Trump & Iran

[Spartanmack]

Define war.

how is killing a terrorist responsible for killing hundreds of US troops and actively planning attacks to kill more, "starting" a war? Most rational people would call that hitting back.

 

[sggatecl]

I quoted you ?if you aren?t terrified of the idea of starting this war...?

Are you claiming (defining) that a war has begun?

I think the part you just quoted answers your question. The 'idea of starting this war'.

I simply wanted to know where you drew that distinction since you're certain ti won't happen. Boots on the ground? Declaration from Congress (lol)? A certain number of drone strikes? A strongly worded tweet from the Commander in Chief?

 

[tinselwolverine]

I simply wanted to know where you drew that distinction since you're certain ti won't happen. Boots on the ground? Declaration from Congress (lol)? A certain number of drone strikes? A strongly worded tweet from the Commander in Chief?

Hmmm.

Certainly more than where we?re at.

 

[sggatecl]

how is killing a terrorist responsible for killing hundreds of US troops and actively planning attacks to kill more, "starting" a war? Most rational people would call that hitting back.

I already covered all of that in my first post on this thread. This situation is more complex than just 'we dropped a bomb on him because he was a terrorist.' I'm not saying Soleimani wasn't a bad guy. I'm not even saying that it was a bad move. I stated that in my first post as well. What makes this unique is that he wasn't some rogue terrorist or the head of an organization like ISIS or Al Qaeda. He was a military general of a sovereign country, killed while visiting another sovereign country.

There are many in the world that think America has committed war crimes in the last 30+ years. If one of our generals were to be killed while visiting another country and their response was 'we were just protecting ourselves from more future attacks'. What do you think our response would be? A hell of a lot more than Iran's response, that's for sure.

And as far killing 100s of American soldiers and planning on killing more, we're still waiting on proof of that. As I said, I'm 100% behind Trump if that was the case. But I'm not about to take him at his word, his track record of (not) telling the truth can be blamed for that. Not to mention the last time we took our president at his word, we found out later there were actually no WMDs at all.

 

[Michchamp]

Signs in the heavens

Probably should've posted it under the "Religion" board then.

 

[Michchamp]

...

And as far killing 100s of American soldiers and planning on killing more, we're still waiting on proof of that. ...

there was a thread on twitter yesterday that picked this claim apart, and posted a number of articles discussing it going back to 2007.

yes, the Pentagon has been making it since 2007, and it always falls apart. then they make it again in a few years. The numbers of Americans they claim Iran/Soleimani killed have jumped around from a few hundred to the 600 they now claim.

 

[Spartanmack]

there was a thread on twitter yesterday that picked this claim apart, and posted a number of articles discussing it going back to 2007.

yes, the Pentagon has been making it since 2007, and it always falls apart. then they make it again in a few years. The numbers of Americans they claim Iran/Soleimani killed have jumped around from a few hundred to the 600 they now claim.

oh, it was debunked on twitter - enough said. Leave to MC to bring the hart hitting facts to the argument.

 

[Spartanmack]

I already covered all of that in my first post on this thread. This situation is more complex than just 'we dropped a bomb on him because he was a terrorist.' I'm not saying Soleimani wasn't a bad guy. I'm not even saying that it was a bad move. I stated that in my first post as well. What makes this unique is that he wasn't some rogue terrorist or the head of an organization like ISIS or Al Qaeda. He was a military general of a sovereign country, killed while visiting another sovereign country.

There are many in the world that think America has committed war crimes in the last 30+ years. If one of our generals were to be killed while visiting another country and their response was 'we were just protecting ourselves from more future attacks'. What do you think our response would be? A hell of a lot more than Iran's response, that's for sure.

And as far killing 100s of American soldiers and planning on killing more, we're still waiting on proof of that. As I said, I'm 100% behind Trump if that was the case. But I'm not about to take him at his word, his track record of (not) telling the truth can be blamed for that. Not to mention the last time we took our president at his word, we found out later there were actually no WMDs at all.

nobody is saying we dropped a bomb on him because he was a terrorist, but so what if they did say that? Terrorists should get bombs dropped on them. They're actually saying we dropped a bomb on a terrorist who had killed Americans because it would save American lives by preventing active plots to kill more Americans.

