Is the World More or Less Safe Given Trump Killed an Iranian General?
Donald Trump, after some discussion with few of his top generals, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense as well as some of his advisors, over a two or three day period, decided to assassinate the second most powerful person in the Iranian government - General Qasem Soleimani, the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force.
In addition, an Iraqi militia leader, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iran-backed militias in Iraq known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, he was associated with the Iraqi Hezbollah faction who killed an American contractor recently that led to retaliatory air strikes against them. This, in turn, led to an Iranian inspired protest at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. It was at this juncture that Trump ordered the strike on Soleimani without consulting Congress.
The reason given is that it was self-defense because Iran, in the person of Soleimani, as planning "imminent" attacks on US personnel and infrastructure.
Trump claims "Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks," Trump said. "We caught him in the act and terminated him."
Yet the Defense Department and JCS General Milley said
"There was “compelling” intelligence and clear evidence that Qasem Soleimani was planning a “significant campaign of violence” against the US in the coming days, weeks and months, "
Trump claims Soleimani's "reign of terror is over". But is it? Won't the next in command take up the mantel and continue whatever operations Soleimani had been planning? The Quds is a robust organization not much different in structure than America's military. What Trump wants us to believe is that taking out Soleimani is equivalent to them killing General Milley, the Joint Chief of Staff.
So, what did Trump gain by this significant ratcheting up of the conflict between American and Iran? Was the gain worth the cost America is going to pay with the retaliatory strikes Iran will inflict on us?
Also, do you believe Trump's justification? I don't and won't until it is verified by our intelligence community.
Trump once said that President Obama would start a war with Iran to win the Presidency. Is it possible that Trump has the same idea for himself? Is it possible that Trump made the world a much more dangerous place for Americans in order to divert attention from his impeachment?Killing Soleimani was an act of war. Imagine if General Milley was killed by an airstrike, on the bases of that was planning something...
By killing Soleimani Trump made the unstable situation in the middle east more fragile.
Soleimani had lots of influence and fought strongly against ISIS. If not for his help the Islamic State would have been far more powerful.
Trump wants a war, that's clear. As a war will boost his presidency.
This was nothing but an election campaign stunt.Peter, not to go off topic, but how is Great Britain now that you have Conservatives firmly in charge (which surprised the hell out of me!) I am guessing Brexit (or busting out) is a done deal now.
Will Scotland and Northern Ireland remain?Hi, My Esoteric.
Brexit is a disaster.
Just a personal example.
I'm Dutch, My wife is British and we live in Spain. My wife is a violin player and works both in Spain and Holland. After Brexit she will need a visa and a work permit to be able to work in Holland. Because of this, it is quite probable that she will lose her job in Holand. As she is self-employed, the orchestras probably won't take the hassle to hire her. (Tax will also become more complicated)
Spain has a public health system. And you have access to it if you are a European citizen. Although Spain probably will have a separate deal with the UK about this part it still is an uncertainty.
My wife is at the moment in the process of getting a Dutch nationality. As many people from the UK are trying to get.
Brexit is one big disaster. As the UK will suddenly be a small country in the big world of commerce. And skinned alive by the US, China and Europe the three biggest commercial markets.
The UK has to start negotiations all over again with hundreds of countries. Negotiations will take a minimum of 2 years if you' re lucky. In the meantime the UK will be ruled by the World Trade Organization and work under 3rd country rules, losing its advantages and benefits. For sure many businesses will not survive this change.
The EU will lose a big trading partner but will manage. The UK though is shooting itself in the foot and as you say It could well be the end of the UK. But it will be tough for Scotland to go, but possible.
It's complex. But in short. One big example of disaster capitalism.
Another piece of history:
"As global affairs analyst Max Boot pointed out Friday on CNN, the US has not killed a senior military leader of another country since 1943, when it shot down the plane carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the mastermind of Pearl Harbor." - CNN (note, we were engaged in a world war at the time)Here is a great synopsis of America's involvement in the Middle East back to President Carter. Note the Trotsky quote in the middle of it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/03/opinions … index.htmlHere is one way the Iranian's may get back at America. From CNN.
"And the President should be aware that while Iran may well start to settle the score quickly, it is also a master of serving revenge up cold.
During a bout of Middle East tension in 1988, the USS Vincennes on patrol in the Persian Gulf accidentally shot down an Iranian civilian passenger jet, killing all 290 people on board.
Tehran's leaders waited nine months for revenge, widely suspected of having a pipe bomb detonated under the Vincennes captain's car, narrowly missing maiming his wife."This is Iran's view and response - "Dehghan responded defiantly to Trump's warning.
"It was America that has started the war. Therefore, they should accept appropriate reactions to their actions," he said.
"The only thing that can end this period of war is for the Americans to receive a blow that is equal to the blow they have inflicted. Afterward they should not seek a new cycle.""
Iran will respond. SO, the question is, where will it end? Can America decimate Iran, no doubt. Can Iran decimate America, no, not physically; but what about in other ways?"Is the World More or Less Safe Given Trump Killed an Iranian General?"
It just may be a step to a safer world. The world has been dealing with this rouge country for many years, we have watch them become more and more powerful using suppression and killing to keep power.
Nothing has worked so far... Perhaps Trump's aggressiveness will be a step in the right direction. I guess we will have to see if Trump's actions will help or hinder the situation in the middle east.You know what is ironic?? Trump has spent almost four years telling the world that Russian didn't interfere with the 2016 election. To put a point on it, he did nothing to beef up our protection against a repeat.
As a result, Iran has an open door to interfere with the 2020 election against Trump. Next to the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans, they are probably the best in world at such things.Trump killed a terrorist that is on the terrorist list for many years. has fresh blood on his hands, he just a few weeks ago killed his own people in the streets that were protesting... He is a murder, and you should be ashamed of putting him in any other light!
What did you say about "Wag the Dog" Randy?
The revenge has begun so Shar won't have to wait very long at all.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/05/politics … index.htmlI don't see anything in the link connecting those claiming responsibility to Iran. Is there one, or is this just another terrorist attack on Americans? Or are both true - there IS a connection AND it is just another terrorist attack on Americans, no different than all the others? A "revenge" by terrorists for killing a terrorist, in other words - something we've been facing ever since 911?
Even though Iran has been trying gain a foothold with al-Shabaab even though they are of different sects (sort of like pro-Trump and anti-Trump camps), I think your second thought is more correct.
Now to the next headline - Trump has threatened to sanction Iraq "like they have never been sanctioned before" if they kick America out of their country.
He, hehe, said "said Sunday he would not withdraw entirely unless the military is compensated for the "extraordinarily expensive air base" there."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 821255001/
Your guy is becoming even more unhinged than he already is.Then there is nothing about "revenge" for the killing of the Iranian. Are you making things up again, anything to show Trump did wrong, but things without any basis in reality?
Or is that the definition of "unhinged" - to live in an alternate reality without connection to the real world?Apparently you didn't figure out the change in direction. Now that Trump has declared war on Iran for which they will revenge, he has decided to do the same with Iraq after killing one of their commanders as well (for which they are going to kick us out of Iraq). Good, a two front war, just what we need.
Oh yeah, why did Trump stand down his war with ISIS?? What is up with that?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/us/p … -iran.htmlTrump declare war? Did not Iran do that with the murder of a hundred Americans?
How is it that Trumps response to past actions and events is now taken as a stand alone event, coming out of nowhere? Is that just more dissatisfaction with Trump in general - complain about everything he does, whether good, bad or indifferent - or is there a deeper path to follow? Is it that you prefer to be the punching bag for the world?No, they did not. They supplied the tools to their surrogates to do that.
They did not attack U.S. soil, they did not kill a very high ranking American, so no, that does not fall under the definition of declaring war on America.
Taking out Iran's 2nd most powerful man (let's say he was Gen Milley) without "JUST" cause, is such a declaration. So far, Trump has not shown anyone good reason to do it. That is a must since he can not be trusted to tell the truth about damn near anything.
And then there is the NYT report that the Suleimani option was tossed in because they wanted him to choose a different option.
Unless Trump proves their was an imminent threat, he just hung America out to dry and has completed his original task of turning America into a rogue nation.
And then there is this:
@NYTimes: “Officials presented the president with options. The Pentagon tacked on the choice of targeting Suleimani mainly to make other options seem reasonable. They didn’t think he would take it. When Mr. Trump chose the option, military officials, flabbergasted, were alarmed.”
It Just Keeps Getting Better!
What struck me most was that the attack was carried out on Iraqi soil. After the previous attack on Iraqi soil, Iraqi mobs stormed the US Embassy.
Seems Trump is saying 'we own Iraq and don't give a damn what any one thinks".
That is not going to work out well. Soon the Iraqis will be thinking, maybe Russia or China would make a better friend. Maybe, even, we should throw in our lot with Iran.
I can't believe that anyone with any sense of foreign policy was involved in that assassination.His actions are extremely counterproductive to any peace efforts and there is no justification to support such an act. He didn't assassinate some terrorists leader hiding in a cave, he assassinated a high ranking diplomat of a sovereign nation and member of the United Nations. He claims his actions are to stop a war, and not to start one, but when you view the reactions of his supporters and enablers, it is very clear to see what his true intentions are. War is death, celebrating an act of War is celebrating Death.
Agreed. You can learn a lot by the reactions of both him and his supporters. This is more about just showing that Trump can, and will, do what he wants to do, and his people cheering him on, than it is making America safe.
