Anti government protests in Iran

Rate this topic
Post anything NOT related to football here.
Post Reply
Rammer
Veteran
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:17 pm

Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:21 am

This is the side of Iran that doesn't get covered so much in the news. Instead of propping up the evil regime with nuclear weapons and appeasement, the world should be applying pressure. Of course you would rather make it all about Trump.... I am old enough, so I remember this scenario before. You did this same exact thing with Ronald Reagan. He was portayed as out of touch, naive, dangerous, was going to start WWIII, etc. This because rather than appease the Soviet Union he stood up to them. He called them out for what they were, challenged them to open up, tear down the wall, exposed them for the frauds that they were...... Same exact thing is happening in Iran now. The liberal media is once again missing the whole story because it messes up their anti Trump political agenda. Iran is fracturing and the regime is in trouble. United world pressure could bring them down but of course we won't get that. Then, if and when Iran falls, they will try to find a way not to credit Trump's policy with this.



Ants
Pro-bowler
Posts: 3745
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:57 am

Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:48 am

Rammer wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:21 am
The liberal media is once again missing the whole story because it messes up their anti Trump political agenda.

When you say "missing the story" it makes it seem like they don't know what's going on.
You should have said "ignoring" the story. Then again, they ignore most stories that don't prop up the lib agenda, so...

8-)


Speaking of ignoring stories and fake news...did CNN report on their settlement with Sandmann?
...CNN - "when you can't ignore news, make some up to prop up the libs" :oops:


The LA Rams - Making the NFL Great Again! 8-)

Rammer
Veteran
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:17 pm

Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:56 am

Ants wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:48 am
Rammer wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:21 am
The liberal media is once again missing the whole story because it messes up their anti Trump political agenda.

When you say "missing the story" it makes it seem like they don't know what's going on.
You should have said "ignoring" the story. Then again, they ignore most stories that don't prop up the lib agenda, so...

8-)


Speaking of ignoring stories and fake news...did CNN report on their settlement with Sandmann?
...CNN - "when you can't ignore news, make some up to prop up the libs" :oops:
Yes, ignored is better choice of words. I stand corrected.



Ants
Pro-bowler
Posts: 3745
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:57 am

Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:59 am

I picked up what you were laying down. :lol: 8-)


The LA Rams - Making the NFL Great Again! 8-)

ocram23
Veteran
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:12 pm

Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:01 am

Ants wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:59 am
I picked up what you were laying down. :lol: 8-)
current report had the police firing live ammunition into the air to disperse the crowds. country is so fucked up



User avatar
Dick84
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10708
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:44 am

Rammer wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:21 am
This is the side of Iran that doesn't get covered so much in the news. Instead of propping up the evil regime with nuclear weapons and appeasement, the world should be applying pressure. Of course you would rather make it all about Trump.... I am old enough, so I remember this scenario before. You did this same exact thing with Ronald Reagan. He was portayed as out of touch, naive, dangerous, was going to start WWIII, etc. This because rather than appease the Soviet Union he stood up to them. He called them out for what they were, challenged them to open up, tear down the wall, exposed them for the frauds that they were...... Same exact thing is happening in Iran now. The liberal media is once again missing the whole story because it messes up their anti Trump political agenda. Iran is fracturing and the regime is in trouble. United world pressure could bring them down but of course we won't get that. Then, if and when Iran falls, they will try to find a way not to credit Trump's policy with this.
I would take you more seriously if you acknowledged the long term role that sanctions have played, instead of trying to make this about Trump.
I’ve seen coverage about the protests on mainstream media.. what are you missing here?
Seriously... as someone who has spent plenty of time around Persians, I’m laughing at the sudden awareness that not all Iranians hate America.

The US was headed in this direction.. but, no... Obama was an appeasing pussy.

This shit is old.

Man.. this report is from 5 years ago... change “Obama” to “Trump” and you’re wetting yourself with excitement.



Okay, okay, okay.... I'll stop being a dick.
3-24-16

Ants
Pro-bowler
Posts: 3745
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:57 am

Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:14 pm

Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:44 am


I would take you more seriously if you acknowledged the long term role that sanctions have played, instead of trying to make this about Trump.

