the administration for placing an embargo on Iran, saying an “act of an embargo is like an act of war.”
“I think it is the death of diplomacy, and I see no way to get it back started again until, sort of, the revenge of the Iranian people is somehow sated,” Paul noted. “I hate this. I hate that this is where we are going.”
“I have been someone who has been for engagement, but there was much less killing, there was much less violence after the Iran agreement," he continued. “In fact, there was a lull, a period in which I think we were headed towards a much more stable situation in Iran, and now I think that’s gone. And I think it may be gone for a lifetime.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
because even non military people know that iran's most likely "retaliation" will be proxies.
Iran doesnt remotely have the capabilities to start a large scale conflict with America. plus, they WARNED iraq about the attack prior to it happening.
traditional large scale conflicts are coming to an end, if its even still alive to begin with. its about cyber warfare and proxies, which is why the military has slimed down personnel wise and more geared toward special operations, due to the combat environment changing.
the biggest slap in the face right now is the fact Iraq - who we've spent trillions of dollars over, as well of thousands of american lives lost - have now all but decided they will cozy up to Iran over America, as evidence of their government voting to kick us out after the assassination.
we basically lost another ally in the region over an assassination strike. now, you and the rest of the trump supporters can claim its worth it, but it isnt.
one strike, and whatever progress we think we made in that country is now lost. killing the general was simply not worth it, no matter how much of a scumbag he was.
its similar to getting rid of Saddam. yea, he had it coming, but was everyone better off? no.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
from a strategy standpoint, its smart for them to come out and say this.
right now, America is being looked at as the aggressors from the world. most of our allies, our enemies, and those who dont want to be involved have been calling us out over the assasination. Iran knows that, so they need to come out and say these things, whether or not it ends up being true.
American war mongers and beating their chest right now, except no one else is joining in with the celebration. Iran is trying to keep it that way. and i get why the Europeans are pissed right now, because once again America made a big ass decision without thinking about the potential for massive violence within european countries, because we dont have to worry about those sorts of things. Europeans are worried about their safety, because they are the most vulnerable to future proxy attacks and such.
we in america have no such things to worry about, so we keep making these major decisions without taking into account the allies that we place in danger.
ya know, Trump constantly trashing our allies left and right....and then making decisions as if America doesnt have any allies. if a conflict happens, we could be solo dolo in it.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
did i claim otherwise? im looking at YOUR comment and your blatant hypocrisy. YOU made the post saying nothing was damaged, so trump shouldnt retaliate.
I also made this comment, at 9:31 a.m. this morning, prior to the comment you refer to:
Quote:
This is a good thing. Now, Trump and the u.s. need to back away.
That was in reply to lyuokdea's comment.
{quote]
well then why did you support the assassination to begin with? im calling you out on how much of a flip flopper you are. nobody got hurt with the embassy protest. sso by your OWN logic, you should be calling trump out.
but you arent. because thats what fake people do. [/quote] I'm not fake. Thanks though. The irani general is well known, world wide, as a terrorist. Responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. Even the dems in congress admit that.
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not fake, thanks. I might ask you the same question, but I won't.
What happened in 1953? Some 15-16 years before I was born? The cia helped overthrow the iranian gov't.
What's the point you were trying to make?
im making this point:
Originally Posted By: archbolddawg
Iran: Since somewhere around 1978: DEath to America.
so YOU brought up the past. and yet now that i asked about the past, no its not suppose to be relevant in this discussion?
again, thats being a fake ass.
I answered your dumb question.
Quote:
you're the one who brought up way back in 1978, and you decided to start history there as some sort of proof to iran's hostility to America.
apparently you and others dont seem to understand that its most certainly a two way street, and i brought up 1953 as the example. you cant just look at iran's history of aggression toward the US without ALSO looking at america's history of aggression toward Iran.
unless of course Arch is going on record claiming only one perspective matters. which wouldnt be surprising as the level of tunnel vision you display around here is astonishing.
and now you're once again making false narratives claiming people are upset about it "simmering down"?
like who? who on this board is upset about that? im looking through the thread, and see ZERO evidence of that.
