Ok so that justifies it. Got it.So dishonest. Unlike the strike on Soleimani, the claim of imminent threat was not made & the targets weren't the second most powerful leader of Iran. High ranking officials of a strategic partner weren't killed, either. This is very different & you know it.
Ain't no Bengazi gona get ole Pompeo.Gawd. The only reason the Neocon GOP foreign policy assholes like Pompeo could convince Trump to do this is that he's ignorant as fuck. Doesn't know shit except for what they tell him. If he doesn't oust Pompeo here rather shortly it means he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
And, uhh, Saddam Hussein? Remember when we were pals?
trump could lie about the color of his tie and these assholes would still believe him
We still have 3 cowards who suck up to whatever Trump says with zero supporting evidence. What was the imminent threat.
@pcgeek11
@Majes
@IJTSSG
At least @ultimatebob supported his vote. There is just disagreement with his rationale. That's what this forum is supposed to be about. Kudos to you.
Call outs like this are considered unacceptable now in P&N.
Perknose
Forum Director
There was a poll question. Nowhere does it state I have to support or justify my opinion. Esp to you.
There was a poll question. Nowhere does it state I have to support or justify my opinion. Esp to you.
We still have 3 cowards who suck up to whatever Trump says with zero supporting evidence. What was the imminent threat.
@pcgeek11
@Majes
@IJTSSG
At least @ultimatebob supported his vote. There is just disagreement with his rationale. That's what this forum is supposed to be about. Kudos to you.
Call outs like this are considered unacceptable now in P&N.
Perknose
Forum Director
So dishonest. Unlike the strike on Soleimani, the claim of imminent threat was not made & the targets weren't the second most powerful leader of Iran. High ranking officials of a strategic partner weren't killed, either. This is very different & you know it.
But I do. Mainly because I don't really have any choice in the matter, and I know from history that there are plenty people out there who want to destroy America. I appreciate an aggressive, proactive approach to these people and organizations.
I would argue that you have a choice as to what to believe and accept because is the obligation of anyone who values fact over fiction in critical events. I submit that no one can produce any evidence that backs Trump. Imminent has a specific meaning and it isn't "some time" and not being able to produce the smallest shred of evidence as to attacking "4 embassies" is frankly embarrassing.
Clearly, no one has any knowledge of these alleged threats except Trump and I have to wonder if he ever had a basis to suspect more than a general threat.
But choices matter. There was the Gulf of Tonkin, and Saddam's WMD's of which I will remind you we "knew" existed and roughly where they were, and that was rubbish. People who hadn't any choice in that matter certainly did and went on faith that historically is frequently unjustified. You may choose to say you have no choice, but that is a choice.
There are plenty of people who wish the US ceased to exist and the choice to justify that to more and more people increases with acts with a false basis.
I would argue that you have a choice as to what to believe and accept because is the obligation of anyone who values fact over fiction in critical events. I submit that no one can produce any evidence that backs Trump. Imminent has a specific meaning and it isn't "some time" and not being able to produce the smallest shred of evidence as to attacking "4 embassies" is frankly embarrassing.
Clearly, no one has any knowledge of these alleged threats except Trump and I have to wonder if he ever had a basis to suspect more than a general threat.
But choices matter. There was the Gulf of Tonkin, and Saddam's WMD's of which I will remind you we "knew" existed and roughly where they were, and that was rubbish. People who hadn't any choice in that matter certainly did and went on faith that historically is frequently unjustified. You may choose to say you have no choice, but that is a choice.
There are plenty of people who wish the US ceased to exist and the choice to justify that to more and more people increases with acts with a false basis.
There's very few members that will jump on an actually sensible right-leaning post, but when one says 'sensible' it needs to be understood that it needs to have citations, be clearly thought-through, and the poster must be ready to defend against criticisms. Right now the 'Right' is roughly limited to 'stuff that orbits Trump', the 'right' from 20 years ago is now roughly Democrats plus some left-leaning ideals/policies, so it's super-duper hard to defend the right without defending Trump's inanity. That is generally what people are jumping on, the ocean of logical fallacies one must swim through to arrive at some kind of 'right-leaning post'.even sensible right leaning posts get jumped upon and insulted.
