Trump and neocons started War with Iran in order to win elections?

[Half-Life]

If conservatives were calling to take Obama's whole family alive, wouldn't you say those conservatives are going too far and have gone insane?

Absolutely, because Obama wasn't a traitorous piece of shit who just killed a foreign general--thereby risking the lives of millions of completely innocent people both here and abroad--for his own personal gain, then lied about it and instructed his psychophants to do likewise, so there would be absolutely no justifiable reason to make such a call.

Soleimani was a terrorist, though. Remember when we took out Bin Laden under Obama? I didn't see any leftists saying "Obama is disgusting for taking out this terrorist!"

Why is it wrong to kill a known terrorist when Trump does it?

 

[Half-Life]

Allegedly $80 million for Trump’s head.

I’d up it to $500 million, but they have to take the entire Trump family alive.

Can't you see how this thinking is a little sick?

If conservatives were calling to take Obama's whole family alive, wouldn't you say those conservatives are going too far and have gone insane? I've never seen conservatives call for the heads of Obama's kids.

No, they just try to say the kids aren't really Obama's.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/anitablanchard

Never heard of that. Interesting. They do look more similar to the other parents than Obama and Michelle. You never know, I guess.

But still, this is not the same as calling for Malia and Sasha to be put in cages like Peter Fonda did for Barron Trump.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, they just try to say the kids aren't really Obama's.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/anitablanchard

Never heard of that. Interesting. They do look more similar to the other parents than Obama and Michelle. You never know, I guess.

But still, this is not the same as calling for Malia and Sasha to be put in cages like Peter Fonda did for Barron Trump.

Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Bonespurs doesn't mind putting other people's kids in cages, he shouldn't mind having his own kid put in a cage.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If conservatives were calling to take Obama's whole family alive, wouldn't you say those conservatives are going too far and have gone insane?

Absolutely, because Obama wasn't a traitorous piece of shit who just killed a foreign general--thereby risking the lives of millions of completely innocent people both here and abroad--for his own personal gain, then lied about it and instructed his psychophants to do likewise, so there would be absolutely no justifiable reason to make such a call.

Soleimani was a terrorist, though.

That wasn't why Trump ordered him killed, though.

Therein lies the difference.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Funny the back and forth of extremes...

Jason: Both parties are just as bad.

Where did I post that? I would like a citation.

 

[Half-Life]

No, they just try to say the kids aren't really Obama's.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/anitablanchard

Never heard of that. Interesting. They do look more similar to the other parents than Obama and Michelle. You never know, I guess.

But still, this is not the same as calling for Malia and Sasha to be put in cages like Peter Fonda did for Barron Trump.

Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Bonespurs doesn't mind putting other people's kids in cages, he shouldn't mind having his own kid put in a cage.

But, leftists claim they HATE putting kids in cages. So by calling for Barron to be put in a cage, they are going against their own beliefs.

Either it's wrong to put kids in cages or it's not.

 

[Half-Life]

Soleimani was a terrorist, though.

That wasn't why Trump ordered him killed, though.

Therein lies the difference.

Does it matter? Imagine a vile killer like Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy.

If someone came across them and murdered Dahmer because "he stole my shoes," the end result is still a vile killer (Dahmer) ending up dead.

Nobody would care about the reason he was killed. They would only care that a vile killer is gone. Nobody would say, "You shouldn't have killed him!!!"

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Bonespurs doesn't mind putting other people's kids in cages, he shouldn't mind having his own kid put in a cage.

But, leftists claim they HATE putting kids in cages. So by calling for Barron to be put in a cage, they are going against their own beliefs.

Either it's wrong to put kids in cages or it's not.

It's certainly wrong to put SOME kids in cages.
Would Trump think it was good policy if his kids were affected the same way? If not, THERE is the hypocrisy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Soleimani was a terrorist, though.

That wasn't why Trump ordered him killed, though.

Therein lies the difference.

Does it matter? Imagine a vile killer like Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy.

If someone came across them and murdered Dahmer because "he stole my shoes," the end result is still a vile killer (Dahmer) ending up dead.

Nobody would care about the reason he was killed.

that is not true.
I certainly would care that someone felt that stolen shoes deserved the death penslty.

They would only care that a vile killer is gone. Nobody would say, "You shouldn't have killed him!!!"

i would say that.
If the reason was bogus, it renains bogus.

 

[Half-Life]

Does it matter? Imagine a vile killer like Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy.

If someone came across them and murdered Dahmer because "he stole my shoes," the end result is still a vile killer (Dahmer) ending up dead.

Nobody would care about the reason he was killed.

that is not true.
I certainly would care that someone felt that stolen shoes deserved the death penslty.

They would only care that a vile killer is gone. Nobody would say, "You shouldn't have killed him!!!"

i would say that.
If the reason was bogus, it renains bogus.

