Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, herbie said:

So the USA just murdered the Ayatollah, his daughter and his grandkid.

I'm a bit confused here. Point out who the good guys are in this kerfuffle.

I believe the IDF is taking credit for the kill shot and giving US credit only for intelligence about the target location.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Hodad said:

This reads with some implication of blame on Carney.

The US and Canada have been fast friends, aligned and allied culturally, economically and militarily. 

Then, along comes Trump, mocking you culturally, attacking you economically, and threatening your sovereignty. 

The question isn't how could Carney look for new allies, it's how could he not?

Do Canadian conservatives all suffer from battered spouse syndrome? When a partner betrays you so fundamentally, it's time to look elsewhere. 

This rift is tragic, but it's not Carney's fault, it's Trump's. 

We (or the world) didn't need Trump but he was a needed kick in the ass.  No choice now but to expand our universe while always staying close with the US, which all level of the governments are. Trump's a piece of work but I'm sure Carney is handling him just fine while secretly hoping he has a jammer. They'll figure something out, shake on it, Trump will go on another tirade, and then all will fine again. It's dramatic right now and has fundamentally changed but we'll be those fast friends soon enough.

Posted
1 hour ago, ironstone said:

That's debatable since one must keep in mind that they have been sponsoring terrorism all over the region which has caused an awful lot of deaths. 

So has Saudi Arabia. What’s the rush to destabilize the entire region without congressional approval?  If the purpose of this attack is to punish Iran for what Iran has been doing over the past several years and decades then why didn’t trump campaign on this instead of campaigning on being a  non-interventionist peace president?

Posted
2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

So has Saudi Arabia

Bullshit. It's not even remotely comparable

Hezbollah. Hamas. Houthies.  They have funneled money in arms to all of these groups in large numbers not to mention a bunch of others. Name all of the groups that saudi Arabia funded that are causing similar levels of trouble.

Also what the hell is it with all of these groups with their names beginning with h?

But anyway you can't even begin to compare Saudi Arabia or the like with the destruction and damage we've seen from Iran's sponsorship of terrorist organizations

 

"That which doesn't kill me...

Had better start running."

Posted
4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Bullshit. It's not even remotely comparable

Hezbollah. Hamas. Houthies.  They have funneled money in arms to all of these groups in large numbers not to mention a bunch of others. Name all of the groups that saudi Arabia funded that are causing similar levels of trouble.

Also what the hell is it with all of these groups with their names beginning with h?

But anyway you can't even begin to compare Saudi Arabia or the like with the destruction and damage we've seen from Iran's sponsorship of terrorist organizations

 

A general rule of thumb is that Iran, being a shiite country primarily sponsors shiite groups and SA and the gulf states being Sunni sponsor Sunni groups   There is a high degree of mistrust and competition between sunnis and shiite so cross-over is rare and limited with the exception of Palestine where Sunni groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad have a pragmatic working relationship with Iran and Shiite groups Hezbollah, etc  

So for example Al Qaeda is Sunni and has had limited to no relations with Iran (or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq) but close ties with many Saudi and Gulf entities 

 

Posted
10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

1) MAGAs don’t care about how many foreigners are killed in a foreign land

Your assumptions about us are wrong.

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

2) Trump is only 1 year into his term  no need rush 

Every need to rush. The timing is right and if Democrats get in power again the moment would be lost. 

 

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

3) Iran hasn’t been able to get nukes to date and they’ve been trying dor decades

This is such horrible logic and it flies in the face of every intelligence assessment that is known. 

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Iran has been contained for decades. Trump isn’t attacking Iran because they’ve suddenly become strong, he’s attacking them because they’ve suddenly become weak and vulnerable.

So the timing is right, they are developing a nuke and they have killed thousands of people. All conditions you have agreed exist. It is like you are making the case to do it. You sound like someone that is angrily screaming "I love you!" The tone doesn't match the words.

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I am afraid that you and the MAGA cult are going to be in for a big surprise. Are you too young to remember what happened when you tried to “liberate” Iraq?

Yes. There were some unintended consequences AND it took longer than expected ro calm the country down, mostly because of the unintended consequences. But, this is not Iraq. 

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Let’s be clear what is happening:  Trump is initiating unprovoked attacks against America’s traditional enemies with the naive belief that he can topple these regimes and some friendly stable alternative will magically spring into place without spilling a drop of American blood and with no consequence to global economic stability.

