|
Post by millring on Jan 3, 2020 17:22:23 GMT -5
It's the audacious sense of entitlement to the office that has the Democrats incapable of seeing the issue from any angle but their own. They cannot accept the obvious -- that the previous administration illegally infiltrated the Trump campaign in ways that make the whole Watergate break-in laughably quaint. And it's not enough that they can's see the crime in that, they actually see crime in wishing to expose it. Archibald Cox is a hero, but Barr is Satan incarnate.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Jan 3, 2020 18:16:17 GMT -5
It's the audacious sense of entitlement to the office that has the Democrats incapable of seeing the issue from any angle but their own. They cannot accept the obvious -- that the previous administration illegally infiltrated the Trump campaign in ways that make the whole Watergate break-in laughably quaint. And it's not enough that they can's see the crime in that, they actually see crime in wishing to expose it. Archibald Cox is a hero, but Barr is Satan incarnate. Audacious would be continuing to type such nonsense without a scintilla of actual proof.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jan 3, 2020 19:26:59 GMT -5
To add to a wealth of circumstantial evidence, multiple credible witnesses have said under oath (and from the White House press podium) that Trump held up the military aid as a way of bending the Ukrainian president to his will. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sonland said it, using the words "quid pro quo." Trump Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said it (quid pro quo) is the way things work in D.C., get over it. Veteran State Department officials, some of whom were Bush appointees, said it. I'd give you a complete list, but I gotta run. But when asked about it they all say that Trump never said the words, they just assumed that's what he meant. I assume you were told the things you believe by an unnamed source.No, I saw and heard them with my own ears and eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jan 3, 2020 19:29:23 GMT -5
It's the audacious sense of entitlement to the office that has the Democrats incapable of seeing the issue from any angle but their own. They cannot accept the obvious -- that the previous administration illegally infiltrated the Trump campaign in ways that make the whole Watergate break-in laughably quaint. And it's not enough that they can's see the crime in that, they actually see crime in wishing to expose it. Archibald Cox is a hero, but Barr is Satan incarnate. Trump DOJ officials (excepting Barr) say that is not true.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jan 3, 2020 19:32:34 GMT -5
So I guess all of us think all of you are hopelessly hoodwinked. Wonder what history will say. To quote the bard of Mar de Largo, we'll see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jan 3, 2020 19:35:30 GMT -5
From what I heard today, there is no contention that the killing of Suleimani was in response to the attack on the embassy. I'm glad because such a response would have been entirely disproportionate to the provocation. The rationale is instead that Suleimani was planning to do things that would harm Americans. Details are lacking. That can be an appropriate justification for what was done, depending on the facts. We need to hear those facts. I'd also like to hear why the risk is substantially diminished by having Suleimani replaced by a like-minded successor who will probably be inclined to do the same sorts of things.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 3, 2020 19:42:29 GMT -5
One news source tonight said the US has known about this guy for a long while. And that the Bush and Obama administrations both had opportunities to take him out and decided against it to not provoke Iran.
Not passing judgement on anybody (except maybe millring). Just reporting the facts.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 3, 2020 19:54:24 GMT -5
So I guess all of us think all of you are hopelessly hoodwinked. Wonder what history will say. To quote the bard of Mar de Largo, we'll see what happens. Pretty arrogant assumption that it's all of us.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jan 3, 2020 19:57:15 GMT -5
I read the same thing today, Marshall. Bush and Obama nixed this idea. That doesn't mean that Trump was wrong to okay it because things change. But we need to know what exactly justified this in his view. People in a representative democracy* should evaluate the morality and wisdom of acts of war. It isn't something we should be asked take on faith.
*Please spare me the lectures about what our system is technically.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 3, 2020 20:03:08 GMT -5
I read the same thing today, Marshall. Bush and Obama nixed this idea. That doesn't mean that Trump was wrong to okay it because things change. But we need to know what exactly justified this in his view. People in a representative democracy* should evaluate the morality and wisdom of acts of war. It isn't something we should be asked take on faith. *Please spare me the lectures about what our system is technically. Okay, I'll spare you the lecture. But as a member of a supposedly representative democracy, what exactly do you think your evaluation of the morality and wisdom of this is going to accomplish?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 3, 2020 20:04:42 GMT -5
One news source tonight said the US has known about this guy for a long while. And that the Bush and Obama administrations both had opportunities to take him out and decided against it to not provoke Iran. Not passing judgement on anybody (except maybe millring). Just reporting the facts. The facts as you've heard them. Probably third or fourth hand.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jan 3, 2020 20:19:18 GMT -5
"But as a member of a supposedly representative democracy, what exactly do you think your evaluation of the morality and wisdom of this is going to accomplish?"
It should determine our response. If the explanation is sufficient, we should approve of the President's actions and stand by them. If it isn't, we should let our representatives know that we disapprove, and we should be in the streets opposing further escalation if need be. "If need be" depends on whether the actions were justifiable and where this goes. I hope it doesn't escalate beyond retrieval. But I don't know whether it will or not and neither does our President.
