Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Also, I believe I was the one who brought up relative party virtue.

My point was not that there aren't scumbags in the Democratic party-there are. It's a big organization, there are GOING TO BE scumbags. The difference is, when Harvey Weinstein came to be revealed as a scumbag, he was dropped like a hot potato. When Roy Moore came out as such, the Republican party backed off for five minutes, then gave him plenty of support.

Thoughts and prayers to the duty officer at the Pentagon tonight:

Duty Officer: Sir, I'm sorry to wake you but we need to put all CENTCOM units on alert.

Secretary Mattis: Why?

Duty Officer: Well, sir the President tweeted...

Mattis: Oh FFS

 Iron_Captain wrote:

@realDonaldTrump wrote:To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

Is it weird that I'm more offended he did all caps? I feels weird that I'm more offended he did all caps... he even put the exclamation point at the end, as if we didn't already know how "urgent" he thinks this comment needs to be.

Now he's just murdering internet etiquette. Is nothing sacred?

I would like to know what the Iranian President said that elicited such a response from President Trump.

Steelmage99 wrote:
I would like to know what the Iranian President said that elicited such a response from President Trump.

That if we (US) invaded it would be the mother of all wars

 Ustrello wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
I would like to know what the Iranian President said that elicited such a response from President Trump.

That if we (US) invaded it would be the mother of all wars

Oh, and also that "peace with Iran is the mother of all peace". So he actually offered (once again) to play nice if the US does the same, then warned that they will defend themself if attacked.

Here is the original Iran statement

Addressing a gathering of Iranian diplomats, Rouhani said: “Mr Trump, don’t play with the lion’s tail, this would only lead to regret,” the state new agency IRNA reported.

“America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars,” Rouhani said, leaving open the possibility of peace between the two countries, at odds since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

“You are not in a position to incite the Iranian nation against Iran’s security and interests,” Rouhani said, in an apparent reference to reported efforts by Washington to destabilize Iran’s Islamic government.

To which Trump trotted out the above allcaps tweener YouTube-comment-esque response.

Oh man, I sure am glad that dangerous Warmonger Hilary Clinton didn't get elected. The US might be on course to have a war if she did!

Seriously, Iran should get nuclear weapons. It is being threatened with nuclear annihilation by an unstable lunatic.

And feth America. I will say that till people on this forum call the Office of Un-American activities to have me taken away for 're-education'.

What a great time to be alive this in fething gak hole nation.

lonestarr777 wrote:
And feth America. I will say that till people on this forum call the Office of Un-American activities to have me taken away for 're-education'.

What a great time to be alive this in fething gak hole nation.

One would normally call this rant hyperbolic, but Sean Spicer, in his capacity as White House Press Secretary, openly and clearly declared that Trump's personal twitter account is an official outlet for the Office of the President of the United States.

So yeah, this is literally the United States, as a sovereign state not just a crazy politician, shouting direct threats at another sovereign state. Trumps toilet tweets are legitimate belligerent threats by the US government to another nation.

I'm still of the opinion that this is squarely on the shoulders of Trump's pre-dump stream-of-thought daydreams, but there is a very real basis for seeing them otherwise.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

@realDonaldTrump wrote:To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

Is it weird that I'm more offended he did all caps? I feels weird that I'm more offended he did all caps... he even put the exclamation point at the end, as if we didn't already know how "urgent" he thinks this comment needs to be.

Now he's just murdering internet etiquette. Is nothing sacred?

It's not quite as simple as adding one little thing; it's exponential dickery. Dictating foreign policy on twitter is immature and foolish. Reacting to a measured statement with hyperbolic threats is immature and downright stupid. Name-calling as well, and all caps. But it isn't a matter of 2+2+2=6 going to 2+2+2+2=8 it's that we were at 2*2*2=8, and now we are at 2*2*2*2=16. If that makes any sense.

There was a lot of debate about the FISA application to surveil Carter Page since Devin Nunes and the Republican majority on the House Intelligence committee started making some pretty wild claims about it.

