Trump tweeted that the US would specifically target Iranian cultural sites in response to responsive Iranian aggression. From what I read, and I will admit I just skimmed a few articles, that looked like a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.
You want me to stop being literal? I believe what people say/write when it seems reasonably within the range of what they would do/say based on past actions. It is entirely believable that you would call liberals and/or Democrats terrorist sympathizers. If you meant it as something else, you should be more clear. I know that if 69/70/75 calls someone a skank, he means it literally. When he means he believes the US should act in a way that makes Iran believe we would murder 8+ million civilians and possibly start a nuclear holocaust I know to believe him literally. So when you write something disparaging, you have given me zero reasons to take it as something other than literal. I haven’t seen you cracking many jokes or gently teasing people with whom you disagree. I haven’t seen you trying to make peace or find common ground with anyone. So I take what you say at face value until told otherwise. And every response since your initial response has just reinforced my belief.
(01-06-2020 02:53 PM)mrbig Wrote: You want me to stop being literal? I believe what people say/write when it seems reasonably within the range of what they would do/say based on past actions. It is entirely believable that you would call liberals and/or Democrats terrorist sympathizers. If you meant it as something else, you should be more clear. I know that if 69/70/75 calls someone a skank, he means it literally. When he means he believes the US should act in a way that makes Iran believe we would murder 8+ million civilians and possibly start a nuclear holocaust I know to believe him literally. So when you write something disparaging, you have given me zero reasons to take it as something other than literal. I haven’t seen you cracking many jokes or gently teasing people with whom you disagree. I haven’t seen you trying to make peace or find common ground with anyone. So I take what you say at face value until told otherwise. And every response since your initial response has just reinforced my belief.
(01-06-2020 12:11 PM)mrbig Wrote: I am dead serious. If you believe I am a terrorist sympathizer, then it is your patriotic duty to report it to the FBI. I will give you my name and place of work in a message, if you don’t know it.
In the meantime, I will go back to wishing Bernie, Warren, and Biden had stayed out of the race and listening to my Stephen Hawking audiobook.
You are way too literal. But for example, a lot of Democrats are saying Trump overstepped when he ordered that terrorist killed. So they think the terrorist should NOT have been killed, rather left alone to devise whatever attacks against us he wants.
I see that position as supporting the terrorist just to oppose Trump. I don’t think any of us should support the terrorists, for any reason.
What if, just hear me out, people oppose it because of the ramifications of the actions, and that those ramifications could be worse than not killing the terrorist?
This isn't some weird binary response like you make it out to be.
Quote:I don’t think you are a direct terrorist sympathizer. You are not sending money to Hamas. But I think you support policies and choices that work to the benefit of the terrorists, by supporting certain Dem policies and actions.
See, and this is why it isn't binary. It is just your opinion that these policies would benefit terrorists. In fact, there is a chance they actually support terrorists more by potentially galvanizing support against the US, leading to a surge in terrorist activities.
Quote:Should Trump have ordered that strike? Yes or no.
Should Obama have offered that deal to Iran? Yes or no.
Should Trump have withdrawn from Obama’s Iran deal? Yes or no.
Should Obama have kept his word when he drew the red line? Yes or no.
Many Dem policies are for appeasement. I don’t agree with that. I prefer somebody who will stand up to terrorists. Appeasement works to support the terrorists. For example, the billions that Obama paid for his deal, money that went to Hamas and other antiAmerican terrorist orgs.
Do you believe we should appease terrorists or stand up to them?
Get off your high horse of being literal. Look at the principles. For a group that believes in Trump blowing dog whistles, you sure can be literal when you want.
And you again make a false equivalency. There are other options between appeasement and standing up to them through assassinations.
Only Sith deal in absolutes.
Nice Star Wars reference. Now I am being compared to fictional characters! That is unique in my experience.
But I did not say “standing up to them through assassinations”. That is pure Ladspeak. I said “standing up to them”.
But I agree, there are many ways to stand up to them, and killing terrorists is just one - one you applauded when it was Obama doing the killing.
But accusing Trump of war crimes is a stance shared by Iran and certain Democrats in Congress.
From what I have seen, Trump is being accused of war crimes for threatening to destroy cultural heritage sites in retaliation.
Also, your comment about me applauding Obama's actions assumes that Bin Laden and Soleimani are equivalent in both their actions and relationships to countries. For starters, Soleimani was a member of the Iran government, where as Bin Laden was not.
That fact alone makes the decision to strike Soleimani much, much more complicated than Bin Laden, because it has more far reaching implications. Do you think it's less reasonable to evaluate each situation independently and whether or not force was the correct method each time? Currently, I don't have enough information to say whether or not assassinating Soleimani was the right choice - the WH has not yet released sufficient information on their intel for me to say it was or wasn't.