But you wold not MOURN the fact that Dahmer was dead, right?

Leftist elites like AOC, Ilhan, and Rashida are mourning the death of a terrorist. Iran also had thousands in the streets mourning the death of a terrorist.

If that isn't cause for concern, nothing is. This man should not be mourned by ANYONE, especially members of Congress. Imagine having a mourning ceremony in NYC for Timothy McVeigh with thousands of Americans vowing revenge for McVeigh's lethal injection death. Would that be OK to you?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Democrat drones kill people in a happy strategically necessary way. Republican drones are mean self-serving when they kill people.

fify

You might determine the legitimacy of a war by what party the office holder is, but I try to determine if the country being attacked is actually a threat to the US.

Your "fix" is to make the statement partisan, not correct. You demonstrate the intellectual shallowness and moral bankruptcy of the anti-war left.

 

[Keith&Co.]

that is not true.
I certainly would care that someone felt that stolen shoes deserved the death penslty. i would say that.
If the reason was bogus, it renains bogus.

But you wold not MOURN the fact that Dahmer was dead, right?

moving the goalposts. You saud no one would care about the reason.
You are, as usual, wrong.

Leftist elites like AOC, Ilhan, and Rashida are mourning the death of a terrorist.I

no, i do not think so.
They czn think that he was evil, and needed to be dealt with, but preferably not in a way that put all Americans at greater risk....

Iran also had thousands in the streets mourning the death of a terrorist.

If that isn't cause for concern, nothing is.

it's a straawman, so it is neither.

This man should not be mourned by ANYONE, especially members of Congress.

you do know some people take any violent death as a fziling, right?
Some of them read thd bible andvthink Jesus was against even killing one's enemies.

Imagine having a mourning ceremony in NYC for Timothy McVeigh with thousands of Americans vowing revenge for McVeigh's lethal injection death. Would that be OK to you?

whzt, literally, is fucking wrong with you?
You cannot deal with the answer i gave, so try different scenarios until i answer correctly?
Deal with the case before us, or STFU.

 

[Deepak]

• Soleimani was targeted and assassinated by a US drone on Iraqi soil
• Soleimani was replaced with a person who (unlike in a television show) isn't a US agent and has likewise feeling for the US
• In an attempt to further peace, US President publicly threatened to target 52 potential Iranian locations, including cultural sites (not certain if he means Cyrus's resting place or mosques?)
• US President threatens sanctions against ally (former ally soon?) if they ask Americans military to leave Iraq (America kind of violated Iraqi sovereignty with the assassination)
• Iran has formerly withdrawn from the nuclear deal which seemed like the deal of the century when the US, Russia, China altogether managed to come to an agreement with Iran on their nuclear weapons program (something of which may never be possible again)
• And Trump has ALL CAPPED that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon.

Trump betrayal of Syrian Kurds gained the US nothing.
So Soleimani's assassination didn't result in much benefit to the US as he was replaced by another guy that isn't saluting the US flag.
Soleimani's assassination provided Iran the path to finally ignore the nuclear agreement.
Trump threatens further violence in the name of peace, including war crime targets.

And most importantly, the GOP is silent. Trump's actions have provided, at best, negligibly short-term gratification by killing a guy who targeted US troops between '03 and '07, but overwhelmingly provides no long-term benefit and has destabilized relations with allies and adversaries in the region, provoking mass distrust that the US might never regain for a century.

The Republicans are in a double whammy right now, their base eat this up and Trump has a firm grip on the party, plus after umpteen million Benghazi hearings won't say anything as retaliation for an embassy attack. Our fates are inexorably tied to the scruples of men like McConnell and Graham.

The latest from the Saudis is that Soleimani was on his way to work with them on a detante in Iraq. Whether this is to distance themselves from a conflict or actually true remains to be seen, but it's difficult to image how much political capital simply went up in smoke for something that provides no strategic benefit.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Democrat drones kill people in a happy strategically necessary way. Republican drones are mean self-serving when they kill people.

fify

You might determine the legitimacy of a war by what party the office holder is

As a general rule? Sure, based on an understanding of the parties we're talking about, why not, particularly in light of what Trump has just done?

, but I try to determine if the country being attacked is actually a threat to the US.

Ok, let's. I'll just repeat what I wrote before to funinspace:

So, let's go to your source and look at it in regard to strategically necessary as opposed to self-serving, which was my metric:

A strike on an Islamic State training camp in western Libya in February killed more than 40 people

That would appear to have been a strategically necessary mission and not a self serving one, but if you have additional evidence--as we do in regard to Trump's recent actions--that would argue Obama ordered that strike for self serving reasons, by all means present it.

a drone strike in Somalia against al-Shabab on March 5 killed 150 people. Another drone strike, in Yemen in February, killed dozens.