 

Of course all those claims flowed down to the normal Republican information channels, FOX News ran with them, Hannity and Tucker Carlson particularly. Which in turn led to a lot of Republican supporters arguing for each of Nunes’ claims. Most of what Nunes claimed was shown to be pretty obvious nonsense after he released his much hyped memo, but now we’ve seen the actual FISA application by the FBI.

 

And sure enough, each of Nunes’ claims has been shown to be complete lies. Nunes claimed the Steele dossier was the first and primary source of intel for the FISA application. On a couple of occasions appartichiks of his claimed it was the only source in the FISA application. This is completely false. The application now shows the prompt for the investigation was George Papadopolous drunkenly bragging to Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to the UK. Nor was the Steele dossier a necessary element for the application – much information was drawn from a prior investigation in to a Russian recruiting operation that Page had been caught up in, which had jailed two Russian spies. Given Page was taking trips to Moscow and lying about them when asked that was more than sufficient to justify surveillance. And on top of that there is reams of additional information, albeit still redacted, that was all used. The Steele dossier was a minor, supplementary source which Nunes claimed to be the sole source for his own political ends.

 

To make the supposed reliance on the Steele dossier appear worse, Nunes also claimed the application failed to disclose the source of the intel. This was another lie, there was more than a page of detail included, which made it clear it was sourced from a reliable source, but one who’d been hired by political opponents of the campaign who’s former staff member they now want to surveil..

 

Nunes also claimed the application relied on a Yahoo article to falsely corroborate Steele’s work, as that Yahoo article was also sourced from Steele. This was a blatant a lie as you can imagine. The application stated this article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele’. In fact the Yahoo article was only included because it had collected a quote from Page showing him lying about his contacts with Russia.

 

In response to these lies being shown so clearly, Trump went on another string of angry twitter rants, claiming without any evidence that he was vindicated by this, somehow or other. And of course Nunes hasn’t come forward and admitted he told blatant lies to protect himself and the criminals working within the Trump campaign. But of course that’s how these guys act. They’re scum who lie as easily as they breathe.

 

But lying on works when people continue to believe it. So the question now is whether Republicans will take pride in themselves and stop pretending these guys are anything other than serial liars. Maybe if Republican supporters just drew a line here, and demanded Paul Ryan strip Nunes of his chairmanship for his lies, and demanded the house sanction Trump for telling lies about the FBI, then the Republican might finally start to begin a long fight back to normalisation.

 whembly wrote:

It's awfully weak though... especially since the dossier was *the* justification for the FISA warrant.

Or maybe not. Maybe Republicans will just keep believing the lies, getting crazier and crazier with every election cycle. Buckle up folks, because now the base is trained to deny stuff that exists in black and white text available with a simple click, there's no knowing where this lunacy is going to go.

From back in the day when the centipede feed the eagerly consuming simpletons.



Five Questions the Nunes Memo Better Answer

by Asha Rangappa January 30, 2018
https://www.justsecurity.org/51630/five-questions-nunes-memo-answer/

The House Intelligence Committee has voted to release the Nunes Memo, which allegedly outlines widespread abuses by the DOJ and FBI in obtaining a surveillance order against former national security advisor to the Trump Campaign, Carter Page. As a former FBI agent who has been through the process of obtaining these kinds of warrants under the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA), I know that such an allegation, if true, would require a vast number of people – across two branches of government – to be on board and willing to put their careers on the line for a conspiracy. To that end, in advance of the memo being released, I want to highlight five questions that the Nunes Memo must clearly address in order for its allegations of abuse to be substantiated and credible.

1. When did the FBI open an investigation on Carter Page?

It’s important to understand that just because the FBI receives information (like the Steele Dossier), the Bureau cannot immediately run to a FISA court and obtain a warrant. A FISA warrant itself does not make a “case;” rather, it’s an investigative tool used in support of an existing national security case, one that normally would have been opened months, if not years, prior. In fact, FISA warrants can be approved only for what are called Full Investigations. These are the most serious class of investigations within the FBI and require an “articulable factual basis” to open: For counterintelligence cases on U.S. persons (USPERs), these cases involve facts demonstrating that the subject is in contact with and working on behalf of a foreign intelligence service. That means that, at some point prior to obtaining the FISA warrant, the FBI opened an investigation on Carter Page, obtained enough factual evidence to justify making it a Full Investigation, and would have done enough investigative activity to be able to put together a FISA application.

