(01-31-2020 01:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Didn't we kill their general?

Why are we arguing that there was no response?

It seems to me that he did what he said by killing the general, and then he backed down because there were clearly some back-channel communications that allowed them to save face at the risk of some RELATIVELY (for a war zone with exploding bombs) minor response

Had Iran used chemical weapons and we not responded, I would be ALL OVER Trump for the same reason I was all over Obama.

The problem with ANY red line is that you have to stand behind it. DOesn't mean you have to go 'all-in' on ANY attack... and that's the problem with literally saying red line and then not doing it. If you won't respond to chemical attacks, which are a violation of international treaty... what does it take?

you really this uninformed?? seriously????

heres the timeline---
we killed their general
trump threatened iraq that wed strike back if they attacked us
they attacked bases and hurt troops
crickets

yes,, thank God donny is full of ****!! no more ****ing wars!!! but we are LAUGHINGSTOCK because everyone knows were full ****.
no more stupid posturing threats donny!!! stop it!

(01-31-2020 02:35 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 12:55 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 12:26 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 12:00 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Trump's decisions seem to be based on a red line of American deaths. I am OK with that being the red line.

Maybe this is true and maybe it is not. But in his tweets, Trump was very explicit and he didn't identify "American deaths" as the line. He tweeted about responding with force if Iran attacked "USA assets", "any Americans", "American assets", "an American Base", and "any American". Nothing in those tweets about only responding with force only if Iran killed an American.

...and? Trump acts with restraint and correctly gauged that the Iranian response to his move would be far less drastic than his critics feared, and in some cases hoped. All that’s left for his critics is to nitpick, as you are doing.

Nitpicking? I didn't nitpick Trump's actions after Iran's missile strike.. I literally wrote that I was "thankful that cooler heads have prevailed."

Did Trump really correctly gauge the Iranian response? 64 US troops with mild traumatic brain injuries, 25 of whom still have not returned to duty 3 weeks after the missile strike?

Conservatives here have repeatedly taken Obama to task for not following through on his threat to use force in Syria after Assad crossed Obama's red line by using chemical weapons on civilians. I am just asking if conservatives here felt like Trump was establishing a red line with his quoted tweets and, if so, whether they feel like Trump should be taken to task for not following through with his threat of force after Iranian missile strikes injured 64 US troops.

Also, do you have any evidence that any of Trump's critics "hoped" for a more dramatic response by Iran? That is pure slanderous ridiculousness.

If you are equating the use of chemical weapons against civilians with a limited and token missile strike announced in advance that caused some concussions, then... well, that’s my response. Nitpicking, yes.

if you are equating a red line drawn and crossed where prez tried to respond but congress voted him down with a red line drawn and crossed and then prez said 'nah were good', you make no damn sense.

thank god the reps stopped obama from attacking syria. kept us out of another ******* war,, and im grateful! and donnys attacks showed it wouldnt have done dick anyway to stop more chem weapons attacks by assad.
but obama followed through,,, he and the russians went in and took the chem weapons and at least slowed down the attacks.

youre equating that with trump drawing red line then just backing down? whats wrong with you??

(01-31-2020 04:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  The key factor is how the US response was interpreted.

It is possible that some international malefactors interpreted Obama's non-response in Syria as a sign of quiet strength, but I doubt it -- and I don't think anyone else believes it either.

It is possible that some international malefactors interpreted Trump's non-response to Iran's missile volley as a sign of weakness, but I doubt it -- and I don't think anyone else believes it either.


As the saying goes (or used to go*), the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

*See https://www.npr.org/2012/08/24/159975466...to-stories

well heck if your feelings say its fine then im convinced!!!
no seriously what 'pudding eating' you referring to here?? your feelings are the proof in the eating???

trump puffs himself like mr big man,, has to POST his stupid puffs on TWITTER because hes a child w social media addiction. then just backs off.

you dont think theyre laughing at trump again?? its nato london all over again.

Watching some of the Sunday morning political shows:

First thing is how many of the Dem candidates emphasize needing to defeat Trump. Getting Trump of office is a main goal. I guess they want to make him a one term (or less) President. But I have heard this morning, Sanders, Warren,Buttegieg, and Yang all running on the ability to beat Trump.

Warren wants to appoint a commission to investigate Trump after she wins. I guess we are on the way to becoming one of those countries in which the incoming President throws the outgoing President into jail. Yang’s line, not mine.

It seems like despite their upcoming defeat, Democrats will spend the next five years trying to unseat Trump. What a waste of energy.

And then they will spend the next 2-3 years trying to get even with him for winning. So look for Trumpmania to last until 2027 or,so.