And since we were talking about the decision to assassinate Soleimani versus not assassinating him, I don't see why you have an issue with stating the fact when you said "Many Dem policies are for appeasement. I don’t agree with that. I prefer somebody who will stand up to terrorists." In this instance, standing up to terrorists = assassinating Soleimani.
(01-06-2020 02:53 PM)mrbig Wrote: You want me to stop being literal? I believe what people say/write when it seems reasonably within the range of what they would do/say based on past actions. It is entirely believable that you would call liberals and/or Democrats terrorist sympathizers. If you meant it as something else, you should be more clear. I know that if 69/70/75 calls someone a skank, he means it literally. When he means he believes the US should act in a way that makes Iran believe we would murder 8+ million civilians and possibly start a nuclear holocaust I know to believe him literally. So when you write something disparaging, you have given me zero reasons to take it as something other than literal. I haven’t seen you cracking many jokes or gently teasing people with whom you disagree. I haven’t seen you trying to make peace or find common ground with anyone. So I take what you say at face value until told otherwise. And every response since your initial response has just reinforced my belief.
(01-06-2020 11:50 AM)mrbig Wrote: I have seen zero evidence that Talib, Omar, or AOC would even think of doing anything close to supporting terrorists. They might have a different view of what makes America great than you, but so do I. If you think they are supporting terrorists, then I guess I am as well. Call DOJ and let them know I should be fired or investigated. Guess I was able to sneak through the 3 FBI background checks I have gone though. When I chant U-S-A and you chant U-S-A, I understand that we might be cheering for slightly different ideals. But I never doubt that you love our country, and it saddens me that some of you think that numerous fellow country-persons hate our country.
But I simply cannot fathom your bolded statement. I think they have gone beyond any reasonable bounds to express opinions that suggest very strongly, to me at least, that they would in fact support terrorism and terrorists, if they are not already in fact doing so, in order to achieve their goals. Whether their goals explicitly call for death to America may be debatable, but I see no basis for any doubt that achieving their goals would effect a de facto death to USA. I could see a statement that you don't find the evidence compelling, but I simply cannot comprehend how you can say that you see nothing.
I guess a better way to approach the Reps. Tlaib & Omar "controversies" is to note that I know one (or both, I can't remember) said some pretty borderline things about Israel in particular. But neither is my congressperson so I did not follow the details very closely.
I did just google both and try to do some quick research to refresh my memory, but I stand by my comments based on what I read. At least at my glance, neither said anything that I view as supporting terrorists. Rep. Tlaib probably could have found a better work than "calming" during her discussion of the Holocaust, but she was speaking about the issue in a reverent way, which is how I took her discussion. Rep. Omar attacked AIPAC's influence in US politics. Not sure how that supports terrorists either. Even if you want to call them anti-Israel (and I think a better characterization would be to say they are anti-Isreal's government over the last decade), that is still a far cry from supporting terrorists. I mean, it isn't like either of them called terrorists very fine people.
Quote:
Quote:You are wrong about that and I hope you some day realize it, even if it comes with higher taxes on the wealthy and big business, more regulations on big business, a cleaner environment, and a more peaceful world.
I am fully supportive of a cleaner environment and a more peaceful world, although we probably differ on how to get there. But no matter how much you want to push the class warfare against those evil rich people and corporations, it's a fact of life that they have options to go elsewhere in the world, and if we treat them worse than those other places they will move there (have been to some extent for decades) and the effect will be to hurt us more than them. Most of Europe deals with them with carrots, not sticks. If we want to remain competitive, we need to do the same.
Evil rich people? My wife and I are in the top 2-3%. I can afford to pay a little higher taxes (though my wife and I don't have much wealth, we have high income). Certainly Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg can pay higher taxes as well. So can Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and the Clintons. And so can Sheldon Adelson, George Soros, and the Kochs. I asked my magic 8-ball and it says Amazon, FedEx, and many others can also afford to pay some federal taxes as well. It isn't class warfare to think taxes should be increased on the wealthy & corporations and I didn't call anyone or anything evil.
(This post was last modified: 01-06-2020 05:17 PM by mrbig.)
I have made some attempts at humor but they seem to have gone over your head. (Not literally). I try to be nice but you take offense at imagined slurs.
I did not mean you were supporting terrorists directly. That is where you are too literal. What I meant was that by opposing the person opposing them,y’all are siding with them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. When the Democrats and Iranians have common cause, these sayings are true.
So, in another post I asked some questions. You going to answer them? It’s OK with me if you don’t (literally OK). I already know the answers.
What is interesting is that for 60 years I have relied on my sense of humor to make up for my looks. Good thing I have no amorous intentions towards you.