A) This is not an unprovoked attack. The list of attacks on US interests alone is massive and include attacks on our military personell, ships, and a contract to kill our president.

Then add in things like Oct 7th and you will see that the biggest threat to peace and stability is Iran. An Iran in flux is far far far safer than the Iran on Friday last week. 

B.) No one thinks that Monday morning this will be sunshine, rainbows and lollipops. Kids are not going to be playing while parents sit around singing folk songs. This will take time. There will be set backs. But the highest likelihood is that Iran will be a safer, more stable participant in the world economy in 10 years than they were last week. 

11 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The naïveté is absolutely galling but its to be expected given that there is not ONE person in the entire Trump administration with any kind of relevant education or experience to know WTF they are talking about. 

You should know that we see your personal attacks as a badge of honor. First, it tells us that you know you lost a d that we are right. Second, we know that just about everything your side says is b.s. So we can rest assured we are anything but whatever you called us. 

  • Like 1

Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it? 

 

 

Posted
10 hours ago, Goddess said:

 

1. Not yet.  Carney's still working on that.  But it's getting close.   

2. Not yet.  Carney's still working on that.   

1. 2. Unless something crazy happens, these things won't change. I almost never make predictions on here.... But you can write down this one. The PM has no secret agenda to change things radically, as he is a conservative at heart.

  • Like 1

 

Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase !

Michael Hardner

Posted
9 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

We (or the world) didn't need Trump but he was a needed kick in the ass.  No choice now but to expand our universe while always staying close with the US, which all level of the governments are. Trump's a piece of work but I'm sure Carney is handling him just fine while secretly hoping he has a jammer. They'll figure something out, shake on it, Trump will go on another tirade, and then all will fine again. It's dramatic right now and has fundamentally changed but we'll be those fast friends soon enough.

Did he get approval from his Board of Peace?? 

From all those countries that paid $1 billion each to participate?

How is the Board of Peace doing?? Is the Russia/Ukraine war still going on? 

Is Pakistan/Afghanistan over?

Is Israel relenting its attacks on the Palestinians?

Or is Trump on his own agenda again??  He is not in any way the President of Peace...he is the biggest President of War there has ever been.

43 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 2. Unless something crazy happens, these things won't change. I almost never make predictions on here.... But you can write down this one. The PM has no secret agenda to change things radically, as he is a conservative at heart.

The resident righties are spinning in their chairs.  LOL

  • Downvote 1

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.

Posted
1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

 The resident righties are spinning in their chairs.  LOL

Why are they spending? They should be overjoyed that the liberal party is run by a conservative now. Isn't that what victory is supposed to look like? 

Some people just like fighting I Guess...

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, though, claimed bragging rights on the Riviera thanks to the naming of Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of Canada, to head an increasingly powerful body called the Financial Stability Board. “His appointment,” Harper said, “is both a tribute to his personal qualities and a reflection on Canada’s superior performance in monetary, fiscal and financial-sector policy areas.”

https://macleans.ca/news/canada/the-canadian-hired-to-save-the-world/

Harper again

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued the following statement regarding Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney’s appointment to the Bank of England:

“On behalf of the Government of Canada I would like to offer my congratulations to Mark Carney on his appointment as Governor of the Bank of England.

“In this time of global economic uncertainty, Governor Carney has done an admirable job in fulfilling the Bank of Canada’s mandate and has been a valued partner as the Government has worked to steer Canada away from the worst impacts of the global economic recession. As a result, Canada remains an example to the world with its strong banks, effective regulatory environment and sound economic policy.

“I wish Governor Carney every success as he begins his new role on July 1, 2013.”

  • Like 1

 

Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase !

Michael Hardner

Posted
9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why are they spending? They should be overjoyed that the liberal party is run by a conservative now. Isn't that what victory is supposed to look like? 

Some people just like fighting I Guess...

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, though, claimed bragging rights on the Riviera thanks to the naming of Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of Canada, to head an increasingly powerful body called the Financial Stability Board. “His appointment,” Harper said, “is both a tribute to his personal qualities and a reflection on Canada’s superior performance in monetary, fiscal and financial-sector policy areas.”

https://macleans.ca/news/canada/the-canadian-hired-to-save-the-world/

Harper again

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued the following statement regarding Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney’s appointment to the Bank of England:

On behalf of the Government of Canada I would like to offer my congratulations to Mark Carney on his appointment as Governor of the Bank of England.