Wait...I thought EVERYTHING politically is about Trump. :?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


The LA Rams - Making the NFL Great Again! 8-)

User avatar
Dick84
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10708
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:33 pm

Ants wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:14 pm
Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:44 am


I would take you more seriously if you acknowledged the long term role that sanctions have played, instead of trying to make this about Trump.

Wait...I thought EVERYTHING politically is about Trump. :?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
If you'd pay attention to the conversation about the Iran situation, including the Soleimani strike, you'd get some perspective.


Okay, okay, okay.... I'll stop being a dick.
3-24-16

Ants
Pro-bowler
Posts: 3745
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:57 am

Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:12 pm

Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:33 pm
Ants wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:14 pm
Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:44 am


I would take you more seriously if you acknowledged the long term role that sanctions have played, instead of trying to make this about Trump.

Wait...I thought EVERYTHING politically is about Trump. :?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
If you'd pay attention to the conversation about the Iran situation, including the Soleimani strike, you'd get some perspective.
You libs need to lighten up and see the humor in sarcasm. :mrgreen:


The LA Rams - Making the NFL Great Again! 8-)

User avatar
Dick84
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10708
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:25 pm

Ants wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:12 pm
Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:33 pm
Ants wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:14 pm



Wait...I thought EVERYTHING politically is about Trump. :?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
If you'd pay attention to the conversation about the Iran situation, including the Soleimani strike, you'd get some perspective.
You libs need to lighten up and see the humor in sarcasm. :mrgreen:
You clowns need to get serious about killing people and sacrificing American lives.
But you won’t.


Okay, okay, okay.... I'll stop being a dick.
3-24-16

Rammer
Veteran
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:17 pm

Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:28 pm

Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:44 am
Rammer wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:21 am
This is the side of Iran that doesn't get covered so much in the news. Instead of propping up the evil regime with nuclear weapons and appeasement, the world should be applying pressure. Of course you would rather make it all about Trump.... I am old enough, so I remember this scenario before. You did this same exact thing with Ronald Reagan. He was portayed as out of touch, naive, dangerous, was going to start WWIII, etc. This because rather than appease the Soviet Union he stood up to them. He called them out for what they were, challenged them to open up, tear down the wall, exposed them for the frauds that they were...... Same exact thing is happening in Iran now. The liberal media is once again missing the whole story because it messes up their anti Trump political agenda. Iran is fracturing and the regime is in trouble. United world pressure could bring them down but of course we won't get that. Then, if and when Iran falls, they will try to find a way not to credit Trump's policy with this.
I would take you more seriously if you acknowledged the long term role that sanctions have played, instead of trying to make this about Trump.
I’ve seen coverage about the protests on mainstream media.. what are you missing here?
Seriously... as someone who has spent plenty of time around Persians, I’m laughing at the sudden awareness that not all Iranians hate America.

The US was headed in this direction.. but, no... Obama was an appeasing pussy.

This shit is old.

Man.. this report is from 5 years ago... change “Obama” to “Trump” and you’re wetting yourself with excitement.


What your missing -is the context. I watched CNN while at the gym today. They showed the protests but the entire time that they were showing that, the big bold headline on the screen was about Trump unable to provide evidence of an imminent risk to any embassy. This is also what the analysts were talking about. Trump, Trump Trump. So, to CNN this was the spin, not to focus on the protests that have actually shaken the Iranian regime. If you don't want it to be about Trump, then don't make it about Trump.



ocram23
Veteran
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:12 pm

Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:32 pm

Rammer wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:28 pm
Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:44 am
Rammer wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:21 am
This is the side of Iran that doesn't get covered so much in the news. Instead of propping up the evil regime with nuclear weapons and appeasement, the world should be applying pressure. Of course you would rather make it all about Trump.... I am old enough, so I remember this scenario before. You did this same exact thing with Ronald Reagan. He was portayed as out of touch, naive, dangerous, was going to start WWIII, etc. This because rather than appease the Soviet Union he stood up to them. He called them out for what they were, challenged them to open up, tear down the wall, exposed them for the frauds that they were...... Same exact thing is happening in Iran now. The liberal media is once again missing the whole story because it messes up their anti Trump political agenda. Iran is fracturing and the regime is in trouble. United world pressure could bring them down but of course we won't get that. Then, if and when Iran falls, they will try to find a way not to credit Trump's policy with this.
I would take you more seriously if you acknowledged the long term role that sanctions have played, instead of trying to make this about Trump.
I’ve seen coverage about the protests on mainstream media.. what are you missing here?
Seriously... as someone who has spent plenty of time around Persians, I’m laughing at the sudden awareness that not all Iranians hate America.