(This post was last modified: 01-06-2020 05:32 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: So, in another post I asked some questions. You going to answer them? It’s OK with me if you don’t (literally OK). I already know the answers.
I already answered the questions earlier, but I will do so again:
(1) Should Trump have taken out Soleimani? I don't have enough information (and likely neither do you). Members of both George W. Bush's administration and Obama's administration have said that they had opportunities to take out Soleimani, but did not do it because those Presidents (and their advisers) believed the risks of escalation outweighed the benefit of taking out one really bad guy. So the question that needs to be answered for me is ... why now? Trump probably had opportunities before last week, so what changed the calculus so that he acted last week?
(2) Yes, I supported the Iran detail (retrospectively, I didn't really follow it at the time because I was paying less attention to foreign policy pre-Trump). It obviously wasn't perfect, but Iran was behaving much better while it was in effect. The fact that Russian, China, and Europe all supported it really tells me all I need to know, because that collection of countries can't agree on a lot (with or without the USA's involvement).
(3) No, I did not support Trump's decision to withdraw. Again, Iran was behaving better while it was in effect. They destroyed a good chunk of their capability. Even if you believe the inspections were not sufficient, that is one part of the deal. The answer isn't to rip it up, but rather to improve it.
(4) Yes, Obama should have kept his word with the red line in Syria (or maybe better, not drawn the red line). Obama screwed that up.
(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I have made some attempts at humor but they seem to have gone over your head. (Not literally). I try to be nice but you take offense at imagined slurs.
I did not mean you were supporting terrorists directly. That is where you are too literal. What I meant was that by opposing the person opposing them,y’all are siding with them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. When the Democrats and Iranians have common cause, these sayings are true.
So, in another post I asked some questions. You going to answer them? It’s OK with me if you don’t (literally OK). I already know the answers.
It's possible to be opposed to US intervention in the middle east and be anti-terror. The enemy of my enemy bit of yours is so stale.
(01-06-2020 05:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: What is interesting is that for 60 years I have relied on my sense of humor to make up for my looks. Good thing I have no amorous intentions towards you.
(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: So, in another post I asked some questions. You going to answer them? It’s OK with me if you don’t (literally OK). I already know the answers.
I already answered the questions earlier, but I will do so again:
(1) Should Trump have taken out Soleimani? I don't have enough information (and likely neither do you). Members of both George W. Bush's administration and Obama's administration have said that they had opportunities to take out Soleimani, but did not do it because those Presidents (and their advisers) believed the risks of escalation outweighed the benefit of taking out one really bad guy. So the question that needs to be answered for me is ... why now? Trump probably had opportunities before last week, so what changed the calculus so that he acted last week?
(2) Yes, I supported the Iran detail (retrospectively, I didn't really follow it at the time because I was paying less attention to foreign policy pre-Trump). It obviously wasn't perfect, but Iran was behaving much better while it was in effect. The fact that Russian, China, and Europe all supported it really tells me all I need to know, because that collection of countries can't agree on a lot (with or without the USA's involvement).
(3) No, I did not support Trump's decision to withdraw. Again, Iran was behaving better while it was in effect. They destroyed a good chunk of their capability. Even if you believe the inspections were not sufficient, that is one part of the deal. The answer isn't to rip it up, but rather to improve it.
(4) Yes, Obama should have kept his word with the red line in Syria (or maybe better, not drawn the red line). Obama screwed that up.
What changed? Well, according to Trump, they had intel on some planned actions bu him. Now, you can question that, but neither of can prove it either way...yet.
I did not, and still do not support the Obama-Iran deal. We gave away too much and got nearly nothing in return. The ultimate beans for a cow deal, except with not golden goose.
(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I have made some attempts at humor but they seem to have gone over your head. (Not literally).
If this was an intentional Guardians of the Galaxy (Drax) reference, then it is fantastic. I didn't even catch it at first. If it was unintentional, go watch Guardians of the Galaxy to appreciate your own accidental reference!
(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I try to be nice but you take offense at imagined slurs.
Imagined slurs? You clearly believe I am "inadvertently" supporting terrorists. If it is inadvertent, then you are suggesting that I am just too stupid to realize what I am doing. If I am supporting terrorists on purpose and you are just trying to be PC by calling it inadvertent, then you are calling me a traitor. I don't understand how else to take your comment and follow-up explanations.
(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I did not mean you were supporting terrorists directly. That is where you are too literal. What I meant was that by opposing the person opposing them,y’all are siding with them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. When the Democrats and Iranians have common cause, these sayings are true.
