JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18867
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

Turn's out the shootdown was of the 10th plane to depart Tehran that morning.

Was the missile crew out getting coffee for the first 9 ?

Does Rachel know ?
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18867
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

tech37 wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:38 pm What was imminent was the opportunity to take that POS out... good for them
That's too complex a concept for the ankle biters to factor in.
We got his top Iraqi PMF commander too.

So many US troops were killed or maimed on the Baghdad Airport Rd, thanks to Soleimani's EFPs.
The picture of that molten lump of SUV containing his remains on that road is enduring karmic symbolism.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18867
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

Iran admits to the shootdown. Human error.

Canada needs to seize the opportunity to drag the JCPOA parties back to the negotiating table.
Offer to host the negotiations in Canada.
DocBarrister
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:19 pm Iran admits to the shootdown. Human error.

Canada needs to seize the opportunity to drag the JCPOA parties back to the negotiating table.
Offer to host the negotiations in Canada.
Your lack of understanding is truly astounding and borderline delusional.

Iran will come back to the table only if there is an opportunity for far more sanctions relief than provided under the old JCPOA. The theocratic regime won’t need to worry about domestic unrest because Trump’s reckless assassination of Solamanei has bought the regime time and unified the nation against the United States. Iran knows now (if they hadn’t known before) that Trump is a completely untrustworthy and unreliable partner, and will never negotiate with the U.S. while he sits in the Oval Office.

China won’t allow Iran to destabilize and the regime to collapse. They won’t follow Trump’s moronic “maximum pressure” strategy. China is heavily dependent on oil from the gulf and has massive investments in the region, including billions of dollars in Iran itself. China does not want Iran to become desperate and destabilize the entire region.

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics ... st-blunder

The EU is not interested in negotiating a new deal. They want to save the original deal and have essentially abandoned Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/0 ... Position=2

Germany is particularly notorious for violating sanctions against Iran (and Russia for that matter). They’re not going to follow any tougher sanctions imposed by the U.S.

In other words, the only way Trump will get a new JCPOA is if he offers better terms to Iran than the original deal. That’s not going to happen.

In all likelihood, Iran (and the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese) will await Trump’s removal from office and the return of stability and reason to the White House before restoring the old deal or negotiating a new one (with better terms for Iran). On the other hand, after facing down Trump’s lunacy, Iran may just go ahead and become a nuclear power ... which would be a devastating sequela of Trump’s idiocy and recklessness.

DocBarrister :?
@DocBarrister
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18867
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

Delusional huh ? How accurately have my delusions been playing out ? Are we at war yet ?
What if Trump wins in 2020 ? Will China prop up Iran for another 5 years ?
Trump's looking for a way out. He still needs to fullfill his pledge of downsizing our ME involvement.
He'll back off sanctions if it leads back to negotiations on a long term JCPOA that works, Iran reins in their proxies & halts ICBM development.
Just a renewal of a weak JCPOA II by the next (D) admin stands no chance of Senate treaty ratification & the rest of the world won't play if it's just another potential in & out Exec Agreement with the US. A Trump negotiated Treaty stands a better chance of Senate ratification than anything a 2020 (D) admin might negotiate.
You're right about the fecklessness of the EUros, but nobody wants the US out of the ME.
Is Iran willing & able to suffer another year (or several more) hoping that Trump loses ?
I look forward to the Chinese Navy keeping the Strait of Hormuz & Bab el Mandeb belt & road open.
Last edited by old salt on Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
DocBarrister
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:10 pm
tech37 wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:38 pm What was imminent was the opportunity to take that POS out... good for them
That's too complex a concept for the ankle biters to factor in.
We got his top Iraqi PMF commander too.

So many US troops were killed or maimed on the Baghdad Airport Rd, thanks to Soleimani's EFPs.
The picture of that molten lump of SUV containing his remains on that road is enduring karmic symbolism.
Neither of you are concerned at all that the president and multiple senior members of his administration lied to the American people about the basis of an assassination that almost led to a full war against Iran. That’s really disturbing and really speaks poorly of your support of our democracy.

Full-scale war was avoided only because the Ayatollahs and the Republican Guard acted rationally and in a carefully calibrated way ... which cannot be said of Trump and his reckless goons (especially Pompeo).

