Politics

Discussion relating to current events, politics, religion, etc
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Politics

#126 Post by mockbee » Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:25 am

SR wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:37 am
Bee, you're rallying cry here that mirrors 16 is people are pissed. Many of those really "good" people who flocked to this empty hope have been fucked by him. Are you saying they'll remain with him?
I hold firm with the 16 rallying cry. I think Trump has far more (secret) fans now than in '16. I agree that there are some disillusioned folks who will sit '20 out because Trump didn't fix stuff, but Trump CANNOT be blamed for lack of trying to break stuff. He's still got those folks solid. These are not "bad" people. I really, really don't think the coastal elite know the type of suffering that is happening out there. It just doesn't come through in their analysis and tone. I know (and they know to some degree) it makes no sense to go for some whack job, but I think they still see the alternative as the same stuff of the last 30-40 years. Give them a third option. Make it based on hope, love and understanding, call it TEAM AMERICA; proclaim no allegiances to anybody but the AMERICAN people (include black people, brown people, white people, poor people, rural people, urban people, middle class people, recent immigrants, long time residents, LGBTQ folks, religious folks, all the people here, there is room for everybody - and stress a fair/humane immigration/refugee process) ...... and they will win.

SR wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:37 am
Anyways, here's a fun table to play with. Interesting that trump has decreased by at least a 20% margin overall in every single state in net approval rating since he took office. He's dropped a bit from a consistent 90% approval of GOP to appx 85%, but I didn't expect much there. What is astounding is just how easy it was for the last GOP to be radicalized to the new GOP in such a short period of time...even with the understanding of the impact of AIles and the tea party's influence beginning in the 90's

https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
I agree it can be fun, but it's hard to talk demographic tendencies with any sort of empirical authority. I am guilty of this myself. I think ultimately polls suck, I think Hype would agree with that. Polls are based on methodology of questions, ingrained tendencies, fox news fix for the day and what the subject had for breakfast that morning. None of it has much to do with how that person will vote on Nov 3, 2020, it's either known, or a complete wild card. It seems to me that polls can't track that. I am sure polls are good for something, just not predicting elections..... :noclue:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Politics

#127 Post by Hype » Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:42 pm

mockbee wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:25 am
I think ultimately polls suck, I think Hype would agree with that. Polls are based on methodology of questions, ingrained tendencies, fox news fix for the day and what the subject had for breakfast that morning. None of it has much to do with how that person will vote on Nov 3, 2020, it's either known, or a complete wild card. It seems to me that polls can't track that. I am sure polls are good for something, just not predicting elections..... :noclue:
My only concern with polling and data analytics this time around is that, as even Nate Silver failed to adequately realize, even aggregates of all the polls are difficult to distill into an accurate electoral college outcome unless you can somehow take many micro-polls in every single "up-for-grabs possible swing" district in the country and keep track of all of that. But that would be a huge amount of highly complex data. Only Facebook and Google really have the access and means to deal with that kind of thing (hence the use of companies like Cambridge Analytica on the manipulation side of things).

Polls will tell you in broad strokes that most people don't support Trump in most places, but that doesn't tell you how the middle of the country will actually play out.

User avatar
chaos
Posts: 5024
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Politics

#128 Post by chaos » Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:51 pm

https://nationalsecurityaction.org/news ... mpeachment

WASHINGTON, D.C. — More than 300 former national security professionals—many of whom have served administrations of both parties—today issued a public statement commending the Congressional impeachment inquiry and encouraging vigorous efforts to ascertain additional facts and hold President Trump to account, as warranted. . . .
Image

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Politics

#129 Post by SR » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:56 am

mockbee wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:25 am
These are not "bad" people.
I am not sure about this and need explanation.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Politics

#130 Post by mockbee » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:09 am

SR wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:56 am
mockbee wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:25 am
These are not "bad" people.
I am not sure about this and need explanation.
I guess I am not sure about the angle of your confusion. I am definitely guilty of writing emphatically in generalities.

Are you not sure what I even mean by "bad" people, or you believe that Trump voters ARE bad people and disagree?

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Politics

#131 Post by SR » Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:36 pm

I think anyone who supports trump is fundamentally flawed morally. More so, if they support one or a few "beliefs" and ignore the many others.

