Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Address to the Nation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    You'd be wrong.

    The trick is to oppose nonsense on your own terms and not let yourself be dragged into endless discussion that goes nowhere.

    Thus, rather than try to adress each post an each argument seperately, just keep an eye on a poster, pick a time that suits you and write a short rebuttal that puts the record straight for all to see.

    Much better than putting someone on "ignore" which makes the posts invisible to you only, while the posted nonsense is still there far all others to see, unopposed.



    For some. For others it is a medical condition no doubt.

    At any rate, you simply can't write a lengthy post anytime someone is wrong on the internet.



    I think you overestimate Trump, there were sanctions long before Trump, and there will still be when he's long gone

    And even without Western sanctions there are threats to Iran from their neighbours, obviously.
    I understand what you say, but I still see this as something that helps the spread of misinformation, I prefer to be in a history forum where posts that disrespect commonly accepted historical facts, and especially facts surrounding mass murders and terrorism trigger a rebuttal en masse and the burden of is shared among all members.

    As for the second comment, I was talking mostly about the survival of the Iranians in the regime and not in the country in general which is also affected by the sanctions. The Iranians leaders must always calculate the risk of a popular uprising and are always interested in their enrichment as all kings and emirs in the region. So, from their perspective, I do not see why they will see more value in trying to keep the survival of a top general secret than in trying to harm Trump openly (and in a non-provocative way) in the upcoming election with the hope to get a different US president after the election which can help them trade oil freely and remain in power while they enrich their pockets.

    No matter how many mortar rounds their proxies launch, they cannot deliver such political result of humiliating Trump and elevating the prestige of the regime's leadership within Iran. Nor can I see chances of keeping this survival secret when Soleimani is the guy who needs to contact proxies to advance Iran's agenda. I cannot see how a hidden mastermind can be really effective in keeping his survival hidden and at the same time continue to influence allies to advance Iran's agenda. Anyway, this is a judgment issue with intangibles, so I am sure that we cannot convince each other, and I am fine with it.
    Last edited by pamak; 15 Jan 20, 03:04.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by pamak View Post
      As for the second comment, I was talking mostly about the survival of the Iranians in the regime and not in the country in general which is also affected by the sanctions. The Iranians leaders must always calculate the risk of a popular uprising and are always interested in their enrichment as all kings and emirs in the region. So, from their perspective, I do not see why they will see more value in trying to keep the survival of a top general secret than in trying to harm Trump openly (and in a non-provocative way) in the upcoming election with the hope to get a different US president after the election which can help them trade oil freely and remain in power while they enrich their pockets.
      You may have a point there..

      If they whip him out a day before the US election alive and well, I'll be here to congratulate you on your insight in the matter,

      of course then all the Iranians that celebrated his funeral will be mightily pissed

      I cannot see how a hidden mastermind can be really effective in keeping his survival hidden and at the same time continue to influence allies to advance Iran's agenda.
      By working anonymously ? Black ops that sort of thing ?

      Really we should never even have known his name, if he is what he's said to be…

      not claiming this to be fact mind you, far from it, just a possibility that should be considered along with all others.
      Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

      Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

        You may have a point there..

        If they whip him out a day before the US election alive and well, I'll be here to congratulate you on your insight in the matter,

        of course then all the Iranians that celebrated his funeral will be mightily pissed



        By working anonymously ? Black ops that sort of thing ?

        Really we should never even have known his name, if he is what he's said to be…

        not claiming this to be fact mind you, far from it, just a possibly that should be considered along with all others.
        As I said, I do not believe he is alive , so if this thing happens I will have to congratulate you for your insight too.

        I will also (and I think we can agree here) support the nomination of Ajatollah for best male actor.
        And since he does not have good relations with the US, we can agree to stage the Oscar ceremony in Sweden together with the Nobel Peace prize award.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by pamak View Post

          I did not falsify anything. You proved my point with what you just said.

          And I showed you there how dated sources are misleading and how everybody today knows (including the Kurds) that in Halabja it was the Iraqis who actually gassed the Kurds.
          In other words, I exposed your deceptive tactic of finding dated links to support lies. As I said before, today one can find such dated American links to support that Saddam was an imminent threat equipped with WMDs before the Iraqi invasion.
          You will not pull such cheap links unchallenged as long as I choose to still participate in this forum...
          Saddam was a probable imminent threat to the US before the invasion.
          He worked on nuclear weapons, he had missiles, he used CW, he refused inspection from the UN.
          He should have already been eliminated before 9/11, but the Democrats refused to do it .
          Iraq sponsored terrorism and had used already terrorism against the US. And, most important : Saddam could NOT prove that he would/could not attack the US, his behavior suggested the opposite .
          The onus of proof was not on the US, it was on Saddam . He had received a year of time, he did nothing unless to laugh out the USA.
          Last edited by ljadw; 15 Jan 20, 04:37.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by ljadw View Post

