Trump bombs Iran

[gipper]

Look at how the questioner had to issue criteria to Grok.

Totally dishonest.

No. It is still meaningful and informative. I don’t expect a murderous Zionist to understand.

 

[Dr. Phosphorous]

oh ! so Iran bares no responsibility for the thousand of maimed US soldiers that were victims of their IEDs eh ? and I guess Iran didn't conduct acts of terror against the US before the gulf war either .. you are an emotionally driven anti American IDIOT ! how it must pain you to see America emerging as a force for good in taking out your allies nuke program ! and to think ! you defend a country that regularly executes homosexuals like you ..

Sure, Iran bares some responsibility.

Where is your anger at Bush for putting our troops in that no-win situation???

 

[Natural Citizen]

Tend to agree...





View attachment 1128068

AIPAC and the neo-cons have been trying to get rid of Massie for years.

They always fail spectacularly, regardless of how hard they try or how much they spend.

It's always worth a chuckle, though, when they push their little bird chests out just to get it knocked back in. Heh heh...

The result will be the same this time around as well.

 

[TimFitz]

OMG. These leftists defending an Islamic Terrorist Maniac are deranged.

We didn’t attack a sovereign nation. We destroyed the ability of a terrorist nation from getting nukes and carrying out its threat of murdering 9 million Jews, of whom close to 1 million are Americans, in Israel before moving on to the next target - America.

You idiots are always on the wrong side of every issue.

And stop with the furher! Hitler! Nazi! crap.

We attacked a sovereign state. Period.

Oh, and Trump’s attack virtually assures that Iran will put getting the bomb at the top of the list.

 

[dblack]

We attacked a sovereign state. Period.

No, no, no. You don't understand. It's a pre-emptive-completely-defensive-strike.

Try to keep up.

 

[Lisa558]

We attacked a sovereign state. Period.

They’re a State Sponsor of Terrorism, and we destroyed their nuclear-building facilities.

If you weren’t such a deranged leftist, you wouldn’t be siding with terrorism.

 

[dblack]

They’re a State Sponsor of Terrorism, and we destroyed their nuclear-building facilities.

If you weren’t such a deranged leftist, you wouldn’t be siding with terrorism.

Why do you think he's siding with terrorism? I oppose the strike, specifically because it will spawn more terrorism.

 

[Lisa558]

Why do you think he's siding with terrorism? I oppose the strike, specifically because it will spawn more terrorism.

And you think a nuclear attack by Iran isn’t worse?

Think about the illogic of your position. You wanted to let Iran get nukes so we wouldn’t have terrorism.

 

[TimFitz]

They could've said the same thing about Israel, Pakistan or any of those other countries when they were developing nukes. Iran is no different. Except Trump has you scared.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld conned the American public with much the same barrages of lurid claims, and jingoism; heavily accented with wild claims with no evidence behind them.

And the same crowd that fell for it then, are falling for the same tricks now.

 

[TimFitz]

And you think a nuclear attack by Iran isn’t worse?

Think about the illogic of your position. You wanted to let Iran get nukes so we wouldn’t have terrorism.

Iran will get nuclear weapons.

 

[Lisa558]

Iran will get nuclear weapons.

No it won’t.

And you sound like you think it should.

 

[dblack]

And you think a nuclear attack by Iran isn’t worse?

Nope. Never said that.

Think about the illogic of your position. You wanted to let Iran get nukes so we wouldn’t have terrorism.

Again, no. I don't want to let Iran get nukes so we won't have terrorism. Where do you dream this shit up?

 

[Lisa558]

Nope. Never said that.

Again, no. I don't want to let Iran get nukes so we won't have terrorism. Where do you dream this shit up?

You’re saying we shouldn’t have blocked Iran from getting nukes because now that we did, we’ll have terrorism. So you think we should have just let Iran get nukes.

 

[dblack]

You’re saying we shouldn’t have blocked Iran from getting nukes because now that we did, we’ll have terrorism.

No, I'm not. Can you quote which statement makes you think that?

 

[Lisa558]

No, I'm not. Can you quote which statement makes you think that?

You’re criticizing that we struck Iran’s nuclear facilities. You’re sticking up for the terrorists.

 

[dblack]

You’re criticizing that we struck Iran’s nuclear facilities.

I'm criticizing that Trump took us to war without a consensus. Maybe it was a good idea, maybe it wasn't. But it wasn't an impending threat, no emergency. Trump could have made the case to the American people. He didn't even try.

The one thing I was willing to give Trump credit for, during is first term, is that he didn't get us into any wars. But I never trusted him on that, and assumed the only reason he hadn't is because the opportunity never presented itself. Or that it was never politically expedient.

 

[Lisa558]

I'm criticizing that Trump took us to war without a consensus. Maybe it was a good idea, maybe it wasn't. But it wasn't an impending threat, no emergency. Trump could have made the case to the American people. He didn't even try.

The one thing I was willing to give Trump credit for, during is first term, is that he didn't get us into any wars. But I never trusted him on that, and assumed the only reason he hadn't is because the opportunity never presented itself. Or that it was never politically expedient.

No, he could not have made the case to the American people because 1) the element of surprise would have been lost, and 2) Dems would have been opposed simply because Trump was in favor, and because Dems side with Muslims.

And he didn’t take us to war. He had the military make a precise strike to take out the nuclear capabilities of a rouge, terrorist nation. Would you have preferred we wait until the Lead Savage got nukes?

 

[dblack]

No, he could not have made the case to the American people because 1) the element of surprise would have been lost ...

Yeah. We'd lose the element of surprise. Sometimes you pay a price to be the good guy.

and 2) Dems would have been opposed simply because Trump was in favor, and because Dems side with Muslims.

The two-party nonsense is pretty bad, I'll give you that.

And he didn’t take us to war. He had the military make a precise strike to take out the nuclear capabilities of a rouge, terrorist nation. Would you have preferred we wait until the Lead Savage got nukes?

I've heard all the excuses. But can you honestly say you'd see it the same way if Democrat had led the charge? Of course you wouldn't. You'd be (quite rightfully) jumping up and down about the Constitutional violation. So would I.

 

[Lisa558]

Yeah. We'd lose the element of surprise. Sometimes you pay a price to be the good guy.

“Paying the price” to be the good guy would very likely have meanr the failure of the mission, and Iran would still be enroite to nuclear capabilities.

The two-party nonsense is pretty bad, I'll give you that.

The Dems are worse,

I've heard all the excuses. But can you honestly say you'd see it the same way if Democrat had led the charge? Of course you wouldn't. You'd be (quite rightfully) jumping up and down about the Constitutional violation. So would I.

Nope. I didn’t object when Obama dropped bombs on Libya.

And there’s no Constitutional violation here.

 

[dblack]

“Paying the price” to be the good guy would very likely have meanr the failure of the mission, and Iran would still be enroite to nuclear capabilities.

The Dems are worse,

Nope. I didn’t object when Obama dropped bombs on Libya.

And there’s no Constitutional violation here.

Yeah. We've been saying that for forty years.