Since when is it acceptable that the Ayatollahs in Iran act more responsibly than the President of the United States?

DocBarrister :roll:
@DocBarrister
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18867
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

The attacks were more than imminent.
We were in the midst of a planned series of escalating attacks in Iraq by Iranian proxy militias.
Not enough dead & wounded Americans in Iraq to get your attention ?
Does it take a full Benghazi to capture your attention ?
DocBarrister
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:04 am Delusional huh ? How accurately have my delusions been playing out ? Are we at war yet ?
What if Trump wins in 2020 ? Will China prop up Iran for another 5 years ?
Trump's looking for a way out. He still needs to fullfill his pledge of downsizing our ME involvement.
He'll back off sanctions if it leads back to negotiations on a long term JCPOA that works, Iran reins in their proxies & halts ICBM development.
Just a renewal of a weak JCPOA II by the next (D) admin stands no chance of Senate treaty ratification & the rest of the world won't play if it's just another potential in & out Exec Agreement with the US. A Trump negotiated Treaty stands a better chance of Senate ratification than anything a 2020 (D) admin might negotiate.
You're right about the fecklessness of the EUros.
Is Iran willing & able to suffer another year (or several more) hoping that Trump loses ?
I look forward to the Chinese Navy keeping the Strait of Hormuz & Bab el Mandeb belt & road open.
The only reason we’re not at war with Iran right now is because the Iranians had amazingly good aim with their ballistic missiles. If Trump assassinated Solamanei over the death of a contractor (or so he says), what would he have had to do if Iran directly killed American soldiers with ballistic missiles launched from Iranian soil?

Trump couldn’t even make money off of a casino. What makes you think he can negotiate a better nuclear deal than the one that the United States, Russia, China, the UK, France, Germany, and the EU negotiated over the better part of a decade?

You truly are delusional.

DocBarrister :?
@DocBarrister
DocBarrister
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:17 am The attacks were more than imminent.
We were in the midst of a planned series of escalating attacks in Iraq by Iranian proxy militias.
Not enough dead & wounded Americans in Iraq to get your attention ?
Does it take a full Benghazi to capture your attention ?
Your arguments are just vapid and delusional.

Do you understand that we came within a whisker of a war with Iran, one that could have blown up into a full-scale regional conflict?

Iran started escalating its proxy wars after Trump pulled out of the JCPOA. Iran had plenty of financial incentive to minimize conflict when they were getting sanctions relief. Trump abandoning the JCPOA gave hard-liners in Iran (especially the Republican Guards and Quds force) more leeway to do what they do best ... cause havoc around the entire region.

And are you so foolish as to believe Trump when he has proven to be the most dishonest man to ever occupy the Oval Office?

You once acknowledged that you supported Trump’s “immigration policies“ (aka, detention camps for refugee kids) because of “racial animus” towards Latinos. That’s repugnant, but it is what it is. That’s your “right.”

But is that worth supporting a president who is so obviously mentally deficient and reckless?

This week’s events should have been a wake up call for you and other Trump supporters here. Instead, they only proved the cultish devotion of Trump’s followers.

I have never felt so concerned for our nation, and I was at the Pentagon and then four blocks from the White House on 9/11.

DocBarrister
@DocBarrister
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18867
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

The only reason we’re not at war with Iran right now is because the Iranians had amazingly good aim with their ballistic missiles.
.:lol:. Good aim. 16 missiles expended. 1 helo hit. US early warning capability provided ample warning time for US & Iraqi forces to take adequate shelter. There were no US defensive weapons employed or required.
If Trump assassinated Solamanei over the death of a contractor (or so he says), what would he have had to do if Iran directly killed American soldiers with ballistic missiles launched from Iranian soil?
It would have elicited a disproportionate response. The capabilities, professionalism & restraint of US forces & national leadership precluded further escalation.

Contrast that with the Iranian govt command & control of their own forces, ...& the results.

