World War Three?

[oxmixmudd]

Politicians lie, Jim. Some of them even under oath.

But we should never accept it or excuse it. Unfortunately you are effectively doing both in this reply.

[JimL]

Your claim is that I am an expert on being taken in by lies. That, in itself, is an outright lie, so I asked you to back it up.

Either back up your preposterous claim, Jim, or admit you got a little carried away.

What lies have I taken in?

What I know is that you have defended Trump at every turn and that is enough for me to know that you are easily taken in by a blatant liar.

[Cow Poke]

What I know is that you have defended Trump at every turn and that is enough for me to know that you are easily taken in by a blatant liar.

This is a classic example of your dishonesty, Jim.

A) I have not defended Trump "at every turn" -- that's an outright lie. I have condemned him numerous times, and it's more that I stand up to false accusers than that I "defend" Trump.
2) As is typical, you made a claim you cannot support, now you're being a weasel about it.
3) You have yet to produce ONE EXAMPLE of me being "taken in by a blatant liar".

Is that how this goes? You believe Trump to be a liar, so you spew forth untruths?

Come on, Jim, you CAN be better than that.

[Mountain Man]

Iran says "the only solution to these crises is de-escalation from everyone and dialogue."

Sorry, liberals, but it looks World War III won't be happening after all.

[seanD]

I didn't know seer was a liberal.

[seer]

I didn't know seer was a liberal.

I know enough of history to know that even the killing of an insignificant archduke can spin out of control. Though killing Suleimani was a moral good...

[seanD]

I know enough of history to know that even the killing of an insignificant archduke can spin out of control. Though killing Suleimani was a moral good...

It was a perfectly reasonable assumption. Trump was 10 minutes away from ordering a direct attack on Iran for just shooting down a drone a year ago. Why they were willing to go to war over a drone but not over missiles fired at our bases is not really logical, but thank God cooler heads prevailed. I don't think it will die out in the long term though as long as Trump keeps troops in Iraq. No way will it not escalate at some point when all opposing forces including Iraq want us out.

[seer]

It was a perfectly reasonable assumption. Trump was 10 minutes away from ordering a direct attack on Iran for just shooting down a drone a year ago. Why they were willing to go to war over a drone but not over missiles fired at our bases is not really logical, but thank God cooler heads prevailed. I don't think it will die out in the long term though as long as Trump keeps troops in Iraq. No way will it not escalate at some point when all opposing forces including Iraq want us out.

I have no problem with getting out - but on our time table - not Iran's.

[Mountain Man]

New York Times grudgingly admits that economic sanctions work, and that Trump has broken Iran's will to fight simply by making it too expensive for them to wage war.

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/20...will-to-fight/

[Mountain Man]

Powerful!

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahba...-mast-n2559537

Liberals want to condemn Trump for ordering the strike against Soleimani, but nobody is able to give a good reason why he shouldn't have done it!

[JimL]

Powerful!

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahba...-mast-n2559537

Liberals want to condemn Trump for ordering the strike against Soleimani, but nobody is able to give a good reason why he shouldn't have done it!

It isn't about Soleimani, it's about Trump ignoring the law once again. A military strike against Soleimani was against the law unless there was an "immanant threat." The President has to relate that immanent threat to Congress. He didn't, because there obviously wasn't one. And now they are trying to say that it's classified and they can't tell Congress exactly what the evidence for that claimed threat was. If they can get away with that, then the law, which was enacted by Congress in order to avoid war, is moot, and the President can start a war at his will, just as he said he would.

[Cow Poke]

It isn't about Soleimani, it's about Trump ignoring the law once again. A military strike against Soleimani was against the law unless there was an "immanant threat."...

I don't think you can back that up with fact, Jim. The "Imminent threat" was not a factor. It was dumb to try to make that claim, because it wasn't required.
What law did Trump break?

[Mountain Man]

I don't think you can back that up with fact, Jim. The "Imminent threat" was not a factor. It was dumb to try to make that claim, because it wasn't required.
What law did Trump break?

They were definitely planning something against our embassies. Whether it was "imminent" (however that's defined) or was going to happen in a few weeks seems irrelevant.

[Cow Poke]

They were definitely planning something against our embassies. Whether it was "imminent" (however that's defined) or was going to happen in a few weeks seems irrelevant.

I love how all the Democrats agree this was a REALLY BAD MAN, HOWEVER.....

(If Obama had taken him out, it would have been one more success!)

[Mountain Man]

It isn't about Soleimani, it's about Trump ignoring the law once again. A military strike against Soleimani was against the law unless there was an "immanant threat." The President has to relate that immanent threat to Congress. He didn't, because there obviously wasn't one. And now they are trying to say that it's classified and they can't tell Congress exactly what the evidence for that claimed threat was. If they can get away with that, then the law, which was enacted by Congress in order to avoid war, is moot, and the President can start a war at his will, just as he said he would.

afb011520dAPR20200115034505.jpg