Pit. I know his point was attempted, but failed, at "trump lied again". I would've guessed you, of all people, would be glad that trumps tough talk was just that. I guess I was wrong.
Quote:
i see plenty of evidence of you being fake and a flip flopper, though.
Nah, you don't. That may fit you, but not me. I've been pretty steady if you read my posts and NOT what someone interprets what I said.
I think it's good that the u.s. didn't retaliate. You and pit don't. Okay.
again with another lie. who said i was upset that trump didnt retaliate?
there was nothing to retaliate over, JUST LIKE there was nothing that happened that said we needed to kill iran's top general.
you're incapable of connecting the dots. which is fitting because Trump cant either.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
j\c All see is that Trump took out a terrorist that killed and maimed thousands of our troops and was funded by the U.S.taxpayers via that last admimistration...they impeached the wrong guy. and the defense that's being put on by some here for that killer and his country is absolutely heartbreaking and nauseating .SAD
again with another lie. who said i was upset that trump didnt retaliate?
I don't know. I didn't.
Quote:
there was nothing to retaliate over, JUST LIKE there was nothing that happened that said we needed to kill iran's top general.
The world disagrees with you here. Your brothers were killed at his hands.
Quote:
you're incapable of connecting the dots. which is fitting because Trump cant either.
See, I connect the dots. Apparently you don't?
A bad guy that was responsible for killing hundreds of U.S. military died. Iran retaliated after letting us know they were going to. None of US died. Game over.
Iran fired some missiles, killed no one. The U.S. didn't drag us into anything. Iran appeased its people. Done.
It's disheartening to see Americans, some of them veterans, defending Iran.
Oh my ... I remember when Bush and Chaney and Rice were calling anyone who was not 100% on board with war in Iraq un-American. Merely questioning the intelligence or rationale was taboo . . . now your twisting what people say. I get it - it's standard GOP tactics these days! Nikki Haley did it too.
It's disheartening to see Americans, some of them veterans, defending Iran.
Oh my ... I remember when Bush and Chaney and Rice were calling anyone who was not 100% on board with war in Iraq un-American. Merely questioning the intelligence or rationale was taboo . . . now your twisting what people say. I get it - it's standard GOP tactics these days! Nikki Haley did it too.
its not my fault that you and Arch have such a linear way of thinking. just look at his own response he just posted toward me. a complete joke, just like the guy you and he voted for.
you guys are trying to make it seem like we loved the general or something. its such a false narrative and truly a slap in the face to your fellow americans.
but whats CLEAR is that you didnt learn a damn thing from OIF, while youre sitting there trying to tell people to learn something. its the same trash ass argument you war mongers used back then.
because we didnt agree with the war or taking out saddam, all of a sudden that means we support saddam and all his human rights violations. this same "either with us or against us" BS from you guys, over and over again.
Arch: yea, i AM a combat veteran, unlike you. which means that i know what the consequences are when we as a country make rash decisions without thinking about the long term effects it can have on not only our military, but our relations in the region and our allies abroad.
and as i said before, it doesnt take anybody being in the military to understand that.
but maybe you should've join, because youre a 40 something year old dude who still doesnt have a clue as to how the world works, especially in situations like this.
history doesnt repeat itself, but it often rhymes. and a lot of you are making it clear you havent learned any lessons from OIF.
sad.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
We are heading out for Italian tonight. Now, if we change our mind en-route because of unforeseen circumstances, please refrain from calling me a liar and having your hair ignite.
I got this. Trump got that.
Oops. There was a Seafood restaurant across the street from the Italian restaurant and we chose it!
I am now a liar in Pitts eyes and all those who like me are cult members who have no soul.
We are heading out for Italian tonight. Now, if we change our mind en-route because of unforeseen circumstances, please refrain from calling me a liar and having your hair ignite.
I got this. Trump got that.
Oops. There was a Seafood restaurant across the street from the Italian restaurant and we chose it!