As others here have pointed out, likely all he did by killing this Iranian general, in Iraq--without Iraq's permission--is create an environment more conducive to terrorists. No worries though, the boomer Trump supporters won't be around to see the totality of the next generation jihadists this helps to spur on.Well, certainly. We are always responsible for the barbarism of others. I don't know whether you've noticed or not but terrorists terrorize whether there be provocation, or not.
Sympathize all you want. Explain all you want. But. Terrorism has more to do with their objectives than our actions.This is the point: Of course, terrorists/jihadists will always be. However, actions, such as the one we are discussing, make their recruiting efforts much easier. When it appears that the US doesn't respect a nations' sovereignty, people of that nation are more apt to sign up for the jihadist cause. That has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with sympathy, and everything to do with our nation's, and our people's, self preservation.. Once again, we can learn a lot by his supporters' reactions.
Now, if we had taken out a decent number of Iranian planes, or some such, I think it would be easier to make a case for this helping our cause. I mean, if we are to go to full-scale war with Iran, I think they'd miss those planes more than a few military brass.I do respect your opinion but....say what?
Terrorists, almost by definition, have no respect for a nation's sovereignty. What did you think the Iranian general was doing in Iraq? What were the Saudis doing in American planes over American soil back on 9/11? The list goes on.
I do agree that this action may be used for recruitment, but girls in bikinis at the beach is also used for recruitment and videos of these animals beheading innocents are used for recruitment. I don't know what to say other than it isn't hard to recruit a barbarian to commit acts of violence.
I'm no more hawkish than I believe Trump to be. As much havoc as this general wreaked, no matter how many lives were lost to terrorism this general directed, I find any celebration at his death inappropriate. The violence will continue after his death but if the intelligence community perceived an imminent threat to American citizens and removal of this man helped thwart that threat it is, to me, an acceptable action.If you think bikini girls with machine guns are as good of recruitment tools as a US strike within a nation, without that nation's permission, then you haven't been paying attention. The topic makes for a great Cramp's song though, lol.
We will see how this plays how over the next year or two, but we will not see the full results of Trumpian Iranian policy for decades to come. I'd respect the intentions of an attack on an Iranian military base more than this. It would just make more strategic sense.
Are you suggesting that we should not even be considering how it is that terrorists are able to recruit more to their ranks? This is the number one way to limit the impact of terrorism. If we can keep them from becoming terrorists to begin with, it solves a lot of problems, and is much cheaper on Americans. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. But, an even better terrorist is one that never came to exist. Americans need to think harder if we are going to remain great. It seems we are trending in the reverse.Murica? I don't know what that is. Perhaps, you'd be kind enough to elaborate.
I think you may be right in that countries such as Iran react more favorably to pallets of cash than they do to strategic attacks. Oh heck. Of course you're right, on the surface. But, nothing any administration has done has increased stability in that region, turned Iran away from it's stated mission of the annihilation of Israel or made any headway in moving any nation in that region toward improving basic human rights.
Bottom line. Maybe this is a wag the dog scenario. Maybe it did save American lives. Maybe it will endanger them. However, nothing done by any administration has increased security in the region. You are listening to self proclaimed experts who obviously aren't experts since no one has ever followed a course that made things better. We have always been,and will remain,a target of terrorists.
Middle Eastern hatred of America resembles liberal hatred of Trump, just includes more violence. For now.I already edited out the Murica as I decided it was not necessary. I do think stability in the region was better with the Iranian treaty in place. And, you said it with "maybe this is a wag the dog scenario." I haven't listened to any experts on TV for years, if that's what you're referring to. I have read PDF's straight from the DOD, the FBI, etc. as I did research for a huge piece a couple years ago. Edit: None of this makes me an expert, but I know enough to know we should consider ALL consequences of our actions, and do whatever it takes to defeat our enemies. Attacks like this come back on us at some point. Whether they are worth it, or not, I think depends on the scenario. I don't see this being worth it.
The liberal hatred for Trump is exactly what Trump wants and invites. He thinks it helps him with his people.Ah, you edited out an attempt to insult my intelligence. Gotcha.
I'm done talking to anyone who thinks insulting the intelligence of an opposing view (even briefly) is acceptable.
Have a nice day.Ha, wow. So you get all sanctimonious if someone edits out an "attempt to insult" now? At least I had the courtesy of re-reading and editing it out, unlike 90 percent of the conversations here Are you not reading half of your own comments?!? That's a great cop out. Murica, lol. Take care.
I am reading Jim Sciutto's The Shadow War which goes into detail how America, over the last 3 decades, has misread the real intentions of people like Putin, Xi, and the Kim's with the end result of leaving America vulnerable.
Very scary book.I will check it out as I recently finished by current crop of books I set out to read. BTW, I also have your book about conservative economic theory on my Amazon wish list, I'm just waiting for the post-holidays spending hesitation to end before I pull the trigger, lol.
Then why not take out Iran's Supreme Leader with a surgical MOAB instead? That will certainly cut off the head of the terrorist organization called IRAN.?
Why are you arguing about whether Soleimani was a terrorist? Nobody is arguing against you - he was.
But what you seem to be arguing for is that it will be OK if Trump uses a drone to assassinate these know terrorists:
Putin?
Un?
Assad?
Xi?
All friends of Trumps, some of who he is in Love with.I am looking at this from an angle of what has been reported. He was in another country coordinating terror attacks on our citizens.
He,also, is not the leader of a country so I'm confused by the confusion you are attempting to create here.
If I were president, which I'm not, I'd have washed my hands of the mess Europe made that is the Middle East long ago. I'd have pushed to find a way to make fossil fuels obsolete so the influence of the Middle East disappeared.
I don't like anyone dying but human life has little to no value to residents of that part of the world. They don't care about our lives. I won't shed a tear when one of theirs who exemplifies the barbarism of that region finds his demise.
He took out ISIS... He certainly is making every attempt to deter Jihadist. The fact is he took out our biggest threat. I suppose you feel it would have been more beneficial to let them grow? Do the math fewer terrorists are positive or would you suggest we negotiate with terrorist.groups?
Ya know what, you should worry about the next generation. One thing Trump did was cut down on what they will have to deal with... or should I say negotiate with.
And no rump has clearly not created an environment more conducive to terrorists. he has clearly warned them they will be accountable for their crimes.Trump took out ISIS? Is that what he told you? Iran is making more nukes now, without even having to attempt at hiding it. How is this safer? How did Trump killing a few military brass cut down on "what they have to deal with?" I'm no expert, but it seems like this is going to bring a lot more to deal with and accomplish very little. The real "terrorists" blow themselves up, I don't think they are too worried about being held accountable for their crimes. While this Iranian general was a bad human who did likely deserve what he got, he was really a military general, not a traditional terrorist, no matter how Pompeo tries to spin it.
I tried to edjumacate Shar about the facts of the matter, but she didn't pay attention.
I read an interesting Political article last night - which makes it worthwhile to keep presenting the truth to people. Except for Trump supplicants where the reverse is true, most people listened.
While I was looking for it I saw a new headline "Pentagon Halts Fight against ISIS in Iraq amid new threats to Bases" - If ISIS was defeated, why were we still fighting them and why are we stopping now?
The title is We are not living in a Post-Fact world[/b]
It is based on a new study that rejects, for the most part, the adage that "voters are consuming Fake News and rejecting Facts."
They found for reviewing 10,000 participants over the previous four years, that:
- "When presented with factual information, Americans - Liberals, Conservatives and everyone in between - generally responded by becoming more accurate"
- "32% of people when [i]not presented with factual accurate information later expressed factual beliefs, compared with 60% of people who were presented with factually accurate information and went on to express factually accurate beliefs.
- There was a 2010 study where conservatives presented with the truth about WMD in Iraq actually became more convinced of the presence of WMD. This was called the "backfire effect".
- This new study, for the most part, refutes that finding. Interesting is that this studies authors invited the old studies (which used a much smaller sample) authors to participate. They did and became convinced of the new studies findings.
- As part of the new study, they [i[tried[/i] to induce the "backfire effect" and, for the most part, failed. "By and large, the average person responded to the corrections by bringing their views closer in line with the facts. This was true across ideologies and across parties." This includes Trump supporters.
- I keep saying "for the most part". Here is the exception. To test Trump's unique ability to sow belief in falsehoods, they took the same set of Trump falsehoods and, at random, attributed them to either Trump or Senator Mitch McConnell. They then presented the truth to each group of people. What did they find?
Those that thought Trump had made the statement, when presented with the truth, were less likely to change their views to coincide with the facts than those that thought McConnell gave the false statement.
-Interesting and encouraging until I got to the part about Trump vs McConnell. It seems clear that the "backfire effect" worked only on Trump supporters in regards to statements attributed to Trump. I guess the silver lining is that Trump's people are not the American majority, and it's not like he's bringing more into the fold. That's somewhat encouraging. I'd run across a headline though hadn't clicked through. The psychology/sociology of all that is Trump is definitely intriguing.
I thought you knew, Shar, that because of Trump, ISIS is growing again now that America has left the battlefield.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50850325
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your … -watchdog/
https://www.businessinsider.com/pentago … raq-2019-8
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 237528002/ (one of those papers that AllSides rates neutral, btw.)
https://www.theblaze.com/news/isis-grow … in-in-iraq (a Far-Right rag)
"Ya know what, you should worry about the next generation. One thing Trump did was cut down on what they will have to deal with... or should I say negotiate with." - EXACTLY how did he do that???