The US was headed in this direction.. but, no... Obama was an appeasing pussy.

This shit is old.

Man.. this report is from 5 years ago... change “Obama” to “Trump” and you’re wetting yourself with excitement.


What your missing -is the context. I watched CNN while at the gym today. They showed the protests but the entire time that they were showing that, the big bold headline on the screen was about Trump unable to provide evidence of an imminent risk to any embassy. This is also what the analysts were talking about. Trump, Trump Trump. So, to CNN this was the spin, not to focus on the protests that have actually shaken the Iranian regime. If you don't want it to be about Trump, then don't make it about Trump.
if this was Obama he would let the embassy burn and then blame it on a video.



User avatar
Rampager66
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6219
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:46 pm

Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:37 pm

Rammers bang on with this...

" If you don't want it to be about Trump, then don't make it about Trump"
.... period.

That means you're out Dick, you couldn't stop if your life depended on it...



User avatar
Dick84
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10708
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:01 pm

Rammer wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:28 pm
Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:44 am
Rammer wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:21 am
This is the side of Iran that doesn't get covered so much in the news. Instead of propping up the evil regime with nuclear weapons and appeasement, the world should be applying pressure. Of course you would rather make it all about Trump.... I am old enough, so I remember this scenario before. You did this same exact thing with Ronald Reagan. He was portayed as out of touch, naive, dangerous, was going to start WWIII, etc. This because rather than appease the Soviet Union he stood up to them. He called them out for what they were, challenged them to open up, tear down the wall, exposed them for the frauds that they were...... Same exact thing is happening in Iran now. The liberal media is once again missing the whole story because it messes up their anti Trump political agenda. Iran is fracturing and the regime is in trouble. United world pressure could bring them down but of course we won't get that. Then, if and when Iran falls, they will try to find a way not to credit Trump's policy with this.
I would take you more seriously if you acknowledged the long term role that sanctions have played, instead of trying to make this about Trump.
I’ve seen coverage about the protests on mainstream media.. what are you missing here?
Seriously... as someone who has spent plenty of time around Persians, I’m laughing at the sudden awareness that not all Iranians hate America.

The US was headed in this direction.. but, no... Obama was an appeasing pussy.

This shit is old.

Man.. this report is from 5 years ago... change “Obama” to “Trump” and you’re wetting yourself with excitement.


What your missing -is the context. I watched CNN while at the gym today. They showed the protests but the entire time that they were showing that, the big bold headline on the screen was about Trump unable to provide evidence of an imminent risk to any embassy. This is also what the analysts were talking about. Trump, Trump Trump. So, to CNN this was the spin, not to focus on the protests that have actually shaken the Iranian regime. If you don't want it to be about Trump, then don't make it about Trump.
So... you decided the slice you watched of a 24 hour news cycle was the entirety of its programming.
Let’s also ignore the whole changing stories/credibility. It’s not an issue, right? If Iran had decided the counter was an escalation to war, no big deal!!


Okay, okay, okay.... I'll stop being a dick.
3-24-16

User avatar
Dick84
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10708
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:48 pm

ocram23 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:32 pm
Rammer wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:28 pm
Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:44 am


I would take you more seriously if you acknowledged the long term role that sanctions have played, instead of trying to make this about Trump.
I’ve seen coverage about the protests on mainstream media.. what are you missing here?
Seriously... as someone who has spent plenty of time around Persians, I’m laughing at the sudden awareness that not all Iranians hate America.

The US was headed in this direction.. but, no... Obama was an appeasing pussy.

This shit is old.

Man.. this report is from 5 years ago... change “Obama” to “Trump” and you’re wetting yourself with excitement.


What your missing -is the context. I watched CNN while at the gym today. They showed the protests but the entire time that they were showing that, the big bold headline on the screen was about Trump unable to provide evidence of an imminent risk to any embassy. This is also what the analysts were talking about. Trump, Trump Trump. So, to CNN this was the spin, not to focus on the protests that have actually shaken the Iranian regime. If you don't want it to be about Trump, then don't make it about Trump.
if this was Obama he would let the embassy burn and then blame it on a video.
Lol... Trump's blowing Putin and Assad while getting reamed by Kim... and Obama is the weak one.