“In this time of global economic uncertainty, Governor Carney has done an admirable job in fulfilling the Bank of Canada’s mandate and has been a valued partner as the Government has worked to steer Canada away from the worst impacts of the global economic recession. As a result, Canada remains an example to the world with its strong banks, effective regulatory environment and sound economic policy.

“I wish Governor Carney every success as he begins his new role on July 1, 2013.”

Just the fact you said Carney is a conservative at heart will make them spin out LOL

If they cannot cry leftie and Carney not doing anything and being a liar and tall things anti Carney and liberal then you saying he is a conservative at heart....well, their entire premise is shot down LOL

 

  • Downvote 1

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.

Posted
13 hours ago, Goddess said:

Except Carney was very clear that the NEW relationship does not include our economy or military/security cooperation and he's repeatedly told Canadians that the Americans are our enemy who is trying to take us over.  And he's convincing Canadians that our closest relationship is now China.

Any citations to back up those points? Try dealing in the truth for a change.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

 

If they cannot cry leftie ...

It's just this weird anomaly in politics around identity. It makes people think politics is about morality and nothing else. 

The nothing else part... Well... for both sides... They try to use morality to argue it but the facts are boring, and when they're not they don't exactly bend towards a moral certainty.

12 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Any citations to back up those points? Try dealing in the truth for a change.

You should back off on this... It's not an exciting argument.... It's just about certainty of wording etc 

 

Old relationship versus relationship 

Close military support versus support 

 

 

Edited by Michael Hardner
  • Like 1

 

Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase !

Michael Hardner

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Goddess said:

I think America just wants a strong, resource rich Western hemisphere to be able to ward off the Chinese.

So they go about that by economic punishment and threats of annexation? But their intentions are all good?

 

Edited by Barquentine
grammar
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You should back off on this... It's not an exciting argument.... It's just about certainty of wording etc

No, I shouldn't. What she said is clearly untrue, and as usual leaves no room for nuance.

"Except Carney was very clear that the NEW relationship does not include our economy or military/security cooperation and he's repeatedly told Canadians that the Americans are our enemy who is trying to take us over.  And he's convincing Canadians that our closest relationship is now China.  To the point that Canadians now hate Americans and prefer the Chinese.Doesn't sound like much of a relationship to me.  Sounds more like a divorce."

Please tell me what part of that is true.

 

Posted
29 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

So they go about that by economic punishment and threats of annexation? But their intentions are all good?

 

No, the economic punishment and threat of annexation is to get Canada to redirect its bad behavior. Don’t presume Americans enjoy punishing Canada, we don’t. America would much prefer you all get with the program.

Posted
5 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

to get Canada to redirect its bad behavior.

See, this is how everyone knows you're delusional, and just here to propogate lies.

Maybe you should get another hobby - lots of grown men like you have toy trains.

  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Well, I live in North America. (The good part)

Which makes you…. North American… Canada is a make believe lie you tell your children at bed time. And how unoriginally American, look who is bragging. 

Edited by paxamericana
  • Haha 1
Posted

there is no exit plan..........

The hope is that Reza Pahlavi can be installed.

The question is whether a sock-puppet will be accepted ........ with today's communication he'd  be  about as transparent as a plate glass window. 

Trump would have to be crazy to endorse this guy - that is not to say he wouldn't  be  ideal -  but could he survive or  would there be civil war. 

What it would amount to is Imperialism. 

Posted
59 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

No, I shouldn't. What she said is clearly untrue, and as usual leaves no room for nuance.

"Except Carney was very clear that the NEW relationship does not include our economy or military/security cooperation and he's repeatedly told Canadians that the Americans are our enemy who is trying to take us over.  And he's convincing Canadians that our closest relationship is now China.  To the point that Canadians now hate Americans and prefer the Chinese.Doesn't sound like much of a relationship to me.  Sounds more like a divorce."

Please tell me what part of that is true.

 

It doesn't matter whether you think it's true...

Discussing it would be boring for you.  Or should be boring for you.

 

Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase !

Michael Hardner

Posted
12 minutes ago, John Stone said:

......... could provide trade leverage - over 90 percent of  Iran's oil goes to China. 

 

And now, none of it will.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,015
    • Most Online
      2,945

    Newest Member
    agackibal
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...