In fact, Page was already on the FBI’s radar as far back as 2013, when they obtained recordings of Russian foreign intelligence officials discussing targeting Page for recruitment. FBI officials at that time interviewed Page and warned him that he was being targeted – Page admitted that he had been in contact with these officers (not knowing they were Russian intelligence operatives) and has said that he shared “immaterial information and publicly available research documents” with the Russian spies. As former CIA officers and I have described, this would be consistent with the early stage of an intelligence recruitment process, and the FBI would have likely kept tabs on Russia’s efforts to see if they persisted and succeeded. There are even reports that Page was under FISA surveillance in 2014, which could have strengthened the basis for a new one in 2016 with renewed Russian interest in him. The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. intelligence obtained intercepts as early as spring 2015 of Russians discussing “meetings held outside the U.S. involving Russian government officials and Trump business associates or advisers.” By the time Page joined the Trump campaign in 2016, the FBI would have had three years to monitor the recruitment process unfolding (Page continued his contacts with Russia through this time, and his unusual trip to Moscow in summer 2016 was no secret) – and this is the process the FBI would have outlined in its application to the FISA court in 2016 to demonstrate how and why Page was “engaging in clandestine intelligence activity on behalf of a foreign power” to obtain surveillance.

THE TAKEAWAY: If the Nunes Memo does not indicate when the investigation underlying the Page FISA application was opened or how many months/years of investigative activity preceding the dossier is detailed in the Page FISA application, it is not telling a sufficiently complete or accurate story.

2. Who in the DOJ conducted the Woods Procedures on the FISA application?

Here’s where the rubber meets the road in the FISA process. Even if the FBI were inclined to put together a slipshod FISA application, they can’t sneak it into court without going through a bunch of lawyers at DOJ. I’ve outlined the entire process previously, but it’s the careful vetting process conducted by the National Security Division known as Woods Procedures – named after the lawyer who developed this in-depth review, Michael Woods – where every fact contained in the application is verified. And by every fact, I mean every fact. To use a very straightforward example, say the FISA affidavit asserts that the target took a flight on a certain day. During the Woods Procedures, the agent would have to show the NSD lawyer the underlying case file, where the agent would have previously obtained, say, the passenger flight manifest for that flight from TSA and/or entry-exit information from USCIS to corroborate the assertion made in the affidavit (and a very good NSD lawyer would have the agent include that information in the affidavit itself). The same would have to be done with human source reporting, meaning that the FBI would use information gathered through different means to corroborate a source’s assertions. Can’t corroborate it? It doesn’t go in.

The hardcore tinfoil hat set will likely insist that the FBI would have just created a dummy case including fabricated evidence to prop up the FISA application and trick the DOJ. Good luck. The FBI has a case system in which every document that goes into a file is “serialized” based on the date it was added – in other words, you can’t backdate fake documents and insert them. The system is also digitized, and tamper proof, so you can’t go in and delete or fiddle with existing case documents. Finally, a single Full Investigation would be made up of a spiderweb of sub-case files – things like sources, travel, surveillances, or any other theme the case wants to track – all of which are interconnected to the main case and to other cases agents across the Bureau may be working on and might reference. (Fun fact: Hoover’s first job was at the Library of Congress, where he learned the idea of making a numerical cross-reference system that allowed any one detail contained in hundreds of thousands of files to be located immediately).

What if the FBI convinced the NSD to just skip the Woods Procedures? This would be a pretty huge risk for the NSD lawyers, since it is they, not they FBI, who have to present the FISA application to the FISA court. Without doing any kind of Woods Procedures, the NSD lawyers would be walking into a federal court without a solid basis to answer the questions a judge might ask about the underlying investigation or the target. Pro tip: This is not a good set up for getting a FISA order to be approved.

THE TAKEAWAY: If the Nunes Memo doesn’t address who conducted the Woods Procedures for the Page FISA application, any material deficiencies in those procedures, or address this part of the DOJ review process at all, it is skipping over a critical part of the vetting process.

