Soleimani was going to blow up our Embassy. That was the imminent threat

[progressive hunter]

there was a lot more than 60 people on that plane, and ignoring the rest while crying like a bitch about just 60 of them shows your bias and confirms your hatred for those different from you,,,

and what about the thousands that salami has already killed and planned to kill??
as I figured silence,,,

your TDS tantrum is noted and mocked for what it is,,,

What about the tens of thousand we have killed? You don't think a mother in Syria isn't terrified for her children when one of our drones flies overhead?

are you talking about the ones blown up in suicide bomb attacks???

Suicide bombers have drones? If not, then no, that is not what I am talking about.

Obama was the one blowing up kids with drones,,,hes gone now ,,,

He did. He should rot in hell for that but we have not stopped.

got a link???

 

[pknopp]

I don't even know that to actually be the case but if so, let the UN deal with it.

Can you name a case in which the UN has successfully dealt with anything?

No, but that's because we use them to excuse our war mongering so they are never required to.

Warmongering. Good one.

Amazing how the other countries are legit but the US is 'warmongering'.

No, there are a ton of war mongers. The middle East has been at war with each other for centuries. My question is asking why we want to be like that?

I dont think we want to be like them,,,but they have been attacking us since 1776 so what are we supposed to do??

Lol.....

 

[pknopp]

Permitted by who?

The UN

I don't even know that to actually be the case but if so, let the UN deal with it.

Can you name a case in which the UN has successfully dealt with anything?

18 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do we have room to talk?

Yes, we do. However, trying to make a 'moral equivalence' argument is a fools errand.

There is no comparison to terrorists. The world signed off on both those ventures ane while I think we should have left both years ago, they are in no way comparable to the terrorist acts that continue around the region and globe in the past and present.

Iran could be dealt with economically and we could just continue to squeeze them until they capitulate and stop the terror against everyone. However, when they send their henchmen out to further their terror, those people need to be killed. And that process should continue for every one they send until they stop, or run out of henchmen.

If you truly want the world to be safer, then be as brutal with your enemy as you can be, until he stops being your enemy, or dies. Whichever comes first.

Sanctions are an act of war. We would most certainly consider it so if someone did it to us.

You can't defeat something that has been going on for centuries. 18 years and we have only made thing worse.

 

[progressive hunter]

Can you name a case in which the UN has successfully dealt with anything?

No, but that's because we use them to excuse our war mongering so they are never required to.

Warmongering. Good one.

Amazing how the other countries are legit but the US is 'warmongering'.

No, there are a ton of war mongers. The middle East has been at war with each other for centuries. My question is asking why we want to be like that?

I dont think we want to be like them,,,but they have been attacking us since 1776 so what are we supposed to do??

Lol.....

still true,,,

 

[Polishprince]

Trump said today that there was a plot to blow up our Embassy in Iraq and that was the imminent threat. Why the hell didn’t they say that right away?!

simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

Then follow up with their crimes and appalling history. Why in the world did they not do that?! The evolution of their messaging with this situation has been very strange.

President Trump had intelligence reports that this creep Soleimani was going to blow up the embassy. We had Qassem in our sights last week, didn't know when we would again, and The Donald did what he had to do.

However, suppose Trump hadn't listened to his intelligence reports. And didn't take any action.

And next week, Soleimani destroyed the US Embassy.

The libs would have blamed Trump, just like they blamed Dubya for not taking against Ladin before 911.

 

[CWayne]

The UN

I don't even know that to actually be the case but if so, let the UN deal with it.

Can you name a case in which the UN has successfully dealt with anything?

18 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do we have room to talk?

Yes, we do. However, trying to make a 'moral equivalence' argument is a fools errand.

There is no comparison to terrorists. The world signed off on both those ventures ane while I think we should have left both years ago, they are in no way comparable to the terrorist acts that continue around the region and globe in the past and present.

Iran could be dealt with economically and we could just continue to squeeze them until they capitulate and stop the terror against everyone. However, when they send their henchmen out to further their terror, those people need to be killed. And that process should continue for every one they send until they stop, or run out of henchmen.

If you truly want the world to be safer, then be as brutal with your enemy as you can be, until he stops being your enemy, or dies. Whichever comes first.

Sanctions are an act of war. We would most certainly consider it so if someone did it to us.

You can't defeat something that has been going on for centuries. 18 years and we have only made thing worse.

Again, a moral equivalency argument is a poor one.

The purpose of sanctions is to alter behavior without the loss of life in a direct military confrontation.

Is it still considered an 'act of war' when the world signs off on it? Is it an act of war when you place sanctions on a nation that is already at war with you?

Is it an act of war when you jail someone for bad behavior? After all, a law is just a set of rules that says a person won't act in a certain way. If you do, we will place sanctions on you.