I have come into contact recently with trump supporters under forced circumstances. I am fortunate that I rarely have to deal with them. They are religious rights loons under the delusion that muslins and others are evil. They are literally talking points of alternative truths.....no center of reality whatsoever.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Politics

#132 Post by mockbee » Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:06 pm

SR wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:36 pm
I think anyone who supports trump is fundamentally flawed morally. More so, if they support one or a few "beliefs" and ignore the many others.

I have come into contact recently with trump supporters under forced circumstances. I am fortunate that I rarely have to deal with them. They are religious rights loons under the delusion that muslins and others are evil. They are literally talking points of alternative truths.....no center of reality whatsoever.
Hmmmmmm...... as of 2016 there are 63 million people in the United States who are religious right loons under the delusion that muslims and others are evil with no center of reality and fundamentally flawed morally?

Wow. I don't think that is true. But it sounds like we're in trouble. :noclue:

User avatar
chaos
Posts: 5024
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Politics

#133 Post by chaos » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:53 am

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/ ... iracy.html

THE NATIONAL INTEREST 9:47 A.M.
Intelligence Inspector General to GOP: You Know Nothing of My Work
By Jonathan Chait

Last Thursday, Sean Davis of the conservative news site The Federalist broke an explosive revelation. The Intelligence Community had secretly changed a requirement in its whistle-blower statute to allow whistle-blowers to report secondhand allegations, whereas firsthand knowledge had been required before. This suspicious rule change allegedly allowed the whistle-blower to accuse President Trump of misconduct despite lacking firsthand knowledge of said conduct. The shocking exposure of yet another Deep State plot quickly became the foundation for Trump’s defenders as they fanned out across the media.

“The hearsay rule was changed just a short period of time before the complaint was filed,” claimed Senator Lindsey Graham. The whistle-blower “has no firsthand knowledge,” charged Congressman Jim Jordan on CNN, and when host Jake Tapper noted that firsthand knowledge is not required to file a complaint, Jordan shot back that this was only “because they changed the form. You used to.” Meanwhile, Trump demanded, in all caps, “WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT?”

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed, “Just days before the Ukraine whistleblower came forward, the IC secretly removed that requirement from the complaint form,” and promised that Republicans would “not rest until we have answers.”

They had answers. They just didn’t like them. Actual experts in intelligence law immediately pointed out that Davis’s reporting was false and was based on a simple misreading of a change in the wording of a form.

Then yesterday, the Intelligence Community’s inspector general, Trump appointee Michael Atkinson, posted a short statement online correcting Davis. Using heavily bureaucratized language and the patient and polite tone city officials use to assure the local gadfly that the water department is not sending alien nodes through his plumbing, the I.G. made a few basic points. First, the rules governing whistle-blowers have not changed. At all.

Second, the I.G. had developed a new form for whistle-blowers to use to file their complaints because the old form may have been confusing. (“[C]ertain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read — incorrectly — as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information.”) That’s the change Davis seized upon — a clarification of the wording in the submission form, not a change in the requirement.

Third, Atkinson noted that the entire issue is moot because the Trump whistle-blower did have firsthand knowledge. (“The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information.”) So no, the law was not changed to allow complaints without firsthand knowledge. And no, this wouldn’t have mattered anyway, because the whistle-blower did have firsthand knowledge.



In a rational world, The Federalist would be publishing mortified corrections and Republicans would be engaged in soul-searching as to how such a simplistic fallacy had gained credence at the highest levels of their party. In a world where the conservative movement had at least some slight attachment to reality, the Federalistas would be quietly slinking away and changing the subject.

But in the actual world, they are continuing to insist they were right all along. The Federalist reporting team has not even developed its own alternative sources. Instead, they are plucking out sentences from the I.G. report that was written to correct their errors and claiming them as vindication.

No! The letter says that the form changed but the requirement did not change. The HOW INTERESTING change is that the I.G. was trying to correct the confusion being spread by right-wing pseudo-journalists and clarified the language in a form, but the underlying requirements to submit a complaint did not change. Also, again, the whistle-blower did have firsthand knowledge, so even if the requirement had been weakened, it would not have had any relevance to this matter.

It’s probably better that Trump’s defenders simply claim the I.G. supports their erroneous stance, because the actual alternative would be for them to decide Atkinson is in cahoots with the Deep State cabal and have him fired and replaced with somebody from Fox News.
Atkinson's statement: https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Document ... laints.pdf

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Politics

#134 Post by mockbee » Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:11 pm

mockbee wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:19 pm
Pandemonium wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:40 pm
If all of this goes down how I think it might, we are in for some real craziness in this country that will dwarf anything we've seen so far.
The next election, and the next president after Trumps additional 4 years in office will be really, really weird/crazy/ass-backwards. That is my prediction.....


