Warren Zevon Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 No way in hell McConnell allows him to testify in the Senate. Better chance of a house subpoena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Are you ######s still hoping for a senate conviction? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: No way in hell McConnell allows him to testify in the Senate. Better chance of a house subpoena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan_34 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 42 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: Trump has lied thousands of times about the most mundane of things. Skepticism is warranted. Yeah, he never really did “grab that *****” lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 56 minutes ago, John Adams said: No. It was the vice president speaking for the administration. Like a moran trying to justify the assassination by linking it to 9-11. But the Trump knob-gobblers ignore this. How about Trump supporting bombing cultural sites? Nothing to say about that either? Good critical thinking here boyz. Carry on. Again with the moran BS? Last I knew it was OK to use the word moron even if you do not know how to use it to properly make a point. Don't tell me that you are not capable of making slurs in 2020. I have had people use the word Mick (Mc) with obvious hostile intent around me as I have Irish ancestry. Your posts are a waste of bandwidth so a banning would clean up the site somewhat. You certainly won't be silenced as you will just post under one or more of your aliases here. Unfortunately. I would hate to think that such a slur would be allowed to stand while others would no doubt draw a reprimand rather quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 1 hour ago, John Adams said: No. It was the vice president speaking for the administration. Like a moran trying to justify the assassination by linking it to 9-11. But the Trump knob-gobblers ignore this. How about Trump supporting bombing cultural sites? Nothing to say about that either? Good critical thinking here boyz. Carry on. Hitler failed to bomb Paris because art. USA/Great Britain destroyed Dresden. From Wiki: "between the fall of Mosul in June 2014 and February 2015, ISIL had plundered and destroyed at least 28 historical religious buildings. Valuable items from some buildings were looted in order to smuggle and sell them to foreigners to finance ISIS activities." Art matters? Critical thinking? War sucks. Lives matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: Again with the moran BS? Last I knew it was OK to use the word moron even if you do not know how to use it to properly make a point. Don't tell me that you are not capable of making slurs in 2020. I have had people use the word Mick (Mc) with obvious hostile intent around me as I have Irish ancestry. Your posts are a waste of bandwidth so a banning would clean up the site somewhat. You certainly won't be silenced as you will just post under one or more of your aliases here. Unfortunately. I would hate to think that such a slur would be allowed to stand while others would no doubt draw a reprimand rather quickly. Post of the year if you're a parody account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 57 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: Are you ######s still hoping for a senate conviction? The Senate must now convict, because we're going to have a draft and WW3 and stuff because we pissed off the great military power that is Iran!!1111oneoneoneeleventyone!!!111 Please don't kill us with your ineffective army Mr. Ayatollah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 15 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: Post of the year if you're a parody account. You're a low life if you don't think that your alias aka John Adams is not intending to employ a slur. For a group that supposedly arrived several generations ago in America the Irish still took a beating while I was growing up. Further, I heard the stories my maternal grandmother endured as a young woman during the Depression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Joe in Winslow said: Are you ######s still hoping for a senate conviction? Easy on them, they just found out the Senate is a million times more vital than the House on the matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 9 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: So, the advantage of tearing up the Obama Iran nuclear deal was what? You made a nice pro Trump statement but didn't answer the question. Please, try again. Except for the satisfaction of undoing Obama's presidency, what was the advantage of tearing up the agreement? Trump did what Trump does with all agreements he inherited: tore it up so he could re-negotiate it. He’s specifically stated that he would talk to Iran about forming a new deal — one that he thinks isn’t so one sided against our interests. He did it with ACA, he did it with NAFTA, he imposed tariffs on China so he could get them to the table and re-set trade with them. He bullied NATO countries into committing the money they actually pledged to contribute. The point isn’t that he gets better results (that’s arguable on a case by case basis). The point is that’s his obvious m.o. Also, don’t forget that this isn’t just a bilateral agreement. Several European countries and Russia and China signed it. Where have they been since Trump took our country out? Why would it be okay for Iran to start up unlimited enrichment in violation of their agreement with the other signatory countries? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, snafu said: Also, don’t forget that this isn’t just a bilateral agreement. Several European countries and Russia and China signed it. Where have they been since Trump took our country out? Why would it be okay for Iran to start up unlimited enrichment in violation of their agreement with the other signatory countries? The remaining countries couldn't do anything to fulfill their end of the trade bargain with Iran, as we forced the issue with the threat of sanctions on any company/country that traded with Iran without our consent. I'm actually somewhat surprised Iran lasted this long in the agreement (all BS gradual pullout theatrics aside). