Or that Libya is basically Tatooine nowCAA Flagship wrote:Well it's Obama's fault for getting us in the deal in the first place. (see how this works?JohnStOnge wrote: All of that happened because Trump made the decision to take the US out of the deal it made with Iran.)
Seriously? We laid out crushing sanctions on Japan, primarily oil. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor with the hopes of knocking us out right before they go to take over the rich oil fields of the Dutch West Indies.JohnStOnge wrote:I have not researched the thing about us putting sanctions on the Japanese. But it could be true that if we hae not done it there would have been no Pearl Harbor.CID1990 wrote:
This is as good a place as any to leave this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ks/604642/
“Correcting for subconscious bias isn’t easy, but at the very least, observers should be aware of the Trump effect.”
You are no different than the “if we hadn’t put crushing restrictions on the Japanese they never would have bombed Pearl Harbor” crowd
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All sorts of other questions come up if that is the case. Doesn't necessarily mean we were not justified in imposing the sanctions.
Like I said: It could be that in the long run history will show that what Trump has been doing made things turn out for the better. But as a matter of cause and effect, the current tension is related to a series of decisions Trump has made. I think it's completely fair to say that it's very likely that if Trump had never made the decision to pull the US out of the deal that airliner would never have been shot down yesterday.
Are you referring the $400M payment that was sent to settle the issue of us not paying the Iranians in 1979, before the revolution and which was summarily determined to be used by Iran for infrastructure projects? There was a dispute before The Hague which was resolved with us paying, with interest, for a failed arms deal with Iran.SDHornet wrote:You mean that same deal that gave Iran billions of dollars to put towards their proxy wars and weapons development? Yeah, great strategy.JohnStOnge wrote:
All of that happened because Trump made the decision to take the US out of the deal it made with Iran. Things between the US and Iran had calmed down a lot. All the stuff that has been happening is related to a decision Trump made early on. Bottom line: It is perfectly reasonable to say that if Trump had left things with respect to Iran alone after he took office that civilian airliner would not have been shot down yesterday.
All things Iran are worse right now than they were when Trump took office. And the situation is directly related to decisions Trump made. Now, it may turn out that things are better in the long run. But what's going on right now is not Obama's fault. Trump has created the current situation.
I’m just going by what Brennan and his agency determined. If anyone else here has boots in the ground or is in the know, then speak up. AFAIK, we’re all Armchair QBs with our partisan suspicions and biases.93henfan wrote:Infrastructure projects.
That's rich.
I guess centrifuges (or the bunkers where they're concealed) can technically be considered infrastructure
Ibanez wrote:I’m just going by what Brennan and his agency determined. If anyone else here has boots in the ground or is in the know, then speak up. AFAIK, we’re all Armchair QBs with our partisan suspicions and biases.93henfan wrote:Infrastructure projects.
That's rich.
I guess centrifuges (or the bunkers where they're concealed) can technically be considered infrastructure
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry for the tangent, but the bolded phrase reminded me of a great war story I saw in the local newspaper about thirty years ago that involved a friends grandpa:SDHornet wrote:The Japs were well into their aggression in East Asia well before the US placed sanctions (an embargo) in 1941. And if they didn't bomb PH, they would have claimed the entire Pacific Rim including Australia and likely even India. So I guess by your broke dick logic you would consider this a better alternative similar to letting Iran run roughshod via their proxy wars and continue to let US embassies get over run. Mmkay.JohnStOnge wrote:
I have not researched the thing about us putting sanctions on the Japanese. But it could be true that if we hae not done it there would have been no Pearl Harbor.
All sorts of other questions come up if that is the case. Doesn't necessarily mean we were not justified in imposing the sanctions.
Like I said: It could be that in the long run history will show that what Trump has been doing made things turn out for the better. But as a matter of cause and effect, the current tension is related to a series of decisions Trump has made. I think it's completely fair to say that it's very likely that if Trump had never made the decision to pull the US out of the deal that airliner would never have been shot down yesterday.
It's a triple option offense. The backup is a pocket passer.kalm wrote:Pompeo yesterday: threats were imminent. We don’t know where or when.
I’m just glad Iran doesn’t have a capable backup QB.
Trump tweeting support to protesters in his native Farsi!
I am a liberal.93henfan wrote:Honestly, who cares (unless you're a liberal trying to score political points when Trump just schooled you on how to weather a crisis)?
We killed a guy who killed hundreds of Americans. Does the imminence of the next attack really matter when that pattern has been established? It surely didn't to Obama.
Should it have been a crisis? Or did the Donks turn it into one to attack Trump?kalm wrote:I am a liberal.93henfan wrote:Honestly, who cares (unless you're a liberal trying to score political points when Trump just schooled you on how to weather a crisis)?
We killed a guy who killed hundreds of Americans. Does the imminence of the next attack really matter when that pattern has been established? It surely didn't to Obama.
Trump weathered a crisis of his own creation. That’s kind of the point here. Along with not trusting government, and the constitution, and the fact the Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor were not privy to “intelligence” that supported an imminent threat.
Nice to see you mindlessly back on team Trump tho.