Lol


Okay, okay, okay.... I'll stop being a dick.
3-24-16

ocram23
Veteran
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:12 pm

Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:51 pm

Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:48 pm
ocram23 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:32 pm
Rammer wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:28 pm



What your missing -is the context. I watched CNN while at the gym today. They showed the protests but the entire time that they were showing that, the big bold headline on the screen was about Trump unable to provide evidence of an imminent risk to any embassy. This is also what the analysts were talking about. Trump, Trump Trump. So, to CNN this was the spin, not to focus on the protests that have actually shaken the Iranian regime. If you don't want it to be about Trump, then don't make it about Trump.
if this was Obama he would let the embassy burn and then blame it on a video.
Lol... Trump's blowing Putin and Assad while getting reamed by Kim... and Obama is the weak one.

Lol
please at least he is dealing with Kim. Obama did nothing. and yes obama is the weak one it's quite obvious of that



User avatar
Dick84
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10708
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:18 pm

ocram23 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:51 pm
Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:48 pm
ocram23 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:32 pm


if this was Obama he would let the embassy burn and then blame it on a video.
Lol... Trump's blowing Putin and Assad while getting reamed by Kim... and Obama is the weak one.

Lol
please at least he is dealing with Kim. Obama did nothing. and yes obama is the weak one it's quite obvious of that
Please... he’s doing less than nothing with Kim. It’s weird that you don’t know this.
Missiles keep launching, etc. We gave up a ton, got nothing.
Good times.


Okay, okay, okay.... I'll stop being a dick.
3-24-16

ocram23
Veteran
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:12 pm

Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:01 pm

Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:18 pm
ocram23 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:51 pm
Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:48 pm


Lol... Trump's blowing Putin and Assad while getting reamed by Kim... and Obama is the weak one.

Lol
please at least he is dealing with Kim. Obama did nothing. and yes obama is the weak one it's quite obvious of that
Please... he’s doing less than nothing with Kim. It’s weird that you don’t know this.
Missiles keep launching, etc. We gave up a ton, got nothing.
Good times.
nobody can control Kim



User avatar
ElAcky
Veteran
Posts: 1744
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:49 pm

Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:29 pm

ocram23 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:01 pm
Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:18 pm
ocram23 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:51 pm


please at least he is dealing with Kim. Obama did nothing. and yes obama is the weak one it's quite obvious of that
Please... he’s doing less than nothing with Kim. It’s weird that you don’t know this.
Missiles keep launching, etc. We gave up a ton, got nothing.
Good times.
nobody can control Kim
Why not assassinate Kim? He is building nukes, firing missiles over Japan and starving his population....

... I guess no Oil and no Israel so no interest!!



Rammer
Veteran
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:17 pm

Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:57 am

Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:01 pm
Rammer wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:28 pm
Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:44 am


I would take you more seriously if you acknowledged the long term role that sanctions have played, instead of trying to make this about Trump.
I’ve seen coverage about the protests on mainstream media.. what are you missing here?
Seriously... as someone who has spent plenty of time around Persians, I’m laughing at the sudden awareness that not all Iranians hate America.

The US was headed in this direction.. but, no... Obama was an appeasing pussy.

This shit is old.

Man.. this report is from 5 years ago... change “Obama” to “Trump” and you’re wetting yourself with excitement.


What your missing -is the context. I watched CNN while at the gym today. They showed the protests but the entire time that they were showing that, the big bold headline on the screen was about Trump unable to provide evidence of an imminent risk to any embassy. This is also what the analysts were talking about. Trump, Trump Trump. So, to CNN this was the spin, not to focus on the protests that have actually shaken the Iranian regime. If you don't want it to be about Trump, then don't make it about Trump.
So... you decided the slice you watched of a 24 hour news cycle was the entirety of its programming.
Let’s also ignore the whole changing stories/credibility. It’s not an issue, right? If Iran had decided the counter was an escalation to war, no big deal!!
We both know that this is 24/7 on CNN. Anytime, I turn on CNN this is what they have. Doesn't matter what the news is , what the issue is - always a negative spin about Trump. If it's something bad, they make it sound worse and blame Trump. If it's something good, they find a way to put a negative spin on it and blame Trump. They just can't stop talking about this guy. It's obsessive.