Exactly. And it will work brilliantly to fire up his base, just in case they needed a bit more motivation to support their beloved. It's getting crazy in the US.
Yes, we live in interesting times!!
If George Bush, Bush Jr or Obama had said the things that Trump is saying at his twitter account they never would have been elected. It seems that we live in a post-truth era. and that people don't care about the truth anymore. That's worrisome.Yup. During the Obama administration, I worked as a lobbyist, listening to phone calls with many American "conservatives" and some "liberals" and then writing letters to govt. officials based on the calls. The difference in how the "conservatives" thought about the world as opposed to today, is so stark that you would not even recognize them as being the same people today. The issue is that they put all of their chips into Trump so now everything he says/or does is EXACTLY what is best for America. For example, Trump could declare that Russia is our biggest ally, and they'd fall in line. Meanwhile, during the Obama administration, I heard conservatives literally screaming about how the Russians were coming because Obama was so weak.
As to the Post Truth World, IDK if you saw the talk of the article "No we're not living in a Post-Fact world" which discusses research that shows how , in the US, this Post-Truth/Fact attitude is focused on Trump himself. It's an interesting piece.No I haven't read the article. But people always believed in lies and fairytale stories. But with the rise of social media people don't give themselves time to think about what they have heard. People don't fact cheque and lies do have an impact even if you know for sure it's a lie. Like the pedophile story of Hillary Clinton using a Pizza restaurant...
Those lies have consequences. And aren't innocent. Same with the label terrorist for every person who does not agree with you. Or the word nazi used by right wingers to label left wingers.Yes...good points. Confirmation bias has always existed and the Internet definitely makes it easier. I've always fact checked stories. I think America's youth is being taught a bit better than our older folks who didn't grow up with the Internet. We can always hope that this problem at least gets better.
" But people always believed in lies and fairytale stories. " - which is why the Founders chose the electoral college - to stop people like Trump from getting elected.
Unfortunately, along the way, the rules were changed and the Electors are no longer the kind of people that our Founders had hoped would be chosen.For once I agree with you - the electors are no longer the kind of people that our founders would have expected.
The expectation was that electors would be politicians in their own right, ignoring the will of the people in favor of their own ideas and thoughts - much like our politicians today. Instead we expect, and demand, that electors vote as directed by the people - They are nothing more than a ballot to be case as the people wish. And if the people wish to have "people like Trump" to be elected, then we expect electors to do just that. Not cast the people's vote as they would wish.OK, you convinced me and I have changed my mind. I am now in favor of the popular vote option. The candidate with the most votes over all wins; that is pure democracy in action.
Me too! It makes perfect sense for the majority to rule. Why should the minority take precedence in this day and age?
Yep. The Senate is very close to following that idea where, like the House, the minority might as well stay home.
Our founders fought very hard for minority rights, but that is passe in the age of Trump. In his world, they have no rights at all.LOL You're complaining that the minority have no rights...while demanding that the majority of the country, hating trump, should control presidential elections.
And, to top it off, while looking at the majority in the House running absolutely roughshod over the minority there, to the point that they couldn't even call witnesses in the most important consideration that they have seen in decades.
I'd say your comments make a very good case for controlling the majority from doing whatever they wish, whenever they wish and for whatever purpose they wish.That is no "complaint", it is a statement of fact in the age of Trump.
"to the point that they couldn't even call witnesses " - YOU KNOW that is being disingenuous as well as a lie.
1. The Trump Defense team WAS allowed to call relevant witnesses to the charges being investigated
2. The Trump Defense team DID call relevant witnesses to the charges being investigated
3. Trump and his lawyers WAS invited to participate in the Judiciary Committee proceedings but turned down the offer.
4. The House was conducting an investigation. Since when does the Defense become part of the investigative team. It does not happen in any other part of the American judicial system; only in the House is it allowed.
5. The implication of your position is that the suspect's defense counsel should be part of the grand jury investigations and be able to influence the police and prosecutors investigation into determining if there is probable cause to pass the case on for trial. Is that what you want???
". . . the minority might as well stay home."
You are kidding, right? Or is this just more sarcasm that I missed?
GAGA, the scary thing is he is not being sarcastic. This is beyond scary...
You missed the sarcasm. Although I am becoming more in favor of doing away with the electoral college.
Do you disagree that a simple "majority always rules" will inevitably produce large numbers of disenfranchised people with no say in how their country is run?
Maybe I am becoming more conservative than I thought. Are you defending the flawed electoral college now? In any case, you are only saying that because Trump only got 46% of the vote.
Whew! Although I wouldn't have pegged you for a supporter of pure democracy for a nation of minorities.
GA
What is different about this day and age? (or was that sarcasm and I missed it?)
GAThe electoral college is outdated, Gus. It's not as if news takes months to circulate as in the colonial days.
I don't remember the original reasoning to have much to do with the speed of news circulation among the populace.
Of course, you could stretch that reasoning to say it pertains to the purpose of stopping a public fooled by a demagogue, but I think it is a stretch to look at that as a primary purpose. I think it was more about balancing a state's representative power. Do you disagree?
Are you really in favor of pure democratic rule now?
GAI'm not in favor of minority rule either, Gus.
But what about the mob rule of pure democracy, are you in favor of that? And do you disagree with the Electoral Collage explanation in my comment?
GAEliminating the EC would not result in a pure democracy. Montana and California would each still have two senators, giving Montana an equal voice with California, despite the huge difference in population.
True. At least until that is chipped away, too. We do have, after all, the House attempting to override the Senate and make the rules as to how the Senate shall operate in a House supplied farcical proceeding against the President.
Boy, Nancy has really gotten under your skin. Maybe this will enlighten you about our feelings for Mitch's stunt denying Obama his rightful Supreme Court nominee.
My preference would be that no one play these political games.And the simple request that Nancy has in no way compares to the anti-Constitutional act of McConnell in stopping Merrick Garland and his anti-Constitutional act (because he is violating his oath of office and has said he will violate his impeachment oath) of working with the defendant to guarantee a win.
What is farcical is the way Moscow Mitch is saying he will not be impartial in the Senate trial. I hope John Roberts has more respect for the constitution than he does.
If Nancy isn't trying to make the rules for a Senate trial, what is she doing? She's made it extremely clear that it will be her, not the Senate that has the authority, that sets the rules the trial will follow - how is that not what I said?
I don't think that is correct PrettyPanther. First, because if the EC is eliminated then the number of Senators wouldn't matter because they would no longer represent a vote, and second, because the proposed alternative is a presidential election that would be determined by popular vote—which is an example of pure democracy.
However, I would support your concept of a structure that used Senators as voters, with each state having an equal vote. But I doubt you will find much support for any system that gives Montana the same voting power as California.
GA"because if the EC is eliminated then the number of Senators wouldn't matter because they would no longer represent a vote, " - ?? (Was she talking about their power in the Senate, possibly?)
" (Was she talking about their power in the Senate, possibly?)"
I don't know, I thought she was referring to the EC relative to the election of the president.
GA
The wording was sarcasm, the intent was not.
The House was always majority rule but, at least in the 1960s - 1990s, the minority did have a voice. That ended with the rise of conservatives and the Democrats retaliation.
The Senate made of point, from day 1, to ensure the tyranny of the majority (which our founders fought hard to defeat) did not prevail. The Democrats were first to weaken that after being frustrated by McConnell stopping the votes on Obama's judges and executive appointees. Then McConnell took that opening (not that he wouldn't have done it anyway) to a whole new level by a few orders of magnitude by 1) defying the Constitution and not letting Merrick Garland get to a vote, 2) removing 2/3rds requirement for Supreme Court nominees, and making frequent use of other methods to get around the filibuster.
Further, even though it will hurt America, I oppose the call from a few Democrats to do away with the filibuster altogether - something I expect McConnell will do sometime in the future, especially if they get another two years.By your examples, it seems your complaint is with the abuse of our political system by both parties, more so than the structure of our system.
The Republican examples you cited are mostly accurate, but it is easy to go back an administration, or three, and make those same examples with the Democrats in the driver's seat. For instance, you mention the 2/3s vote change on Supreme Court nominations. I think the Democrats' 2013 rule change on executive branch and Federal Court nominations is also a comparable example.
That isn't intended as a 'whataboutism' defense, but merely an agreement that both parties have abused their power in the system.
GAI do believe I mentioned the Democrats, out of pure frustration with McConnell's obstructionism, started it. Even though the reason was sufficient, they still shouldn't have started down that road.
I feel, but don't know for sure, McConnell would have done it himself even if the D's didn't give him an opening.
But to give a partial answer to Wilderness, in the case of electing the person who rules us, I am coming around to thinking it would be best for majority rule in that case. Mainly because the election of Trump proved the electoral college failed to do what the founders wanted, stopping a Demagogue from being elected because there are no longer any adults between those who vote and who gets elected (those "adults" being the electors).
This is why I support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact where a state will give all their electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most votes nationwide. Currently, 15 states (196 ECV) have adopted this compact and 10 states (113 ECV) are considering it. Only 64 ECV are needed to make this go into effect. Likely states are VA (13), PA (20), NC (15), WI (10), MN (10), and NH (4). Other states considering it are SC, KS, MO, and GA.
Well, it's a great way for the majority to run roughshod over any minority. My experience has been that without sometimes severe restrictions of what a majority can do the minority will always suffer. Often greatly.