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, Koko78 said: The remaining countries couldn't do anything to fulfill their end of the trade bargain with Iran, as we forced the issue with the threat of sanctions on any company/country that traded with Iran without our consent. I'm actually somewhat surprised Iran lasted this long in the agreement (all BS gradual pullout theatrics aside). What you’re saying is that this was effectively a two nation agreement — though I find it hard to believe that we were going to sanction the EU, Russia, China and the U.K. and Germany if they traded with Iran in compliance with the agreement. Only one country didn’t last this long in the agreement. I don’t know if the agreement put any restriction on Iran’s ability to increase its regional havoc in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen and I’m glad we nailed them with sanctions. It was claimed that they were in compliance with the enrichment restrictions — but there was no way to really know. The agreement was a total can-kick, and I think Obama even admitted that. It was a ***** agreement, it’s easy to see. All that said, however, by the letter of it we pulled out for no reason other than we considered it a bad deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakin Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: So, the advantage of tearing up the Obama Iran nuclear deal was what? You made a nice pro Trump statement but didn't answer the question. Please, try again. Except for the satisfaction of undoing Obama's presidency, what was the advantage of tearing up the agreement? The same advantage you get when you tear up any bad deal. There’s a business man in the White House. Not a community organizer or Daddy’s little revenge seeker... Let the grownups continue to do grownup things. All that said - I’m against most war. Peace prosperity and trade with all nations. Don’t meddle In the affairs of other countries. This nonsense started a long time ago / hopefully Trumpy can end it. I’m skeptical but hopeful. Edited January 7, 2020 by Bakin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 31 minutes ago, snafu said: What you’re saying is that this was effectively a two nation agreement — though I find it hard to believe that we were going to sanction the EU, Russia, China and the U.K. and Germany if they traded with Iran in compliance with the agreement. Only one country didn’t last this long in the agreement. Eh, it's a bit more complicated than that. However, the EU, Russia, and China were never going to sacrifice hundreds of billions of dollars in trade with the US for a couple billion with Iran. Would Trump have actually pulled the trigger? I don't know. Would you bet your company/economy against it, if you were them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, Uncle Joe said: Hitler failed to bomb Paris because art. USA/Great Britain destroyed Dresden. From Wiki: "between the fall of Mosul in June 2014 and February 2015, ISIL had plundered and destroyed at least 28 historical religious buildings. Valuable items from some buildings were looted in order to smuggle and sell them to foreigners to finance ISIS activities." Art matters? Critical thinking? War sucks. Lives matter. Others have been bad so we can be bad? Is that your defense of this statement? It's the "He's my president, not my pastor" line of thinking. Such a low threshold you set. Thankfully his generals don't agree with him on this, though even when the military wanted to put the prisoner child killer to justice, Trump intervened, so who knows what he does if Iran retaliates. What a guy (him, and you). Your examples, minus ISIL, were also not subject to the 1954 Hague Convention agreement, but maybe you want him to tear that treaty up too. 7 hours ago, RochesterRob said: You're a low life if you don't think that your alias aka John Adams is not intending to employ a slur. For a group that supposedly arrived several generations ago in America the Irish still took a beating while I was growing up. Further, I heard the stories my maternal grandmother endured as a young woman during the Depression. Joke posts are supposed to be funny, moran. Edited January 7, 2020 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 1 hour ago, John Adams said: Others have been bad so we can be bad? Is that your defense of this statement? It's the "He's my president, not my pastor" line of thinking. Such a low threshold you set. Thankfully his generals don't agree with him on this, though even when the military wanted to put the prisoner child killer to justice, Trump intervened, so who knows what he does if Iran retaliates. What a guy (him, and you). Your examples, minus ISIL, were also not subject to the 1954 Hague Convention agreement, but maybe you want him to tear that treaty up too. Joke posts are supposed to be funny, moran. Do you think a layer of complexity is added when a country runs hostile operations from historical sites? Don't get me wrong, cyber operations threatening our power grid or some such are bad and all but not on the scale of Trump making inarticulate statements. Still, I think that there are some factors in this situation which tend to make Iran look less than totally innocent. Please don't call me a moran. I'm probably just not fully up to speed about how much should be ignored because of high thresholds. I have recently learned that leading and organizing international terrorist operations for decades should be ignored if you are dapper and have salt and pepper eyebrows so I am coming along. Give me some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 9 hours ago, RochesterRob said: You're a low life if you don't think that your alias aka John Adams is not intending to employ a slur. For a group that supposedly arrived several generations ago in America the Irish still took a beating while I was growing up. Further, I heard the stories my maternal grandmother endured as a young woman during the Depression. Moran is a board meme, moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albwan Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan_34 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 10 hours ago, Gary Busey said: Trump has lied thousands of times about the most mundane of things. Skepticism is warranted. I don’t know about thousands tough to prove that. As long as our economy is strong and the leftist socialist looney’s are kept at bay then I am ok. Sad when people in our own country have such hatred