            Saddam was a probable imminent threat to the US before the invasion.
            He worked on nuclear weapons, he had missiles, he used CW, he refused inspection from the UN.
            He should have already been eliminated before 9/11, but the Democrats refused to do it .
            Saddam eventually let UN inspectors that the US did not let them do their job.
            And no, he did not have the stomach to use CW against the US when he HAD them in the first gulf war.
            He used CW only against targets that could not retaliate.
            In other words, he was not an imminent threat to the US.




            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #81
              Saddam also had no nukes and the only CW ever found was left over garbage from back in the 1980's when he gassed Kurdish civilians. Him and his regime was however so weird that it preferred to try to somehow make it seem like they might have nukes rather than remove any doubt, and arguments for a US invasion.

              It was independently concluded by the US' own allies that Saddam had no nukes, no CW, the inspections were working, and that there was no imminent threat. And they were correct.

              Which had the effect of the US taking much umbrage, doubling down on its insistence on it all, while calling everyone disagreeing with is a coward and generally a bad person.

              What it did was make sure GWB frittered away one of the greatest outpourings of solidarity and sympathy with the US in history at such a break-neck pace no one really remembers it anymore, certainly not in the US, that has just been miserably hacked off with everyone ever since – Europe, the Mid East, reality, whatever...

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                Saddam also had no nukes and the only CW ever found was left over garbage from back in the 1980's ...
                Delivered by Belgians no doubt

                https://www.politico.eu/article/belg...cals-to-syria/

                A Belgian court has found three businesses and their owners guilty of shipping 168 tons of a substance potentially used in the making of chemical weapons to Syria between 2014 and 2016 without submitting the appropriate export licenses
                ljadw - where are you when needed ?
                Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

                Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                  Saddam also had no nukes and the only CW ever found was left over garbage from back in the 1980's when he gassed Kurdish civilians. Him and his regime was however so weird that it preferred to try to somehow make it seem like they might have nukes rather than remove any doubt, and arguments for a US invasion.

                  It was independently concluded by the US' own allies that Saddam had no nukes, no CW, the inspections were working, and that there was no imminent threat. And they were correct.

                  Which had the effect of the US taking much umbrage, doubling down on its insistence on it all, while calling everyone disagreeing with is a coward and generally a bad person.

                  What it did was make sure GWB frittered away one of the greatest outpourings of solidarity and sympathy with the US in history at such a break-neck pace no one really remembers it anymore, certainly not in the US, that has just been miserably hacked off with everyone ever since – Europe, the Mid East, reality, whatever...
                  There was testimony in front of Congress before the invasion, by a Professor Kay, who was part of the inspection team for Iraq and he told the panel that it would be better to invade and find nothing, than not to invade and have them handy for the Iraqis.

                  He later denied the testimony but it was on television, so he demonstrated a lack of character in his actions.

                  And the Iraqis still had chemical weapons when the invasion took place.
                  We are not now that strength which in old days
                  Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                  Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                  To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Massena View Post

                    There was testimony in front of Congress before the invasion, by a Professor Kay, who was part of the inspection team for Iraq and he told the panel that it would be better to invade and find nothing, than not to invade and have them handy for the Iraqis.

                    He later denied the testimony but it was on television, so he demonstrated a lack of character in his actions.

                    And the Iraqis still had chemical weapons when the invasion took place.
                    And Kay later, after he could not find what he expected, went to the Senate and told everybody that they were all wrong, and he included himself. So, he changed the justification to (and I paraphrase) "we can say that we brought democracy."

                    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/03/usa.iraq

                    Now, in his first newspaper interview, he [Kay] tells Julian Borger that the president must admit he got it wrong

                    Kay sat down in front of the Senate microphone on January 28, and with a few blunt words, swept all that carefully calibrated verbiage away. "Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here," he told the open-mouthed senators.

                    ...

                    Worse still, Kay is now calling on the White House to come clean about its mistakes and defend the war instead as a liberation of an oppressed people.


                    And of course is easy for Americans to decide to bring democracy to other people when it is these other people who suffer the death and destruction of the invasion. Meanwhile, more than 50% of the Americans are not even willing to sacrifice their personal time to go and vote in most democratic elections.
                    Last edited by pamak; 15 Jan 20, 15:45.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X