I am now a liar in Pitts eyes and all those who like me are cult members who have no soul.
Sorry.
At least Trump still got that Iran thang.
Not sure if this is in response to the article you called fake news because a letter was released by the military stating US forces would leave Iraq???
If so you - FAIL. Not only fail, but you continue to troll/goad and post like an 11 year old about a serious issue in an attempt to provoke.
Last edited by mgh888; 01/08/2007:39 PM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Rand Paul, Mike Lee rip administration over 'insulting and demeaning' Iran briefing
GOP Sens. Mike Lee (Utah) and Rand Paul (Ky.) ripped the administration over a closed-door briefing on Iran on Wednesday, announcing they will now support a resolution reining in President Trump's military powers.
Lee, speaking to reporters after a roughly hourlong closed-door meeting with administration officials, characterized it as "the worst briefing I've seen, at least on a military issue."
Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, CIA Director Gina Haspel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley were dispatched to brief both the House and Senate on Wednesday amid days of concerns from lawmakers that Trump was on a path to war with Iran, which on Tuesday night launched missiles at Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops.
Lee said the officials warned that Congress would "embolden" Iran if lawmakers debated Trump's war powers.
"I find this insulting and demeaning ... to the office that each of the 100 senators in this building happens to hold. I find it insulting and demeaning to the Constitution of the United States," Lee said.
Lee did not say which briefer made the assertion but specified that no administration representative contradicted them. He added that he was going to have a "conversation" with Trump about the remarks.
"I find that absolutely insane. I think that's unacceptable," Lee added.
Paul added that he found the briefing "less than satisfying" and knocked the administration for using the 2002 war authorization as the basis for last week's airstrike against an Iranian general.
"I see no way in the world you could logically argue that an authorization to have war with Saddam Hussein has anything to with having war with people currently in Iraq," Paul told reporters.
He added that using the 2002 authorization to justify the strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad was "absurd" and an "insult."
"Let's have the debate, and let's have some senators stand up," Paul said.
The briefing comes as the House is set to vote on a resolution on Thursday that would force Trump to end hostilities against Iran unless he gets specific authorization from Congress.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) has introduced a similar resolution that is set for a vote on the Senate floor as soon as next week.
Lee said that he had not seen the House resolution but was open to considering it.
"After today, every time they pull a stunt like this, I'm willing to consider and introduce any and every war powers act resolution," he said.
Both GOP senators were undecided on Kaine's resolution before the briefing but announced afterward that they are now supporting the measure. Democrats need four GOP votes to pass the resolution checking Trump's authority.
"I can say that after that briefing — that briefing is what changed my mind. ... I'm now going to support it. I walked into the briefing undecided. I walked out of that briefing decided specifically because of what happened in that briefing," Lee added.
Trump said in a Wednesday morning address to the nation that Iran "appears to be standing down" following weeks of escalating tensions that included an assault on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq by militia forces backed by Tehran.
“I’m pleased to inform you, the American people should be extremely grateful and happy. No Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime,” Trump said in remarks from the Grand Foyer of the White House.
“Our great American forces are prepared for anything,” he continued. “Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world."
"I see no way in the world you could logically argue that an authorization to have war with Saddam Hussein has anything to with having war with people currently in Iraq," Paul told reporters.
He added that using the 2002 authorization to justify the strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad was "absurd" and an "insult."
Let's see how the Trump faithful spin this one. No doubt you are un-American for posting such an article.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
PARIS (AP) — He was the leader on the world stage, visiting troops stationed in a far-flung war zone for the holidays, shoring up alliances and economic deals in the Mideast, requesting a meeting with the German chancellor in his capital, portraying himself and his country as reliable partners in an increasingly uncertain world.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has had a busy week, stepping into the aftermath of the American drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Putin’s visit Tuesday to Syria was emblematic of a reality that has been playing out in recent months: The U.S. strategic position in the Middle East is a mystery to many of its allies, and Russia is more than ready to fill any vacuum.
The shift has, in many ways, left U.S. allies in a bind — or turning to Russia themselves in search of a partner.