So he was a general of a sovereign nation - he's not a President or PM or parliamentarian, he's a military official involved in an active campaign of terror targeting the US. That makes him a legitimate target - he was a target for 2 previous administrations as well. He was banned from international travel by the UN because he was a recognized terrorist. We didn't assassinate a leader of a foreign sovereign state.

 

[Michchamp]

oh, it was debunked on twitter - enough said. Leave to MC to bring the hart hitting facts to the argument.

Well, like I said, the thread posted actual articles about this very claim going back years that anyone capable of thinking for themselves could read and draw that obvious conclusion.

I'll try to find it and post it for anyone curious, who is capable of thinking for themselves (which is everyone here but you and tigermud).

the thread also debunked the Pentagon's claims in other ways; for example, one of them was that the IEDs being used in the Iraqi insurgency were so sophisticated that they had to be made in iran. But there was plenty of evidence available publicly to refute this (pictures of the devices & the components, and evidence the same devices were used by the French resistance in WWII).

the Pentagon never responds to the evidence debunking their claims, they just wait a bit, then recycle them.

The only part of the propaganda machine George Orwell described in 1984 that they haven't been able to duplicate is the "Ministry of Truth" that goes back and physically changes past articles so they can claim they're consistent with whatever the government is claiming now. We have always been at war with East Asia

 

[Spartanmack]

Well, like I said, the thread posted actual articles about this very claim going back years that anyone capable of thinking for themselves could read and draw that obvious conclusion.

I'll try to find it and post it for anyone curious, who is capable of thinking for themselves (which is everyone here but you and tigermud).

the thread also debunked the Pentagon's claims in other ways; for example, one of them was that the IEDs being used in the Iraqi insurgency were so sophisticated that they had to be made in iran. But there was plenty of evidence available publicly to refute this (pictures of the devices & the components, and evidence the same devices were used by the French resistance in WWII).

the Pentagon never responds to the evidence debunking their claims, they just wait a bit, then recycle them.

The only part of the propaganda machine George Orwell described in 1984 that they haven't been able to duplicate is the "Ministry of Truth" that goes back and physically changes past articles so they can claim they're consistent with whatever the government is claiming now. We have always been at war with East Asia

oh there were articles posted there - I must have missed that. My bad - since there were links to actual articles, then it definitely has been debunked.

 

[Michchamp]

...

I'll try to find it and post it for anyone curious, who is capable of thinking for themselves (which is everyone here but you and tigermud). ...

Here, link.

 

[Michchamp]

oh there were articles posted there - I must have missed that. My bad - since there were links to actual articles, then it definitely has been debunked.

don't bother reading the link. Just go find a post from some Pentagon official, or a Boeing or General Dynamics exec responsible for selling more Reapers or Hellfires that tells you Iran = Bad, and repeat it here.

That is all you're capable of doing.

 

[JScottWriter]

I already covered all of that in my first post on this thread. This situation is more complex than just 'we dropped a bomb on him because he was a terrorist.' I'm not saying Soleimani wasn't a bad guy. I'm not even saying that it was a bad move. I stated that in my first post as well. What makes this unique is that he wasn't some rogue terrorist or the head of an organization like ISIS or Al Qaeda. He was a military general of a sovereign country, killed while visiting another sovereign country.

There are many in the world that think America has committed war crimes in the last 30+ years. If one of our generals were to be killed while visiting another country and their response was 'we were just protecting ourselves from more future attacks'. What do you think our response would be? A hell of a lot more than Iran's response, that's for sure.

And as far killing 100s of American soldiers and planning on killing more, we're still waiting on proof of that. As I said, I'm 100% behind Trump if that was the case. But I'm not about to take him at his word, his track record of (not) telling the truth can be blamed for that. Not to mention the last time we took our president at his word, we found out later there were actually no WMDs at all.

This. I'm not taking him him at his word like I did with Bush on WMDs. And why is he believing our intelligence agencies now but had been backing them for 3 years?

 

[Spartanmack]

don't bother reading the link. Just go find a post from some Pentagon official, or a Boeing or General Dynamics exec responsible for selling more Reapers or Hellfires that tells you Iran = Bad, and repeat it here.

That is all you're capable of doing.

aren't you the one that posted the link to the board member of the company that builds the Reaper? I haven't posted anything from a Pentagon official or any defense contractor. Doh.

