LaxPower Back-Up Stick

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:33 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:39 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:43 am If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:33 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:39 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:43 am If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:55 am BREAKING: A Whistleblower told the FBI that Trump’s Deutsche Bank loans were backed by Russian state-owned bank, VTB Bank. VTB was proposed lender for Trump Tower Moscow and allegedly funded the Rosneft Deal. New docs show deep ties between Deutsche + VTB.

So this news has also broken....

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:01 am

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:55 am BREAKING: A Whistleblower told the FBI that Trump’s Deutsche Bank loans were backed by Russian state-owned bank, VTB Bank. VTB was proposed lender for Trump Tower Moscow and allegedly funded the Rosneft Deal. New docs show deep ties between Deutsche + VTB.

So this news has also broken....

Sure looks like Trump is waging the dog.

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:55 am BREAKING: A Whistleblower told the FBI that Trump’s Deutsche Bank loans were backed by Russian state-owned bank, VTB Bank. VTB was proposed lender for Trump Tower Moscow and allegedly funded the Rosneft Deal. New docs show deep ties between Deutsche + VTB.

So this news has also broken....

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:56 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:33 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:39 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:43 am If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:56 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:33 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:39 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:43 am If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:11 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:56 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:33 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:39 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:43 am If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

There were no multilateral responses ever considered. Our ex-allies are not on board with this. This was a total knee jerk reaction by president SFB. Putin is not standing behind us, the Europeans are silent and only nut job corrupt Benji N is taking Trump's position. Iraqi is considering ordering all US troops out of Iraqi. This guy is a very stable genius.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:10 am

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:55 am BREAKING: A Whistleblower told the FBI that Trump’s Deutsche Bank loans were backed by Russian state-owned bank, VTB Bank. VTB was proposed lender for Trump Tower Moscow and allegedly funded the Rosneft Deal. New docs show deep ties between Deutsche + VTB.

So this news has also broken....

The american people knew this. Trump was duly elected.

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:55 am BREAKING: A Whistleblower told the FBI that Trump’s Deutsche Bank loans were backed by Russian state-owned bank, VTB Bank. VTB was proposed lender for Trump Tower Moscow and allegedly funded the Rosneft Deal. New docs show deep ties between Deutsche + VTB.

So this news has also broken....

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:13 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:56 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:33 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:39 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:43 am If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

I'd want to know what those top DoD advisors who just resigned thought of this action, and the 5 airstrikes in Iraq that preceded it.

And I'd want to know who in the national security/national defense team advised Trump to do it...if anyone.

I have no doubt that there will be Trump supporters (eg Pompeo) who will defend it as an appropriate action, but who was actually advising for it ahead of Trump's decision and who was advising against it?

Let's have a little oversight Congress...it was indeed an 'act of war'. Was the Gang of 8 even consulted?
Or just Lindsay Graham?

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:43 am If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:51 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:13 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:56 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:33 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:39 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:43 am If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

I'd want to know what those top DoD advisors who just resigned thought of this action, and the 5 airstrikes in Iraq that preceded it.

And I'd want to know who in the national security/national defense team advised Trump to do it...if anyone.

I have no doubt that there will be Trump supporters (eg Pompeo) who will defend it as an appropriate action, but who was actually advising for it ahead of Trump's decision and who was advising against it?

Let's have a little oversight Congress...it was indeed an 'act of war'. Was the Gang of 8 even consulted?
Or just Lindsay Graham?

The "gang of 8" was not consulted if Pelosi comments are being understood correctly. She made a press release last night about congress not having been informed / consulted.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:05 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:51 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:13 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:56 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:33 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:39 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:43 am If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

I'd want to know what those top DoD advisors who just resigned thought of this action, and the 5 airstrikes in Iraq that preceded it.

And I'd want to know who in the national security/national defense team advised Trump to do it...if anyone.

I have no doubt that there will be Trump supporters (eg Pompeo) who will defend it as an appropriate action, but who was actually advising for it ahead of Trump's decision and who was advising against it?