Regarding your question about whether this is an issue -- the answer is no. It's not an issue at all. This is anti Trump spin. We don't need any proof at all of an imminent attack before we take out someone on our terror list. That is not the standard, nor should it be.

Regarding the imminent threat part. ----. I actually saw someone on CNN say with a straight face that Iran said he was there to bring Saudi Arabia a secret peace plan. like it was a believable story. he didn't even challenge this.nor did anyone else.)....To think, CNN pays these people.

Anyway, look at the situation as a whole. Of course there was a risk of imminent attack. Sheez. what do you need? Our analysts.saw Iran getting bolder and bolder with their proxies, attacking Americans , inside Saudi Arabia, just went after our embassy, etc. Then, they had him meeting live with the very same people who did the embassy attack in Iraq. So he was in Iraq secretly, on non official Govt business, meeting with known killers.... Clearly, he was up to something. How imminent, exactly ? which embassies exactly? or where else specifically? Even if they do know that part, I don't want them to tell me or anyone else because then they would have to say how they know.... Even without anything else, it sounds like the same thing that I would have thought, if I had to assess what he was doing there. ...... But like I said earlier we didn't need a new reason to take him out. This is CNN's spin now that we did do or we are the ones escalating.

Your other question, If Iran was so stupid to have chosen to go to war with us? , then we would have taken out their regime quickly.



Rammer
Veteran
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:17 pm

Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:11 am

ElAcky wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:29 pm
ocram23 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:01 pm
Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:18 pm

Please... he’s doing less than nothing with Kim. It’s weird that you don’t know this.
Missiles keep launching, etc. We gave up a ton, got nothing.
Good times.
nobody can control Kim
Why not assassinate Kim? He is building nukes, firing missiles over Japan and starving his population....

... I guess no Oil and no Israel so no interest!!
I don't know what you are talking about. Are you saying that Trump hasn't shown interest with Kim and N Korea? He inherited a terrible situation there. He is trying to apply pressure with sanctions and at the same time try to negotiate with him to give up his nukes in return for security. Sounds reasonable to me....

What's your point? Do you advocate assassinating him? I imagine if Kim was meeting with terrorists in Iraq and actually carrying out attacks against us, planning new ones, etc. -- we would have to consider taking him out. Even at the risk of war.



ocram23
Veteran
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:12 pm

Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:10 am

ElAcky wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:29 pm
ocram23 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:01 pm
Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:18 pm

Please... he’s doing less than nothing with Kim. It’s weird that you don’t know this.
Missiles keep launching, etc. We gave up a ton, got nothing.
Good times.
nobody can control Kim
Why not assassinate Kim? He is building nukes, firing missiles over Japan and starving his population....

... I guess no Oil and no Israel so no interest!!
Believe me I would love to take this guy out. I think the rest of the world would like to as well.



User avatar
Dick84
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10708
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:12 am

Rammer wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:57 am
Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:01 pm
Rammer wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:28 pm



What your missing -is the context. I watched CNN while at the gym today. They showed the protests but the entire time that they were showing that, the big bold headline on the screen was about Trump unable to provide evidence of an imminent risk to any embassy. This is also what the analysts were talking about. Trump, Trump Trump. So, to CNN this was the spin, not to focus on the protests that have actually shaken the Iranian regime. If you don't want it to be about Trump, then don't make it about Trump.
So... you decided the slice you watched of a 24 hour news cycle was the entirety of its programming.
Let’s also ignore the whole changing stories/credibility. It’s not an issue, right? If Iran had decided the counter was an escalation to war, no big deal!!
We both know that this is 24/7 on CNN. Anytime, I turn on CNN this is what they have. Doesn't matter what the news is , what the issue is - always a negative spin about Trump. If it's something bad, they make it sound worse and blame Trump. If it's something good, they find a way to put a negative spin on it and blame Trump. They just can't stop talking about this guy. It's obsessive.

Regarding your question about whether this is an issue -- the answer is no. It's not an issue at all. This is anti Trump spin. We don't need any proof at all of an imminent attack before we take out someone on our terror list. That is not the standard, nor should it be.

Regarding the imminent threat part. ----. I actually saw someone on CNN say with a straight face that Iran said he was there to bring Saudi Arabia a secret peace plan. like it was a believable story. he didn't even challenge this.nor did anyone else.)....To think, CNN pays these people.