3. Who was the federal judge who approved the memo?

Here’s where the Nunes conspiracy theory gets really dicey: For it to be true, it necessarily involves members of the federal judiciary. This is because when all is said and done, the FISA judge – one of 11 district court judges who sit on the FISA court in rotation (and who were appointed by Republicans and Democrats) – makes the ultimate call. The current talking points from GOP House members who have seen them memo and buy its contents suggest that Nunes has attempted to get around directly implicating a federal judge in a conspiracy by suggesting that s/he got “tricked” by the wily FBI/DOJ. In other words, the FBI and DOJ just happened to be assigned a judge who skipped breakfast and was running on such low blood sugar that they just didn’t pay attention to the details of a FISA application asking to surveil a USPER who just happened to be a former national security adviser to a current U.S. presidential campaign. Right.

Let’s start with a quick fact: Judges aren’t dummies (recent judicial nominees notwithstanding). Anyone who has worked with or appeared in front of a federal judge knows this, and no lawyer that I know would count on being able to hoodwink one. But even one running on low blood sugar on the day the DOJ came in with the Page FISA application would have had reason to perk up for two reasons. First, the FISA statute expressly prohibits approving electronic surveillance for “solely First Amendment activity.” Legally speaking, political activity is afforded the highest protection under the First Amendment, and Carter’s former role in the political campaign would have triggered extra scrutiny and questioning by the court regarding the probable cause stated in the application. Second, any sane judge would recognize the potential volatility of this FISA application, and understand that given Congress’ oversight role with FISA, the application could (and likely would) come under close scrutiny at some point. No judge in his or her right mind would have signed their name to a FISA order of this level without carefully reviewing the underlying facts.

THE TAKEAWAY: Alleging a concerted conspiracy by the FBI/DOJ in obtaining the Page FISA necessarily implicates the judge who approved it, and suggests they are incompetent (at best) or corrupt (at worst). If Nunes is alleging serious crimes on the part of the FBI and DOJ, he must put his money where his mouth is and identify the judge who approved the FISA application. If he doesn’t, it’s likely because even he knows that this would be taking his accusations too far.

4. Was the FISA warrant ever extended?

This is a critical question, because even if the FBI managed to “dress up” the dossier without any other supporting evidence, bypassed the vetting procedure, and got past a federal judge, the most they would get for all of this work is three months of surveillance. This is because when a FISA order is obtained on an USPER, the FBI must go back to the FISA court (perhaps before a different judge than the first time) within 90 days and demonstrate that the surveillance has, in fact yielded foreign intelligence substantiating the original probable cause alleging that the target is engaging in clandestine intelligence activity on behalf of a foreign power. If the FBI cannot show this evidence, the surveillance is terminated.

According to news reports, at least one other FISA warrant – the first one on former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort – ceased. (Another one was subsequently obtained.) This shows that the FISA court takes this requirement seriously. More importantly, by the time Rod Rosenstein was appointed as Deputy Attorney General by President Trump, a FISA order on Carter Page, if it was still running, would have been in effect for close to six months. This means that the surveillance would have already been extended at least once by a FISA court based on new communications collected after the order, thereby validating the basis for the original order itself.

THE TAKEAWAY: Neither the FBI nor the DOJ has the power to extend a FISA surveillance order, they must request it. If a request to extend FISA surveillance that began in September 2016 was made by DAG Rosenstein in or around March 2017, the FBI had shown a federal judge that it had collected additional foreign intelligence information justifying the original order at least once already, around December 2016. The Nunes Memo should address the fact that additional information validating the original FISA order was obtained, and reviewed and approved by a (potentially additional) federal judge, in addition to new administration staff at the DOJ.

5. Has Robert Mueller used anything derived from the FISA in his investigation?

Anything that happened with regard to the original application for the Page FISA order would have occurred months before Mueller was even appointed as Special Counsel for the Russia investigation. Mueller, by all accounts (including my own experience having worked in the FBI under his leadership) does not tolerate nonsense. In taking over the investigation, he would have vetted all the underlying evidence that had been gathered so far, including anything gathered from FISA orders and the underlying basis for obtaining them. Let’s remember: This is someone who booted a highly seasoned counterintelligence investigator, Peter Strzok, based on text messages surfaced that could create even a perception of bias. We know that Mueller sent FBI agents to interview Carter Page: It’s hard to believe that he would have proceeded in any way on Page if he was aware that the underlying investigation to that point had been based on anything but legal, corroborated information.