Pure democracy is little better than a dictatorship; either way you will find great numbers of disenfranchised people. It can work, and perhaps work well, in small countries with a homogeneous population, but with the wide variation of beliefs and culture in our large country it is a recipe for disaster. The majority must be reined in.
That is why I call Trump supplicants Trumplicans. As the conservatives today bear no resemblance to the Republican party of the 1970s let alone the liberal Republican party of 1864, Trumplicans have shed any ideological connection to today's conservatives.
I think it is the Trump supplicants that don't care about the truth or facts.
Sadly enough it's not restricted to the US. The lies told during the Brexit campaign where on a par with Trump. And in many other coutries politicians have discovered the power of the blunt lie.
It is looking more like it given Trump's refusal to provide the intelligence he used as a basis. He certainly did change the narrative, didn't he - from impeachment to WW III.
It seems, according to Sen Warner (D-VA), I think, the intel that was presented did show attacks being planned. He needs to see more information to determine if the "imminent" threshold was met.Ehm. Remind me please. What was the evidence again the last time the US started a war....something about chemical weapons I believe.....
Intel about a planned attack by Soleimani...I think it’s justified to be cynical.
Would it not be fair if not prudent to see if his action brings war? And it is not fair to assume all Trump supporters are celebrating an act of war.
It is also unfair to assume President Trump assassinated this man for political reasons. My God, he clearly has enough on his plate, I would not think he needed this.
I would be interested where you got the idea anyone is celebrating the presidents' killing a terrorist? You do realize this man was a terrorist?
Trump has never appeared hawkish to me. He does appear to put the same value on the individual American life as he does the collective, for which I am grateful.
You can give titles to this Iranian general all you like but my understanding was he fully supported terrorism against the US. I'm not going to celebrate, but I won't mourn either.
The death of a terrorist always implies some form of retribution will be attempted. I don't see us as safer, or less safe, at this juncture. It's the nature of having a presence in the Middle East or the nature of civilized nations attempting to interact with the barbarism of some Middle East regimes.There is no doubt that Soleimani was responsible for many deaths, Americans and others, in what are acts of terror. He was also no doubt plotting more mayhem. For that he deserved to die.
It is also not in doubt that he was an arch foe of ISIS, as mentioned above, and he was not a lone wolf with his own non-state terrorist organization. He was a very senior member of the Iranian government carrying out their orders.
Killing bin Laden was not an act of war. Killing Soleimani was.
In both cases, America violated the sovereignty of an allied nation. In Pakistan's case, it didn't destabilize the nation. In Iraq's case, it could very well drive them 100% in to the arms of Iran and remove American influence in that part of the world.
It could also mean a faster regeneration of ISIS, which has begun again in earnest after Trump summarily pulled out of Northern Syria leaving the battlefield to the Russians and the letting our Kurdish allies to die at the hands of the Turks.
It will also mean more American, not necessarily military, deaths somewhere around the world as Iran retaliates.
It will also mean a world-wide rising for fear and anxiety while people everywhere wait and wonder where Iran will attack.
So, yes, a very bad man is gone. But the question is, was the price we will pay worth it?
So, the questI think, in the pursuit of honesty, will should be replaced with could.
I wish no one,anywhere, ever had to die under violent circumstances. I hate war. I do think Trump hates the idea of war also. But, I think he wants it to be crystal clear he will protect American lives and hold responsible those who manipulate to have terrorism enacted against us.
You say we acted against a sovereign nation. Is not this man a direct report of a nation responsible for the same? The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. I'm not blaming Trump for this. There has never been a solution to the Middle East. If anyone listened to me we'd not deal with barbarians. But since we do, it's always a muddled mucked up mess.No, I chose "will" on purpose. There is no reason at all to think Iran will change how it reacts to attacks on its citizens.
"Is not this man a direct report of a nation responsible for the same?" - No, Soleimani works for Iran. We attacked in Iraq.By my understanding we have authorization to do so in Iraq. Your beef is the fact that the attack was on an Iranian.
To be clear. We know they will retaliate if we hurt their citizens or soldiers. Why should our actions be any different when our citizens or soldiers are attacked?So why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia when an American resident and journalist was hacked to pieces on the orders of the leader of the country? Instead, we rewarded them with a vast weapons sale.
But then, SA had Qatar lease son-in-law's 666 building in NY when no one else would. Probably just coincidence for the umpteenth time.
I don't like the fact that no more was done than it was however if you are going to compare I will point out Kashoggi was a Saudi, killed by Saudis in a Saudi embassy.
If you think we should have reacted militarily that would negate much of the argument your side is presenting.Khashoggi was a legal U.S. resident, just like millions of others living in America. Are you saying each one of those are fair game from their original country if that country wants to take them out and we shouldn't care or do something about it?
No. I was pointing out that was talking out of both sides of the mouth.
My beef is we assassinated a high ranking official of a foreign gov't. It is yet to be determined if it was legal or not and that will come from what the intelligence reports really say.
If the intel shows that there was truly an imminent attack which Soleimani was going to pull off, then it was a good kill. Letting Congress know, in that case, was not needed.
If, however, the intel shows that Soleimani was doing what he normally does as commanding an army in conflict with the US and planning non-imminent attacks, then the kill was an assassination, illegal, and an act of war.
Of course Trump leaves me no choice in believing anything he says and neither does Pompeo; both lie more than they tell the truth. So I will take my cues from those in the intelligence community, senior military officers, and Democrats who have heard classified and unclassified briefings on the intel. I would believe Collins, Murkowski, and Romney as well.
The odds are that some soldiers and a lot of civilians will become casualties and collateral damage. Hopefully all that could be avoided if sense prevails in Washington.
But then there is other pissed off side too that has vowed to avenge the killings. With news of projectiles fired into the green zone already flashing, you never know. All in all the world is not getting any safer.Yes, you never know, but I read that shelling the Green Zone as well as our bases is not that unusual.
Massive Iraqi crowds mourn the General's death. Iraqi MP's vote to expel all foreign troops. The Iraqi army has ended cooperation with German forces, already. Iraq is complaining to the UN about sovereignty violations as loudly as Iran.
Who could have guessed? Well, most people who read real newspapers, might have, lol.
Pretty much all of West Asia wants the US out. Only Israel and the Saudis remain as allies plus a few tiny Emirates.
Putin must be delighted. The US really might be out of the entire region in weeks. All it will take is a Russian air defense system. Maybe the Chinese and Russian ships already in Iranian waters will hang around too.
I remember Blair and Clinton saying "As long as Europe and America remain united there is nothing that can threaten us" and it was true. That seems a long, long time ago.And, I just watched Face the Nation, for the first time in some time, and saw Pompeo talk about how he wasn't convinced this would happen, and that the Iraqi people were with us. I understand the expulsion decision happened, in part, due to Iraqi public pressure after the bombing.
Iraq is 60 per cent Shia. The government is mainly Shia. It was Shia militias who were mostly responsible for defeating ISIS in Iraq (with backing from Shia Iran).
That Iranian general did not sneak in a back door, he was a guest of the Iraqi government. And Trump killed him in their capital city.Well that definitely makes sense politically for the Iraqi govt then. If the intention is for the US to just leave the MidEast altogether, and leave a "power vacuum", then I see the expulsion as not mattering so much.
However, Trump is sending more troops so he Iraqi expulsion is difficult to see as a good thing. Where will they all go with at least Afghanistan and now Iraq expressing they are not willing to help with confronting Iran? Saudi Arabia?He will need them to defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Maybe he can put them to good use fighting Iranian proxies in Yemen.
Hmm...I did read that Saudi Arabia/Kuwait are likely targets, which makes sense. I'm not familiar with US/Yemen relations at all, but I'm guessing they would indeed welcome the help as long as Trump doesn't rub them the wrong way also.
It just seems so counter-productive to get things heated up over there in a way that could limit our military options. I'm sure Trump has Great Bigly plans though, IDK.
The sins of the father follow the son. That's the way I see it. President Bush destabilized Iraq by overthrowing Saddam who was no friend of al Qaeda and Iran. Now the US is in a dilemma and despite maintaining 5000 troops in Iraq has no peace or appreciation from the Shia leadership that now rules Iraq and is allied with Iran. So what did America gain? shot itself in the foot. The way the wind is blowing. it may well mark the end of American influence in Iraq. America and Trump are faced with the famous soliloquy of Hamlet "to be or not to be."
All this is exactly what Israel wants, for the US to war with Iran. General Wes Clark: "...finishing off, with Iran." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNt7s_Wed_4
Israel is distancing themselves from Trump and the Soleimani killing.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/netanyahu … -it-report
I find it refreshing to have a leader who isn't pacifying terrorists. If only that decisiveness would trickle down to local law enforcement standing up to multiple perpetrator stalkers rather than pacifying, and even assisting them.
You find Trump decisive? I find him dangerously mentally ill; someone who changes his mind hourly. His action was decisive only because he can't undo an assassination of another nation's official in an act of war.
Why doesn't he take out the known terrorist and mass murderer Un, the leader of North Korea, instead of coddle him?
Why doesn't he take out the known terrorist and mass murderer Putin, the leader of Russia, instead of appease him in a traitorous manner?
Why doesn't he take out the known terrorist and mass murderer Iran's Supreme Leader, instead of killing one of his underlings?
Relative to your thought that the EC failed its secondary purpose of stopping the election of a demagogue, that can only be an opinion. Obviously a large segment of folks would disagree with you.
