Our Embassy is Under Attack

[Release the Kraken]

Thriller, you switch back and forth between sarcasm and realism so casually it's hard to know for sure where you're coming from. Of course you're concerned as well we all should be. I'm sure you're aware of the recent German opinion poll in which Germans opined that Trump is the greatest threat to World Peace, and more dangerous than Putin or Kim Jong-Un.

 

[The Thriller]

I'm going to go ahead and bet you don't know much of anything about Iraq and the people there. Hell, at the same time there are people jubilant in Iran that this monster is gone.

I remember just yesterday you making this post trying to set up some type of equivalency for Benghazi. It turns out there is none. This was handled as forcefully and expertly as it should have been, in stark contrast to that debacle.

Which post? I think you have me confused with someone else. Since I'm the creator of this thread, what about my first post set up an equivalency to Benghazi?

I'll be honest, I didn't really think about Benghazi. I thought this compared more to 1979 Tehran. I was worried about hostages being taken and the situation really devolving from there.

 

[The Thriller]

Thriller, you switch back and forth between sarcasm and realism so casually it's hard to know for sure where you're coming from. Of course you're concerned as well we all should be. I'm sure you're aware of the recent German opinion poll in which Germans opined that Trump is the greatest threat to World Peace, and more dangerous than Putin or Kim Jong-Un.

Trump is.

Usually my posts are pretty over the top sarcastic. But if you're still unsure, I typically end my sarcastic posts with 3 periods.

Our foreign policy is in shatters. We're burning bridges with our allies, kissing up to autocrats, and can anyone tell us what we're trying to accomplish in Ukraine, North Korea, and the Middle East?

 

[Eminence]

An ambassador wouldn't be in a foreign country directing an attack on an embassy. Strategically it was very aggressive, arrogant, and ultimately stupid. The fact that it went down like this says more about Iran's intentions than ours. They have no intention of pursuing peace.

My statement was not in reference to ambassador/general, but to his position of power in Iran. More similar to a very very powerful Secretary of State than 'a general' who they'll just replace with the next guy up.

 

[The Thriller]

I remember just yesterday you making this post trying to set up some type of equivalency for Benghazi. It turns out there is none.

Hello? I'm waiting.

Just because you read someone making this comparison on Facebook doesn't mean that I made it. Just because I've hurt your feelings in political arguments before doesn't mean you can lie now.

In fact, when you search "Benghazi" the last reference made on this website to that was this post made on December 6, nearly one month before and in no way referencing Iraq or Iran. Before that, you’d have to look at October or September to see anyone referencing, “BENGHAZI.” This post was written in a thread completely unrelated to this one:

Let’s hypothesize for a second that the Republican best dream is true:

1. Burisma: Admits to being the world’s most corrupt company by funding pro choice groups, organizing gun control rallies, and laundering George Soros money to Black Lives Matter.

2. Hunter Biden: Admits to never graduating from law school and accepting a job at Burisma strictly to trigger the right... And being way dumber than Don JR.

3. Joe Biden: Admits that he couldn’t win in a fist fight against Trump because Trump is in even better shape than Rocky in Rocky 4. And that he pressured the international community to fire the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor strictly to help his son.

4. Crowdstrike: Lets pretend a Ukrainian man finds in a warehouse a white box marked CROWDSTRIKE: DNC SERVER. And it’s loaded with thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails. These emails detail how she killed Vince Foster and Seth Rich, planned the Benghazi attack, and was going to use her presidency to load all 80+ year old Fox News viewers into concentration camps.

Even then, wouldn't Trump’s actions still be impeachable?

I. A president can’t hold up money allocated by congress if congress hasn't specifically added stipulations to those funds, right?

II. A president can’t bypass his entire state department and send his personal lawyer to conduct shadow diplomacy, right?

III. A president can’t blackmail a foreign leader to interfere in our elections, right? Even if such investigations are warranted, the firing of ambassadors and smearing their reputations to enable interference into our elections using foreign aid is still impeachable, right?

IV. The president can’t obstruct an investigation into his actions, like he’s done, right? I mean, if congress can’t arrest him because he must first be impeached, then certainly congress needs to be able to investigate him cleanly and without obstruction to determine whether impeachment is warranted, right?

Are republicans really ready to set this precedent? What happens when President Warren commits these same acts in 2023? Will republicans empower her with monarchial powers because of the precedent they’ve set with Trump?

If I’m wrong then someone explain using facts that I’m wrong. But it seems to me that no matter how you slice it, Trump has abused his office to the point that he needs to be impeached. Otherwise, the precedent set essentially eliminates impeachment from the presidency and gives the president complete power and immunity to do what he or she wants. An absolute monarchy, is that really what the founders envisioned?

https://jazzfanz.com/threads/the-official-lets-impeach-trump-thread.113221/page-340#post-1857713

I'd appreciate an apology please.

 

[The Thriller]

My statement was not in reference to ambassador/general, but to his position of power in Iran. More similar to a very very powerful Secretary of State than 'a general' who they'll just replace with the next guy up.

More concerning is escalation. It doesn't matter if posters here think that today's actions were justified. What matters is what the Shia people and what the Iraqi and Irani governments think. I hope that this doesn't escalate the situation. However, given our record in that region, I think one must be concerned that this general will be made a martyr and that our actions will spark a "jihad" against a perceived imperial power overstepping its bounds on foreign soil.