THE TAKEAWAY: Anything that discredits the Page FISA application by definition is intended to cast doubt on the Mueller investigation. (This may also be an attempted implication of the Nunes Memo if it tries to tar DAG Rosenstein, since each major step that has been taken by Mueller have been approved by DAG Rosenstein.) If this is the case, then Mueller should be named directly in the memo as someone who has personally engaged in misconduct in reliance on the Page warrant. If he is not, it is because Nunes knows that this is a line he cannot politically cross directly without real evidence – and is trying to do so indirectly.

* * *

In sum, the Nunes Memo reportedly alleges that at least a dozen FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors fabricated evidence, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to commit perjury, lucked out on being randomly assigned Judge Low Blood Sugar who looked the other way, and – coincidentally – ended up obtaining evidence that justified extending the initial FISA surveillance. This conspiracy was presumably signed off on by former FBI Director James “I Cannot Tell a Lie” Comey – who, while conspiring to bring down Trump, actually shifted the election in his favor by informing Congress he had reopened the Hillary Clinton email investigation one month after the Page FISA warrant. The sham FISA was validated by one or more federal judges who either didn’t know better or were in on the whole secret and later accepted and used by Special Counsel Mueller who was not a part of the FBI during this time at all. And despite this widespread and outrageous conduct, the current Assistant Attorney General, a Trump appointee, wrote Nunes about the memo to say, “we are currently unaware of any wrongdoing relating to the FISA process.”

The answers to the questions above are necessary to substantiate allegations of misconduct in the FISA process. If Nunes has in fact singlehandedly uncovered this vast criminal enterprise, it’s hard to know what’s more astonishing: That a government bureaucracy managed to pull it off – or that Nunes has exposed it all in a scant four-page memo.

https://www.justsecurity.org/51630/five-questions-nunes-memo-answer/

 djones520 wrote:
Well, talking terms of sexual misconduct, you can look at Congress alone in the past decade for Al Franken, Eric Massa, John Conyers, David Wu, Anthony Weiner.

All of them were forced from the party when the allegations came out. Some like Massa prompted reforms to make sure allegations were made public automatically.

In contrast Republicans circle the wagons around their own, even when there's multiple, credible allegations. They pretended there was some doubt about Moore having cruised for teen girls. They are right now pretending that the 8 former wrestlers saying Jim Jordan knew of their sexual abuse is some kind of 'deep state' conspiracy.

No party can prevent a sleazebag ever gaining a leadership position in the party. But one party forces disgraced sleazebags from its ranks, the other party accepts ridiculous defenses to avoid punishing its abusers.

So yeah, there's a fething difference between the parties.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Well, talking terms of sexual misconduct, you can look at Congress alone in the past decade for Al Franken, Eric Massa, John Conyers, David Wu, Anthony Weiner.

All of them were forced from the party when the allegations came out. Some like Massa prompted reforms to make sure allegations were made public automatically.

In contrast Republicans circle the wagons around their own, even when there's multiple, credible allegations. They pretended there was some doubt about Moore having cruised for teen girls. They are right now pretending that the 8 former wrestlers saying Jim Jordan knew of their sexual abuse is some kind of 'deep state' conspiracy.

No party can prevent a sleazebag ever gaining a leadership position in the party. But one party forces disgraced sleazebags from its ranks, the other party accepts ridiculous defenses to avoid punishing its abusers.

So yeah, there's a fething difference between the parties.

The Democrats let Hillary run for POTUS and ignored that she tried to help cover up Bill’s sexual misconduct in the White Hkuse during his presidency and viciously attacks his accusers. Then the DNC allowed an individual, not just any individual but Hillary Clinton the frontrunning nominee, to write a check and effectively buy the DNC for the remainder of the campaign season because the DNC was woefully underfunded. Then the Clinton campaign installed an approval process wherein the campaign determined what expenditures were permissible by the DNC during the remainder of the primary season when Hillary was competing against other candidates for the nomination. Not seeing how any of that corroborates your assertion that the Democrats Force sleaze has out of their Party.