Speaking of delusional -- your characterization of Trump's immigration policies attributed to me.
DocBarrister
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:57 am
The only reason we’re not at war with Iran right now is because the Iranians had amazingly good aim with their ballistic missiles.
.:lol:. Good aim. 16 missiles expended. 1 helo hit. US early warning capability provided ample warning time for US & Iraqi forces to take adequate shelter. There were no US defensive weapons employed or required.
If Trump assassinated Solamanei over the death of a contractor (or so he says), what would he have had to do if Iran directly killed American soldiers with ballistic missiles launched from Iranian soil?
It would have elicited a disproportionate response. The capabilities, professionalism & restraint of US forces & national leadership precluded further escalation.

Contrast that with the Iranian govt command & control of their own forces, ...& the results.
You do understand that Iran notified the U.S. of the impending attack through Iraq? They gave both Iraq and the United States several hours of warning time.

Even the Ayatollahs are treating Trump like a toddler holding a Glock.

If you survey world leaders about who the most dangerous man in the world is, I am certain they would vote overwhelmingly for Trump.

Donald Trump is the leader of a dangerous personality cult. It’s disturbingly obvious that some here are part of that cult.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/20/opin ... Position=1

Such cults have developed in the past in Germany, Italy, Russia, China, and Japan (among many other nations). Guess the United States was not immune to such a dangerous affliction.

God help us ... oh, yeah ... God doesn’t exist.

DocBarrister :|
Last edited by DocBarrister on Sat Jan 11, 2020 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
@DocBarrister
DocBarrister
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:57 am

Speaking of delusional -- your characterization of Trump's immigration policies attributed to me.
No, you can’t weasel out of your prior acknowledgment. I wasn’t the only one who saw your post. Both the other forum member who responded and I described it as “disappointing.”

DocBarrister
@DocBarrister
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18867
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

DocBarrister wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 2:09 am
old salt wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:57 am
The only reason we’re not at war with Iran right now is because the Iranians had amazingly good aim with their ballistic missiles.
.:lol:. Good aim. 16 missiles expended. 1 helo hit. US early warning capability provided ample warning time for US & Iraqi forces to take adequate shelter. There were no US defensive weapons employed or required.
If Trump assassinated Solamanei over the death of a contractor (or so he says), what would he have had to do if Iran directly killed American soldiers with ballistic missiles launched from Iranian soil?
It would have elicited a disproportionate response. The capabilities, professionalism & restraint of US forces & national leadership precluded further escalation.

Contrast that with the Iranian govt command & control of their own forces, ...& the results.
You do understand that Iran notified the U.S. of the impending attack through Iraq? They gave both Iraq and the United States several hours of warning time. Fiction. What's your source for that ? Gen Milley briefed that our first indications were imagery of launchers on the move & being prepped, then we observed the IR bloom upon launch. We informed the Iraqis, not the reverse. No way to know the targets until after launch.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq ... SKBN1Z72ZM

Even the Ayatollahs are treating Trump like a toddler holding a Glock.

If you survey world leaders about who the most dangerous man in the world is, I am certain they would vote overwhelmingly for Trump.

Donald Trump is the leader of a dangerous personality cult. It’s disturbingly obvious that some here are part of that cult.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/20/opin ... Position=1

Such cults have developed in the past in Germany, Italy, Russia, China, and Japan (among many other nations). Guess the United States was not immune to such a dangerous affliction.

God help us ... oh, yeah ... God doesn’t exist.

DocBarrister :|
.:roll:.
Last edited by old salt on Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18867
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

DocBarrister wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 2:13 am You once acknowledged that you supported Trump’s “immigration policies“ (aka, detention camps for refugee kids) because of “racial animus” towards Latinos. That’s repugnant, but it is what it is. That’s your “right.”
old salt wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:57 am Speaking of delusional -- your characterization of Trump's immigration policies attributed to me.
No, you can’t weasel out of your prior acknowledgment. I wasn’t the only one who saw your post. Both the other forum member who responded and I described it as “disappointing.”