Putin was the first world leader French President Emmanuel Macron spoke with just after learning about the drone strike on Friday. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, meanwhile, is traveling to the Kremlin to discuss the crisis in the Mideast.
Canada, Denmark and Germany moved their troops in Iraq to safety, as did NATO, which has forces stationed there as part of the international coalition against the Islamic State group. There was no sign that any had been warned by the Trump administration of the drone strike. Coalition activities froze, and NATO’s secretary-general described the killing as “a U.S. decision. It is not a decision taken by either the global coalition nor NATO. But all allies are concerned about Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region.”
The base targeted in northern Iraq was filled with coalition troops.
Putin offered an alternative to perceived chaos.
“Unfortunately, the situation in the region we are in tends to escalate. But Turkey and Russia are demonstrating different examples – examples of cooperation for the sake of our nations and all of Europe,” he said Wednesday in Turkey.
Israel, which has criticized the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, has been quiet about the drone strike aside from a brief statement of praise from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, seemingly disinclined to escalate an already volatile situation between its closest ally and its sworn enemy. Trump’s first face to face meeting with an ally came Monday with the Saudi deputy defense minister, Khalid bin Salman. But he didn’t confirm it until a day later, after the prince revealed it in a tweet.
“We discussed Trade, Military, Oil Prices, Security, and Stability in the Middle East!” Trump tweeted.
The American president spoke by phone with Macron on Sunday and with Merkel on Tuesday.
Putin’s travel plans have continued apace. His visit to Russian troops for the Orthodox Christmas came unannounced, as was his meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who owes his continued rule to a combination of Russian and Iranian intervention. The message was unmistakable.
“Even NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, always ready to play along with the U.S., found it necessary to distance himself from the killing of the Iranian general by saying that the U.S. made this decision without NATO’s involvement. So Washington’s attempts to ex post facto shore up their European allies failed,” Alexei Pushkov, lawmaker in Russia’s upper house of parliament, wrote in a tweet Tuesday.
He added, “It’s emblematic that right in the middle of a pre-war crisis around Iran Merkel is heading to talks with Putin and not Trump. There is no point in talks with Trump.”
Defense Secretary Mark Esper refused to say whether Trump had warned allies before the strike: “I’m not going to get into the details of our consultations."
Stoltenberg said several U.S. briefers explained the “rationale” behind the Trump administration's decision to kill Soleimani, but he declined to provide details or timing.
Trump campaigned on an “America First” policy and long has said he wants to reduce U.S. involvement in foreign wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
But his decision to bomb pro-Iranian militias and then to kill Iran’s best-known general in a missile strike outside Baghdad’s airport caught Middle Eastern and European allies unaware and confused. Since then, the U.S. also has given off conflicting signals on its intentions to exit Iraq even while it deploys more troops immediately for protection against a possible Iranian response.
Amelie de Montchalin, a top French diplomat, told lawmakers Wednesday that France's solidarity was based solely on the international coalition against the Islamic State group.
“This was a decision made by the United States without consulting France for national security reasons, and it's therefore an American initiative and it's their sole responsibility,” Montchalin said.
The administration has held up Soleimani's death as a master stroke that eliminated a region-wide troublemaker and saved American lives. Trump insisted that the United States would leave Iraq eventually, but that the Iraqi people wanted American soldiers to remain: “At some point we want to get out but this isn’t the right point.”
Putin’s trip to Turkey was planned a month ago, even if its timing this week was fortuitous. And his visit to Damascus was simply a continuation of the Kremlin’s growing reach in the Mideast and the diminishing sway of the United States, said Marc Pierini, a former EU ambassador to Turkey and a visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe. Merkel's trip to the Kremlin was scheduled late last month, but Iran has always been the main topic on the agenda.
“Putin doesn’t need to do much. He’s just watching. Everything you’ve seen for the past year or so, since December 2018 when Trump first announced the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, everything has gone the Kremlin’s way. There’s not much to do, there’s nothing to activate. The Russian policy in that region has been to talk to everybody, to capitalize on an American vacuum,” Pierini said.
