(06-21-2019, 08:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your, bent mind aside: I didn't assert simpletons; I asserted hypocrites. 

(06-21-2019, 08:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not even saying a retaliatory strike was a bad idea or not to strike was a good idea. I'm simply saying his announcement to cancel the strike was a stupid thing to do. I'm not one of those bitching when he was going to strike and now bitching that he didn't strike, but anyone who is doing so fits the bill of hypocrite. 

(06-22-2019, 05:56 AM)hollodero Wrote: Fair enough.



Yeah, but your hypocricy-asserting lines can go both ways too. It also appears that if Trump's faced with a binary option and chooses option A, you will be critical of those opposed to it; and if he chooses option B, you also will be critical of those opposed to it. And maybe as a mere sideeffect, he can do no wrong.

By that, I do not so much say you "defend" Trump at any turn as that you often seem to have a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" dynamic regarding him.

(06-22-2019, 10:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm starting to wonder if DJT really stopped the strikes because someone told him that John MCcain once said he wanted to bomb Iran? 

(06-17-2019, 01:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: Someone should tell Trump that a war with Iran is what McCain would have wanted. Just in case.

(06-22-2019, 10:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I may have differed in opinion with those that wanted to avoid retaliation at all costs, but I recognized their stance was genuine. but when you then complain that he resisted retaliation you might be just a little hard to please.

(06-22-2019, 10:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: i get it looks like I often defend Trump and there are times that I do merely due to his station as POTUS, likewise there are times i condemn his words/actions merely due to his station as POTUS. But my biggest joy is watching the Left's reactions.

(06-21-2019, 08:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your, bent mind aside: I didn't assert simpletons; I asserted hypocrites. 

I'm not even saying a retaliatory strike was a bad idea or not to strike was a good idea. I'm simply saying his announcement to cancel the strike was a stupid thing to do. I'm not one of those bitching when he was going to strike and now bitching that he didn't strike, but anyone who is doing so fits the bill of hypocrite. 

(06-24-2019, 01:01 PM)Dill Wrote: I am saying a retaliatory strike was a bad idea.  I can tell bad ideas from good.

What is hypocritical about saying Trump was wrong to trash the Iran Deal and then increase US assets in the Gulf to bring us to the brink of war,

AND ALSO that he was wrong to then order a a disproportional strike and publicly offer a BS explanation for calling it off?

I "fit the bill of a hypocrite" unless I agree that ONE of these many examples of bad judgement was good?

(06-24-2019, 01:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
Sure you can answer one simple question with a simple answer to show your non-hypocritical reasoning.

Was it wise of Trump to call off the attack? 

(06-22-2019, 11:11 AM)hollodero Wrote: There are instances though where I fail to see that the left's reaction to Trump's more awful words and deeds is more important than Trump's awful words and deeds.

(06-24-2019, 03:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, I'm getting a little off topic here.

Quote:Donald Trump threatens 'overwhelming force' against Iran if it attacks 'anything American'

President Donald Trump threatened Tuesday to use "overwhelming force" against Iranif it attacks U.S. assets or personnel.



"Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration," Trump wrote on Twitter.


The threat came less than a week after Trump called off a planned U.S. missile strike on Iran that the military prepared in retaliation for the shooting down of an American drone by Tehran. 


His remarks marked a sharp pivot from the softer tone the president used in recent days toward Iran, in which he urged negotiations over military action and boasted that he was being seen as a "dove" after canceling the strike last week.


The Islamic republic's leaders mocked new U.S. sanctions and said they prevented negotiations. 


“The fruitless sanctions on Iran’s leadership and the chief of Iranian diplomacy mean the permanent closure of the road of diplomacy with the frustrated U.S. administration,” said Abbas Mousavi, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani blasted the sanctions against Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as “outrageous and idiotic,” noting the 80-year-old Shiite cleric has no plans to ever travel to the USA. In remarks broadcast on Iranian state television, Rouhani said the White House suffers from "mental retardation."


Trump called those statements "very ignorant and insulting."


Trump's threat to obliterate Iran may be met with skepticism. Some foreign policy experts criticized his decision last week to pull back on a retaliatory military strike against Iran, saying the president looked like a "Twitter tiger" and the move was part of a broader pattern of bellicose rhetoric followed by minimal action, resulting in confusion. 

"This is part of a pattern with Trump, who roars like a tiger but usually acts like a scaredy-cat," Max Boot, a senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote Monday in a column for The Washington Post.