Anyway, look at the situation as a whole. Of course there was a risk of imminent attack. Sheez. what do you need? Our analysts.saw Iran getting bolder and bolder with their proxies, attacking Americans , inside Saudi Arabia, just went after our embassy, etc. Then, they had him meeting live with the very same people who did the embassy attack in Iraq. So he was in Iraq secretly, on non official Govt business, meeting with known killers.... Clearly, he was up to something. How imminent, exactly ? which embassies exactly? or where else specifically? Even if they do know that part, I don't want them to tell me or anyone else because then they would have to say how they know.... Even without anything else, it sounds like the same thing that I would have thought, if I had to assess what he was doing there. ...... But like I said earlier we didn't need a new reason to take him out. This is CNN's spin now that we did do or we are the ones escalating.

Your other question, If Iran was so stupid to have chosen to go to war with us? , then we would have taken out their regime quickly.
It's not an issue at all!!! Lol. Can't take you seriously.
The funny part is his administration knows it's an issue... that's why the fucking story keeps changing. You don't seem to care that there's no transparency in actions that could lead to the deaths of Americans, but I do.
They didn't have specific thread information.. but now Trump is saying there was specific threats to 4 embassies. We know that's not true, because of security protocols within the embassy system that were not alerted.

The argument about whether it's his prerogative to take out Soleimani isn't the issue here. It's that there's no clear policy or decision flow or transparency.

Your last line on Iran shows complete ignorance to how difficult it would be to do that in Iran and ignores the potential fallout. They are a much more significant military force than Iraq was.. how'd that turn out for us?


Okay, okay, okay.... I'll stop being a dick.
3-24-16

Rammer
Veteran
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:17 pm

Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:16 pm

Dick84 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:12 am
Rammer wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:57 am
Dick84 wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:01 pm


So... you decided the slice you watched of a 24 hour news cycle was the entirety of its programming.
Let’s also ignore the whole changing stories/credibility. It’s not an issue, right? If Iran had decided the counter was an escalation to war, no big deal!!
We both know that this is 24/7 on CNN. Anytime, I turn on CNN this is what they have. Doesn't matter what the news is , what the issue is - always a negative spin about Trump. If it's something bad, they make it sound worse and blame Trump. If it's something good, they find a way to put a negative spin on it and blame Trump. They just can't stop talking about this guy. It's obsessive.

Regarding your question about whether this is an issue -- the answer is no. It's not an issue at all. This is anti Trump spin. We don't need any proof at all of an imminent attack before we take out someone on our terror list. That is not the standard, nor should it be.

Regarding the imminent threat part. ----. I actually saw someone on CNN say with a straight face that Iran said he was there to bring Saudi Arabia a secret peace plan. like it was a believable story. he didn't even challenge this.nor did anyone else.)....To think, CNN pays these people.

Anyway, look at the situation as a whole. Of course there was a risk of imminent attack. Sheez. what do you need? Our analysts.saw Iran getting bolder and bolder with their proxies, attacking Americans , inside Saudi Arabia, just went after our embassy, etc. Then, they had him meeting live with the very same people who did the embassy attack in Iraq. So he was in Iraq secretly, on non official Govt business, meeting with known killers.... Clearly, he was up to something. How imminent, exactly ? which embassies exactly? or where else specifically? Even if they do know that part, I don't want them to tell me or anyone else because then they would have to say how they know.... Even without anything else, it sounds like the same thing that I would have thought, if I had to assess what he was doing there. ...... But like I said earlier we didn't need a new reason to take him out. This is CNN's spin now that we did do or we are the ones escalating.

Your other question, If Iran was so stupid to have chosen to go to war with us? , then we would have taken out their regime quickly.
It's not an issue at all!!! Lol. Can't take you seriously.
The funny part is his administration knows it's an issue... that's why the fucking story keeps changing. You don't seem to care that there's no transparency in actions that could lead to the deaths of Americans, but I do.
They didn't have specific thread information.. but now Trump is saying there was specific threats to 4 embassies. We know that's not true, because of security protocols within the embassy system that were not alerted.

The argument about whether it's his prerogative to take out Soleimani isn't the issue here. It's that there's no clear policy or decision flow or transparency.