Absent additional information, it's difficult to assess whether or not those were strategically necessary or self serving, but, again, in light of the President who ordered them, I would go with strategically necessary. Do you have any evidence that these attacks were in any way self serving?

The U.S. came under heavy criticism for a drone strike several years ago against extremists in Yemen, which critics said actually hit a wedding party and killed women and children.

Which would fall under a strategically necessary TARGET--i.e., "extremists in Yemen"--that evidently got fucked up in the execution. That doesn't change the fact that the target may (or may not) have been strategically necessary to attack as opposed to attacking it for self serving purposes.

In October, an AC-130 gunship mistakenly hit a hospital in Afghanistan that was run by the charity organization Doctors Without Borders.

You've already noted the "mistakenly" part, so no need to go further.

So, in regard to Obama, we evidently have an ISIS training camp in Libya being targeted (not a country); al-Shabab in Somalia being targeted (also not a country); extremists in Yemen evidently mistargeted (again, not a country being targeted); and another mistake.

Your "fix" is to make the statement partisan, not correct.

Wrong. My "fix" was to counter your false equivalence.

You demonstrate the intellectual shallowness and moral bankruptcy of the anti-war left.

Oh my, your words are so piercing. Like a flaming sword of truthiness. Whatever shall I do, but forever hang my head in shame and ignominy. For you are the impartial light-bearer and I the evil anti-war left. Wait, what? How am I "anti-war left" if I'm arguing for Obama's targets being strategically necessary as opposed to self serving the way Trump's recent one clearly is?

 

[Derec]

There's a lot of space between what is legal, what is accepted by Christians and what happens in the middle of the night.

And all of it is many parsecs away from what is going on in Iran.

 

[Derec]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Targeting cultural sites is a war crime.
It should also go without saying that sites like Persepolis (& its PEOPLE) are not only treasures to Iranians, they are gifts to humanity. They tell humanity’s story - that is why authoritarians target them.
They want to erase history. https://t.co/C3tx6Wf8mZ" / Twitter

I actually agree with AOC on that one. For one, it's a horrible thing to do. Second, we need to demonstrate to the Iranian people that our quarrel is with the regime, not the Iranian people. Threatening cultural sites is sending exactly the wrong message.

We need to hit Iranian military targets, particularly IRGC sites, Naval sites (because of the threat to the Strait of Hormuz) and the nuclear sites.

 

[Derec]

Because it is closer to the believable truth.

Not really. Solemani was running a terrorist organization. It is more believable he was there to organize an attack rather than seek peace.

Ultimately, the Trump Admin assassinated an Iranian General on Iraqi soil, without thinking of a single consequence of the action, just as if it was a tariff against China. The attack puts Iraq in a weird place, both in that an Iranian General (Iran in a growing ally of Iraq) was killed on their soil by an ally who didn't inform them of the attack. At the same time, Trump is badgering Iraq about how much they owe the US like they are an obstinate teenager.

Iran is not really an ally of Iran. It is the liege lord of pro-Iranian militias though.

 

[Derec]

Oh please. If there were really that many Christians like that around in the US, we would not have a sane SCOTUS or a sane Democratic Party - many believing Christians in the Democratic Party.

But we needed SCOTUS to say segregation was illegal! Gay sex wasn't decriminalized throughout the US until the 21st century (!) when SCOTUS ruled as such... and that wasn't even unanimous!

So US is not perfect. You don't need to be perfect to be orders of magnitude better than Iran.
Why are you so hell-bent on doing apologetics for the Iranian theocracy anyway?

No, gays aren't being lynched like blacks were being lynched,

Even that was rare compared to how much attention it still gets. Something like a few dozen over a few decades a century ago. Drop in the ocean in a country the size of US.

 

[Derec]

[*]Iran has formerly withdrawn from the nuclear deal which seemed like the deal of the century when the US, Russia, China altogether managed to come to an agreement with Iran on their nuclear weapons program (something of which may never be possible again)

Deal of a century? Far from it. It was only going to last 15 years. All the sanction removal and trade deals, not to mention the cash Obama sent them, just to delay their nuclear weapons program for 15 years.

Trump betrayal of Syrian Kurds gained the US nothing.

That was stupid indeed.

 

[Derec]

Absolutely, because Obama wasn't a traitorous piece of shit who just killed a foreign general--

Soleimani was not just some "foreign general". He was the head of the Quds Force, a terrorist organization.

thereby risking the lives of millions of completely innocent people both here and abroad--for his own personal gain, then lied about it and instructed his psychophants to do likewise, so there would be absolutely no justifiable reason to make such a call.

Millions of people is quite an exaggeration. Also, what is a "psychophant"?