Do you get the idea about how foolish a moral equivalence test is? I can take this all the way down to punishing child for not eating their vegetables.

 

[pknopp]

I don't even know that to actually be the case but if so, let the UN deal with it.

Can you name a case in which the UN has successfully dealt with anything?

18 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do we have room to talk?

Yes, we do. However, trying to make a 'moral equivalence' argument is a fools errand.

There is no comparison to terrorists. The world signed off on both those ventures ane while I think we should have left both years ago, they are in no way comparable to the terrorist acts that continue around the region and globe in the past and present.

Iran could be dealt with economically and we could just continue to squeeze them until they capitulate and stop the terror against everyone. However, when they send their henchmen out to further their terror, those people need to be killed. And that process should continue for every one they send until they stop, or run out of henchmen.

If you truly want the world to be safer, then be as brutal with your enemy as you can be, until he stops being your enemy, or dies. Whichever comes first.

Sanctions are an act of war. We would most certainly consider it so if someone did it to us.

You can't defeat something that has been going on for centuries. 18 years and we have only made thing worse.

Again, a moral equivalency argument is a poor one.

The purpose of sanctions is to alter behavior without the loss of life in a direct military confrontation.

Is it still considered an 'act of war' when the world signs off on it? Is it an act of war when you place sanctions on a nation that is already at war with you?

Is it an act of war when you jail someone for bad behavior? After all, a law is just a set of rules that says a person won't act in a certain way. If you do, we will place sanctions on you.

Do you get the idea about how foolish a moral equivalence test is? I can take this all the way down to punishing child for not eating their vegetables.

It's an act of war. All it does is harm those already being harmed. It's never made a difference anywhere.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Trump said today that there was a plot to blow up our Embassy in Iraq and that was the imminent threat. Why the hell didn’t they say that right away?!

simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

Then follow up with their crimes and appalling history. Why in the world did they not do that?! The evolution of their messaging with this situation has been very strange.

We can be thankful that Trump killed the only 2 people in that country who know how to blow up our embassy...

 

[pknopp]

Trump said today that there was a plot to blow up our Embassy in Iraq and that was the imminent threat. Why the hell didn’t they say that right away?!

simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

Then follow up with their crimes and appalling history. Why in the world did they not do that?! The evolution of their messaging with this situation has been very strange.

We can be thankful that Trump killed the only 2 people in that country who know how to blow up our embassy...

Yeah, things will now be peaceful in the middle East. Who knew?

 

[progressive hunter]

Trump said today that there was a plot to blow up our Embassy in Iraq and that was the imminent threat. Why the hell didn’t they say that right away?!

simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

Then follow up with their crimes and appalling history. Why in the world did they not do that?! The evolution of their messaging with this situation has been very strange.

We can be thankful that Trump killed the only 2 people in that country who know how to blow up our embassy...

I hope youre not that dumb to believe that,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Can you name a case in which the UN has successfully dealt with anything?

18 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do we have room to talk?

Yes, we do. However, trying to make a 'moral equivalence' argument is a fools errand.

There is no comparison to terrorists. The world signed off on both those ventures ane while I think we should have left both years ago, they are in no way comparable to the terrorist acts that continue around the region and globe in the past and present.

Iran could be dealt with economically and we could just continue to squeeze them until they capitulate and stop the terror against everyone. However, when they send their henchmen out to further their terror, those people need to be killed. And that process should continue for every one they send until they stop, or run out of henchmen.

If you truly want the world to be safer, then be as brutal with your enemy as you can be, until he stops being your enemy, or dies. Whichever comes first.

Sanctions are an act of war. We would most certainly consider it so if someone did it to us.

You can't defeat something that has been going on for centuries. 18 years and we have only made thing worse.

Again, a moral equivalency argument is a poor one.

The purpose of sanctions is to alter behavior without the loss of life in a direct military confrontation.

Is it still considered an 'act of war' when the world signs off on it? Is it an act of war when you place sanctions on a nation that is already at war with you?

Is it an act of war when you jail someone for bad behavior? After all, a law is just a set of rules that says a person won't act in a certain way. If you do, we will place sanctions on you.

Do you get the idea about how foolish a moral equivalence test is? I can take this all the way down to punishing child for not eating their vegetables.

It's an act of war. All it does is harm those already being harmed. It's never made a difference anywhere.

how is it an act of war???

 

[Vandalshandle]

Trump said today that there was a plot to blow up our Embassy in Iraq and that was the imminent threat. Why the hell didn’t they say that right away?!

simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

Then follow up with their crimes and appalling history. Why in the world did they not do that?! The evolution of their messaging with this situation has been very strange.

We can be thankful that Trump killed the only 2 people in that country who know how to blow up our embassy...