He noted that Trump once vowed to rain "fire and fury" on North Korea, only to sit down with that country's repressive ruler, Kim Jong Un, and declare the two had fallen "in love." This year, he threatened to close the U.S. border with Mexico over illegal immigration but never did. 

"Trump is a Twitter tiger whose threats cannot be taken seriously," Boot wrote.


Still, lawmakers in Congress raised alarms about the Trump administration's increasingly aggressive military posture. The Pentagon has dispatched additional troops and B-52 bombers, among other assets, to the Middle East. 


Tuesday, Reps. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., introduced an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill that would bar any federal funds from being used for military force against Iran without congressional authorization. A similar proposal may come up in the Senate as early as this week.


"One of the best ways to avoid bumbling into war, a war that nobody wants, is to have a robust open debate and for Congress to have a real say," Schumer said last week after a briefing on Iran at the White House. 


Trump announced what he called "hard-hitting" new sanctions on Iran at the White House on Monday. He said the measures would deny Iran's leaders access to financial instruments. The penalties target Khamenei, his office and other top Iranian officials. 


The measures will block transactions involving any property and other assets Iran's leaders hold in the USA.


Experts such as Ariane Tabatabai at the RAND Corp. said they would have little practical effect.


Trump unveiled the sanctions as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo traveled to the Middle East to meet with U.S. allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Tuesday, Pompeo headed to an undisclosed location, according to a State Department pool report. 


Tensions between the United States and Iran have been rising for more than a year, beginning when Trump unilaterally withdrew from a multilateral deal with Iran aimed at limiting its nuclear program. Under that agreement, the United States and other countries lifted crippling sanctions on Iran in exchange for caps on its ability to enrich uranium and other restrictions. 


The Trump administration reimposed those sanctions, aiming to cut Iran's oil exports to zero and force the regime to negotiate a broader agreement that would curb Iran's ballistic missile program and its support for regional terrorist groups.

Iran and other parties to the agreement have tried to salvage it, but that effort has faltered, particularly as the U.S. sanctions started to crush Iran's economy. In recent weeks, the friction between the United States and Iran sharply escalated as Trump administration officials blamed Iran for a series of attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. 


Iran denied sabotaging those ships, but last week, Iranian officials said they shot down a U.S. drone that crossed into its airspace. The Pentagon said the unmanned surveillance aircraft was in international airspace. 


Trump said the new sanctions were in part a retaliation for the drone strike. 

Trump has made it clear he wants to negotiate with Iran, but Iran has rejected his entreaties. Tehran said he is not a reliable negotiator after he withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal.

(06-25-2019, 03:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Whoops!  Hold on to your hats kids!

“The fruitless sanctions on Iran’s leadership and the chief of Iranian diplomacy mean the permanent closure of the road of diplomacy with the frustrated U.S. administration,” said Abbas Mousavi, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/06/25/donald-trump-threatens-iran-overwhelming-force-if-attacks-u-s/1556587001/

(06-24-2019, 02:06 PM)Dill Wrote: I probably cannot over simplify this case to meet your criteria.

I can say without hesitation that it was a good thing, for the US and the world, that Trump called off the attack.

I cannot say HE was "wise" to do so unless wise means he was right to worry about how a war might hurt his election chances--AFTER he had already ordered deadly airstrikes with strategically assessing the consequences ahead of time.

He was neither "wise" to back himself and the US military into this kind of corner nor wise to order a strike nor to publicly discuss a recall, nor to signal Iran that his hands may be tied by his re-election plans. (They have a lot of Hollo types over there in Iran, who grasp the dynamics of US politics better than US voters.)

So this is still about knowing the difference between good and bad judgment.

You aren't going to "duly note" my hypocrisy now, are you? Maybe just let folks "decide for themselves"? LOL

(06-25-2019, 03:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Whoops!  Hold on to your hats kids!

DJT has changed his mind...again.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/06/25/donald-trump-threatens-iran-overwhelming-force-if-attacks-u-s/1556587001/

(06-25-2019, 09:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I can over simplify it for you.

It's like finding a hornet's nest. Then smacking said hornet's nest with a stick. Then not sticking your dick in the hornet's nest after you smacked it with a stick. And everyone would agree not sticking your dick in a hornet's nest after you smacked it with a stick is a very wise decision.

(06-21-2019, 04:42 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Where you get that from?

Everything I have read is they flew in the international airspace of the Gulf of Oman, except of course the Iranians claiming it was in their airspace. But of course you're going to believe them over our intel, anything to make Trump and co look worse. amirite?

Seriously, didn't Iran fire missles on another one of our drones that was investigating the oil tankers that were attacked? which was in international waters?