It's looking like Trump managed the Iran crisis well

Dec 2018
5,651
1,519
New England
Sure, for voters who tend to live in the moment and don't care to bother to even try to look past their own noses, so to speak, quite seemingly apparent like Trump.

Meanwhile, Iranians who either hold power in Iran or who have influence over Iran's foreign policy certainly realize that Trump's tenure will either probably end in a year from now, or end in five years from now at most. And they most certainly realize that the US has largely isolated itself regarding its approach towards Iran, which is quite unlike the period of time leading up to the JCPOA agreement. And as unilateral US sanctions linger on, the effects of those economic sanctions on Iran will likely reach a maximum effect and then potentially become less effective, as sanctions typically do, especially unilateral sanctions. So, those Iranians in power or with influence over Iran's foreign policy can-and possibly will-chose to look past their noses and just wait out Trump, for the most part. And when Trump is eventually out of office, and with a wave of that new president's hand, sanctions on Iran could be-and likely would be-lifted and a new long term thinking US foreign policy emerge regarding Iran, particularly since Trump simply doesn't have majority support among Americans regarding his approach towards Iran. And then the Americans who don't live in the moment and do tend to purposely look past their noses can then turn to those Americans who do Iive in the moment and don't care to look past their noses and simply say, "Don't say I didn't tell you so, that year or those years ago."
There’s value in turning to Hamd’s widow and saying “your husband’s life meant something, and we weren’t willing to turn a diplomatically blind eye to his murder in order to achiieve a ‘higher’ objective.”

Some things cannot be allowed to stand.
 
Jul 2014
15,925
10,148
massachusetts
There’s value in turning to Hamd’s widow and saying “your husband’s life meant something, and we weren’t willing to turn a diplomatically blind eye to his murder in order to achiieve a ‘higher’ objective.”

Some things cannot be allowed to stand.
The guy died because he was trying to make money. He wasn't fighting for freedom, or his country, he was there for a paycheck, working with a foreign military.
He was getting paid well, because he was exposing himself to danger, for money.

The General was there on a diplomatic peace mission, he was assassinated.
If it was the right thing to do, why did the president and his goons feel compelled to lie about it?
If it was a "good job", why lie?
Was it just to fool the morons, or was it linked to impeachment, to divert attention from what is happening in the Real World.
 
Nov 2005
9,831
4,612
California
The sometimes amusing thing about foundit's rambling, shotgun-style diatribes is that he often loses focus and allows the mask to slip, like with the ridiculous statement above. Let's examine the implications of what he's saying here.
He likens the Iran-sponsored rocket attack that killed an American contractor (Nawres Hamid, age 33, wife, two kids under 10) to a "knife fight," i.e. one level of severity. He then asserts that the rocket attack that killed the man responsible for the first attack -- and countless other attacks on American servicemen -- as something altogether different and something far more severe to the point of being a disproportionate response. His statement’s meaning -- intended or not -- is that Soleimani's life is far more important than was Hamid's, and that Soleimani’s welbeing should be given far more deference. Soleimani? He was a assassinated. Hamid?, Well, these things happen.
Now I don't if this what foundit really thinks, but it's what he said. And this what excessive levels of Trump-hate does to people. It makes them say remarkably stupid things.
While your comments are habitually riddled with thinly veiled insults that habitually miss the mark entirely, occasionally you accidentally brush up against part of the truth. It's like a stopped watch that gets to be right two times a day...
Most of what you said is strawman crap. But you do brush up against the core of the situation, if possibly just by accident...

The simplest rebuttal of the idiocy that NatMorton just typed is this.
If Soleimani's life is just as good as any other, then why did we target Soleimani? Why not just some Iranian sheep-herder and say that we had balanced the scales?
It's rather obvious that we targeted Soleimani as a prized target, taking our time. Even NatMorton should be able to admit that if it weren't for his intellectual honesty shortcomings...

Is his life, as a man independent of political entanglements more important? No. Of course not.

Is his life, conjoined with political consequence that resulted in people on both sides of the aisle to immediately question the legal / constutional justification and have serious concerns regarding the possibility of starting a war with Iran? Yes.
This is part of the reason the word "assassinate" is a proper term for the latter, but not the former. You'll note that NatMorton did not even question the terminology.

I realize that NatMorton may not be able to comprehend the difference, but I make it plain for any of the rest of the crowd that might be confused by NatMorton's verbal diarrhea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RNG
Feb 2007
6,192
3,860
USA
There’s value in turning to Hamd’s widow and saying “your husband’s life meant something, and we weren’t willing to turn a diplomatically blind eye to his murder in order to achiieve a ‘higher’ objective.”

Some things cannot be allowed to stand.
But it is quite likely that many country's governments, including certainly the US, have chosen to take long-term-looking strategic actions over taking short-term-looking tactical actions as a response when citizens or troops have gotten killed by an adversary's actions or through their support. Indeed, it is said that Soleimani played a role in many US troop deaths in Iraq years ago. And yet, apparently decisions were made by the US government to not assassinate him for many years based upon long-term strategic thinking. (And, it appears that Soleimani's assassination wasn't 100% certain to happen.) So, is Hamid's death somehow more important now than those US troop deaths? Apparently those US troop deaths were allowed to stand for many years. And I'm sure that some of those killed US troops have widows too.

But alas, I guess we can agree to disagree, yet again.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NatMorton

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
41,068
29,241
La La Land North
How many sons and daughters do YOU have serving in the hot zones? I love it watching Canadians trying to play that lame blame game by trying to insinuate that someone has no claim to a bigger bone in all of this as they do.
Another dodge. Par for the course with you. Canada lost as many per capita as you did over a shorter period of time. My grandson is now draftable. So yes, I and we have a dog in this fight.

But why do you deflect rather than responding to the content of my post?
 
  • Like
Reactions: foundit66 and se7en

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
70,550
30,753
Colorado
There’s value in turning to Hamd’s widow and saying “your husband’s life meant something, and we weren’t willing to turn a diplomatically blind eye to his murder in order to achiieve a ‘higher’ objective.”

Some things cannot be allowed to stand.
What definition of murder that you apply to Soleimani would not apply to GW, Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or the generals who carried out their orders?
 
Dec 2018
5,651
1,519
New England
What definition of murder that you apply to Soleimani would not apply to GW, Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or the generals who carried out their orders?
Or Obama.

The reason one is murder and the other not, IMO, stems from the justifications for their actions.