I think your reading/description of the situation is way to black & white. Easy example - North Korea has good relationships with China, India, and Russia. Following your logic, all 3 of those countries should be our enemies. But I think our relationship with China is better described as competitors (rather than enemies) and we have a pretty good relationship with India that is being tested lately. I'm OK saying Russia is close to being an enemy at this point, though they are an enemy we need to talk to and work with, not fight.
(01-06-2020 05:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I did not, and still do not support the Obama-Iran deal. We gave away too much and got nearly nothing in return. The ultimate beans for a cow deal, except with not golden goose.
Therefore I support leaving the agreement.
Honest question, what did the USA give up that upsets you?
We all seem to have established that the BBC is about as good of a source as any of us can agree on. So here's the BBC's explanation of the Iran Deal. The west (including the USA) unfroze more than $100 billion in Iranian assets. So the USA didn't give Iran any money, just unfroze Iranian money that Iran did not have access to. This wasn't USA taxpayer money going to Iran. The lifting of sanctions appears to have opened oil markets to Iran that will increase Iran's revenue by $4-$8 billion per month. That is a lot of money, but it isn't the USA's money.
(This post was last modified: 01-06-2020 05:57 PM by mrbig.)
(01-06-2020 05:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I did not, and still do not support the Obama-Iran deal. We gave away too much and got nearly nothing in return. The ultimate beans for a cow deal, except with not golden goose.
Therefore I support leaving the agreement.
Honest question, what did the USA give up that upsets you?
I can tell you what I would have done differently:
1) The money gets released in tranches--10% a year for 10 years, contingent upon continued good behavior by Iran.
2) A totally different inspection protocol--anytime, anywhere inspections with minimal notice and no places red-lined.
Do those things and it might be a viable agreement. And it should have been to the senate for ratification, which would probably have been agreed with those changes.
(01-06-2020 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I have made some attempts at humor but they seem to have gone over your head. (Not literally). I try to be nice but you take offense at imagined slurs.
I did not mean you were supporting terrorists directly. That is where you are too literal. What I meant was that by opposing the person opposing them,y’all are siding with them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. When the Democrats and Iranians have common cause, these sayings are true.
So, in another post I asked some questions. You going to answer them? It’s OK with me if you don’t (literally OK). I already know the answers.
(01-06-2020 12:11 PM)mrbig Wrote: I am dead serious. If you believe I am a terrorist sympathizer, then it is your patriotic duty to report it to the FBI. I will give you my name and place of work in a message, if you don’t know it.
In the meantime, I will go back to wishing Bernie, Warren, and Biden had stayed out of the race and listening to my Stephen Hawking audiobook.
You are way too literal. But for example, a lot of Democrats are saying Trump overstepped when he ordered that terrorist killed. So they think the terrorist should NOT have been killed, rather left alone to devise whatever attacks against us he wants.
I see that position as supporting the terrorist just to oppose Trump. I don’t think any of us should support the terrorists, for any reason.
What if, just hear me out, people oppose it because of the ramifications of the actions, and that those ramifications could be worse than not killing the terrorist?
This isn't some weird binary response like you make it out to be.
Quote:I don’t think you are a direct terrorist sympathizer. You are not sending money to Hamas. But I think you support policies and choices that work to the benefit of the terrorists, by supporting certain Dem policies and actions.
See, and this is why it isn't binary. It is just your opinion that these policies would benefit terrorists. In fact, there is a chance they actually support terrorists more by potentially galvanizing support against the US, leading to a surge in terrorist activities.
Quote:Should Trump have ordered that strike? Yes or no.
Should Obama have offered that deal to Iran? Yes or no.
Should Trump have withdrawn from Obama’s Iran deal? Yes or no.
Should Obama have kept his word when he drew the red line? Yes or no.
Many Dem policies are for appeasement. I don’t agree with that. I prefer somebody who will stand up to terrorists. Appeasement works to support the terrorists. For example, the billions that Obama paid for his deal, money that went to Hamas and other antiAmerican terrorist orgs.
Do you believe we should appease terrorists or stand up to them?
Get off your high horse of being literal. Look at the principles. For a group that believes in Trump blowing dog whistles, you sure can be literal when you want.
And you again make a false equivalency. There are other options between appeasement and standing up to them through assassinations.
Only Sith deal in absolutes.
Nice Star Wars reference. Now I am being compared to fictional characters! That is unique in my experience.
But I did not say “standing up to them through assassinations”. That is pure Ladspeak. I said “standing up to them”.
But I agree, there are many ways to stand up to them, and killing terrorists is just one - one you applauded when it was Obama doing the killing.
But accusing Trump of war crimes is a stance shared by Iran and certain Democrats in Congress.
I would have preferred to see a stab at the simple yes/no questions asked.
That one got me, bravo!