they side with an Iranian murderous General over our own President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 7, 2020 Author Share Posted January 7, 2020 8 hours ago, Bakin said: The same advantage you get when you tear up any bad deal. You mean the bad deal Trump was yelling at the Iranians to stay in, AFTER he pulled us out of it? Yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 11 hours ago, John Adams said: ... How about Trump supporting bombing cultural sites? Nothing to say about that either? ... are you saying that Hezbollah and their ilk are not using cultural centers to house/train terrorists? nor are they using them for command control centers or to store ammunition? to use one of your lines... think before you answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Lots of liberal handwringing after being triggered by a POTUS threat against our adversary who has until now had a free reign inside several other foreign nations to wreck havoc and wage proxy wars. Hopefully it will give the Ayatollah Kakamamie and his princes of darkness at least as much a pause to contemplate the possibility that their names might be on the business end of a Hellfire missile. Iran will lose its oil refining capabilities for decades if they fire back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, Foxx said: are you saying that Hezbollah and their ilk are not using cultural centers to house/train terrorists? nor are they using them for command control centers or to store ammunition? to use one of your lines... think before you answer. I've thought before I'll answer. It is a grossly stupid idea that will never be carried out. The first rule of being Commander in Chief, or any military leader for that matter, is that you don't put people in harm's way if there is not a military benefit for doing so. If such a thing was directed, it would be strenuously advised against, and I have no doubt that not only would it not be carried out, but would result in the resignations of the Sect. of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It is a horrible, useless notion, and not what the US military does. Hopefully, just a giant red herring from a guy who doesn't think much before he talks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, sherpa said: I've thought before I'll answer. It is a grossly stupid idea that will never be carried out. The first rule of being Commander in Chief, or any military leader for that matter, is that you don't put people in harm's way if there is not a military benefit for doing so. If such a thing was directed, it would be strenuously advised against, and I have no doubt that not only would it not be carried out, but would result in the resignations of the Sect. of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It is a horrible, useless notion, and not what the US military does. Hopefully, just a giant red herring from a guy who doesn't think much before he talks. that is all well and good. however, you answered without answering the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 11 hours ago, John Adams said: How about Trump supporting bombing cultural sites? Nothing to say about that either? I'm thinking that was Trump telling the Iranians that he knows where they are hiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 49 minutes ago, billsfan_34 said: I don’t know about thousands tough to prove that. As long as our economy is strong and the leftist socialist looney’s are kept at bay then I am ok. Sad when people in our own country have such hatred they side with an Iranian murderous General over our own President. They're not siding with a murderous General. They're questioning the timing and if it needed to be done. It's not just the left, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 22 minutes ago, sherpa said: I've thought before I'll answer. It is a grossly stupid idea that will never be carried out. The first rule of being Commander in Chief, or any military leader for that matter, is that you don't put people in harm's way if there is not a military benefit for doing so. If such a thing was directed, it would be strenuously advised against, and I have no doubt that not only would it not be carried out, but would result in the resignations of the Sect. of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It is a horrible, useless notion, and not what the US military does. Hopefully, just a giant red herring from a guy who doesn't think much before he talks. Thank you. God forbid we call for honorable behavior. 1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said: Don't get me wrong, cyber operations threatening our power grid or some such are bad and all but not on the scale of Trump making inarticulate statements. Still, I think that there are some factors in this situation which tend to make Iran look less than totally innocent. 1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said: Please don't call me a moran. I'm probably just not fully up to speed about how much should be ignored because of high thresholds. I have recently learned that leading and organizing international terrorist operations for decades should be ignored if you are dapper and have salt and pepper eyebrows so I am coming along. Give me some time. All hail 4mer, the master of the strawman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 42 minutes ago, Foxx said: that is all well and good. however, you answered without answering the question. I did answer the question, though it isn't what Trump said. I said "if there is no military benefit to doing so." It's silly to get into hypotheticals, so I won't. Gaming this think before anything happens is a really bad idea, but......... Iranian "ammunition" is not a threat. The US' strategic interest in anything Iranian related would be twofold. One is to protect shipping, which would involve eliminating the threat to the Strait of Hormuz, Persian gulf and Northern Arabian Sea. The other is to disrupt and delay their nuclear weapons program, which is almost entirely deeply underground and probably, (I'm guessing here), location known. Tactically, in order to do that, you have to do what the US always does at the onset, which is to take out command and control and air defense capability related to those two objectives. None of that relates to cultural sites, and using such places to train terrorists or store ammunition, per your hypothetical, probably isn't important enough to worry about. Nonetheless, going after a cultural site is anathema to a professional military, which the US is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 20 minutes ago, John Adams said: All hail 4mer, the master of the strawman. Says the guy criticizing Trump for something he hasn't done. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Just now, 4merper4mer said: Says the guy criticizing Trump for something he hasn't done. John Adams is filing a cease and desist order from using his name for stupid purposes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Just now, 4merper4mer said: Says the guy criticizing Trump for something he hasn't done. He didn't threaten to attack cultural sites? Or he didn't subvert military justice for someone who was being brought to justice? Or his administration didn't tie killing Sulimani to 9-11? 0 for 3. 1 minute ago, row_33 said: John Adams is filing a cease and desist order from using his name for stupid purposes For a guy who "ignores" me, you certainly post a lot about me. Thanks for being a fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said: Says the guy criticizing Trump for something he hasn't done. History has shown us that, to the good folks on the Left, saying something is the same as doing it. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, B-Man said: History has shown us that, to the good folks on the Left, saying something is the same as doing it. . I understood his point. We are the good guy, maybe. Or are you saying we should make empty threats that violate treaties and morality as a way of negotiating? Edited January 7, 2020 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, sherpa said: I did answer the question, though it isn't what Trump said. I said "if there is no military benefit to doing so." It's silly to get into hypotheticals, so I won't. Gaming this think before anything happens is a really bad idea, but......... Iranian "ammunition" is not a threat. The US' strategic interest in anything Iranian related would be twofold. One is to protect shipping, which would involve eliminating the threat to the Strait of Hormuz, Persian gulf and Northern Arabian Sea. The other is to disrupt and delay their nuclear weapons program, which is almost entirely deeply underground and probably, (I'm guessing here), location known. Tactically, in order to do that, you have to do what the US always does at the onset, which is to take out command and control and air defense capability related to those two objectives. None of that relates to cultural sites, and using such places to train terrorists or store ammunition, per your hypothetical, probably isn't important enough to worry about. Nonetheless, going after a cultural site is anathema to a professional military, which the US is. I read somewhere, linked in this thread....not sure exactly where, that much of their cyber terrorism OP's are run from cultural/historical locations. If true, your thoughts on taking them out? My initial thought would that they could be "taken out" through means other than ordnance and without harming the structures. I'm not sure if that is viable but have to believe it would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, B-Man said: History has shown us that, to the good folks on the Left, saying something is the same as doing it. . they are good in rounding up and murdering all the people they don't like, if they get into power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, John Adams said: He didn't threaten to attack cultural sites? Or he didn't subvert military justice for someone who was being brought to justice? Or his administration didn't tie killing Sulimani to 9-11? 0 for 3. 1. Threatening is talking which is why I called him inarticulate. That is a far cry from actually carrying things out. Your panties are bunched as usual and you are taking leaps wrt what he would or would not actually do and under what circumstances. There is plenty of time for discussion/panty bunching if/when events actually occur. 2. I don't think I've been involved in discussing whatever you're talking about there. 3. Pence did say Sulamani was involved in parts of 9/11 and should back it up or not say it. I don't dismiss it out of hand or accept it blindly either. I also don't start threads about how Russia stole our election based on blind faith in the press. I don't see where Pence tied it directly to killing him. The reasons given for killing him were different and I'm sure the tragic loss of his dreamy eyebrows was factored in. Edited January 7, 2020 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, John Adams said: I understood his point. We are the good guy, maybe. Or are you saying we should make empty threats that violate treaties and morality as a way of negotiating? I don't have the treaty in front of me. Can you tell me what clause a threat, without action, violates? Can you also clarify whether running hostile operations from a designated cultural site violates the treaty too or whether it's okey dokey? Edited January 7, 2020 by 4merper4mer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Now, if you want to argue that we possess no hard evidence that Soleimani himself was involved in this dealing, despite this kind of thing being his bailiwick, fine (though there is also evidence that Iran-al Qaeda relationship persisted after 9/11). If you want to argue that Iran’s actions back then aren’t justification for war today, fine. But nowhere does Pence allege that Iran had planned 9/11 or that it knew what hijackers were planning, or that Soleimani’s covert help to the 9/11 terrorists was the lone justification for killing him. He merely states that Iran gave clandestine safe passage to many of the same people who ended up murdering 3,000 Americans. This is inarguable, whether it bolsters your narrative or not. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/pence-is-mostly-right-about-iran-and-the-9-11-hijackers/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 He merely states that Iran gave clandestine safe passage to many of the same people who ended up murdering 3,000 Americans. Where does someone sitting at home in front of a computer even begin to think they can refute this, or that it will matter to refute it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts