I guess we know why we created a crisis with Iran now.

[Z-Man]

Wartime presidents get reelected. Kickbacks from arms deals is only the beginning.

[Blade Wolf]

I have no issue with pulling out of the Iran nuke deal, arming the allies we have in the region or having the US Navy making sure Iran does not close off the shipping lanes there in the Gulf. But sending any more ground troops there I am not for. If it was up to me, I would pull them all out. Every single ground combat soldier. The region is not worth a single drop of American blood.

The fact that you have no issues with sending a terror state billions of worth in arms says alot.

[DarkTZeratul]

Lol? Mate if you wanna be anti-Trump that's fine, but the deal explicitly allowed Iran to continue all nuclear activities after a certain period

And by revoking the deal, "after a certain period" has very suddenly changed from "after several years" to "right now." Winning?

AND more importantly, it did nothing about its support of regional religious militias that have started and prolonged multiple wars in the region.

It was never meant to address that in the first place. It was entirely about finding a way to allow Iran to work on nuclear power while making it more difficult to acquire nuclear weapons.

If you thought the deal didn't go far enough, that's totally fair. But you can't possibly think that having no deal at all is a better situation, especially when it comes at the cost of the United States' reputation. By reneging on the deal when Iran was fully compliant, we've now demonstrated to the world that no deal with the United States can ever be counted on to last beyond the current administration, because the next guy might simply decide to say "fuck it" and pull out just because he feels like it.

[Bodonius]

Hillary wanted to goto war with iran to bad trump have badadvisors pushing him to do the same

[rogueMatthias]

Hillary wanted to goto war with iran to bad trump have badadvisors pushing him to do the same

Yeah but Hilarys cavalier approach to war and death, combined with her devout sense of American exceptionalism was why she should never have been President. I always feel that no matter what crap Trump brings inside the US, everyone over there is "taking one for the team" having him so the rest of the world didn't have to suffer a Clinton presidency instead. The giddy "we came, we saw, he died.." laugh always unnerved me.

On topic though, this deal is horrific + I can't believe governments are still supporting and making money off this war. If other people were the brains behind it or not, Trump is the president so the buck stops there. He should be crucified by the press and public on shit like this.

...instead, we'll probably just have wall-to-wall coverage of whatever gossip Wolff has made up for his new book instead, and maybe a protest rally because he hates uterusses or something.

[cubby]

He's using 'National Security' alot to do random shit and Republicans in congress just shrug. The precedent it sets is not a good one.

It certainly isn't - and the GOP is going to eat it in spades when the Dems take control (and sanity) back in 2021. Because gun control and climate change are national security concerns.

(not trying to derail thread, or drag you into agreeing with me re those topics)

[Bodonius]

Yeah but Hilarys cavalier approach to war and death, combined with her devout sense of American exceptionalism was why she should never have been President. I always feel that no matter what crap Trump brings inside the US, everyone over there is "taking one for the team" having him so the rest of the world didn't have to suffer a Clinton presidency instead. The giddy "we came, we saw, he died.." laugh always unnerved me.

On topic though, this deal is horrific + I can't believe governments are still supporting and making money off this war. If other people were the brains behind it or not, Trump is the president so the buck stops there. He should be crucified by the press and public on shit like this.

...instead, we'll probably just have wall-to-wall coverage of whatever gossip Wolff has made up for his new book instead, and maybe a protest rally because he hates uterusses or something.

Trump should do what he was voted to do, just focus on america and whats best for them not get involved in wars. Im not read up on why "we" should kill persians but im sure there is a valid reason to invade any country if you so like, imagination is the limit.

[cubby]

Hey guys, good thing Nostradamus isn't trying to derail the thread. It certainly looked that way until he said he wasn't.

Lol - another wonderful contribution by our deflector in chief. You'll notice that the issue of "national security" is what the OP is discussing? Stop if you're confused yet. That's the tie in to gun control and climate change (real national security issues - unless you disagree with the DoD).

OT: This is not some radical change in foreign policy.

Lol re OT - the irony here is ridiculously thick. Sure wish I think you'd get it.

I pretty much agree with what Spectral and Thwart had to say.

Shocking, just shocking I tell you!

[JohnBrown1917]

OT: This is not some radical change in foreign policy. I pretty much agree with what Spectral and Thwart had to say.

That is the problem.

[JohnBrown1917]

If you have to put in a disclaimer, it's because you're guilty. It's like saying "with all due respect" when calling someone a motherfucker.

- - - Updated - - -



Expound please.

I don't think I need to explain why killing innocent people is also wrong if the target are brown people.

[cubby]

If you have to put in a disclaimer, it's because you're guilty. It's like saying "with all due respect" when calling someone a motherfucker.

Because everything is black and white, right? No gray area at all for you adorable Trumpkins. I guess that's why you're winning so much?

[cubby]

Please Cubby, let's not further derail the thread. Grow up.