Let's have a little oversight Congress...it was indeed an 'act of war'. Was the Gang of 8 even consulted?
Or just Lindsay Graham?

The "gang of 8" was not consulted if Pelosi comments are being understood correctly. She made a press release last night about congress not having been informed / consulted.

Yup. And probably not even the GOP members.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:15 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:05 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:51 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:13 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:56 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:33 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:39 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:43 am If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

I'd want to know what those top DoD advisors who just resigned thought of this action, and the 5 airstrikes in Iraq that preceded it.

And I'd want to know who in the national security/national defense team advised Trump to do it...if anyone.

I have no doubt that there will be Trump supporters (eg Pompeo) who will defend it as an appropriate action, but who was actually advising for it ahead of Trump's decision and who was advising against it?

Let's have a little oversight Congress...it was indeed an 'act of war'. Was the Gang of 8 even consulted?
Or just Lindsay Graham?

The "gang of 8" was not consulted if Pelosi comments are being understood correctly. She made a press release last night about congress not having been informed / consulted.

Yup. And probably not even the GOP members.

I have to wonder if Graham was even told before the event. I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth. The White House and State Department seems to be playing catch up. They were not prepared to handle this event.

doug7779 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:26 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:15 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:05 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:51 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:13 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:56 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:33 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:39 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:43 am If the end-goal and prayers of the world by most people are for peace, then why would Iran and their military leaders try and shake down our embassy and those inside the green zone?

It seems we are more tolerant to give grace to the bad guys than our own country.

What BS. Trump has been spoiling for this since he took office. Now he has got it. He just injected steroids into Bush's mistake!

What did Trump's Admin retaliation of Iran storming our embassy have to do with your take that he wanted this all along. Are you implying he staged Iran and their military leader to attack our embassy? I asked a serious question, and you played partisan politics.

I think one answer to your question may be that Iran was baiting us. Their leadership surely knows that this Administration -- made up of substantial Obama critics -- is worried about its own Benghazi affair, and played out a little brinksmanship with the Administration. The result could now be a combination of exactly what Iran wanted (a violent, overplayed attack on Iranian sovereignty, useful as propaganda and leadership propping material) and what it least wanted (the death of a significant leadership figure), with the end result being an effort to martyr him and soak in as much Anti-American propaganda as is possible. My sense is that there was plenty of room left for diplomacy (e.g., actions short of a military option) before engaging in (what I do understand are responsive) acts of war.

So the question now is whether this results in further escalation? Terrorist attacks on Western (and not only American) targets? I am skeptical there will be a positive return on our investment here. I am skeptical that the response was in proportion to the actions at and around our Embassy -- which in my view should be the guidepost for everything we do far afield, in dangerous places. I am not mourning the bad guys here, or otherwise singing their tune. I am asking whether, in a world already in difficult shape, with many variables I don't understand well enough, this was the proper response of a superpower committed, at least since 1945, to diplomacy and multilateral action before exercising a unilateral military response.

I hope this at least appears a little responsive to your question.

I'd want to know what those top DoD advisors who just resigned thought of this action, and the 5 airstrikes in Iraq that preceded it.

And I'd want to know who in the national security/national defense team advised Trump to do it...if anyone.

I have no doubt that there will be Trump supporters (eg Pompeo) who will defend it as an appropriate action, but who was actually advising for it ahead of Trump's decision and who was advising against it?

Let's have a little oversight Congress...it was indeed an 'act of war'. Was the Gang of 8 even consulted?
Or just Lindsay Graham?

The "gang of 8" was not consulted if Pelosi comments are being understood correctly. She made a press release last night about congress not having been informed / consulted.

Yup. And probably not even the GOP members.

I have to wonder if Graham was even told before the event. I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth. The White House and State Department seems to be playing catch up. They were not prepared to handle this event.

Pelosi was unreachable as she was masturbating to the impeachment documents