DocBarrister
Show us the words of which you speak.
What do you mean by "racial animus," by who, toward who ?
You tend to become incoherent & irrationally accusatory when under stress.
Trinity
Posts: 3513
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:14 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by Trinity »

“....John Solomon's source on Hillary and the Uranium One tale was William Douglas Campbell. Campbell's lawyer was Victoria Toensing. Toensing is also Solomon's longtime lawyer. Those ties were not revealed in Solomon's The Hill articles. Steve Bannon, Peter Schweizer, John Solomon, and Sean Hannity all all played key roles in a wide-ranging effort to damage Clinton and then to protect President Donald Trump by falsely suggesting that Clinton corruptly influenced the sale of Uranium One to Russian interests.
Solomon's reporting revolved around an anonymous informant's claim that "Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S." designed to benefit the Clinton Foundation and influence the approval of the Uranium One deal.
The informant's claims were deemed unreliable by DOJ, and congressional investigators subsequently said he had no evidence related to Clinton. But the Solomon report triggered hours of Fox coverage and pressured Sessions into appointing Huber....
If this pattern sounds familiar, it's exactly how Solomon's Ukraine disinformation campaign played out. Solomon's biggest stories seem to involve clients of his lawyer, with those ties are never revealed in his account.”

Matt Gertz— Media Matters
“I don’t take responsibility at all.” —Donald J Trump
Trinity
Posts: 3513
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:14 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by Trinity »

“I don’t take responsibility at all.” —Donald J Trump
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 15437
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by cradleandshoot »

old salt wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:10 pm
tech37 wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:38 pm What was imminent was the opportunity to take that POS out... good for them
That's too complex a concept for the ankle biters to factor in.
We got his top Iraqi PMF commander too.

So many US troops were killed or maimed on the Baghdad Airport Rd, thanks to Soleimani's EFPs.
The picture of that molten lump of SUV containing his remains on that road is enduring karmic symbolism.
+1 I hope the mother effer suffered greatly and hugely before his miserable murdering backside left this earth. I have not been a Trump fan but his decision to eliminate, or as the FLP toadstools on this forum like to say... assassinate the mother effer was one Trump decision I will stand up and applaud all day long. I also applaud all of POTUS Obamas drone attacks to "asassinate" bad guys hiding out in Pakistan. Ironically those "assassinations did not bother all of the FLP toadies that post on this forum.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by seacoaster »

old salt wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:10 pm
tech37 wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:38 pm What was imminent was the opportunity to take that POS out... good for them
That's too complex a concept for the ankle biters to factor in.
We got his top Iraqi PMF commander too.

So many US troops were killed or maimed on the Baghdad Airport Rd, thanks to Soleimani's EFPs.
The picture of that molten lump of SUV containing his remains on that road is enduring karmic symbolism.
Serious questions to you both:

Does the Executive, when confronted with an opportunity to remove from the table a known bad guy, have any obligation to report to Congress in advance?

Does the Executive under these circumstances have any obligation to report to Congress after the fact?
LandM
Posts: 661
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:51 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by LandM »

72,
To put your mind at ease:

Google General David Goldfein - when you google him listen to the calm in his voice when he was shot down over Serbia - it is fun to bust his nuts over that and somebody I am sure someone is going to have a woody over the "boys come get me"

Google General Brad Webb - he was sitting in the big chair when Bin Laden was killed - gained a few pounds;

Google Brian Losey and Scotty Moore both SEALS and I will never forgive McCain for what he did to Brian. He ruined a stellar career.

Those are some of the people calling the ball. I have had to pull my wife off the roof this past week over "we are going to war". Fear mongering is not a great tactic. BTW my godson and my other friends son are still on stand-by - going to have to give them some real chow in the next 24 hours :D . I give credit to both sides for the restraint shown and they are at a stalemate. BTW, IMHO strap some F-35's and blow up the oil refineries, it is quick, easy and brings a country to it's knees - do I agree with that - no - but that is a very simple option IMHO. My dad set-up the original electronic warfare in Iran- he was called after retirement for Operation Eagle Claw - he declined. If he was alive he could get you in and out in 30 minutes.

C&S - based on what I can tell he probably realized something happened when he was sitting with his 18 virgins - I am sure he did not feel a thing.

Doc hopefully when at the Pentagon on 9/11 you wore the uniform of the day. That is a cesspool many like to avoid and I applaud you could do it.
tech37
Posts: 4383
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:02 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by tech37 »

The good General (a designated terrorist) was killed on foreign soil under the current AUMF.

If the majority of Americans don't like the current AUMF, then change it.
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”