:aoa:
We've only barely got started folks...........


This is going to be a really wild ride.

Trump will be impeached by the House, Democrats only with Yeas, maybe a couple Republicans/ not a single Republican will impeach in the Senate and then Trump re-elected easily in 2020, possibly with the popular vote as well.....

:drink:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Politics

#135 Post by Hype » Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:36 am

mockbee wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:11 pm
Trump re-elected easily in 2020, possibly with the popular vote as well.....
I'm still not sure about this. His election wasn't "easy" the first time, it was surprising and difficult -- he seems to have fallen ass-backward into a strategy that he might not have even expected to work: courting middle-American racists and disaffected blue-collar workers to snag an electoral college victory. The only way he wins again is if that strategy works *again*. But why would it? As much as the narrative of the stupid idiot voting for Trump because he's a brash, sexist, billionaire TV personality sounds right, it doesn't account for sufficiently broad popular support to be likely to win two elections in a row. It was successful once only because no one noticed how that strategy would play out. Now that the strategists all know this, there's no way Democratic party-insiders aren't plotting to stop this. Trump lost by 3 million votes and his polling support was far higher then than it is now. The loud idiots and quiet bigots aren't the only voters, and they certainly aren't a majority of Americans. As I've said multiple times previously: Americans may be racist, but they're far more sexist. Yet, that does seem to be changing. A woman received more votes than a man for President in the last election. This time round, if a woman is the Democratic candidate, they won't be as hated as Clinton was by default, and thus stand a far greater chance of beating a brash dummy. If Biden is the candidate, well, all the polls show he's clearly going to kick Trump's ass, and this stuff about his son is just fodder for the deplorables who were already going to vote Trump.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Politics

#136 Post by mockbee » Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:32 am

Hype wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:36 am
mockbee wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:11 pm
Trump re-elected easily in 2020, possibly with the popular vote as well.....
I'm still not sure about this. His election wasn't "easy" the first time, it was surprising and difficult -- he seems to have fallen ass-backward into a strategy that he might not have even expected to work: courting middle-American racists and disaffected blue-collar workers to snag an electoral college victory.
It was not easy the first time for sure. But, everything has changed (in his favor I think) for the second time. He is still the same a-hole that he was before, nothing has changed on that front. But, economy is "great", no new wars, pressure on China (Dems have no plan on China that works for blue-collar), action on immigration restrictions (for sure heinous words and intentions, but deeds still seen as in ballpark of "civil"). Sure there are fine lines here and I really do think most people see his words as atrocious. But you put him up against an open-border, "socialist" and a woman to boot. I see a greater than slim possibility of a popular vote win for Trump. Washington will be seen as a total mess with the impeachment, Trump will still be seen as the protest vote, and many Americans will see him as reprehensible, but still on their side at the end of the day.

Disaffected blue-collar workers are key. If the Dem does not focus on them 24-7 and go deep into why Trump's actions have directly harmed them and will continue to, it will be lost. Warren does touch on a lot of these issues, just she will likely get too wrapped up in the media/Trump storm and not be able to control the narrative.

Hype wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:36 am
It was successful once only because no one noticed how that strategy would play out. Now that the strategists all know this, there's no way Democratic party-insiders aren't plotting to stop this.
I have seen no evidence that dem-strategists are aware of the vastness of the problem. It's not enough to call Trump a racist and corrupt. That doesn't mean anything to disaffected voters, who are the key block. You are telling them that politicians are corrupt and awful?? NO CRAP!.... they think. Do they understand my problems is what they are thinking. Warren has to include an anti-globalist platform, along with her anti-corporate schtick, or else Dems will lose a huge portion of the blue collar (traditionally solid Democratic!) demographic, and minorities will not come out to save the day.
Hype wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:36 am
Trump lost by 3 million votes and his polling support was far higher then than it is now. The loud idiots and quiet bigots aren't the only voters, and they certainly aren't a majority of Americans. As I've said multiple times previously: Americans may be racist, but they're far more sexist. Yet, that does seem to be changing. A woman received more votes than a man for President in the last election. This time round, if a woman is the Democratic candidate, they won't be as hated as Clinton was by default, and thus stand a far greater chance of beating a brash dummy. If Biden is the candidate, well, all the polls show he's clearly going to kick Trump's ass, and this stuff about his son is just fodder for the deplorables who were already going to vote Trump.
Agreed we are FAR more misogynist than racist, and we (like a lot of other people around the world) are pretty racist. That won't help Warren. It will be more about her "socialism" and bookish nature that will be her achilles heel than being a woman this time around I suspect.

