Look at you playing the "libs versus GOP" game while accusing me. Trump is not "my guy": he's our guy, the President of the United States "Not my President," you say? You're the same as the Obama birthers then. I voted for Clinton, if that helps you process things, you political robot.
My god... there is nothing trump won't lie about... including this... So why does this latest lie matter? Imagine being military leadership and hearing the potus claim they didn't try to advise the president on something important like casualty impact assessment? and btw, the timing has gone from 15 minutes, to 30 minutes, to hours before...
Undermining the President is in favor of the FBI/CIA is un-American, whether you consider yourself blue or red.
How is Trump being undermined here? Is the CIA not allowed to express their findings that Iran didn't violate the nuclear deal? And what if CIA careerists discover that in a hypothetical scenario that the President is a literal Manchurian candidate and his party has no issues with it and won't remove him from office? You understand that in the military and paramilitary branches there is a such thing as legal justification.to refuse to accept an unlawful order?
Leaving the agreement and hurting their economy has just caused them to act out. Why does that help our interests to destabilize a massive country in the Middle East with the ability to create Nukes? Nukes.. that if were ever used, would be used to strike Israel first... that country Republicans never shut up about being so important. I don’t know what you mean by “Speeding up their collapse”?? A. Why is that a good thing? B. I think there is fundamental misunderstanding that Iran is not a rinky dink country that you could overthrow without a massive war that makes the Iraq war look like a minor special forces mission.
I didn't say it was good or bad, but it's clearly the goal. And I know it's not rinky dink. They likely figured that signing an agreement isn't enough to keep them from getting those weapons. Of course, I can't speak for them. Not sure why you think that agreement would be effective if they just choose to not follow it and develop things underground. Agreements are as strong as the paper they are written on when it comes to war efforts. Countries will do what they need to do to ensure their survival. Giving them nuclear weapons would ensure the regime's survival and as they are still enemies, I don't think the US and our allies in the region want a strong Iran. I am not sure how we can ensure they follow the agreement. Really, so maybe you have some info on that. How do you suppose they would have been kept following that agreement? Didn't work with North Korea and Iraq where inspectors kept getting jerked around. This is your chance. Prove that agreement was enforceable and I'll care more about it. Until then, I don't think it matters other than something people want to ding Trump for in retrospect.
You seriously want to forward north korea as you support of trump's action? You do know nk is continuing if not escalating their weapons development and testing, regardless of how often trump says he and kim write love letters to each other...
I recommend you check out what the IAEA was actually doing to monitor their nuclear production. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran If they were violating the agreement, there’s very little reason to believe it wouldn’t have been reported through the IAEA which would have provided the credibility to have a unified response from all of our allies and the other countries that sign off on the treaty. If the US thought Iran was violating the agreement, at the very least they made a major mistake in not working through the proper channels to have a unified response.
They didn’t violate the deal. The US gov even said so. Trump just decided it’s the worse deal (as is any deal not trump originated) ever and must withdraw so his greatest deal ever (as with every deal trump initiated) can replace it. Idiot. And yea, it’s call a snapback provision where all the parties would start up sanctions again. Since the US pulled out, they really no longer have that option and now that Iran is violating the deal, there is no longer a uniform voice against it. This doesn’t mean the US won’t try (the snapback provision) but other countries (China, Russia) have valid reason to said nope, you are no longer part of the deal so you don’t get to make that call anymore.
This is what I think of when Donnie approaches Iran like some bottom market RIET he's trying to muscle for some cheap office space. The Ayatollah must have missed 60 Minutes.
Would you want a ground war because of the drone? Can you agree with Trump that it is not worth killing 150 Iranians? How about if it is only 50 Iranians as some sources are complaining about? Don't worry too much about the $200 million it is another opportunity for the military industry to make more money.
I am confused... is anyone here claiming we should have gone to war over the drone shot down (either over Iran or international air space)?
Good grief, glynch. Do you actually read my posts? I don’t want a war with Iran and have expressed my concern that trump is fumbling his way into one numerous times, having surrounded himself with hawks eager to attack Iran, just as Bush was influenced by Cheney and his buddies into a needless, disastrous war with Iraq. I think trump’s actions ripping the treaty to shreds without consulting our allies, urged on by the fools who surround him, and the severe sanctions, were a huge mistake. That Iran, desperate, with an economy in shambles, has finally reacted was entirely predictable. However, allowing them to shoot down a hugely expensive drone without punishing them for it was as stupid as Obama doing nothing when his “red line” in Syria was crossed and nothing was done. Blowing up some radar and missile installations is hardly “a ground war in Iran.” Are you mad? As in nuts? With all due respect. By doing nothing, trump encourages war. Why? By appearing weak. That encouraged the Syrian regime and Russia in that country, and it is encouraging the hawks in Iran. Put on your thinking cap for once. OK?
"Your president" was a reference to your blanket support for the president's vacillation (the topic at hand) and ignoring of my main argument - based on that behavior I assumed that you were a "Trumper", which has nothing to do with the political parties and makes your diversion point mute. Yes, he is my president. What of it? Stick to the point instead of diverting arguments. You are the only one playing games here.