The December 2018 announcement was widely criticized as an American abandonment of its Kurdish allies, who fought alongside U.S. forces against the Islamic State group in northeast Syria. After U.S. forces withdrew, Turkey launched an offensive and the Kurds turned to Russia and the Syrian government for protection. It was a Russian deal with Turkey that ended the invasion. What little presence the U.S. military retains in Syria depends heavily upon logistical support from its bases in Iraq, and the outgoing Iraqi prime minister said Tuesday that American forces must leave.
“We have no exit but this," said Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, “otherwise we are speeding toward confrontation.”
____________________
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Luckily most of Europe views Putin as the one the if not the most dangerous man on the planet. While Trump falls for the words that come out of Putin's mouth and takes measures to talk to Putin without ANY other US ears listening to the conversation - I am sure that Putin's efforts in EU are handled and viewed very differently.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
You still don't get it. You can't just cite a news source and claim that's what happened.
1. He was a scumbag terrorist. I call it like it is. You need to learn to do the same.
2. He helped coordinate the protests and attacks on the US embassy.
Everything I just said above is a fact. Especially #2. If you disagree with that, you're in no position to know otherwise because you don't have the intel or the clearance to know what occurred only what the media tells you.
You should trust our generals, the military, and what the administration has to say.
bro what? you're arguing points NO ONE is disagreeing with you over.
NO ONE is disagreeing with you that he's a terrorist. literally no one here.
NO ONE is saying he didnt coordinate, although the administration is most certainly being shady with the evidence.
what we are brining up is the long term ramifications of the killing. we are arguing whether it was even worth it. just because the guy had it coming doesnt mean its smart to kill him. just like Saddam deserved to be ousted, but it wasnt smart to do so, because of the LONG TERM RAMIFICATIONS.
jesus christ its like arguing with a wall. why freaking bother.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Iran warned the U.S. via a European embassy of missile attack so troops had THREE HOURS to prepare - and Tehran made sure American satellites could detect their plans, report claims
Iran warned the U.S. via a European embassy of missile attack so troops had THREE HOURS to prepare - and Tehran made sure American satellites could detect their plans, report claims
I feel Trump/Military handled this in an outstanding way.
Yep, starting endless wars over oil at the expense of our troops is what the GOP does so well.
We're currently the world's number 1 oil exporter, just an FYI.
But yes Eve is 100% correct. This was the right way to handle the situation.
Take out terrorist? Check Red line for killing Americans? Check Peace through strength? Check President with a spine? Check
The thing I like about Trump is he's not afraid like Obama. If Iran wants to talk we can but as long as they continue to be a rogue nation, proclaim death to other countries they can wallow in ineptitude. They could make trade deals with other countries, build their economy, help their own people but they don't care about any of that.
Trump doesn't try and appease to Iran. They are not trustworthy. Appeasement is surrender.
The only thing they understand is force and strength. That's what Obama and the democrats don't seem to understand.
" I would bet my lunch, that here is what happened"
US - Hey Iran, you attacked our embassy, we took out your general. We don't want war, you cannot win a war - lets settle this"
IRAN - We need to save face in front of our people so we don't look weak
US - We have a base, where we will make sure that NO ONE is at from this hour to this hour. If for some reason a missle or two strikes, you can save face in your people by saying you retaliated, we will call it square.
The USA has been the #1 oil exporter since 2012..... That was under Obama, just in case you didn't know that.
As for this was the right way to handle the situation? Not even remotely close. Skating along by the seat of your pants 'diplomacy' and making knee jerk reactions in a vacuum because all the adults in the Trump Administration left, is NOT the best way. We got LUCKY - and who knows what this action will reap for the next 20 years ..... You did see the MILLIONS in the streets mourning this General - right? You can call him a terrorist all you like - but to his nation he was a General. . . . And communicating with our Allies around the world would also be kinda of beneficial.
Last edited by mgh888; 01/09/2009:53 AM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
