WestCanMan Posted April 10 Author Report Posted April 10 10 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: I don't 'hope' for much here, but certainly want to see an end to the war. Best case scenario.... Trump packs up and heads home while claiming victory with Iran claiming the same. Actually, that's the way it will most likely go down... and both will have a point. Well yeah, he's the guy who started this unnecessary war. Think of him each time you're at the gas pump or grocery store 👍 Ya know, just because your precious ayatollah is dead doesn't mean that you have to be enemies with the world. It's not like he was your brother, or he was a benevolent ruler that made life good for the people of Iran. He was a tyrant who dedicated his life to genocide and the spread of religion. That's it. And he didn't care how many people he hurt to get his way. The world is a better place without him, and the degraded IRGC is good for the entire middle east. Maybe one day you can just ignore the existence of Israel and get on with your life. Just imagine it. Maybe the existence of Israel shouldn't keep you up at night. Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
Legato Posted April 10 Report Posted April 10 1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said: No I'm not saying Iran should have got to do anything but as intelligence experts have said, they were not an imminent threat. The decision isn't to wait for perfect certainty, but to decide when a risk has become too dangerous to bear 1 Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted April 10 Report Posted April 10 32 minutes ago, User said: What is so difficult to understand that Trump did not close the Strait? Iran did not play him on anything; this is the leverage they hold over the world. Why do you want to give them the liberty to conduct terrorism around the world with no repercussions when they try to get nuclear weapons too? Iran is playing Trump out... ships aren't moving through the strait and it's on him. Wake up. Why do you want to believe Trump when his top intelligence official and other experts said Iran was not an imminent threat. Besides, he said they 'totally and completely obliterated' their nuclear capabilities 8 months ago. Suppose you believed that too.... Quote
User Posted April 10 Report Posted April 10 Just now, LinkSoul60 said: Iran is playing Trump out... ships aren't moving through the strait and it's on him. Wake up. Why do you want to believe Trump when his top intelligence official and other experts said Iran was not an imminent threat. Besides, he said they 'totally and completely obliterated' their nuclear capabilities 8 months ago. Suppose you believed that too.... Playing Trump out... how? It is on Iran that they are threatening civilian shipping. Why are you defending them? Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted April 10 Report Posted April 10 40 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: Ya know, just because your precious ayatollah is dead doesn't mean that you have to be enemies with the world. It's not like he was your brother, or he was a benevolent ruler that made life good for the people of Iran. He was a tyrant who dedicated his life to genocide and the spread of religion. That's it. And he didn't care how many people he hurt to get his way. The world is a better place without him, and the degraded IRGC is good for the entire middle east. Maybe one day you can just ignore the existence of Israel and get on with your life. Just imagine it. Maybe the existence of Israel shouldn't keep you up at night. You generally have no idea what you're talking about do you... My 'precious ayatollah'....sure 😂 Your idol did not think this one out the way it should have been thought out and is and will be paying there price politically and diplomatically. Live with it... Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted April 10 Report Posted April 10 42 minutes ago, Legato said: The decision isn't to wait for perfect certainty, but to decide when a risk has become too dangerous to bear According to the US director of National Counterterrorism it wasn't imminent. Quote
WestCanMan Posted April 10 Author Report Posted April 10 50 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: You generally have no idea what you're talking about do you... My 'precious ayatollah'....sure 😂 Your idol did not think this one out the way it should have been thought out and is and will be paying there price politically and diplomatically. Live with it... If you're not an ayatollah supporter then you're a victim of their propaganda. Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
LinkSoul60 Posted April 10 Report Posted April 10 10 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: If you're not an ayatollah supporter then you're a victim of their propaganda. And you got a bad case of TDS.... Don't need to hear propaganda when all I have to do its drive by a gas station or read today's US CPI report. Quote
Legato Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 2 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said: According to the US director of National Counterterrorism it wasn't imminent. The relevant concept is unacceptable risk, not imminent threat. Do try to employ a little common snse. Quote
Venandi Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 (edited) 5 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said: intelligence experts have said, they were not an imminent threat. We covered this.... you're hanging your hat on an open source assessment and there were several conflicting ones. Beware of picking the one that simply supports your narrative; this cautionary note applies regardless of which side of the fence you happen to be on and regardless of what the government has to say at a congratulatory press conference after a successful airstrike (or other course of action). Pretty sure I'm orders of magnitude more cynical than you and I usually find out (after the fact) that I wasn't anywhere near cynical enough. Usually I'm embarrassed by how gullible I was. I'll ask you one last time: Since you are opposed to US involvement, do you think that Israel would have acted unilaterally on this... most likely (IMO) based on HUMINT sources and not the stuff you and I might have heard about on CNN? Do you think the situation would have turned out better if they had undertaken this unilaterally? I'll go first again: The answer is Hell yes and Hell no. Both those questions are full thread discussions so don't blow them off with some nonsense about long defences of the indefensible. If you think this is a mess now I'd invite you to consider how easily it could have become a whole lot worse, and potentially, a whole lot more prolonged. Yes.... this is all IMO to be sure, but I say taking the pain now is way better than the beatdown you (we and us) would have absorbed later. Unlike other situations held up as being analogous, this particular one was absolutely inevitable. It was going to happen, the only questions were when, who, and the degree of pain that would result from variations of the who/timing equation. Edited April 11 by Venandi Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 12 minutes ago, Legato said: The relevant concept is unacceptable risk, not imminent threat. Do try to employ a little common snse. I've never studied counterterrorism. You? Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 6 minutes ago, Venandi said: We covered this.... you're hanging your hat on an open source assessment and there were several conflicting ones. Beware of picking the one that simply supports your narrative; this cautionary note applies regardless of which side of the fence you happen to be on and regardless of what the government has to say at a congratulatory press conference after a successful airstrike. Pretty sure I am orders of magnitude more cynical than you and I usually find out (after the fact) that I wasn't anywhere near cynical enough. I'll ask you one last time: Since you are opposed to US involvement, do you think that Israel would have acted unilaterally on this... most likely (IMO) based on HUMINT sources and not the stuff you and I might have heard about on CNN? Do you think the situation would have turned out better if they had undertaken this unilaterally? I'll go first again: The answer is Hell yes and Hell no. Both those questions are full thread discussions so don't blow them off with some nonsense about long defences of the indefensible. If you think this is a mess now I'd invite you to consider how easily it could have become a whole lot worse, and potentially, a whole lot more prolonged. Yes.... this is all IMO to be sure, but I say taking the pain now is way better than the beatdown you (we and us) would have absorbed later. Unlike other situations held up as being analogous, this particular one was absolutely inevitable. It was going to happen, the only questions were when, who, and the degree of pain that would result from variations of the equation. The US Director of National Counterterrorism saying that Iran wasn't an imminent threat picking a side... it was fact. I find you Trump supporters hilarious... I made a simple comment that Iran had Trump by the short hairs (which they do), and you red hats lose your shît saying I support Iran, they had nukes, or really big weapons, or they deserved it... Why so defensive when what I said was fact. They're clearly controlling the strait that is affecting the world economies and putting a shît ton of pressure on Trump. You don't think so? And no, I didn't appose US involvement and had no problem at all with them eliminating Iran's regime. They did their job though so get your buddy Nutenyahoo and move on.... but what is the objective here? Apparently they've already destroyed everything so whats next... oil? In the meanwhile, it is what it is... Quote
Legato Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 54 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: I've never studied counterterrorism. You? No, which has has nothing to do with your assertion of not imininent. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 4 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said: According to the US director of National Counterterrorism it wasn't imminent. So we should wait until the threat is imminent ? No thanks... 1 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
LinkSoul60 Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 18 minutes ago, Legato said: No, which has has nothing to do with your assertion of not imininent. 'According to the US director of National Counterterrorism it wasn't imminent.' That's not an assertion... I knew the fact he said that. Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said: So we should wait until the threat is imminent ? No thanks... I have no problem at all with taking their regime out and no doubt their abilities are getting crushed. Whats the objective here, the world is taking a financial beating. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 (edited) 5 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: I have no problem at all with taking their regime out and no doubt their abilities are getting crushed. Whats the objective here, the world is taking a financial beating. The objective is to break things in Iran, up to and including regime change. Bonus points for getting IAEA inspectors back on the job. Financial beatings happen regardless of what happens to Iran. So what is the "world" doing about it ? Edited April 11 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
LinkSoul60 Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said: The objective is too break things in Iran, up to and including regime change. Bonus points for getting IAEA inspectors back on the job. Financial beatings happen regardless of what happens to Iran. So what is the "world" doing about it ? Go get em... You guys are too tough so the world will take it in stride. Quote
paxamericana Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 1 minute ago, LinkSoul60 said: Go get em... You guys are too tough so the world will take it in stride. Don’t like it? Park your money in the only safe harbor. The USA. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 Just now, LinkSoul60 said: Go get em... You guys are too tough so the world will take it in stride. Meaning the "world" will just sit on its hands while complaining about it. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
LinkSoul60 Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 1 minute ago, paxamericana said: Don’t like it? Park your money in the only safe harbor. The USA. Actually a lot of our money is in the US, but mostly up here which is a better place to be last year and this. The Canada. Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Meaning the "world" will just sit on its hands while complaining about it. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way". Carry on GI Joe, but you can't be a superpower with no friends. Your guy is working out of this now so all will be said and done until the next adventure... Until then, inflation be damned. Quote
paxamericana Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 (edited) 3 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: Carry on GI Joe, but you can't be a superpower with no friends. Your guy is working out of this now so all will be said and done until the next adventure... Until then, inflation be damned. It benefits North America. People are rethinking where is a safe investment and the only place is going to be the western hemisphere. So on the contrary, Canada should support this war along with Mexico. The Middle East is a powder keg. One way or another Middle East oil disruption was bound to happen. Edited April 11 by paxamericana Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 (edited) 9 minutes ago, paxamericana said: It benefits North America. People are rethinking where is a safe investment and the only place is going to be the western hemisphere. So on the contrary, Canada should support this war along with Mexico. The Middle East is a powder keg. One way or another Middle East oil disruption was bound to happen. Why is everyone try to sell me on this.... because I said Iran has Trump by the shorties? Do what you gotta do, but why do you think Canada should be involved when we didn't get an invite to begin with. That said, we already said we'd participate, but not in any offensive military action which is good enough. The ME has been a mess for 2,000 years and will be for another 2,000. Good luck... Edited April 11 by LinkSoul60 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 11 Report Posted April 11 12 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: Carry on GI Joe, but you can't be a superpower with no friends. Your guy is working out of this now so all will be said and done until the next adventure... Until then, inflation be damned. Nation states do not have "friends"...they have interests. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
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.