If Biden is the candidate, that will be a disaster. By July, delegates will be seriously considering a brokered convention. He would be a complete disaster, and not in a "lucky" way like Trump. I think Trump is very shrewd. I think Biden is truly, not smart. He is "lovable" to some people, but I don't think the public is up for a "George W" type figure for the Dems. I really think people are completely done with status quo. There is only a slim piece of the pie that I think would be eager for that. People just wouldn't show up. And Trumps base would carry it for him. Who are these people who are EAGER for Biden? The "I suppose, OR ELSE!" vote has never, ever won a national election. Name a person who has won the "I suppose" vote? I think you could say H.W. Bush, but he was up against someone worse than even Biden!

Biden's son is just fodder to neutralize Ukraine for Trump. That's it, no one considering voting for Biden cares. The problem is no one is really considering voting for Biden. The not "that guy" candidate never wins. This time would be no different.

:noclue:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Politics

#137 Post by Hype » Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:29 pm

Warren has to include an anti-globalist platform,
What?! You know 'globalist' is a euphemism for Jews, right? Like, this isn't a legitimate platform, it's an antisemitic conspiracy theory about who "runs the world"... :neutral:

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Politics

#138 Post by mockbee » Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:44 pm

Hype wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:29 pm
Warren has to include an anti-globalist platform,
What?! You know 'globalist' is a euphemism for Jews, right? Like, this isn't a legitimate platform, it's an antisemitic conspiracy theory about who "runs the world"... :neutral:
I did make a mistake in using that term. I in no way endorse 'anti-globalist' views. I am referring more in the realm of globalization/neo-liberal policies. I don't have an idea of what that alternative really is, but surely you agree there are problems with neo-liberalism?

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Politics

#139 Post by Hype » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:23 pm

mockbee wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:44 pm
Hype wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:29 pm
Warren has to include an anti-globalist platform,
What?! You know 'globalist' is a euphemism for Jews, right? Like, this isn't a legitimate platform, it's an antisemitic conspiracy theory about who "runs the world"... :neutral:
I did make a mistake in using that term. I in no way endorse 'anti-globalist' views. I am referring more in the realm of globalization/neo-liberal policies. I don't have an idea of what that alternative really is, but surely you agree there are problems with neo-liberalism?
As I understand it, 'neo-liberal' is an epithet to refer to people who hold to a weird melange of hijacked Locke and Rousseau via Hajek and Rand, while basically just ignoring Mill and Kant. I.e., they are corporate stooges and not much else. Yes, of course there are problems with deregulation, but globalization isn't necessarily tied to neo-liberalism. International regulations and regulatory bodies are a thing. It's asshats like Trump pulling out of longstanding agreements that threaten to break the valuable side of globalization. In that sense, he's an anti-globalist (and he's also an anti-globalist in the racist sense)... So, nah.

User avatar
chaos
Posts: 5024
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Politics

#140 Post by chaos » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:40 pm

Hype wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:29 pm

What?! You know 'globalist' is a euphemism for Jews, right?
I did not know this. :noclue:

_____________

^I just texted my husband about this. He didn't know either, and he is smarter than me. :lol:

For those of you who are :dunce: like me, I found a Washington Post article re this euphemism: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... offensive/

User avatar
chaos
Posts: 5024
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Politics

#141 Post by chaos » Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:12 am

The Ukraine debacle is all Rick Perry's fault. :lolol:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... t-n1062931

Oct. 6, 2019, 8:19 AM EDT
By Geoff Bennett, Alex Moe and Kelly O'Donnell

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump told House Republicans Friday that he was urged by Energy Secretary Rick Perry to make the midsummer phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that is now at the center of House Democrats' impeachment inquiry, two sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.

Trump suggested it was a call he didn't even want to make, the sources said.


The news was first reported by Axios.

Department of Energy Press Secretary Shaylyn Hynes told NBC News late Saturday that “Secretary Perry absolutely supported and encouraged the President to speak to the new President of Ukraine to discuss matters related to their energy security and economic development."