Your last line on Iran shows complete ignorance to how difficult it would be to do that in Iran and ignores the potential fallout. They are a much more significant military force than Iraq was.. how'd that turn out for us?
There is a strategy. You just don't like it or like that it is working. We took out the worlds worst terrorist and weakened the Iran regime. We are continuing to apply max pressure to try to change their behavior. Trying to get NATO and the rest of the civilized world behind us...... Transparency? You mean like publicly announcing our every move ahead of time? - What we will do, when, how, what we won't do? How far we are willing to go? etc. Were we supposed to announce that we were going to take out Soleimani? Nah, Trump isn't gonna do that and it is so refreshing.

I think it is your ignorance that is showing here. No one advocated war, or an Iranian invasion or to go for regime change. You asked what would happen if Iran had escalated this into a full scale war. I gave you the true answer. Militarily, they are no match for us.



User avatar
Dick84
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10708
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:33 pm

Rammer wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:16 pm
Dick84 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:12 am
Rammer wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:57 am


We both know that this is 24/7 on CNN. Anytime, I turn on CNN this is what they have. Doesn't matter what the news is , what the issue is - always a negative spin about Trump. If it's something bad, they make it sound worse and blame Trump. If it's something good, they find a way to put a negative spin on it and blame Trump. They just can't stop talking about this guy. It's obsessive.

Regarding your question about whether this is an issue -- the answer is no. It's not an issue at all. This is anti Trump spin. We don't need any proof at all of an imminent attack before we take out someone on our terror list. That is not the standard, nor should it be.

Regarding the imminent threat part. ----. I actually saw someone on CNN say with a straight face that Iran said he was there to bring Saudi Arabia a secret peace plan. like it was a believable story. he didn't even challenge this.nor did anyone else.)....To think, CNN pays these people.

Anyway, look at the situation as a whole. Of course there was a risk of imminent attack. Sheez. what do you need? Our analysts.saw Iran getting bolder and bolder with their proxies, attacking Americans , inside Saudi Arabia, just went after our embassy, etc. Then, they had him meeting live with the very same people who did the embassy attack in Iraq. So he was in Iraq secretly, on non official Govt business, meeting with known killers.... Clearly, he was up to something. How imminent, exactly ? which embassies exactly? or where else specifically? Even if they do know that part, I don't want them to tell me or anyone else because then they would have to say how they know.... Even without anything else, it sounds like the same thing that I would have thought, if I had to assess what he was doing there. ...... But like I said earlier we didn't need a new reason to take him out. This is CNN's spin now that we did do or we are the ones escalating.

Your other question, If Iran was so stupid to have chosen to go to war with us? , then we would have taken out their regime quickly.
It's not an issue at all!!! Lol. Can't take you seriously.
The funny part is his administration knows it's an issue... that's why the fucking story keeps changing. You don't seem to care that there's no transparency in actions that could lead to the deaths of Americans, but I do.
They didn't have specific thread information.. but now Trump is saying there was specific threats to 4 embassies. We know that's not true, because of security protocols within the embassy system that were not alerted.

The argument about whether it's his prerogative to take out Soleimani isn't the issue here. It's that there's no clear policy or decision flow or transparency.

Your last line on Iran shows complete ignorance to how difficult it would be to do that in Iran and ignores the potential fallout. They are a much more significant military force than Iraq was.. how'd that turn out for us?
There is a strategy. You just don't like it or like that it is working. We took out the worlds worst terrorist and weakened the Iran regime. We are continuing to apply max pressure to try to change their behavior. Trying to get NATO and the rest of the civilized world behind us...... Transparency? You mean like publicly announcing our every move ahead of time? - What we will do, when, how, what we won't do? How far we are willing to go? etc. Were we supposed to announce that we were going to take out Soleimani? Nah, Trump isn't gonna do that and it is so refreshing.

I think it is your ignorance that is showing here. No one advocated war, or an Iranian invasion or to go for regime change. You asked what would happen if Iran had escalated this into a full scale war. I gave you the true answer. Militarily, they are no match for us.

Your ignorance is showing.
The whole “let’s tell everyone first” nonsense.
I’m discussing the fact that we have no idea what the process was for an extrajudicial assassination.

Iraq was no match.

How has that worked out for us?

Trying to get NATO behind us is just a funny thing to hear from a Trumpster. I mean, come on.


Okay, okay, okay.... I'll stop being a dick.
3-24-16

Post Reply
Rate this topic