Also, I think your support of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact falls into the same shenanigans category as changing a vote from super majority to simple majority for political purposes. You seem to have a problem with that, so how can you support the NPVIC?
The appearance is that if you can't get what you want through an established process then the established process must be wrong and should be changed. And since you can't get enough support to change that process legitimately, you are okay with using shenanigans to get what you want.
GANot for the 175 people killed on the Ukrainian airliner shot down by mistake because of Trump's attack on the Iranian general. Collateral damage.....I detest that term!
But you don't detest it enough to refrain from trying to make political hay from it.
GAWhat part of my comment do you disagree with, Gus? How does the death of this many people benefit me? Or anyone else, for that matter?
I disagree with the part where you blame Pres. Trump for it. Your perceived benefit was the opportunity to take another shot at the president.
GAOkay Gus, you believe the airliner would have been shot down even if Trump didn't order the drone strike on the general. Gotcha!
I do not see it as making political hay be holding Trump responsible for his actions.
BS. Tell that to all of the American troops who are on lock down because of the threat Trump created. Tell that the Iraqis fearing for their lives from ISIS attacks because Trump called off his war against ISIS. Tell that to all of the American embassy officials around the world who now have to check their cars to make sure Iran didn't plant another bomb like they have before.
Delusional."Tell that to all of the American embassy officials around the world who now have to check their cars to make sure Iran didn't plant another bomb like they have before."
I suppose Trump was responsible for the past checks/lockdowns/etc. as well? The ones before he ever stepped on the scene?
Delusional.Trump was stupid for withdrawing from the Nuclear treaty. He only did it because he tries to undo everything Obama achieved.during his administration.
Iran was certified to be adhering to the terms of the treaty, despite what you hear on Fox News. Trump has opened up a can of worms trying to wag the dog. He's failing badly, Dan.Yup. Took out a kingpin terrorist. Failing badly.
Why isn't he taking out kingpin terrorists like his friends Putin, Xi, and Un??
Not sure what any of that has to do with blaming Trump for the actions of Iran, who is very well known for long time terrorist activities.
Or are you trying to change the topic to something besides such foolish claims?What about it, Dan? Do you believe 167 people on the airliner would be alive today if Trump hadn't ordered the drone strike?
There is zero doubt in my mind that Iran would have continued (and very likely will continue) to spread death and destruction through their terrorist activities; there is nothing new going on there.
What about you? Do you think they would have stopped such activity without the loss of their terrorist kingpin? Or are you just taking the opportunity to blame Trump for something that was destined to happen anyway, whether the downing of a plane or something else?
(As far as I know no government has taken responsibility for that - all are claiming a mechanical failure.)I do agree with that assessment about Iran (although I would substitute "will" rather than "would have", if fact it will probably increase now.
So, no, I don't think Iran will stop what they are doing because we assassinated Soleimani. As a result of the killing, the world and especially American's are in more danger of being attacked by Iran than ever before.
There is little doubt now that Iran shot down the Ukrainian plane. The Iranians are denying it to save face.
It is easy to connect the dots from Killing Soleimani to shooting ballistic missiles at our troops to Iran being on high alert for American retaliation to Air Defense forces having an itchy trigger finger to thinking the Ukrainian airplane was hostile. Easy Peasy.
I am not sure what you mean "destined to happen anyway".We agree - Iran has and will continue to commit terrorist acts and kill people - the death of their kingpin terrorist will make no discernible difference.
If they will continue, how did the death raise the danger level? It was already an effective 100% that they will kill again.
I agree that it is a near certainty Iran shot down the plane. They could indeed be denying it to save face if it was accidental - things like that often happen in the heat of the moment and certainly they were on high alert after their own missile strikes.
You may connect the dots all you wish and however you wish, but blaming Trump for Iran's terrorism is silly. You've already stated they would kill again with or without Trump's action; given that blaming anyone but Iran can be nothing but the TDS coming out.
I believe you know ever well what was meant by that statement. You already agreed to it: "Iran will continue it's terrorism activities"."the death of their kingpin terrorist will make no discernible difference." - AND THAT is the point isn't it?
What was the point of:
- Getting America kicked out of Iraq sooner rather than later?
- Of putting the lives of the 60,000 American troops in the area in MORE danger than they already were
- Stopping the fight against ISIS?
- Putting the lives of ALL of our diplomats in more danger than they already were?
- Guaranteeing that Iran will never come to the negotiating table?
- Guaranteeing that the hardliners in Iran will finally beat the moderates making America even less safe?
All of those bad things and more simply because Pompeo had a mission to kill Soleimani.
Was it worth it to you Wilderness?How many American lives would you give up before taking action? 1,000? 10,000? New York City?
A line was drawn years ago as to what we would do with terrorists - Trump did so. And he was right in doing so - we have tried the appeasement protocols of Obama far too long, with the result that Iran and others feel free to attack and kill Americans almost at will.
Under Obama the attacks subsided after they signed the nuclear treaty. Only after the moron Trump withdrew from the agreement did they start a nuclear program. Duh!And increase the attacks again.
BTW, what is the difference between Iran supplying IEDs to its allies and America using drones to take out bad guys along with some innocents. (Before you say anything, I am pro-drone). But on an intellectual level, what is the real difference? (Remember, we think - know - we are good guys, but the Iranians think they are the good guys as well - sort of like Trump thinking he did nothing wrong in bribing Zelenskyy)Perhaps the biggest difference is that terrorist glory in killing innocent civilians whereas we go to great lengths to prevent such deaths. And, of course, terrorist kill because their god has told them they will have virgins in their eternal life if they do.
Who were the IEDs used against? American troops with whom they were at war (in Afghanistan's case, a just war; in Iraq's case, an unjust war) or civilian targets?
Is Soleimani a really, really bad guy, you betcha'. But was it worth more American's probably dying, and the collateral damage that has happened already, to kill him when it didn't stop a damn thing?
Was it worth having the hard-liners get in charge of Iran?
Was it worth eliminating any chance of negotiations with Iran?
Was it worth Iraq kicking us out prematurely?
Was it worth ISIS expanding their territory because Trump stopped fighting them in order to protect our troops which he initially said weren't endangered by the assassination?
Was it worth the increased level of anxiety he caused all around the world?
Four Embassy's under imminent attack - my lord, just another BIG LIE from Trump and Pompeo.
You still haven't answered about doing away with Trump's friends Xi, Putin, Un, and Assad."But was it worth more American's probably dying"
You seem to be pretending that the deaths would not have continued if we did not kill Soleimani. Is that true - do you think the deaths/anxiety/territory expansion/etc. would have stopped if we treated him to dinner rather than a missile?
Personally I don't find any difference at all - the timetable may have been stepped up a bit is all. On the other hand, a message that we will not condone or permit Americans to die without reprisal may be worth something. It certainly can't hurt.Do you feel the same about the murdered, and hacked to pieces, journalist Kashogi, Dan. Why didn't we hit MSB with a drone? Because they were buying weapons from us? Or what?
You keep ignoring the fact that Kashoggi was a Saudi citizen in a Saudi embassy being hacked apart by Saudi nationals.
Not the same thing. Disgusting, yes. But not the same thing.You forget he was a resident of the US and applying for citizenship as his children had already been granted. With this same logic, Trump could hack to pieces any US citizen who disagreed with him in any American embassy in any country.
Did you really think your comment through, Miz Helper?No, Trump couldn't. Our laws are not like that.
By your reasoning you would support us taking military action against any action by a foreign government that broke our laws.
That makes absolutely no sense, at all.Then why the drone strike on the Iranian general? He broke our laws, not theirs.
Randy, if you don't think it is acceptable to take out an individual who has been classified as a terrorist when they represented a clear and imminent danger to American lives in the region, then I get this dance you are doing.
This guy was not in his own country. He was coordinating attacks against American citizens in another country.
By your logic we shouldn't have engaged Isis under Obama. Obama shouldn't have sent drone strikes in.
By your logic no American president should care about the lives of Americans outside of our borders.I'm not the only person suspecting Trump had an ulterior motive for the drone strike, Vile. Two recent reports has GOP Senators urging him to attack Iran or they will not side with him on the impeachment vote.
Quite an incentive, wouldn't you say?Of course you suspect an ulterior motive! You would have that suspicion if he blows his nose! Every action of Trump, from eating dinner to blowing up a terrorist has an ulterior motive in your overactive imagination.
Every action of Trump has one motive, to benefit himself. One only has to look at what Trump thinks he will personally gain to find his motivation for any action. He is a textbook narcissist.
He is also, according to dozens of mental healthcare professionals who feel they have a "duty to warn", a textbook psychopath, a textbook case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, a textbook Double High Social Dominator, and a textbook Hedonist.
Why wouldn't I Dan? Two reports out indicate several GOP Senators wanted him to make the drone attack or they would not vote for his exoneration in the Senate trial.
But you seeming don't care as long as he gets away with his abuse of power.And you give him a free pass for everything he does wrong or is attempting to do. You don't care at all if he abuses his power. You probably bought Dubya's WMD excuse as well.
Guess we all do that. You're willing to forgive Clinton her enormous excesses and fraud - I'm willing to forgive Trump a few minor political exaggerations.
I'm willing to give Trump (or any President) the use of presidential power; anything they do you don't like is an abuse of that power.
