Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
Uh no?
Were there Americans on that plane that I'm unaware of?...and I've only seen reports of it being unintentional.
Were there Americans on that plane that I'm unaware of?...and I've only seen reports of it being unintentional.
Last edited by Deleted User 295 on Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
Havent seen that. Ive seen that it was unintentional.
If it was intentional there is nore than one person responsible and yes there should be some ramifications for that action. Would need more information to agree with or not agree with the type of retribution.
Just Ledoux it
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
I suppose it's the hypothetical that interests me then. If it was intentional, what should Troudeau (given the number of Canadian casualties) do? Should he strike the ones responsible for the decision?TDub wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:41 pmHavent seen that. Ive seen that it was unintentional.
If it was intentional there is nore than one person responsible and yes there should be some ramifications for that action. Would need more information to agree with or not agree with the type of retribution.
The hypothetical takes us back to right before we hit Suleimani. Is there an alternative to assassinating someone when you know that it could result in innocent people's deaths, even if you're morally in the right and the other is morally wrong? The Hague? The UN?
For the same reason that I give Trump tremendous credit for not escalating things further yet imposing penalties via sanctions, I wonder if he could have prevented all those deaths by taking those de-escalation steps earlier. And I don't think saying he could have prevented them is equivalent to saying he is responsible for them.
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
Well that hypothetical is assuming a lot considering the last thing i read cited Rouhani as admitting "human error" for the downing of the plane.
In your hypothetical i think there is a whole other set of variables and scenarios that would have to be defined to be discussed. At a minimum I think it would swing any support from the world away from Iran which would make it easier to enforce penalties and sanctions. Make it easier to coordinate efforts to block Iran feom controlling the strait, and potentially allow for a coordinated world effort in removing the regime at that point.
In your hypothetical i think there is a whole other set of variables and scenarios that would have to be defined to be discussed. At a minimum I think it would swing any support from the world away from Iran which would make it easier to enforce penalties and sanctions. Make it easier to coordinate efforts to block Iran feom controlling the strait, and potentially allow for a coordinated world effort in removing the regime at that point.
Last edited by TDub on Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Just Ledoux it
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
IF, in your hypothetical scenario, it WAS intentional that is a purely terrorist act carried out by the regime which would need to be addressed as such and dealt with accordingly.
Just Ledoux it
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
apparently, there were a number of alternative options laid out before the president, and surprise, surprise...this is the one he choseMjl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:08 amI suppose it's the hypothetical that interests me then. If it was intentional, what should Troudeau (given the number of Canadian casualties) do? Should he strike the ones responsible for the decision?TDub wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:41 pmHavent seen that. Ive seen that it was unintentional.
If it was intentional there is nore than one person responsible and yes there should be some ramifications for that action. Would need more information to agree with or not agree with the type of retribution.
The hypothetical takes us back to right before we hit Suleimani. Is there an alternative to assassinating someone when you know that it could result in innocent people's deaths, even if you're morally in the right and the other is morally wrong? The Hague? The UN?
For the same reason that I give Trump tremendous credit for not escalating things further yet imposing penalties via sanctions, I wonder if he could have prevented all those deaths by taking those de-escalation steps earlier. And I don't think saying he could have prevented them is equivalent to saying he is responsible for them.
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
Dems more mad than the Iranian people?
- HouseDivided
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:24 pm
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
That’s a bingo!
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” - Mark Twain
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
It's almost as if in a country of 81 million people that there are differences of opinions about him. Finding examples of those differences doesnt mean that the originally reported ones were fake or not true.
No one reported that every single person in Iran loved the guy.
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
This is beyond ignorant. Come on.
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
Do you know anything about this guy and his history? Just curious....I didn't know he even existed until this happened. I've got a funny feeling you were in the same boat.twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:44 amIt's almost as if in a country of 81 million people that there are differences of opinions about him. Finding examples of those differences doesnt mean that the originally reported ones were fake or not true.
No one reported that every single person in Iran loved the guy.
Want to complain about how trump went about this (by not getting some sort of authorization from congress) then I'm right there with you. He messed up by deciding this somewhat on his own.....congress would have approved taking this guy out if he'd have given them the chance to give him the go ahead.
But defending this guy as if he's not a terrible person quickly identifies you as someone who is only against this because you're against ALL things Trump and will be outraged by ANYTHING he does.
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
Unfortunately it's not. Some of you have gone off the deep end the last 3 years since trump was elected.twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:47 amThis is beyond ignorant. Come on.
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
What else would expect from these 2?twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:47 amThis is beyond ignorant. Come on.
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
I did no such thing. I did not say anything positive or negative about him AT ALL. You just changed reality to justify your enjoyment of trying to criticize me.IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:53 amDo you know anything about this guy and his history? Just curious....I didn't know he even existed until this happened. I've got a funny feeling you were in the same boat.twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:44 amIt's almost as if in a country of 81 million people that there are differences of opinions about him. Finding examples of those differences doesnt mean that the originally reported ones were fake or not true.
No one reported that every single person in Iran loved the guy.
Want to complain about how trump went about this (by not getting some sort of authorization from congress) then I'm right there with you. He messed up by deciding this somewhat on his own.....congress would have approved taking this guy out if he'd have given them the chance to give him the go ahead.
But defending this guy as if he's not a terrible person quickly identifies you as someone who is only against this because you're against ALL things Trump and will be outraged by ANYTHING he does.
Re: Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy
Isn't that "Illy101?"