A foolish decision, considering the historical evidence. Very few leaders deserve respect, and you should never trust a leader that wins on a populist platform.But I choose to respect our leaders and hope that they have our best intentions at heart.
You notice that he didn’t even attempt to counter anyone’s points nor did he justify his position with anything other than feels. What he did admit though was that he’s an authoritarian, that is, he cedes his critical thinking skills to those in authority positions without question.
As you rightly point out though, it was that type of mentality that lead to things like endless wars fighting an ideology.
While I can't do that, I can give you this:If you'd like to give me access to intel from our intelligence community then I'll make the call.
There's very few members that will jump on an actually sensible right-leaning post, but when one says 'sensible' it needs to be understood that it needs to have citations, be clearly thought-through, and the poster must be ready to defend against criticisms. Right now the 'Right' is roughly limited to 'stuff that orbits Trump', the 'right' from 20 years ago is now roughly Democrats plus some left-leaning ideals/policies, so it's super-duper hard to defend the right without defending Trump's inanity. That is generally what people are jumping on, the ocean of logical fallacies one must swim through to arrive at some kind of 'right-leaning post'.
A foolish decision, considering the historical evidence. Very few leaders deserve respect, and you should never trust a leader that wins on a populist platform.
While I can't do that, I can give you this:
Both Bush II and Obama had the option of taking out Soleimani, and didn't, for various reasons that roughly equate to 'it's not worth it'.
Trump authorized the killing 7 months ago.
Trump authorized Soleimani's killing 7 months ago, with conditions
The timing raises new questions about the Trump administration's stated justification for taking out the top Iranian general.www.nbcnews.com
So this person was 'on the radar' for two entire administrations prior to this one, and Trump himself put this card up his sleeve 7 months ago. Does that sound like 'imminent threat'? Does that sound like some last-second intel that saves warfighters? Or does that sound like a political move, possibly reserved for a convenient timeframe when he's in a politically precarious position?
Well, both Dems & Repubs briefed on the intel found it lacking and they never agree on anything.You're giving me intel from 7 months ago and asking me to make a decision about intel that supposedly indicated an "imminent" attack which may or may not exist. Do you see the problem I'm having? Either the recent intel indicated there was a credible threat or it didn't. I can't really make a decision until I find out which...
Well, both Dems & Repubs briefed on the intel found it lacking and they never agree on anything.
Here ya go...See this, I would like a citation for this. That would be helpful!
Yeah, that's what I mean, you're going to face criticism when you call Trump a 'leader that should be trusted', or any variation of that phrase. He's proven himself time and time again both within the office of the presidency and without to be a liar, to be self-serving, and to be generally incompetent, but you insist that you trust him, and others should too? You cannot escape criticism on that one, and you must be prepared to defend it.Sorry man, but I disagree. I mean look at my post now. There are three of you that want to convince me that "trusting leadership" is wrong when various leaders make decisions that you unknowingly trust every single day. I didn't want to post here for this very reason. It takes a lot of time to make a post that stands up to the criticism of everyone on this board, and even then it's not like it will change anyone's mind.
His role in the Iranian govt has been known for decades, and the issues people take with him (basically facilitating enemy action in places we insist on putting troops) are ones he's been doing for those decades. He's not some evil mastermind that was gearing up to launch a dirty bomb at NYC or something. The same justification for killing him could be used by the Iranian army to kill any of a number of our generals, but we'd see that as an act of terror, an act of war, an assassination, etc.You're giving me intel from 7 months ago and asking me to make a decision about intel that supposedly indicated an "imminent" attack which may or may not exist. Do you see the problem I'm having? Either the recent intel indicated there was a credible threat or it didn't. I can't really make a decision until I find out which...