I just said give them more money. I made no statement with regards to the money paid back to them by the Obama admin
Iran
- Thread starter i am herdman
- Start date
Afghanistan 9/11- Really no choice there. What are you going to do after 9/11 and the taliban is harboring the largest and most terrible terrorist group in the world.
Iraq-I was for it and so were a lot of other people at the time. I admit it. A lot went wrong, but at the time and the information given and what we though it happened. I do think we did some good weeding out some terrorist cell. History will tell. I was mad because we left Iraq and left it the way we did. Iran deal was bad. IT was.
If you weren't referencing that (ha ha), then where did you come up with the "more"?
You implied sanctions didn’t work because they are still attacking us so obviously the answer is give them more money
Yes, you were. Even though 30 days before the war, the inspection team had found ZERO wmds in Iraq.
The alternatives were further sanctions, which had already proven unable to deter Iran's nuclear program, or war. Hence, you are supporting something that doesn't work, or....war. Just like I said.
The sanctions didn't work. Iran was moving forward with their nuclear program. Where did your "MORE money" come from?
Try to keep up. If sanctions didn’t work then obviously the solution to keeping Iran in check is to give them more money
You still haven't explained how you come up with the "more money" comment. It implies that we were giving Iran money beforehand.
how does not being for the Iran deal mean war? It was a bad deal that doesn't mean war. You went from 1 to 1000000.
It's real easy. Other than making a deal there were TWO alternatives to keep Iran from continuing their nuclear program. 1. sanctions that didn't work 2. war.
Since you were and are against the Iran deal, you either have to support sanctions that didn't work, or war.
You either are supporting sanctions that didn't work, or you are supporting war. That's the only 2 options.
That's absolutely ludicrous and why you are a small thinker. Let's say we even take out a boat or ship of theirs. That is not even war. There are a host of options. Right now they are under sanctions and at some point they are going to negotiate.
Define war. The US and Israel have been in cyberwar against Iran for years. That is another option. So is limited, targeted strikes. Another option is let them have the bomb, and let them know exactly what will happen if they use it against anyone (while this sounds crazy, it worked for the Soviets, and I have always assumed KSA has access to nukes from Pakistan....if I ran Iran, shit yeah I'd want nukes too.)
herdman and I both know we were talking about armed conflict.
Obviously that's not working.
Armed conflict.
You think conservatives are going to let that happen if they can possibly prevent it? They all would believe that obama's Iran deal would be better than that.
You have to define war. Let's say we take out one of their naval areas where they store these fast boats? That's not war. A limited strike is not a war.
Armed conflict is too broad of a definition. We had strikes against Iran in the 80's for doing exactly this kind of thing. That is not a war.
I don't think any rational person on either side of the political side wants them to have the bomb.
What's the difference between war and armed conflict?
You said "There are a host of options." I asked for that list....
Ratchet up sanctions.
Hack their infrastructure.
Turn the lights out on them.
Start a coup
Rick Roll Them
Sink a ship of theirs.
Screw with their currency.
Sent a cruise missile into the desert
Shoot up a few of those swift boats.
Damage one of their oil platforms.
Seize their assets
Sit down with their Arab partners and put pressure on them.
Send in Rambo
Block their ports.
Send in an aircraft carrier and dare them to mess with it.
Shoot down one of their jets
Make them listen to Barry Manilow
Cut a deal with the Chinese at that puts economic pressure on them
Armed conflict is not necessarily war, at least not as we politically define it in modern times. And war is not necessarily with arms.
Now you’re speaking my language.
you won't listen! Raoul and I both have given you good answers and you just don't want to try to understand. That's the way you are.
So, following your logic, Iran is hurting the free flow of oil by bombing an allys oil tanker. Is that a declaration of war?
So, following your logic, Iran is hurting the free flow of oil by bombing an allys oil tanker. Is that a declaration of war?
So your "host of options" includes armed conflict, cyber warfare that's been going on for year according to the moderator you're sucking up to, or just let them have the bomb. Why that's just great. cheetos could use a strategist like you, you'd round out his cabinet of nimrods.
PILLHEAD MORON IDIOT....are you autistic? You have the same ticks/stims/outbursts here every day.
Well this could atleast be a decent place for the Klan rallies, and who knows maybe a certain cabinet maker could install the built ins.
https://www.herald-dispatch.com/new...ign=blox&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
Even more projection. You would think that would be covered in the auditing.
Now would you care to explain, rationally, the issue you have with my post on warfare? Or can I just assume you don't know enough to have a rational thought on it?
No one suggested you couldn't still build a cabinet. Big difference between your current hobby and running a fully operational business.
Can't stop can you? Must be the pills.
Yeah, I care.
Assumptions are your specialty. Assume away. moron.
I like to drink some and get some tang. Apparently you do neither your miserable grumpy fart.