Hope this isn't the case.

But thank god for a well informed and level headed CiC. I'm sure he'll thoroughly read his daily briefing tomorrow and not become distracted by Fox News and tweeting...

 

[Release the Kraken]

Trump is.

Usually my posts are pretty over the top sarcastic. But if you're still unsure, I typically end my sarcastic posts with 3 periods.

Our foreign policy is in shatters. We're burning bridges with our allies, kissing up to autocrats, and can anyone tell us what we're trying to accomplish in Ukraine, North Korea, and the Middle East?

Setting the stage for future Trump Towers around the globe I would imagine. But seriously, the part of the Ukrainian scandal that bothered me the most, but was least emphasized in the impeachment proceedings was the fact that Trump had asked for verification of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election (regardless of whether or not it was true - debunked conspiracy theory). To me it seemed obvious that he was going to bat for his #1 compromat wingman Putin in order to minimize or perhaps rationalize Russian involvement. Withholding aid also benefited said individual.

 

[The Thriller]

Still waiting for @framer's apology. Lying doesn't win arguments bud and no one likes being lied about. Man up

 

[The Thriller]

Some good reading for those wanting to learn about this situation. I think it’s important that we avoid the Fox News spin (supreme leader is wonderful) on this. And to learn especially how the international community views this as:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b63f00-2d89-11ea-bcb3-ac6482c4a92f_story.html



https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020...ts-fired-baghdad-airport-200102232817666.html

 

[framer]

My statement was not in reference to ambassador/general, but to his position of power in Iran. More similar to a very very powerful Secretary of State than 'a general' who they'll just replace with the next guy up.

Agreed. But the fact that they had this guy personally directing the assault on our embassy, rather than using their normal cutouts, tells me that they already declared war, and that ultimately NOT responding or even appeasing them would have made no difference in how the timeline moves ahead from here. Obama or Trump doesn't really make a difference, as quite frankly, both let them operate quite freely in their belligerence.

Their problem isn't really the United States, it is their own people who are tired of living under their rule. As things get tighter there, they are bound to act more stupid and erratically.

 

[Red]

This gamble by Trump seems based on the belief, the hope, that Iran will now realize just how serious Trump is, and that, basically, this will scare Iran into, at best, a muted retaliation, out of fear of what Trump will do next....

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-02/trumps-biggest-foreign-policy-gamble

"The decision to kill Suleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, who was sometimes described as the second-most powerful official in Iran, marks a radical shift. It appears to represent a bet that Iran, faced by a decisive U.S. military action, will back down, not escalate.

Iran will now have to “reexamine the limitations of the violence they can bring to the table,” said one senior congressional Republican official, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official predicted “some face-saving retaliation in Yemen or Lebanon, maybe Afghanistan,” but not more.

Others were deeply skeptical of such assertions. While the U.S. undoubtedly has overwhelming superiority in conventional military power, the Iranians, even without Suleimani, will be able to launch guerrilla-style operations throughout the Middle East and possibly beyond, they said."
-------------
Meanwhile, cheerleading on Fox:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-f...-through-strength-after-iran-commander-killed

A professor in Iran offers the view from Tehran:

 

[The Thriller]

Interesting. What happens if Iran retaliates not by military force but through releasing key details about Trump’s sleazy business deals? That could have greater impact than anything.

 

[The Thriller]

What a simplistic view of the world.

Should the president really be retweeting this stuff?

 

[The Thriller]

Watch this



@Zombie @Red y’all see this?

Anyone else remember when Donald discredited our intelligence community and admitted he believed in Putin over them? NOW, we’re supposed to believe in the intelligence community? Well which is it? Is the intelligence community only correct when it’s politically convenient to Trump?

Also, anyone else remember when the murder of Jamal Khashoggi didn’t warrant even a tap on the wrist on Saudi Arabia for fear that it could escalate to war? Now suddenly, the Vague potential terrorist attack of Iran warrants potential war?

This is what happens when you don’t have any consistent ideology or principles. The president was concerned that he looked weak over the past few weeks and he’s upset that Iran isn’t begging him for a new nuclear deal. His poorly thought out foreign policy is falling apart. And so now he’s potentially getting us even more entangled in the Middle East. He’s so simple.

 

[Jazzta]

No more wars for money. A war with Iran would be human and economically devastating for the US people, while the weapons industry moguls fill their pockets.

 

[framer]

Whelp. . .

 

[JimLes]

Also, anyone else remember when the murder of Jamal Khashoggi didn’t warrant even a tap on the wrist on Saudi Arabia for fear that it could escalate to war?

It would surprise me if this whole new imbroglio was done in the interest of Saudis. Hell, or even at their behest.

 

[Jazzta]

It would surprise me if this whole new imbroglio was done in the interest of Saudis. Hell, or even at their behest.

Well, Trump has signed a multibillion weapons agreement with the Saudis. Got to put those weapons to good use!

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

This dude's foreign policy is on point. All you old neocons and all you new neocon democrats now talking out the other side your dirty mouths can kiss my ***. Make the Globe Better Again.

Score one for Trump.

 

[Archie Moses]

I've seen everything online that Iran's general was responsible for hundreds, thousands and even millions of deaths. Not sure if true, but if he is responsible for millions of deaths then good riddance. **** that guy.