I bought that Bush was told there were WMD's and believed it, for which you degrade him. Just as you degrade Trump for not believing his intelligence. Not sure how that works, except that it's pretty easy to use hindsight, and that seems to be what you want to do. Forgetting, of course, that WMD's were actually found and did cause physical harm to American soldiers."I bought that Bush was told there were WMD's and believed it,"
it's so easy to rewrite history. Bush selectively chose to listen to intelligence that was cooked to curry favor with the administration. He selectively ignored the majority of intelligence that showed no WMDs. This was widely reported at the time but too many Americans were eager for war after 9/11 and didn't pay close attention. They were too busy cheering "rah-rah America" and denigrating naysayers as unpatriotic, even going so far as to call us traitors. The naysayers were right, though, as once again, America's leaders lied about their reasons for going to war.Agreed. He "selectively" chose to believe intelligence that there were WMD's rather than "selectively" choose to believe intelligence that there were none.
I don't know his reasons, you don't know his reasons. But you are willing to call "foul" because hindsight showed he made (mostly-there WERE some) the wrong choice. And you do it from the hindsight position, just as I said.I called "foul" on these pages and elsewhere before he launched his ill-fated invasion; no hindsight involved.
It is not that he "selectively" chose to not believe there was no WMD. He chose to disregard intelligence that put the pro-WMD in a lot of doubt. He wanted war and he was going to have his war come hell or high water - it is simple as that.
https://hubpages.com/politics/Reflectio … ar-in-IraqYes, you listened to the other set of intelligence "facts". And were proven (mostly) right - if you don't understand, that's called "hindsight".
Yep - the president wanted to kill hundreds or thousands of our soldiers. You KNOW this the same way you KNOW that Trump made a call in order to fix the election. Got it.I am sorry, Wilderness, as I clearly pointed out in my hub, it was FORESIGHT. If you read it with any clear eyes you should remember I said that was one of those who did a readiness assessment on our military capabilities and found out we couldn't support two regional conflicts.
If you don't understand that, it is FORESIGHT because assessment that was BEFORE Bush screwed up. Please stop making things up.
I KNOW the Trump thing because Trump SAID IT and it was corroborated by a host of people.Absolutely. It was foresight that you knew one set of intel was wrong but not the other (our readiness has zero to do with whether there were WMD's there). Because, I assume, you had visited the place and searched diligently for WMD's.
Trump said he called the Ukraine in order to fix the election. And you expect me to believe that because you assert it is true. Unfortunately we both know it is NOT true, so your expectations fall rather flat, don't they?
For someone forever whining that Trump lies, that's a rather odd statement to make - one that everyone on the planet knows has no truth at all in it.Lol, the hilarious (or sad, depending on your perspective) fact about Trump's narcissism is that he assumes he is always right and that everyone will see it and fawn over every word he says. So, he frequently reveals his true thoughts and motivations, thinking everyone will believe he is brilliant. Only after the fact does he find that, oh, that would be illegal, or oh, people think that is unethical and are going to investigate me, so I better change my story.
It's so transparent as to be the stuff of satire, but Trumpeters defend it as though it isn't obvious what an idiot he is.You are a master at twisting and cherry-picking/rearranging words, I'll give you that. I can see you are capable of considering only one thing at a time as well.
What I KNEW was that the Bush version of things was contradicted by other intel out there which questioned the veracity of what he wanted to believe. It was easy to see for anyone looking. Bush was not looking, Cheney didn't want to be bothered and neither did Rumsfeld. Biden, Clinton, and most other Democrats blew past it as well.
Sanders, Obama, and several other Democrats withstood the propaganda campaign and the McCarthy-style personal attacks (such as what is going on today)
In any case, there was quite enough of information out there such that a reasonable man would have held of going to war (there was no imminent threat, after all) and risking American lives for a personal war.
A hindsight position that I also carried at the time. Lost a long-term relationship over it.
Sad, isn't it, when politics is allowed into our lives to the point that we lose highly valued relationships. I suppose such things will continue until we learn that having a different opinion does not make someone "Bad" somehow - something our congressmen and women could stand to learn as well.
From all that I have read on the subject, Bush was given pro and con intelligence - he just chose to believe the pro. I don't really fault our intel agencies.
"This was widely reported at the time but too many Americans were eager for war after 9/11 and didn't pay close attention." <-- and that is the KEY."I don't really fault our intel agencies."
You don't? But they were either lying or mistaken - either way it seems reasonable to assign blame to them rather than to Bush.
I realize Bush was not a liberal, but still! Put the blame where it belongs.The Bush administration were the ones who lied us into war. Some are still, after all this time, eager to defend their deceptions. Pretty much the same people who are eager to defend Trump.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/"But they were either lying or mistaken - either way it seems reasonable to assign blame to them rather than to Bush." <-- That is not really true, is it.
You sound like the intel community made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Of course, that is foolish. The role of the intel community is to gather intelligence, assess it, integrate it, and provide leadership with a range of possibilities. Leadership takes it from there.
Based on public documents the intel community provided Bush with intel (mainly from one source) that Hussein had WMD and they provided Bush with intel that questioned that source.
Face it, Bush wanted to go to war and he did. He cherry-picked the intel he needed to make his case to the public and Congress along with initiating a propaganda campaign, which only Trump has exceeded, in vilifying people like me who opposed that particular war.
Bush is the reason there is an ISIS. Bush is a reason we are still in Iraq. Bush may be the reason we are still in Afghanistan (we will never know since he didn't finish the job there).
By the way, I like Bush in spite of the damage he did to America. He, in his own way, is an honorable man who made a terrible mistake.
Trump, on the other hand, is the opposite of an honorable man. He is, to use one of his favorite put downs, scum.
What "excesses and fraud" are you talking about. There was nothing to forgive is there. Even the Republicans, no matter how much time and money they wasted trying to create crime could no more than exonerate her of whatever the Charge de jour was.
"A few minor political exaggerations" - LOLOLOLOL, you need to take that comedy act on the road.
I fault Bush big time for believing only what he wanted to believe so that he could go to war.
I remember that period well and there was plenty of publicly available intelligence that questioned the veracity of the intel that Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld relied on to justify a needless war.
I never bought into their lies and only hesitated once when a man I totally respect, Gen Collin Powell, provided his false report to the UN. I suspect he was given bad intel which he passed along.
What WMD was found???? That is news to everyone. Are you making things up again?"What "excesses and fraud" are you talking about."
*shrug* When you close eyes and ears you will see and hear nothing. It gives the same result as prodding your own imagination to run wild making assumption and giving spin to what you don't like.
"What WMD was found???? That is news to everyone. Are you making things up again?"
Eso, I can't help you when you don't look, don't read and don't listen. When your own mind changes history to support what you want to believe, no one can.
Our servicemen were physically harmed, seriously so, by chemical weapons found there and buried in the ground. If you're seriously asking the question, and actually want factual answers, you can find them. Of course, you won't be able to simply declare that any information you don't like is from a bad source...
What WMDs were found? Was it the fake mobile labs they used to convince some Iraq was a threat to us?
He hasn't shown any intelligence proving there was imminent danger from the general, even Republican's weren't pleased with the briefing.
Trump has called our intelligence "Deep State" so many times, you'd think he wouldn't trust them at all. Make up your mind....I see only your opinion on the link, Dan. Buried chemicals are not WMDs. What massive destruction did they cause?
Search it out. Many of our soldiers were injured by them. It was years ago, but I'm thinking the news is still out there if you care to look.
Kind of surprised you already forgot it though. Was it difficult to do?I heard about them finding some chemicals buried, but I don't consider them worth invading Iraq. More people are killed by Round Up than were affected in Iraq by chemical weapons.
What about the fake posters of nonexistent mobile chemical labs used to make the excuse for invading Iraq. Or blaming them for 911 when it was actually Ben Laudin responsible.
I don't want this cretin starting a war no more than I did Dubya. I wonder who Trump's "Haliburton" will be this time around? But then, Trump makes Dubya look like a genius in comparison.
Personally, I don't think Trump had an ulterior motive; he has to be able to plan into the future to have that and that function is not in his wheelhouse.
No, he listened to others such as Pence, Pompeo, Hannity, Graham who do have agenda's. Since Trump has fired or chased away all of the adults in his administration, there was nobody left to tell him what a stupid idea it was.
And by YOUR logic, we should Nuke Iran into the stone age. Do you support that or are you a hypocrite along with Wilderness?
Thinking people understand the difference between a nation and a terrorist organization. Trump supplicants do not.Who said anything about nukes?
Exaggerate to the point of ignorance much?
Wrong. We drew a line on terrorism long ago. He crossed it. We took him out. Actually quite simple.
"By your reasoning you would support us taking military action against any action by a foreign government that broke our laws." <-- NO, THAT is your simplistic reasoning which goes - if it is a terrorist, kill it regardless of who it is. It makes no difference to you if the "it" is a person, a terrorist organization, or a sovereign state.
Just KILL it regardless of the consequences.That does appear to be Randy's position.
Horrible. Right?
He was not an American. That's all that matters.
Okay, he had applied for American citizenship and had his residence here--along with his children--was employed as an American journalist, and wan't considered worthy of not being hacked to pieces.
Gotcha!A couple of his children are Americans, btw.
I think I said this before - it is clear Wilderness is fine with American residents getting hacked to death - no big deal.
Kashogi was not an American. Huge difference, for we are not the policemen of the world, although many would make us so.