Edit: watching the round table discussion on This Week ABC, with three of the four panelists Democrats, and all three emphasize that the important thing is beat Trump. Rahm Emmanuel and another panelist emphasized that no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, if all the factions come together they can beat Trump. The message is is, “we don’t care who we elect as long as we beat Trump”.

Re-edit: Andrew Gillum, on CNN, says the most important thing is “Who can beat Donald Trump?”

caucuses

stop worrying about electability

ANECDOTE:

Just checked out of Wal-Mart. They had a man checking receipts. I remarked that this reminded me of going through customs. He remarked that the penalty for sneaking stuff out of Wal-mart was worse that the penalty for sneaking stuff into the US.

Once again, for those who missed it, ANECDOTE!

(02-02-2020 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Watching some of the Sunday morning political shows:

First thing is how many of the Dem candidates emphasize needing to defeat Trump. Getting Trump of office is a main goal. I guess they want to make him a one term (or less) President. But I have heard this morning, Sanders, Warren,Buttegieg, and Yang all running on the ability to beat Trump.

Warren wants to appoint a commission to investigate Trump after she wins. I guess we are on the way to becoming one of those countries in which the incoming President throws the outgoing President into jail. Yang’s line, not mine.

It seems like despite their upcoming defeat, Democrats will spend the next five years trying to unseat Trump. What a waste of energy.

And then they will spend the next 2-3 years trying to get even with him for winning. So look for Trumpmania to last until 2027 or,so.

Edit: watching the round table discussion on This Week ABC, with three of the four panelists Democrats, and all three emphasize that the important thing is beat Trump. Rahm Emmanuel and another panelist emphasized that no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, if all the factions come together they can beat Trump. The message is is, “we don’t care who we elect as long as we beat Trump”.

Re-edit: Andrew Gillum, on CNN, says the most important thing is “Who can beat Donald Trump?”

Are you surprised that a political party is interested in winning an election with whatever candidate is nominated to represent their party???

I have whiplash

(01-31-2020 07:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Dont mess with Cocaine Mitch.

The Cocaine Snapping Turtle has the votes to end the impeachment trial today.

But..... looks like he will stretch it out till Wednesday. Cold. As. Ice.

Why? Well, he is forcing The Bern, the Shrew, and Klobuchar to stay in DC through that time. That is, through the Iowa Caucuses on Monday.

Second, Trump delivers the SOTU Tuesday. In front of a crowd half made up of fully humiliated Democrats. Presumably the night before the chamber votes to acquit. But, it *is* the SOTU so all the Democrats might have to feign a veneer of civility.

Bet the Bern, et al got on a plane Friday night. McConnell is giving the Senators a chance to pontificate on the floor of the Senate prior to the vote to acquit. After sitting on their hands for 2 weeks, they need a chance to vent.

Mitch didn't have many plays other than to shut down witnesses and proceed quickly to a win for Pres. T. Not clear to me that net on the trial is positive for the R's.

Talked to a Texas based lobbyist last night. He's giving the edge to Sanders for the D the nomination. As one afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome, feeling a bit nauseous. Save us S. Carolina and Nevada.

Yet it is so amazingly terrible to some when a Majority Leader says one of their top priorities is to make sure their opposing party doesnt have a president re-elected. Quite the narrow path you seemingly delineate between acceptable and not.

(02-02-2020 04:03 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 07:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Dont mess with Cocaine Mitch.

The Cocaine Snapping Turtle has the votes to end the impeachment trial today.

But..... looks like he will stretch it out till Wednesday. Cold. As. Ice.

Why? Well, he is forcing The Bern, the Shrew, and Klobuchar to stay in DC through that time. That is, through the Iowa Caucuses on Monday.

Second, Trump delivers the SOTU Tuesday. In front of a crowd half made up of fully humiliated Democrats. Presumably the night before the chamber votes to acquit. But, it *is* the SOTU so all the Democrats might have to feign a veneer of civility.

Bet the Bern, et al got on a plane Friday night. McConnell is giving the Senators a chance to pontificate on the floor of the Senate prior to the vote to acquit. After sitting on their hands for 2 weeks, they need a chance to vent.

Mitch didn't have many plays other than to shut down witnesses and proceed quickly to a win for Pres. T. Not clear to me that net on the trial is positive for the R's.

Talked to a Texas based lobbyist last night. He's giving the edge to Sanders for the D the nomination. As one afflicted with Trump Dtyerangement Syndrome, feeling a bit nauseous. Save us S. Carolina and Nevada.

These times seem more and more like '68 to '75.

Democrats are doing a McGovern roll all over again.

(02-02-2020 04:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yet it is so amazingly terrible to some when a Majority Leader says one of their top priorities is to make sure their opposing party doesnt have a president re-elected. Quite the narrow path you seemingly delineate between acceptable and not.

