i’m not cheering for war, but you are. the privileged lefties such as yourself and most of the remaining (D) leadership and candidates for President always profit from wars.

I’m cheering for war because I’m anti war? Your cognitive dissonance has made you stupid beyond words. Trump has cucked you into a brain dead war loving zombie. I’m sorry that the person I once knew no longer exists.

oh right right, because someone who works in the political field says something that makes it true. you closely resemble the rhetoric that came from ben rhodes, another privileged lefty like yourself who pretended to be principled while he called the media 'without knowledge' and subject to an 'echo-chamber' when he was helping in the process of conjuring the failed iran 'treaty' which never was brought forth to Congress

on the other hand President Trump notified congress within 48 hours of the military action, as is required by legislation passed with bi-partisan approval.
meanwhile (D)s like Kaine and Sanders are attempting to support Iran using US taxpayer dollars. if it were up to them, FDR would not have been allowed to authorize the military to respond to the 'training exercise' the Japanese empire did over Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

your lot was crying about the rope-a-dope move that led to the killing of al-Baghdadi lol anti-American silly pale pasty privileged lefites. we know we know, that was a very confusing time for you, take as much time as you need to mourn the loss of your ally al-Baghdadi and now Soleimani

This post was edited by excellence on Jan 5 2020 09:35pm

The californian cuck sure does like his dark skinned bulls.

it's funny how the war-loving trump cult pretends like the vote was 'only symbolic' and therefore the US is still welcome, when they are clearly not. it's a de facto occupation (after having attacked and invaded the country and toppled their regime, based on fabricated evidence) - american imperialism 101.

Aren't we in this case?

Iranian influence in Iraq is largely responsible for the current sectarian crisis. By pushing Sunnis out of government, they indirectly fuelled the rise of ISIS. By creating states within states, they've prevented the emergence of a coherent, functioning Iraqi government.

The United States, for all that's been done here and elsewhere, does want a functioning Iraq that serves Iraqi interests. Iran wants a weak, divided Iraq that is poor and under Iranian thumbs.

Obama gave them hundreds of billions of dollars in goodwill. Trump would never have been able to touch the deal if the Iranians had acted in good faith in return. Instead they sank the windfall into a regional imperial project, sowed chaos in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, and left every neighbor from Saudi Arabia to Israel threatened and on edge. Trump mixed the deal because there was a market for it.

Morality is always a tricky discussion, but at a basic level, the United States promotes greater regional stability, and thereby prosperity, than does the Islamic Republic of Iran. In that sense, we are the more "moral" actor.

All of this is aside. though, because it really matters very little whether we are the heroes or villains of the story. Iran is a small country of limited means. If we accept that Iran has a right to pursue empire, we accept that the United States has a right to oppose it. Iran loses that fight.

"I-tt's only bad when Trump does it!"

The irony is mind bogglingly.

$80 mil bounty in Trump's head placed by Iran, $1 USD from every citizen.

That being said Trump is the one doing it and Obama was taken for task for it when he did the same things. You are just acting childish making fun of the way people talk and maintaining that established double standard.

I guess i just find it a bit odd, when we agree that Trump's handling is bad, point by point. and agree a deal was the right way to go, and that the deal wasn't perfect. but still you seem fairly off put by just a simple throwaway characterization.

in my absence this weekend it seems you've been busy arguing against people completely ideologically, and on this issue, opposed to your viewpoint.

wouldnt a 2-3 paragraph post be better served against someone who supports Trump's assassination, versus someone who characterized a now defunct deal as "not decent" when you think it was "good"?

i thought for zero time when i typed that, its not some position im interested in digging into for 10 posts back and forth. its just a semantic difference of opinion really on a moot topic, as the deal is dead.

perhaps you just consider my opinion very influence-able, whereas most of the dunderheaded shills aren't. flattering but you can save your long form posts next time, maybe just an "i think it was at least decent" would suffice next time.

nice try, but it's more like "incredibly hypocritical that supporters of a so prolific liar are unironically pointing fingers at others".



do you actually believe that? you can't possibly be that naive, can you? you think america fabricated evidence to start an unjustified war, invade the country, and topple its regime because you simply wanted a 'functioning iraq that serves iraqi interests'? america's middle east foreign policy for the last couple of decades created massive instability, several terrorist organisations, constant regional unrests, huge general resentment against the west, and immeasurable suffering (economically & physically) for hundreds of millions of innocent civilians in the region. you are NOT the good guys, you are an imperialist occupying force in the middle east - your primary interest is not human rights, but drilling right.

also, you're completely ignorant concerning the iran deal. obama didn't 'give them hundreds of billions of dollars', that it pure fox news / trump cult propaganda. part of the deal was to release some of THEIR frozen assets: https://apnews.com/f53aeebcb0f64b76a2e2a54b2b002dad
the iranians did, in fact, adhere to the conditions of the nuclear deal - the iaea confirmed that on a regular basis. acting like trump was only "able to touch" it because of iran's behaviour is complete fabrication.



like i said, i was merely interested WHY you thought it was a bad deal, since that opinion is mostly held by hawks, who'd rather see a military conflict than a diplomatic solution - which i understand you are not.
so maybe next time just admit that you really don't know much about it, rather than acting like you actually had a reason to characterise it that way, and only fall back to the 'throwaway, off the cuff comment' excuse after realising it simply doesn't square with the facts...