You're still swimming in the deepest possible irony here. Gotta love the two-fer. You don't get it, and you're doing it, and you're blindly trying to call me out on it, when I'm actually not. Hat trick anyone?

The thread was about Iran and "national security lols" for the Resident detouring (again) around laws he finds inconvenient in order to sell arms to a country Congress told him not to. I pointed out that it is indeed a major problem, because when the Dems take over in 2021 and return sanity to this country, real national security issues will be addressed, such as gun control and climate change.

Shout if you're still confused about the plethora of issues you're avoiding. I'm here for a few more hours. Always happy to help!

[cubby]

Kind of odd to hinge an argument on the supposed certainty of electoral victory by Dems. Almost like you knew what kind of off-topic conversation that would cause.

I forgot, Dems only deal in facts.

The issue is "national security" - not an electoral victory by Dems. Please try and pay attention (or, in your own words, "grow up" - lol). Maybe go back and read the OP (see it again for the first time)?

[cubby]

Oh, I'm well aware of what the topic is. I also know that you're arguing from an unprovable position (that Dems electoral victory is assured), on purpose.

Actually, it appears from the above that you really don't know much. It's also really clear that you aren't aware of the topic. Hint: National Security (lols). If you're confused about how arguments are formed and made, I can help. But my position isn't based on the Dems winning. My position is that declaring National Security (lols) is a dangerous game.

If you're still confused, go back to my original post, which I know you read, because you quoted it. We'll wait for you to catch up.

[cubby]

Now, if you had made your statement the way you have now, you'd have more grand to stand on. But that's not what you said. You said in 2021, this will happen...

And then in a brief moment of self-awareness, you put a disclaimer, which indicates you were completely aware of your own bullshit.

Still confused about the topic I see. Did you go back and read my initial statement, which you quoted? It's pretty clear what I'm saying and responding too. Just because you need it spelled out for you doesn't mean the rest of us didn't get it the first time around.

(also, extra "adorable" points for you claiming to read my mind - you Trumpkins, always leading the wrong way!)

[cubby]

I have no problem with "declaring National Security... is a dangerous game" as a valid point. Although it's purposely veering off into other topics than this particular piece of foreign policy that's being discussed.

I have a problem with "and the GOP is going to eat it in spades when the Dems take control (and sanity) back in 2021". You had enough of your own problem with it to know to put a disclaimer saying you weren't doing the exact thing you were doing.

Did you cheat your way through law school? I'm sure they taught you how language matters.

Stay classy, Cubby.

Well it seems you finally went back and reread my post you quoted. Glad you cleared it up for yourself.

[Thekri]

I have no problem with "declaring National Security... is a dangerous game" as a valid point. Although it's purposely veering off into other topics than this particular piece of foreign policy that's being discussed.

Umm, I am the OP, and the bullshit declaration of National Security was the entire point of this thread. This is about manufacturing a crisis so that he could use the national security loophole to go over Congress to sell arms to the Saudis and the UAE to back the war with Yemen, which both parties condemned in Congress.

I know a lot of people are using this thread to rehash the Iran deal, but that honestly has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. This is about an Arms deal that had to go through really sketchy channels to get "Approved" in an extremely corrupt manner.

[cubby]

Nothing about anything I said changed. How about next time, you try making an (questionably on-topic) argument without peppering in untenable bullshit.

I can't imagine how often you get called down in a court room.

Of course it did. You didn't understand what my original point was, and refused to reread it before embarrassing yourself with another of your emotional diatribes of confusion and discord. Now that you took my advice and reread it, you understand, and even agreed with me.

The only one confused here is you, about the topic, the conversation, and apparently "national security lols". I'm just glad I could help you understand your own confusion and get is cleared up.

- - - Updated - - -

Umm, I am the OP, and the bullshit declaration of National Security was the entire point of this thread. This is about manufacturing a crisis so that he could use the national security loophole to go over Congress to sell arms to the Saudis and the UAE to back the war with Yemen, which both parties condemned in Congress.

I know a lot of people are using this thread to rehash the Iran deal, but that honestly has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. This is about an Arms deal that had to go through really sketchy channels to get "Approved" in an extremely corrupt manner.

Wow, @Sulla, that has just got to fucking hurt. Let me know if you need an aspirin or anything.

[cubby]

And back to your topic, I agree that the GOP is really clueless about the can of worms they allowed their Donny Dumb Dumb to open. I'm not sure if the Dems will do what I suggested, but the door is certainly open for them.

[cubby]

I'm glad you realized how arguing from a point of assured Dem victory was what made your argument problematic. You are the one who chose to edit that out of your reiteration to make it (somewhat) agreeable for me. Stop bullshitting, Cubby.

There was nothing problematic about my argument. There was only utter and hopeless confusion on your part about understanding my argument. I'm just glad I was here to help you finally grasp my fairly basic point. Shout again if you need help with other issues where you make things up and then misunderstand them.