I switch on the news this morning to see Trump threatening Iran with plague and pestilence

Holy Horsegak, what is that man thinking?

The USA would defeat Iran in a conventional war, no problems, but at what price?

Thousands of dead US soldiers, Iran wrecked, Russia possibly intervening, regional instability on a scale that would make Iraq look like a 4th of July Parade, millions of displaced people, pressure on Europe and the rest of the Middle East as they head for Europe

A complete mother of all clusterfeths in other words, becuase you know the USA wouldn't have a plan for winning the peace. They haven't had that ability since the 1940s.

As I've said before, this is how empires die...

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Well, it sure is good to see Trump is approaching the delicate and potentially volatile matter of diplomacy in a reserved, graceful manner... oh wait:

@realDonaldTrump wrote:To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

All the grace of an elephant barging through an expensive china shop that is. If the elephant were on rollerskates...
From Trump's Twitter: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021234525626609666

My first thought was the "Navy SEAL copypasta" that did the rounds a few years ago.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I switch on the news this morning to see Trump threatening Iran with plague and pestilence

Holy Horsegak, what is that man thinking?

The USA would defeat Iran in a conventional war, no problems, but at what price?

Thousands of dead US soldiers, Iran wrecked, Russia possibly intervening, regional instability on a scale that would make Iraq look like a 4th of July Parade, millions of displaced people, pressure on Europe and the rest of the Middle East as they head for Europe

A complete mother of all clusterfeths in other words, becuase you know the USA wouldn't have a plan for winning the peace. They haven't had that ability since the 1940s.

As I've said before, this is how empires die...

It is in response to the death threats etc. we get from Iranian leadership daily. The US sanctions are about to be reimposed so they are especially vitriolic.

Plus he needs a distraction from last week's clusterfeth.

Oh and today he's back to saying the Russians didn't do anything...

The new Nero tweets while Rome burns.

Trump is just saying things his supporters want to hear. He's not really going to declare war on Iran.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump is just saying things his supporters want to hear. He's not really going to declare war on Iran.

Probably just as well. After all, who would join American in this grand alliance?

The EU whom he called a foe? NATO allies he annoyed the other week?

Countries who's companies have been threatened with expulsion from US markets if they trade with Iran, because their respective governments are honouring a deal they signed?

The last time a great power was this isolated, was Britain at the end of 1940.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I switch on the news this morning to see Trump threatening Iran with plague and pestilence

Holy Horsegak, what is that man thinking?

The USA would defeat Iran in a conventional war, no problems, but at what price?

Thousands of dead US soldiers, Iran wrecked, Russia possibly intervening, regional instability on a scale that would make Iraq look like a 4th of July Parade, millions of displaced people, pressure on Europe and the rest of the Middle East as they head for Europe

A complete mother of all clusterfeths in other words, becuase you know the USA wouldn't have a plan for winning the peace. They haven't had that ability since the 1940s.

As I've said before, this is how empires die...

It is in response to the death threats etc. we get from Iranian leadership daily. The US sanctions are about to be reimposed so they are especially vitriolic.

Plus he needs a distraction from last week's clusterfeth.

Oh and today he's back to saying the Russians didn't do anything...

The new Nero tweets while Rome burns.

Death threats from Iran?

Frazz, you and I are of a certain age, and if we had a dollar for every time we heard a death threat from Iran in the last 30 years, we'd be millionaires.

 Da Boss wrote:
Oh man, I sure am glad that dangerous Warmonger Hilary Clinton didn't get elected. The US might be on course to have a war if she did!

Seriously, Iran should get nuclear weapons. It is being threatened with nuclear annihilation by an unstable lunatic.

