***DONALD J TRUMP HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN IMPEACHED***

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

The Juggler said:

The Juggler said:

Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.

I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...

....and now Johnny wants to testify.

As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully. 

I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..

the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know. 

I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..

Also,  will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years. 

The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?

What's w this WW3 talk?  If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons.  Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them.  As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.

Can I remind you of the timeline?
-criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA
-withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime
-observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully
-assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight)
-Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal

It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).

One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture. 

Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.

Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.

No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out).  While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up.  It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line.  This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish.  If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive.  Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. 
The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.  

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

The Juggler said:

The Juggler said:

Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.

I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...

....and now Johnny wants to testify.

As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully. 

I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..

the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know. 

I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..

Also,  will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years. 

The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?

What's w this WW3 talk?  If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons.  Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them.  As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.

Can I remind you of the timeline?
-criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA
-withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime
-observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully
-assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight)
-Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal

It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).

One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture. 

Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.

Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.

No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out).  While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up.  It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line.  This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish.  If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive.  Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. 
The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.  

I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?

My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated.  While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role.  That just doesn't pass basic common sense.  If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead.  The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military.  Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).  

HughFreakingDillon said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

The Juggler said:

The Juggler said:

Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.

I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...

....and now Johnny wants to testify.

As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully. 

I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..

the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know. 

I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..

Also,  will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years. 

The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?

What's w this WW3 talk?  If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons.  Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them.  As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.

Can I remind you of the timeline?
-criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA
-withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime
-observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully
-assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight)
-Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal

It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).

One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture. 

Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.

Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.

No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out).  While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up.  It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line.  This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish.  If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive.  Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. 
The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.  

I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?

My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated.  While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role.  That just doesn't pass basic common sense.  If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead.  The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military.  Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).  

With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut

it makes absolutely not militaristic sense to not have a number 2. especially for such a seasoned general. if anything, they did a great job of hiding #2's identity so they couldn't kill both of them. 

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

The Juggler said:

The Juggler said:

Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.

I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...

....and now Johnny wants to testify.

As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully. 

I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..

the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know. 

I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..

Also,  will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years. 

The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?

What's w this WW3 talk?  If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons.  Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them.  As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.

Can I remind you of the timeline?
-criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA
-withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime
-observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully
-assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight)
-Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal

It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).

One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture. 

Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.

Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.

No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out).  While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up.  It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line.  This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish.  If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive.  Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. 
The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.  

I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?

My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated.  While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role.  That just doesn't pass basic common sense.  If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead.  The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military.  Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).  

With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut

pjl44 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

The Juggler said:

The Juggler said:

Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.

I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...

....and now Johnny wants to testify.

As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully. 

I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..

the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know. 

I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..

Also,  will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years. 

The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?

What's w this WW3 talk?  If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons.  Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them.  As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.

Can I remind you of the timeline?
-criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA
-withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime
-observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully
-assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight)
-Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal

It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).

One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture. 

Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.

Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.

No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out).  While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up.  It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line.  This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish.  If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive.  Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. 
The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.  

I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?

My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated.  While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role.  That just doesn't pass basic common sense.  If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead.  The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military.  Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).  

With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut

it makes absolutely not militaristic sense to not have a number 2. especially for such a seasoned general. if anything, they did a great job of hiding #2's identity so they couldn't kill both of them. 

Where are you getting your information from?

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

You misunderstand me.  I'm not arguing that they don't have an equal #2 in place.  I'm saying that the assassination does not "prevent a war" or kill an imminent threat (which again, I'm not buying).  These are the reasons that the admin is floating through its media sources.  Think about it for 2 minutes and explain to me how an assassination of a 30 year cultural figure in Iran can serve as a de-escalation.  It makes no sense.  For years, the policy goals of the US administration (Clinton, Bush (to a lesser extent) and Obama have been:
1. Contain nuclear proliferation of Iran
2. Westernize the youth of Iran, which is massive.  They're like the damn baby boomers over there.
3. Wait out the Revolutionary movement

The trick has always been to balance the sanctions with the desire to westernize the youth.  That has been a challenge, no doubt.  But in the last year, as @Benjs rightly points out, we have managed to trash the JCPOA and push the youth (the people) into the arms of the old guard.  Fucking stupid...stupid stupid stupid.  And we don't have a plan to contain the nuclear ambitions. We don't have allies in Europe on the issue.  Russia and China already support Iran.  So where the fuck do we go?  

Who are you arguing with? I didn't say 80% of that.

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

The Juggler said:

The Juggler said:

Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.

I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...

....and now Johnny wants to testify.

As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully. 

I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..

the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know. 

I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..

Also,  will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years. 

The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?

What's w this WW3 talk?  If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons.  Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them.  As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.

Can I remind you of the timeline?
-criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA
-withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime
-observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully
-assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight)
-Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal

It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).

One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture. 

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

The Juggler said:

The Juggler said:

Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.

I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...

....and now Johnny wants to testify.

As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully. 

I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..

the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know. 

I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..

Also,  will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years. 

The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?

What's w this WW3 talk?  If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons.  Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them.  As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.

Can I remind you of the timeline?
-criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA
-withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime
-observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully
-assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight)
-Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal

It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).

One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture. 

Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.

Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.

No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out).  While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up.  It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line.  This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish.  If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive.  Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. 
The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.  

I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?

My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated.  While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role.  That just doesn't pass basic common sense.  If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead.  The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military.  Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).  

With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut

it makes absolutely not militaristic sense to not have a number 2. especially for such a seasoned general. if anything, they did a great job of hiding #2's identity so they couldn't kill both of them. 

Where are you getting your information from?

Common sense.  Jesus Christ, this one isn't hard.  And they would never travel together.  You even do that in business.  I can't travel with more than one other person from our executive team.  It's in our contracts.  This is pretty basic stuff here.  

You should read more and spout off less

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

The Juggler said:

The Juggler said:

Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.

I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...

....and now Johnny wants to testify.

As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully. 

I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..

the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know. 

I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..

Also,  will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years. 

The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?

What's w this WW3 talk?  If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons.  Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them.  As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.

Can I remind you of the timeline?
-criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA
-withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime
-observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully
-assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight)
-Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal

It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).

One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture. 

Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.

Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.

No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out).  While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up.  It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line.  This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish.  If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive.  Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. 
The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.  

I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?

My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated.  While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role.  That just doesn't pass basic common sense.  If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead.  The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military.  Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).  

With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut

it makes absolutely not militaristic sense to not have a number 2. especially for such a seasoned general. if anything, they did a great job of hiding #2's identity so they couldn't kill both of them. 

Where are you getting your information from?

Common sense.  Jesus Christ, this one isn't hard.  And they would never travel together.  You even do that in business.  I can't travel with more than one other person from our executive team.  It's in our contracts.  This is pretty basic stuff here.  

You should read more and spout off less