Look, I know it's difficult for you given your limited intellect, but it's pretty universally known that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror. They shout "death to America" in their parliament and their leaders regularly threaten the US as well as Israel - in fact, they threaten to wipe not only Israel, but all Jews off the face of the earth. They recently murdered 1,600 of their own citizens for the crime of engaging in an unarmed peaceful protest - something they admit to doing. Yet "free thinkers" like you somehow ignore all of that and find some obscure blogger who convinces you the US is the bad guy and you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of advocating for war so you can impugn their motive and not have to defend your wholly unsupported position. This is nothing new, it's your tactic in virtually every argument you've gotten in on this board. You're an idiot. Plain and simple. And your arguments are weak.

 

[tinselwolverine]

This. I'm not taking him him at his word like I did with Bush on WMDs. And why is he believing our intelligence agencies now but had been backing them for 3 years?

As they say, a broke clock is right twice a day.

I?ve been pretty critical of Trump; didn?t vote him, won?t vote for him; that said-

He is the duly elected Commander in Chief.

He isn?t the one whom, it would seem, miscalculated the WMD situation.

He ran as a non-interventionist.

This is the first shot he?s fired.

So I?m not going to prejudge him on this. I?m going to assume it?s possible there was, in fact, a good reason for this, and I?m not going to demand to know what it is-maybe lives of intelligence sources could be at risk if details are disclosed; we?ve heard that justification from every administration ever.

I?m going to wait and see what happens.

Events of the last few hours indicate that possibly the thing could in fact, ostensibly blow over, just like I sort of flippantly predicted in my very first post on this thread.

 

[Michchamp]

...
He ran as a non-interventionist.

This is the first shot he?s fired.

...

eh, I'd quibble with both of these.

He ran as a non-interventionist, but his rhetoric is incredibly bellicose; like on the "8 year old kid who watches a lot of GI Joe" reading level maybe, but still.

and while maybe he hasn't YET gotten us into any new wars, he certainly hasn't actually ended any. Maybe the military and foreign policy of this country is so out of control that even the president can't reign it in. But I don't know it he's even tried.

And I think the first shots he fired were when he ordered a cruise missile strike in Syria near the beginning of his presidency.

and our military is deployed and has been fighting all over Africa & the Middle East throughout his presidency. We just don't hear about it as much as we should... because then it would be clear WE are the out-of-control nation here, not Iran.

 

[Michchamp]

... They shout "death to America" in their parliament ...

I mean come on, man. Who here doesn't shout "death to America" a couple times a day? It's a regular part of my morning routine.

 

[tinselwolverine]

eh, I'd quibble with both of these.

He ran as a non-interventionist, but his rhetoric is incredibly bellicose; like on the "8 year old kid who watches a lot of GI Joe" reading level maybe, but still.

and while maybe he hasn't YET gotten us into any new wars, he certainly hasn't actually ended any. Maybe the military and foreign policy of this country is so out of control that even the president can't reign it in. But I don't know it he's even tried.

And I think the first shots he fired were when he ordered a cruise missile strike in Syria near the beginning of his presidency.

and our military is deployed and has been fighting all over Africa & the Middle East throughout his presidency. We just don't hear about it as much as we should... because then it would be clear WE are the out-of-control nation here, not Iran.

Okay.

?The first shot he?s fired? was a little hyperbolic.

 

[Spartanmack]

eh, I'd quibble with both of these.

He ran as a non-interventionist, but his rhetoric is incredibly bellicose; like on the "8 year old kid who watches a lot of GI Joe" reading level maybe, but still.

and while maybe he hasn't YET gotten us into any new wars, he certainly hasn't actually ended any. Maybe the military and foreign policy of this country is so out of control that even the president can't reign it in. But I don't know it he's even tried.

And I think the first shots he fired were when he ordered a cruise missile strike in Syria near the beginning of his presidency.

and our military is deployed and has been fighting all over Africa & the Middle East throughout his presidency. We just don't hear about it as much as we should... because then it would be clear WE are the out-of-control nation here, not Iran.

so what's been our response to this obvious provocation? It's been almost 24 hours and Trump hasn't been pounding his chest on twitter, hasn't bombed Iran, hasn't threatened to. If he is so out of control and gung ho to get us into another endless war, why has he been so quiet? Maybe he follows you on twitter.

 

[Michchamp]

Okay.

?The first shot he?s fired? was a little hyperbolic.

Well, glad someone here can admit when they're wrong, or at least hyperbolic. unlike SOME people...

Death to America

*clinks glass*