So you are saying you wish for an islamic extremist state, that hate you, me, our allies and our freedom to get nuclear weapons because president Trump said mean things ?
I disagree with him, he shouldn't scream like that on tweeter, even if it is legitimate (iran, an ennemy country should not threaten freedom and America, they are responsible. Even if we all know they won't do anything, it is still aggression) he should not loose controle like this, but I consider mean word on the internet to be less scary than terrorist with nuclear weapons.
You should be ashamed, and support our allies in this dangerous era we are living in.

 godardc wrote:

So you are saying you wish for an islamic extremist state, that hate you, me, our allies and our freedom to get nuclear weapons because president Trump said mean things ?
I disagree with him, he shouldn't scream like that on tweeter, even if it is legitimate (iran, an ennemy country should not threaten freedom and America, they are responsible. Even if we all know they won't do anything, it is still aggression) .

Threats to 'freedom' and America? This seems quite mild to provoke such a tantrum.

Addressing a gathering of Iranian diplomats, Rouhani said: “Mr Trump, don’t play with the lion’s tail, this would only lead to regret,” the state new agency IRNA reported.

“America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars,” Rouhani said, leaving open the possibility of peace between the two countries, at odds since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

“You are not in a position to incite the Iranian nation against Iran’s security and interests,” Rouhani said, in an apparent reference to reported efforts by Washington to destabilize Iran’s Islamic government.

 godardc wrote:

You should be ashamed, and support our allies in this dangerous era we are living in.

Stones in glass houses and all that mate. Or did the stones drown in the Aegean too?

 godardc wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Oh man, I sure am glad that dangerous Warmonger Hilary Clinton didn't get elected. The US might be on course to have a war if she did!

Seriously, Iran should get nuclear weapons. It is being threatened with nuclear annihilation by an unstable lunatic.

So you are saying you wish for an islamic extremist state, that hate you, me, our allies and our freedom to get nuclear weapons because president Trump said mean things ?
I disagree with him, he shouldn't scream like that on tweeter, even if it is legitimate (iran, an ennemy country should not threaten freedom and America, they are responsible. Even if we all know they won't do anything, it is still aggression) he should not loose controle like this, but I consider mean word on the internet to be less scary than terrorist with nuclear weapons.
You should be ashamed, and support our allies in this dangerous era we are living in.

Two things.

1: The statement Trump is responding to did threaten the United States (not in any direct way at least)

2. It's not just mean words on the internet, as this administration considers Trump's personal Twitter account to be official statements of the office of the president, this is the Government of the United States sending direct belligerent threats of war to another sovereign nation.

While I agree that seeing Iran with nuclear weapons would be bad, this also isn't just mean words on the internet, and Trump doesn't seem to understand that.

More to the point, following Trump's exit from the deal negotiated under Obama with Trump's now seemingly friendly demeanor with NK who *does* have nukes, they now have more practical incentive than ever to acquire them as it clearly commands respect from Trump.


Also, of course there is a Tweet

realDonaldTrump wrote:
I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face!
2:23 PM - 16 Sep 2013

 godardc wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Oh man, I sure am glad that dangerous Warmonger Hilary Clinton didn't get elected. The US might be on course to have a war if she did!

Seriously, Iran should get nuclear weapons. It is being threatened with nuclear annihilation by an unstable lunatic.

So you are saying you wish for an islamic extremist state, that hate you, me, our allies and our freedom to get nuclear weapons because president Trump said mean things ?
I disagree with him, he shouldn't scream like that on tweeter, even if it is legitimate (iran, an ennemy country should not threaten freedom and America, they are responsible. Even if we all know they won't do anything, it is still aggression) he should not loose controle like this, but I consider mean word on the internet to be less scary than terrorist with nuclear weapons.
You should be ashamed, and support our allies in this dangerous era we are living in.

We are not allies with the US any more. Trump has declared the EU his greatest global foe. So, there's that.
I don't care that Iran is Islamic. They do not hate me, that is ridiculous. They don't hate "my freedom" either. Come on.
I am talking from a rational perspective for the Iranian people. They would be best served by getting nuclear weapons. I have come to the conclusion that since the hypocrite countries which currently hold nuclear weapons refuse to disarm and are even increasing their arsenals, and they disrespect and bully those countries without nuclear weapons, it is only rational for those of us without weapons to acquire them so that we are respected and treated properly.