Let’s see - one situation involves someone not running for President, pontificating after the election of the opposite party to POTUS, while the other involves people running for president, prior to the election of POTUS.

Yeah, completely similar scenarios...

(02-02-2020 03:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Watching some of the Sunday morning political shows:

First thing is how many of the Dem candidates emphasize needing to defeat Trump. Getting Trump of office is a main goal. I guess they want to make him a one term (or less) President. But I have heard this morning, Sanders, Warren,Buttegieg, and Yang all running on the ability to beat Trump.

Warren wants to appoint a commission to investigate Trump after she wins. I guess we are on the way to becoming one of those countries in which the incoming President throws the outgoing President into jail. Yang’s line, not mine.

It seems like despite their upcoming defeat, Democrats will spend the next five years trying to unseat Trump. What a waste of energy.

And then they will spend the next 2-3 years trying to get even with him for winning. So look for Trumpmania to last until 2027 or,so.

Edit: watching the round table discussion on This Week ABC, with three of the four panelists Democrats, and all three emphasize that the important thing is beat Trump. Rahm Emmanuel and another panelist emphasized that no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, if all the factions come together they can beat Trump. The message is is, “we don’t care who we elect as long as we beat Trump”.

Re-edit: Andrew Gillum, on CNN, says the most important thing is “Who can beat Donald Trump?”

Are you surprised that a political party is interested in winning an election with whatever candidate is nominated to represent their party???

,
Not surprised at all. Dismayed, disappointed, horrified, yes. It is clear that it matters not a whit what programs or issues the candidates stand for. Democrats would vote a hot dog if they thought it could beat Trump. Heck, they would vote for a hot dog with botulism. We will hear a lot of ballyhoo about healthcare, etc., but all Democrats really really want is AnybodyButTrump.

Doesn't have to be a capitalist. Doesn't have to believe in this or that. heck, doesn't even have to be a Democrat. Two of the leaders aren't Democrats.

(02-02-2020 03:58 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

I have whiplash

Reap what you sow.

I wonder if we can get Mueller to head the investigation?

(02-02-2020 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 04:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yet it is so amazingly terrible to some when a Majority Leader says one of their top priorities is to make sure their opposing party doesnt have a president re-elected. Quite the narrow path you seemingly delineate between acceptable and not.

Let’s see - one situation involves someone not running for President, pontificating after the election of the opposite party to POTUS, while the other involves people running for president, prior to the election of POTUS.

Yeah, completely similar scenarios...

Definitely Completely different

(02-02-2020 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 04:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yet it is so amazingly terrible to some when a Majority Leader says one of their top priorities is to make sure their opposing party doesnt have a president re-elected. Quite the narrow path you seemingly delineate between acceptable and not.

Let’s see - one situation involves someone not running for President, pontificating after the election of the opposite party to POTUS, while the other involves people running for president, prior to the election of POTUS.
Yeah, completely similar scenarios...

It strikes me that you are suggesting a distinction without a difference.

(02-02-2020 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 04:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yet it is so amazingly terrible to some when a Majority Leader says one of their top priorities is to make sure their opposing party doesnt have a president re-elected. Quite the narrow path you seemingly delineate between acceptable and not.

Let’s see - one situation involves someone not running for President, pontificating after the election of the opposite party to POTUS, while the other involves people running for president, prior to the election of POTUS.
Yeah, completely similar scenarios...

It strikes me that you are suggesting a distinction without a difference.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

I dont see a whit of difference between them in substance. But it sure is fun to watch the the 'reasoning' as to the difference in tone (how bad it is, vs. perfectly acceptable) on each is.

I mean, how dare a Majority Leader say that a primary goal was to unseat a sitting President, and how perfectly okay it also is for any democrat to say that the primary goal is to unseat a sitting President. Lolz.

If the "crucial" distinction is temporal, then what is the 'acceptable' date to express the goal of unseating a Presdent? Us rubes want to know that critical decisive moment. I mean, this might be like a statute of limitations, apparently where actual minutes count....

Or is this just a social temporal faux pas, like, 'no wearing white' after Labor Day?

(02-02-2020 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 04:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yet it is so amazingly terrible to some when a Majority Leader says one of their top priorities is to make sure their opposing party doesnt have a president re-elected. Quite the narrow path you seemingly delineate between acceptable and not.

Let’s see - one situation involves someone not running for President, pontificating after the election of the opposite party to POTUS, while the other involves people running for president, prior to the election of POTUS.
Yeah, completely similar scenarios...

It strikes me that you are suggesting a distinction without a difference.

Difference is very clear - one person is literally trying to take the other’s current job by running for President, while the other isn’t.

Of course Biden wants to make Trump a one-term President - he is running to unseat him...