What you don't want to get, Wilderness, is that leaving the top general of a sovereign nation alive would not have diminished the rate of death that state was causing BUT,
ASSASSINATING the top general of a sovereign nation alive will increase the rate of death that state was causing.
Why are you willfully ignoring that critical distinction?? For the sake of arguing I guess.
"It certainly can't hurt" - tell that to the people on the Ukrainian airliner and their families that. Oh, yeah, I forgot, they aren't American citizens, so they don't count.Sorry, I disagree. You're conveniently setting aside any deterrent that killing a state sanctioned terrorist might have. Iran has been put on notice that with a change in presidency we will no longer tolerate the constant murder of American citizens or the attacks on American locations such as bases or businesses.
Why are you willfully ignoring that strong message? For the sake of argument, I guess - if you acknowledge that doing anything but sitting back and doing nothing might be of value then you have nothing with which to demonize our president.
How many additional American lives are YOU willing to give up by taking action?? I know you don't understand the difference, which is a shame, but Iran and al-Queda are not the same thing.
You never have answered my questions about why doesn't Trump take out his friends, Putin, Un, and Xi. They are as bad or worse than Iran. Couldn't he just nuke them and rid the world of a few mass murderers? Why doesn't he just nuke Tehran for that matter - it fits your logic.
Hi! In my view, Trump has committed a blunder by killing the Iranian general. I don't think he has gained much, on the contrary to people in the third world and the Islamic world, he has lost face. The failure of America to respond to the missile attack of Iran is by itself nothing to be proud of. I have seen a number of times that Trump when it comes to taking decisive action does dither. In this case, also, he did get the Iranian general killed but the follow-up has been poor as he never expected that Iran will reach retaliate with so much force. Worse he had to face the fact that in case he does attack Iran then his two allies the UAE- Dubai and Saudi will suffer badly. The USA will also now in due course of time make an ignominious exit from Iraq and that again shows the failure of the policy of having removed Saddam Hussein. All in all, America could do better without a president like Donald Trump
I'm surprised Mike and little Joey aren't denying this meme's truthfulness, IB.
You know what long-term impact TraitorTrump succeeded in cementing? The take-over of hardliners in Iraq's government. The moderates (relatively speaking of course) had quite a bit of influence. They are holding elections shortly and they are going to get trounced now.
They might have anyway because of Trump pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal - the moderates were the ones who pushed that through their gov't, much to the annoyance of the hardliners. When he pulled out, the hardliners pointed to Trump and said "See, you can't trust the Americans to keep their word." (All of our former allies are saying the same thing)
I looked it up, Dan. a few US soldiers were affected by old deteriorated mustard and nerve gas artillery shells which were in no way the WMDs Bush claimed were being made by Sadam. These old munitions were not safe to actually be fired at anyone. Not even a close call!
He knows no WMDs were found, as explained by the factcheck link I provided. He and I had this out before. He is the one misremembering (to use a memorable word invented by Dubya) the facts.
Yep, not only is he Trumping it, he hates Obama.
And yet there is Randy making the same claim I did: that WMD's were found and that they did harm our soldiers.
Old artillery shells are not WMDs, no matter how you look at it.
I see. Artillery shells containing nerve gas are not WMD's. Pray tell, how do YOU define what a WMD is?
Pray tell, how do you fire an unsafe artillery shell to create mass destruction?
Put in a cannon and pull the trigger. Drop it from a plane. Set it on the ground and blow it up.
Really, Randy, you can't figure out how to disperse the gas in side when it's dangerous and you don't care if you live or die?
But you didn't answer the question; what is a WMD if not an artillery shell filled with nerve gas?You seem to think you or Randy should redefine what has already been defined by people with way more knowledge and expertise than you. Like I said, you think a lot of yourself, don't you.
He's simply trying to prove what Dubya couldn't. No wonder he voted for him. No surprise at all.
He probably voted for McCain in hopes Palin would be VP or eventually POTUS. I'll admit, she would have been better than what we have now in the Oval Office. Sad to say...I don't have to: the ISP did, in PP's link. And you agreed as well - you didn't need me to show that some WMD's were found, now did you? Even though you're trying to say a nerve gas shell isn't a WMD, we both know better.
As far as I understand the term, an artillery shell filled with never gas most definitely classifies as a WMD. Do you disagree, and if so, what IS a WMD?
I accept the conclusion of Bush's own ISG. The rest is just you doing your usual nitpicking to deflect from a reality you wish didn't exist.
In more simple terms, then, 53=0. 53 nerve gas artillery shells = no nerve gas.
I will disagree, of course, but you can certainly maintain your opinion.
(Is it possible that we can agree that although old WMD's were found, there were no large caches of recently manufactured ones discovered in Iraq? or will you continue to disagree with the ISG and maintain that none at all was ever discovered?)
Are you volunteering to try one out, Dan? Even handling them would involve danger, but go for it if you have the nerve, or the know-how. Good luck!
Dangerous, then. And not only to the person handling it, but to many more in the area.
Is that not the definition of a WMD? (You still didn't answer that question, did you?)
Great! Then you know that WMD's were found; WMD's that you explicitly, over and over, claim were never there.
Want to re-think those claims, or will you try to spin it into something other than WMD's? Maybe they were packages of spoiled meat, or old wine bottles that had been used as urinals?Wow. You are still lying about WMDs. Unbelievable.
No, I'm repeating what Randy said. Did HE lie?
You did not repeat what Randy said and you know it.
So? From Randy's post: "US soldiers were affected by old deteriorated mustard and nerve gas artillery shells"
From my post: "Great! Then you know that WMD's were found; WMD's that you explicitly, over and over, claim were never there."
Now, Randy says they were old (true), but that does not mean they were not WMD's. He also says they aren't what Bush said was there, but again that does not mean they are not WMD's (I do not recall Bush stating WMD's were being made by Saddam - just that he had them). I was very, very clear in my original statement that WMD's were found: Randy was very very clear in stating they were not. Yet he now says they were.
So where do you fit? Are you claiming that mustard gas or nerve gas artillery shells are not WMD's? If so, we (Randy and I) have a very different definition of what constitutes a WMD. Or are you claiming, in spite of quoting Randy's post, that he did not say we found WMD's?What a truly pathetic game you are playing.
"Q: Were there really weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the U.S. invaded in 2003?
A: No. The Iraq Survey Group determined that Iraq had abandoned its quest to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and that it had already destroyed all of its existing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."
"The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005. "
"Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason."
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/"Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason."
And anyone that denies the physical evidence of mustard and nerve gas artillery shells is no longer acting on the basis of reason. Not sure just what they are acting on, but it certainly isn't reason. Rather pathetic, but there it is - reason dictates that, without exception, when such shells are found, and soldiers injured by them, that they are real and factual - pretending they aren't there is hardly the voice of reason, now is it?
From your link: "During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered". "But the finds were rare, and the ISG concluded that they were not part of a significant stockpile of weapons. ". "Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons."
So - the ISG found chemical WMD's, and so state. And you're here linking to that statement and saying there were none. That they found no means of production and conclude that such weapons were not currently being produced hardly denies the stated fact that the weapons were found.
I even mentioned this: "But you are willing to call "foul" because hindsight showed he made (mostly-there WERE some) the wrong choice." This is exactly what your report, and Randy, say - that there were some, just not the massive cache's that Bush was led to believe. But again you're trying to deny that, repeatedly saying there were [i]none[/b] found at all. A pathetic game rather than the voice of reason and truth, then.My gawd. You are something else.
The truth is staring you in the face and you play stupid word games. No wonder our country is f@ck!d up. We have people like you to perpetuate the lies even after the original liars have given up.
"The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005. "
You never cease to amaze me.From your link: "During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered".
This is not "no WMD's to be found"; it is 53 WMD type munitions. Are you reading my posts OR the link you provided? Do you not understand that 53 does not equal zero? This inequality is not a word game; it is an arithmetical certainty.
But you're right; you never cease to amaze with the ability to deny what you don't want to believe. You can read it, turn around and in the same breath declare it didn't happen, and do it from the information YOU provide! Amazing!Yes, I read your posts. You believe your conclusions are more accurate than Bush's own ISG. You think a lot of yourself.
LOL I took the ISG's own words and repeated them! And this is what you call "my" conclusions?
You just don't like what they had to say, so deny that the information you provided is true, that's all.Yes, you took their words, repeated them, and then provided your own conclusions to replace theirs. You may admire your own brilliance, but I see something quite different.
LOL The only conclusion I offered was that some WMD's were found, which is exactly what they said. So how can that be false, or any different than theirs? Do you think they concluded there were zero WMD's found, while producing evidence of finding 53 of them? You may be trying to do so, but I didn't see the ISP making such a statement.
As I have repeatedly stated, I accept the conclusion of the ISG, which is that no WMDs were found in Iraq. You are the one trying to define those old weapons as WMDs. I
I'll take their expertise over. yours. Sorry, you may think declaring your own definition as more accurate than the experts is a legitimate tactic because the GOP has been doing it for years and Trump and his minions have perfected the "alternate fact" but there are still thinking people who reject such nonsense.
Like I said, they should put you on their payroll. You fit right into their culture of propaganda."I accept the conclusion of the ISG, which is that no WMDs were found in Iraq."
Once more, from your link: "During its investigation, the ISG reported that "a total of 53 munitions have been recovered".