If France, the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and the UK don't like it, then perhaps they should have behaved with more respect and honour toward other countries.

I think the C.I.A. Should leak some documents proving that the leader of Iran has tried to get american citizenship and plan to immigrate, after secretly selling Iranian oil rites to the US.
That would be fun to read.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Well, talking terms of sexual misconduct, you can look at Congress alone in the past decade for Al Franken, Eric Massa, John Conyers, David Wu, Anthony Weiner.

All of them were forced from the party when the allegations came out. Some like Massa prompted reforms to make sure allegations were made public automatically.

In contrast Republicans circle the wagons around their own, even when there's multiple, credible allegations. They pretended there was some doubt about Moore having cruised for teen girls. They are right now pretending that the 8 former wrestlers saying Jim Jordan knew of their sexual abuse is some kind of 'deep state' conspiracy.

No party can prevent a sleazebag ever gaining a leadership position in the party. But one party forces disgraced sleazebags from its ranks, the other party accepts ridiculous defenses to avoid punishing its abusers.

So yeah, there's a fething difference between the parties.

The Democrats let Hillary run for POTUS and ignored that she tried to help cover up Bill’s sexual misconduct in the White Hkuse during his presidency and viciously attacks his accusers. Then the DNC allowed an individual, not just any individual but Hillary Clinton the frontrunning nominee, to write a check and effectively buy the DNC for the remainder of the campaign season because the DNC was woefully underfunded. Then the Clinton campaign installed an approval process wherein the campaign determined what expenditures were permissible by the DNC during the remainder of the primary season when Hillary was competing against other candidates for the nomination. Not seeing how any of that corroborates your assertion that the Democrats Force sleaze has out of their Party.

And yet, a large portion of the Democrats did not vote for Hilary, enough that she notably did not become the President. Clearly there was not this universal support and apologetics that you're trying to imply.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump is just saying things his supporters want to hear. He's not really going to declare war on Iran.

Exactly.

 warhead01 wrote:
I think the C.I.A. Should leak some documents proving that the leader of Iran has tried to get american citizenship and plan to immigrate, after secretly selling Iranian oil rites to the US.
That would be fun to read.

The only person who would believe it would be Trump.

Who would then use it as evidence for the need for his muslim ban.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump is just saying things his supporters want to hear. He's not really going to declare war on Iran.

Probably just as well. After all, who would join American in this grand alliance?

The EU whom he called a foe? NATO allies he annoyed the other week?

Countries who's companies have been threatened with expulsion from US markets if they trade with Iran, because their respective governments are honouring a deal they signed?

The last time a great power was this isolated, was Britain at the end of 1940.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I switch on the news this morning to see Trump threatening Iran with plague and pestilence

Holy Horsegak, what is that man thinking?

The USA would defeat Iran in a conventional war, no problems, but at what price?

Thousands of dead US soldiers, Iran wrecked, Russia possibly intervening, regional instability on a scale that would make Iraq look like a 4th of July Parade, millions of displaced people, pressure on Europe and the rest of the Middle East as they head for Europe

A complete mother of all clusterfeths in other words, becuase you know the USA wouldn't have a plan for winning the peace. They haven't had that ability since the 1940s.

As I've said before, this is how empires die...

It is in response to the death threats etc. we get from Iranian leadership daily. The US sanctions are about to be reimposed so they are especially vitriolic.

Plus he needs a distraction from last week's clusterfeth.

Oh and today he's back to saying the Russians didn't do anything...

The new Nero tweets while Rome burns.

Death threats from Iran?

Frazz, you and I are of a certain age, and if we had a dollar for every time we heard a death threat from Iran in the last 30 years, we'd be millionaires.

Exactly. I believe there was an SNL skit where something like an Iranian city council or something was having a meeting, and they ended and began every sentence with "death to America."

Trump's modus operandi is to threaten bigly but then cave and declare victory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warhead01 wrote:
I think the C.I.A. Should leak some documents proving that the leader of Iran has tried to get american citizenship and plan to immigrate, after secretly selling Iranian oil rites to the US.
That would be fun to read.

Now thats sneaky!