I hope youre not that dumb to believe that,,,

...and I hope that you are not so naive as to be unable to recognize obvious sarcasm.

 

[progressive hunter]

Trump said today that there was a plot to blow up our Embassy in Iraq and that was the imminent threat. Why the hell didn’t they say that right away?!

simple press release, “Two designated terrorists got together and were on their way to blow up our Embassy so we took them out.”

Then follow up with their crimes and appalling history. Why in the world did they not do that?! The evolution of their messaging with this situation has been very strange.

We can be thankful that Trump killed the only 2 people in that country who know how to blow up our embassy...

I hope youre not that dumb to believe that,,,

...and I hope that you are not so naive as to be unable to recognize obvious sarcasm.

when you deal with so many leftist on this forum it is hard to tell sometimes

 

[pknopp]

18 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do we have room to talk?

Yes, we do. However, trying to make a 'moral equivalence' argument is a fools errand.

There is no comparison to terrorists. The world signed off on both those ventures ane while I think we should have left both years ago, they are in no way comparable to the terrorist acts that continue around the region and globe in the past and present.

Iran could be dealt with economically and we could just continue to squeeze them until they capitulate and stop the terror against everyone. However, when they send their henchmen out to further their terror, those people need to be killed. And that process should continue for every one they send until they stop, or run out of henchmen.

If you truly want the world to be safer, then be as brutal with your enemy as you can be, until he stops being your enemy, or dies. Whichever comes first.

Sanctions are an act of war. We would most certainly consider it so if someone did it to us.

You can't defeat something that has been going on for centuries. 18 years and we have only made thing worse.

Again, a moral equivalency argument is a poor one.

The purpose of sanctions is to alter behavior without the loss of life in a direct military confrontation.

Is it still considered an 'act of war' when the world signs off on it? Is it an act of war when you place sanctions on a nation that is already at war with you?

Is it an act of war when you jail someone for bad behavior? After all, a law is just a set of rules that says a person won't act in a certain way. If you do, we will place sanctions on you.

Do you get the idea about how foolish a moral equivalence test is? I can take this all the way down to punishing child for not eating their vegetables.

It's an act of war. All it does is harm those already being harmed. It's never made a difference anywhere.

how is it an act of war???

You are attacking the economy of another country. Would we not consider it an act of war?

What would we do if Japan was getting the rest of the world to not trade with us?

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes, we do. However, trying to make a 'moral equivalence' argument is a fools errand.

There is no comparison to terrorists. The world signed off on both those ventures ane while I think we should have left both years ago, they are in no way comparable to the terrorist acts that continue around the region and globe in the past and present.

Iran could be dealt with economically and we could just continue to squeeze them until they capitulate and stop the terror against everyone. However, when they send their henchmen out to further their terror, those people need to be killed. And that process should continue for every one they send until they stop, or run out of henchmen.

If you truly want the world to be safer, then be as brutal with your enemy as you can be, until he stops being your enemy, or dies. Whichever comes first.

Sanctions are an act of war. We would most certainly consider it so if someone did it to us.

You can't defeat something that has been going on for centuries. 18 years and we have only made thing worse.

Again, a moral equivalency argument is a poor one.

The purpose of sanctions is to alter behavior without the loss of life in a direct military confrontation.

Is it still considered an 'act of war' when the world signs off on it? Is it an act of war when you place sanctions on a nation that is already at war with you?

Is it an act of war when you jail someone for bad behavior? After all, a law is just a set of rules that says a person won't act in a certain way. If you do, we will place sanctions on you.

Do you get the idea about how foolish a moral equivalence test is? I can take this all the way down to punishing child for not eating their vegetables.

It's an act of war. All it does is harm those already being harmed. It's never made a difference anywhere.

how is it an act of war???

You are attacking the economy of another country. Would we not consider it an act of war?

What would we do if Japan was getting the rest of the world to not trade with us?

saying we wont do business with them is our right,,,
they can stop it anytime they want,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes, we do. However, trying to make a 'moral equivalence' argument is a fools errand.

There is no comparison to terrorists. The world signed off on both those ventures ane while I think we should have left both years ago, they are in no way comparable to the terrorist acts that continue around the region and globe in the past and present.

Iran could be dealt with economically and we could just continue to squeeze them until they capitulate and stop the terror against everyone. However, when they send their henchmen out to further their terror, those people need to be killed. And that process should continue for every one they send until they stop, or run out of henchmen.

If you truly want the world to be safer, then be as brutal with your enemy as you can be, until he stops being your enemy, or dies. Whichever comes first.

Sanctions are an act of war. We would most certainly consider it so if someone did it to us.

You can't defeat something that has been going on for centuries. 18 years and we have only made thing worse.

Again, a moral equivalency argument is a poor one.

The purpose of sanctions is to alter behavior without the loss of life in a direct military confrontation.