So we should take any president’s word for it? Congress doesn’t need to be involved. The Sec Def and national security advisor don’t need to see the intelligence? Trust me...I got this? Let’s go start picking off all of the bad guys then.UNI88 wrote:Should it have been a crisis? Or did the Donks turn it into one to attack Trump?kalm wrote:
I am a liberal.
Trump weathered a crisis of his own creation. That’s kind of the point here. Along with not trusting government, and the constitution, and the fact the Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor were not privy to “intelligence” that supported an imminent threat.
Nice to see you mindlessly back on team Trump tho.
Trump is far from perfect but this wasn't a mistake that he should be called to task for anymore than Obama should be called to task for Bin Ladin.
And before you argue that this put Americans at risk a reasonable argument could also be made that doing nothing would have emboldened Iran to step up their attacks on Americans and American interests more than this.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Probably right. But the lack of process and evidence provided is troubling to me. I’m continuing to learn that we should always question our government regardless of who’s in power.AZGrizFan wrote:So now Iran is a crisis of Trump’s making? WAFJ.
That dude’s been killing Americans for YEARS. The embassy attack just gave Trump an excuse to take him out.
Why would you have me at liberal? I try to be a true liberal (i.e. open-minded) and progressive (i.e. interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities).kalm wrote:So we should take any president’s word for it? Congress doesn’t need to be involved. The Sec Def and national security advisor don’t need to see the intelligence? Trust me...I got this? Let’s go start picking off all of the bad guys then.UNI88 wrote:
Should it have been a crisis? Or did the Donks turn it into one to attack Trump?
Trump is far from perfect but this wasn't a mistake that he should be called to task for anymore than Obama should be called to task for Bin Ladin.
And before you argue that this put Americans at risk a reasonable argument could also be made that doing nothing would have emboldened Iran to step up their attacks on Americans and American interests more than this.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Edit: Mike Lee and Rand Paul must be do is too, huh?
Admit it...I had you at “liberal” didn’t I?
*Must be donks too. Sorry.UNI88 wrote:Why would you have me at liberal? I try to be a true liberal (i.e. open-minded) and progressive (i.e. interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities).kalm wrote:
So we should take any president’s word for it? Congress doesn’t need to be involved. The Sec Def and national security advisor don’t need to see the intelligence? Trust me...I got this? Let’s go start picking off all of the bad guys then.
Edit: Mike Lee and Rand Paul must be do is too, huh?
Admit it...I had you at “liberal” didn’t I?
FIrst, I think Trump and the administration should follow the process and share with Congress what any presidential administration should share with Congress. On the flip side, I think Congress (especially the House) should evaluate that information on its merits not as a way to paint Trump as an unstable warmonger. Unfortunately, both aren't happening but you're only calling out Trump for his part in the 50/50 clusterfvck.
Second, the guy was responsible for the deaths of a lot of people just like Osama so I'm not as worried about whether an attack was imminent or not in whether his death was justified.
WTF does "must be do is too" mean?
I think my position is consistent with Lee & Paul's and appreciate them being a couple of the few Congresscritters actually doing their jobs.
I have no problem with you, Lee, Paul, etc. questioning the imminent threat but I also don't think an imminent threat was necessary to justify sending this guy to his houris so the imminent threat thing was foot-in-the-mouth overkill on Trump's part.kalm wrote:*Must be donks too. Sorry.UNI88 wrote:
Why would you have me at liberal? I try to be a true liberal (i.e. open-minded) and progressive (i.e. interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities).
FIrst, I think Trump and the administration should follow the process and share with Congress what any presidential administration should share with Congress. On the flip side, I think Congress (especially the House) should evaluate that information on its merits not as a way to paint Trump as an unstable warmonger. Unfortunately, both aren't happening but you're only calling out Trump for his part in the 50/50 clusterfvck.
Second, the guy was responsible for the deaths of a lot of people just like Osama so I'm not as worried about whether an attack was imminent or not in whether his death was justified.
WTF does "must be do is too" mean?
I think my position is consistent with Lee & Paul's and appreciate them being a couple of the few Congresscritters actually doing their jobs.
Agree that congress should give him a chance to justify imminent threat. Since he hasn’t been able to, criticism is fair game. And it ain’t just coming from donks.
I wasn’t the one pointing ideological lamps at this to begin with. Yet here we are discussing ‘because liberals. Because Obama.’
No doubt. Obama killed over 300 innocent civilians with drones. He was a mass murderer of innocents.mainejeff2 wrote:Trump is going to do what he going to do.....and no one is going to stop in. I am grateful to him for exposing weakness in our Constitution, laws, Congress, government institutions, media, etc, etc. When he is gone someday.....there needs to be an examination of many different facets of our government. I don't like the idea of a rogue leader coming in and running roughshod over everything that this country stands for.
Agreed in general, but Obama was questioned by some, including some on the left, regarding bombings, drone strikes, etc.CID1990 wrote:Amazing how quiet some people were when it was a different President doing these things
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When was the last time another President did a drone strike on a high ranking general of another nation? I don't think that was a common sort of thing. Maybe it did but I don't remember anything like that happening before in my lifetime. I know we did something kind of similar with Yamamoto in World War II. But that was during a full declared war.CID1990 wrote:Amazing how quiet some people were when it was a different President doing these things
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