"He continues to believe that there is significant need for improved regional energy security — which additional options for natural gas supply will provide — and this is exactly why he is heading to Lithuania tonight to meet with nearly two dozen European energy leaders (including Ukraine) on these issues.”

Perry is reportedly set to resign from his position as energy secretary in November.


User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 10344
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Politics

#142 Post by Artemis » Wed Oct 09, 2019 3:14 pm

Canadian election humour.

Image

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Politics

#143 Post by SR » Sun Oct 20, 2019 4:55 pm

Oh, Canada...

Scheer, Trudeau, or SIngh?

Will Singh divide the left and make Scheer's day tomorrow?

User avatar
chaos
Posts: 5024
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Politics

#144 Post by chaos » Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:57 am

Wait, when did . . . . Nevermind. :lol:

User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 10344
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Politics

#145 Post by Artemis » Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:09 pm

"Regardez ce grand bébé orange."
(" look at this big orange baby.")

Image

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5720
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Politics

#146 Post by Pandemonium » Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:19 pm

Welcome 2020. Looks like war with Iran just took a big step forward.

User avatar
chaos
Posts: 5024
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Politics

#147 Post by chaos » Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:21 pm

Yeah, and I'm freaking out. :scared: :nyrexall:

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Politics

#148 Post by mockbee » Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:24 pm

I think we'll be okay.
In fact I think we may be closer to peace with Iran than we have been in quite a long time...... :noclue:
Suleimani had more power than the Supreme Leader, he had the guns....we couldn't have him calling the shots.
I think there will be more to this, Iran intel could/may be involved......

Not saying I agree with taking leaders out, but this is no loss......


Here is the update/result of the Turkey/Kurd 'disaster'....looks pretty good...? :noclue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Turk ... #Aftermath



Image
Qassim Suleimani, Master of Iran’s Intrigue, Built a Shiite Axis of Power in Mideast

The commander helped direct wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, and he became the face of Iran’s efforts to build a regional bloc of Shiite power.
He changed the shape of the Syrian civil war and tightened Iran’s grip on Iraq. He was behind hundreds of American deaths in Iraq and waves of militia attacks against Israel. And for two decades, his every move lit up the communications networks — and fed the obsessions — of intelligence operatives across the Middle East.

On Friday, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the powerful and shadowy 62-year-old spymaster at the head of Iran’s security machinery, was killed by an American drone strike near the Baghdad airport.

Just as his accomplishments shaped the creation of a Shiite axis of influence across the Middle East, with Iran at the center, his death is now likely to prove central to a new chapter of geopolitical tension across the region.
Live Updates
Iran vowed to retaliate for the U.S. killing of a powerful general.

General Suleimani was at the vanguard of Iran’s revolutionary generation, joining the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in his early 20s after the 1979 uprising that enshrined the country’s Shiite theocracy.

He rose quickly during the brutal Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. And since 1998, he was the head of the Revolutionary Guards’ influential Quds Force, the foreign-facing arm of Iran’s security apparatus, melding intelligence work with a military strategy of nurturing proxy forces across the world.

In the West, he was seen as a clandestine force behind an Iranian campaign of international terrorism. He and other Iranian officials were designated as terrorists by the United States and Israel in 2011, accused of a plot to kill the ambassador of Saudi Arabia, one of Iran’s chief enemies in the region, in Washington. Last year, in April, the entire Quds Force was listed as a foreign terrorism group by the Trump administration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/obit ... e=Homepage

User avatar
chaos
Posts: 5024
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Politics

#149 Post by chaos » Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:15 pm

Whether Suleimani was a "bad guy" and/or deserved to be taken out is irrelevant. We assassinated a high level person from Iran in a country where we are essentially seen as occupiers. Iraq may throw the US out of their country since they were not notified of the military action.

And, last week, Iran, China, and Russia held joint naval drills last week. https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-russia-chi ... 48593.html

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Politics

#150 Post by mockbee » Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:40 pm

I agree, US should not be in the business of taking leaders out. But its done, and he was an identified terrorist who killed American troops by many countries. Do you beleive Bin Laden should not have been taken out either?

Iraq did not and eould nevet want Iran involved in their affairs. And I am suspecting Iran insiders where not happy with Suleimani either. We will see. The alternative was not looking good....

:noclue:

Post Reply