Is it still considered an 'act of war' when the world signs off on it? Is it an act of war when you place sanctions on a nation that is already at war with you?

Is it an act of war when you jail someone for bad behavior? After all, a law is just a set of rules that says a person won't act in a certain way. If you do, we will place sanctions on you.

Do you get the idea about how foolish a moral equivalence test is? I can take this all the way down to punishing child for not eating their vegetables.

It's an act of war. All it does is harm those already being harmed. It's never made a difference anywhere.

how is it an act of war???

You are attacking the economy of another country. Would we not consider it an act of war?

What would we do if Japan was getting the rest of the world to not trade with us?

now on the other hand, them shouting death to america and sending their top general to attack our embassy and kill our people is an act of war,,,

 

[pknopp]

Sanctions are an act of war. We would most certainly consider it so if someone did it to us.

You can't defeat something that has been going on for centuries. 18 years and we have only made thing worse.

Again, a moral equivalency argument is a poor one.

The purpose of sanctions is to alter behavior without the loss of life in a direct military confrontation.

Is it still considered an 'act of war' when the world signs off on it? Is it an act of war when you place sanctions on a nation that is already at war with you?

Is it an act of war when you jail someone for bad behavior? After all, a law is just a set of rules that says a person won't act in a certain way. If you do, we will place sanctions on you.

Do you get the idea about how foolish a moral equivalence test is? I can take this all the way down to punishing child for not eating their vegetables.

It's an act of war. All it does is harm those already being harmed. It's never made a difference anywhere.

how is it an act of war???

You are attacking the economy of another country. Would we not consider it an act of war?

What would we do if Japan was getting the rest of the world to not trade with us?

saying we wont do business with them is our right,,,
they can stop it anytime they want,,,

It is our right.......the problem is it doesnt stop there.

 

[pknopp]

Sanctions are an act of war. We would most certainly consider it so if someone did it to us.

You can't defeat something that has been going on for centuries. 18 years and we have only made thing worse.

Again, a moral equivalency argument is a poor one.

The purpose of sanctions is to alter behavior without the loss of life in a direct military confrontation.

Is it still considered an 'act of war' when the world signs off on it? Is it an act of war when you place sanctions on a nation that is already at war with you?

Is it an act of war when you jail someone for bad behavior? After all, a law is just a set of rules that says a person won't act in a certain way. If you do, we will place sanctions on you.

Do you get the idea about how foolish a moral equivalence test is? I can take this all the way down to punishing child for not eating their vegetables.

It's an act of war. All it does is harm those already being harmed. It's never made a difference anywhere.

how is it an act of war???

You are attacking the economy of another country. Would we not consider it an act of war?

What would we do if Japan was getting the rest of the world to not trade with us?

now on the other hand, them shouting death to america and sending their top general to attack our embassy and kill our people is an act of war,,,

We started it. (See 1953)

 

[progressive hunter]

Again, a moral equivalency argument is a poor one.

The purpose of sanctions is to alter behavior without the loss of life in a direct military confrontation.

Is it still considered an 'act of war' when the world signs off on it? Is it an act of war when you place sanctions on a nation that is already at war with you?

Is it an act of war when you jail someone for bad behavior? After all, a law is just a set of rules that says a person won't act in a certain way. If you do, we will place sanctions on you.

Do you get the idea about how foolish a moral equivalence test is? I can take this all the way down to punishing child for not eating their vegetables.

It's an act of war. All it does is harm those already being harmed. It's never made a difference anywhere.

how is it an act of war???

You are attacking the economy of another country. Would we not consider it an act of war?

What would we do if Japan was getting the rest of the world to not trade with us?

saying we wont do business with them is our right,,,
they can stop it anytime they want,,,

It is our right.......the problem is it doesnt stop there.

it can stop anytime,,,all they have to do is stop being the top supporters of terrorism in the world,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Again, a moral equivalency argument is a poor one.

The purpose of sanctions is to alter behavior without the loss of life in a direct military confrontation.

Is it still considered an 'act of war' when the world signs off on it? Is it an act of war when you place sanctions on a nation that is already at war with you?

Is it an act of war when you jail someone for bad behavior? After all, a law is just a set of rules that says a person won't act in a certain way. If you do, we will place sanctions on you.

Do you get the idea about how foolish a moral equivalence test is? I can take this all the way down to punishing child for not eating their vegetables.

It's an act of war. All it does is harm those already being harmed. It's never made a difference anywhere.

how is it an act of war???

You are attacking the economy of another country. Would we not consider it an act of war?

What would we do if Japan was getting the rest of the world to not trade with us?

now on the other hand, them shouting death to america and sending their top general to attack our embassy and kill our people is an act of war,,,

We started it. (See 1953)

they started it in 1776,,,