Your religious tradition and mine differ but I think both acknowledge the principle of the just war. It ain't whatever we can get away with.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 3, 2020 20:52:05 GMT -5
"But as a member of a supposedly representative democracy, what exactly do you think your evaluation of the morality and wisdom of this is going to accomplish?" It should determine our response. If the explanation is sufficient, we should approve of the President's actions and stand by them. If it isn't, we should let our representatives know that we disapprove, and we should be in the streets opposing further escalation if need be. "If need be" depends on whether the actions were justifiable and where this goes. I hope it doesn't escalate beyond retrieval. But I don't know whether it will or not and neither does our President. Your religious tradition and mine differ but I think both acknowledge the principle of the just war. It ain't whatever we can get away with. Well the complete lack of any consequences for the people who actually make those decisions is pretty much why we're here to begin with. Your opinion or mine be damned.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jan 3, 2020 21:01:04 GMT -5
So I guess all of us think all of you are hopelessly hoodwinked. Wonder what history will say. To quote the bard of Mar de Largo, we'll see what happens. Pretty arrogant assumption that it's all of us. It didn't occur to me that my words would come off as arrogant, and they weren't intended to be. I was just using shorthand for "us Trump skeptics" vs. "you Trump defenders," with an intended bit of irony in the "us vs. you" part. Anyway, short of Iran folding its cards and declaring Trump the winner of this go-round, I think the chances are about 90% that Trump has just started a war. Probably of the asymmetric variety. They know they could never win a 20th-century style direct confrontation. But nevertheless punishing for Americans.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jan 3, 2020 21:03:45 GMT -5
"But as a member of a supposedly representative democracy, what exactly do you think your evaluation of the morality and wisdom of this is going to accomplish?" It should determine our response. If the explanation is sufficient, we should approve of the President's actions and stand by them. If it isn't, we should let our representatives know that we disapprove, and we should be in the streets opposing further escalation if need be. "If need be" depends on whether the actions were justifiable and where this goes. I hope it doesn't escalate beyond retrieval. But I don't know whether it will or not and neither does our President. Your religious tradition and mine differ but I think both acknowledge the principle of the just war. It ain't whatever we can get away with. And that's precisely the problem, isn't it? With Trump's track record for handling the truth, how are we ever to know whether the explanation can be deemed sufficient?
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jan 3, 2020 21:06:09 GMT -5
"Well the complete lack of any consequences for the people who actually make those decisions is pretty much why we're here to begin with. Your opinion or mine be damned."
So let's change that by how we vote.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Jan 3, 2020 21:36:53 GMT -5
You guys are making my head hurt. Let’s try this, on the honor system: everyone who didn’t already know Soleimani‘s full name and position before yesterday, stop talking.
As to provoking Iran, we’ve been at war with them—cold running to warm and back—since the end of 1979. The consensus among many folks posting from IP addresses in the green zone is that the guy’s death was overdue. I mean, mull it over: how do you think they managed to blow up one of the Iranian military's most valuable assets at *exactly* the time and place he was providing de facto proof of malfeasance—his and other’s—all while his movements were a *highly* guarded secret by the Iranians? This has been in the making a lot longer than Trump’s presidency, and it’s no accident when and where he got blown the F up. Agree with it or not is beyond the point/a separate issue, this was the USA deliberately sending a message. The timing, location, and co-decedent is not an accident. Trump’s inane tweets are not hardwired to hellfire missile launch codes to rain death on the likes of Nancy Pelosi on a whim; lots of professionals signed of on this.
Honestly, a couple of posts in this thread could only come from people that think the oat milk in their lattes actually comes from tits.
It’s a bad situation, but it’s not a hasty, ill-concieved, or even especially partisan decision—it might even be the best out of several poor options. JMO, OMMV, and all that.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Jan 3, 2020 21:38:18 GMT -5
Were it not for the hypocrites, Washington would be empty. As it should be. There was never supposed to be a big government in Washington. Are we quoting Doug Heard now??? Good idea.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 3, 2020 21:40:56 GMT -5
Time will tell and we'll see. Or maybe time won't tell and we will never know what we are seeing.
My preliminary opinion based on incomplete data I don't really grasp:
This "take out" of the Iranian bad guy and whatever chain of reprisals and re-reprisals result is probably the cost of doing business in the Middle East. The question isn't whether this bad guy should have been greased, the question is whether it is in our best interest to continue doing business in the Middle East.
- Do we continue to do business in the Middle East?
If so, Iran, under the present regime, is our implacable foe and needs to be dealt with. As it stands and has long stood, Iran is dead set against everything we do and hope to do and everyone we support and desire to continue to support in the Middle East. Not merely opposed, but doing all it can (dares) to thwart, disrupt, and destroy all we do and those we support.
(in fairness, it should be noted that as they live there and we don't, the Iranians do have a fair claim to having a greater interest and more at stake in any Middle East outcome than we do or possibly can. Noted, then set aside due to the awkward inconvenience it creates.)
Conclusion? If we wish to continue to do business in the Middle East and support Israel and our oil buddies, then Iran needs to be dealt with; the regime either needs to be changed or convinced to behave otherwise. Negotiations will not accomplish either.
- Or do we decide that it is not our best interest to continue trying to manage the Middle East to our desired end, whatever that may be at whatever cost?
Oh, poof, we'll never decide that. We are doomed by ties that bind and habits held as beliefs. So, it's regime change or regime convincing. And nice negotiations won't do it. This is not the hand I would deal, but that's the cards on the table... as I see them.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Jan 3, 2020 21:47:58 GMT -5
For the record, I think that Bush screwed pooch putting us into Iraq for perpetuity, and the law of Karma says that Dick Cheney will come back as a sentient earthworm on a bird farm in his next life, when the cardiac events finally get him. But we’re there now; have to eat the sandwich on the plate.
|
|