This is extremely plain, and in simple English. The ISG found 53 Weapons of Mass Destruction. That you wish to change that number to zero in order to claim that none were found doesn't change the fact that the ISG disagrees with you. That you wish to change the definition doesn't work, either. Your false propaganda does not change the fact that the ISG found those weapons nor that they stated that they did.
You're trying to change what the ISG said. Here, let me quote again from the link you gave: "There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter." "ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991." And finally, "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered..."
Nowhere in that report did the ISG say there were no WMD's; only that Iraq had destroyed (or relocated, though they didn't say that) their stockpiles and had not resumed production. That is NOT the same as what you claim, that they said " no WMDs were found in Iraq.".
(I take it you still refuse to acknowledge the ISG report that they found old weapons so will continue to deny that simple fact. As that was all that I said - that some WMD's were found - there doesn't seem to be much to discuss, then. I never said, or implied, that those old rotten shells were a reason to invade <they weren't> - just that they were found. You continue to claim they weren't found at all in spite of the ISG report that you provided and that said they were found. Case pretty much closed, then, as you appear to deny the evidence that you supplied.)Repeating the same nonsense over and over again might convince some people but doesn't work on me.
"Q: Were there really weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the U.S. invaded in 2003?
A: No. The Iraq Survey Group determined that Iraq had abandoned its quest to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and that it had already destroyed all of its existing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."
"The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005. "
I'm done conversing with you on this subject. You obviously have no shame if you're not embarrassed by the ridiculous mental gymnastics you display here.Fair enough; you've obviously no shame at all when you can read an ISG report of finding 53 such weapons and pretend it says there were none - I've posted that section several times and you simply ignore it, pretending it does not exist. Quoting what the author of that article concluded (which does not match what they say the report said any more than your own claim does) does not change what the ISG actually put in their report.
Yep - "gymnastics" to copy and paste what your own link gives as the report from the ISG. All mental gymnastics. Here: I'll post it again, just so you can pretend one more time that the ISG didn't say it: "During its investigation, the ISG reported that "a total of 53 munitions have been recovered".Fine, if you want to count old artillery shells as WMDs, then so be it. Were these old shells why we invaded Iraq? Of course not, but feel free to think so if it makes you feel better.
Nitpick is right. I suspect that this started with someone claimed Bush lied about WMD stockpiles and that Hussein was developing more.
While the ISG might have found a few old artillery shells with never gas in them.
The main point is Bush lied about WMD just as Trump lied about imminent threats from Iran.No, in this thread WMD's were found...which is exactly what I said in the first place. I even indicated that the "no wmd's" statement was "mostly" right, but that some were found. Whereupon I was told over and over that there were none found. Even when the ISG said they found them the statement was repeated over and over.
I have to wonder, though - how many of those 53 shells would it have taken to kill the Kurds that were gassed. 5? 10?
That kind of thing - denying truth and fact - is often used when a predetermined conclusion is desired as it might throw doubt on the conclusion desired. Such as "Bush lied" as well as "Trump lied".What was being talked about was the WMDs Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld were referring to and not 53 old artillery shells.
The ISG found Bush's claims were bogus.
Bush, et al, to take GA's point of being precise, claimed there were WMD stockpiles. There were not.The Bush administration did lie us into war. Some, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, clearly lied intentionally, believing the war would be quick and easy and a victory would naturally prevent much scrutiny. Others were pulled along with the tide of propaganda. This has now been well documented.
Wilderness typically searches for the tiniest little scrap he can use to cast doubt (in his mind) on a reasonable conclusion, if it is a conclusion he doesn't like.No Shit!
Dan is a Trump enabler and a Obama and Hillary hater.Geesh Randy. Get it right. Can you show that Wilderness was claiming that the WMDs of the Bush administration claims are the ones of Wilderness' claims?
I did not see that in his comments. Did I miss it? I only saw that all rebuttals to his claims were ones focused on the Bush/Cheney-type WMDs. Can you point to where he said Bush/Cheney were right because those old mustard gas shells were found?
I don't think you can. It seems that some folks are so quick to contradict that they don't take the time to understand that what they are contradicting wasn't claimed in the first place.
That would seem to cast your accusations of "enabler" back on you as a portrayal of a choir boy.
GASimply the opinion of a fence sitter, Gus. Or are you denying it?
That is easy enough to determine Randy. No fence-sitting needed. Just go back and find where Wilderness said the WMDs he was talking about were the ones that Bush/Cheney was talking about.
Or, go back and find where PrettyPanther said "yeah but they weren't the WMDs I am talking about"
When I retraced the exchange what I found was a simple debate about whether any WMDs were found. And in that context, a link was provided by PrettyPanther that validated Wilderness' claim.
"During its investigation, the ISG reported that "a total of 53 munitions have been recovered".
Those 53 munitions were chemical weapon artillery shells - Chemical WMDs.
GA
What do you think was wilderness' purpose in bringing those old artillery shells, which he calls "WMDs," into the conversation ?
uh uh, no way I am touching that. I'm sticking with Joe Friday's mantra, "Just the facts ma'am."
However, if you look back to my inference that if you had been more specific concerning the WMDs you were talking about you would have been on solid ground . . . you may get an idea of the answer I might offer.
GA
I don't think that is right My Esoteric. It seemed clear to me that what Wilderness was talking about was the WMD shells that were found, It was PrettyPanther that seemed to be talking about the WMD claims of Bush/Cheney.
The Bush/Cheney claims may have been bogus, but Wilderness' claims were not. You can't just ignore that fact because you were talking about another "fact."
If you want to be right, then talk about the right claims.
GASometimes the judge's ruling is faulty. Too bad there is no appeals court. :-)
Ain't that the truth. I still remember that time back in '78.
GA
Wilderness was trying to prove she was wrong about Bush, et al, so, as she said, he found a small crack in her words - what you pointed out. He did so by ignoring what she was trying to say and found an irrelevant fact to hammer her with.
Wilderness was NOT trying to prove she was wrong about Bush - the topic never came up. Only if WMD's were found.
Nevertheless, wilderness understood her position and responded to it with a suggestion that an agreement could be reached that some old weapons had been found but not the stockpiles the ISG said were gone.
That suggestion was denied with another "THERE WERE NO WMD'S "; an obvious falsehood.
"WMDshells"
Are WMD shells still WMDs? Apparently, the ISG thought not.Welllll . . . The U.N.'s Chemical Weapons Convention says they are WMDs.
Here are two screen-capture images from a film they made about WMDs:
Source: Weapons of Mass Destruction: Threats and Global Responses.”
And here is an image from a New York Times article showing a Saran gas shell found in Iraq in 2004:
A Navy explosive ordnance disposal team in 2004, sealing the sarin shell that had wounded Sergeant Burns and Private Yandell.
Christopher Jewett/United States Navy
Source: The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons
And then, there is the ISG Report itself, (not the Factchecker.org summary or quotes):
In its 2005 revised ISG Report Addendums, (pg. 21-22), it says this:
"ISG assesses that Iraq and Coalition Forces will
continue to discover small numbers of degraded
chemical weapons, which the former Regime mislaid
or improperly destroyed prior to 1991. "
Notice that the report calls them Chemical Weapons which puts them in the category of WMDs.
So back to my original point, you and Wilderness were arguing about two different things. It was sort of like a Jeoperdy Game moment where you gave the correct answer but are wrong because it wasn't given as a question.
GADid you enjoy participating in the nitpick game? Was it satisfying and worthwhile? ;-)
Yes.
And I also enjoy specificity. Particularly in topical discussions.
GAGreat. Then you will be happy to provide a direct quite from the ISG report stating that WMDs were found, or that they consider the degraded chemical weapons that were found to be WMDs. Because, as I stated to wilderness, countless news sources, including factcheck.org, summarized the report by stating no WMDs were found. I choose to believe them unless shown some direct evidence countering their conclusions.
See? This nitpick game is super fun!
"Notice that the report calls them Chemical Weapons which puts them in the category of WMDs."
Actually the report calls them DEGRADED chemical weapons. Are degraded chemical weapons still considered to be weapons of mass destruction?
My first nitpick.Could have called them GREEN chemical weapons, too. Or maybe GRAY chemical weapons. Could have mentioned THREE POUND chemical weapons, or AERIAL BOMBARDMENT chemical weapons.
Not sure that any descriptive adjective will remove them from the class of chemical weapons, though. Randy might help is he has already tried the "If they're old they aren't WMD's" road, though he didn't get far.You didn't answer my question, though it was meant for GA.
Bottom line is Bush lied about stockpiles of WMD
Yes I did. "Not sure that any descriptive adjective will remove them from the class of chemical weapons, though." Coupled with GA's comment that all chemical weapons are WMD's, the answer is "No".
Okay, your answer is "no.' GA has yet to respond. I know you will understand if I don't just take your word for it.
If I remember my chemistry, "degrade" has a specific definition with regard to chemicals. In common terms, it means "to lower the character of quality of."
Hmmm.Very true, and I would expect both gases to degrade over time until they are unable to cause harm.
That time had clearly not happened yet as our soldiers were harmed by them. Give them 10,000 (or 100,000 just to be sure) years buried in the ground, though, and you're probably right.
Yes, your answer is "no.' GA has yet to respond. I know you will understand if I don't just take your word for it.
If I remember my chemistry, "degrade" has a specific definition with regard to chemicals. In common terms, it means "to lower the character of quality of."
Hmmm.
They can't be used as WMD, if they can't be fired without endangering those firing them. There's no way to know if the shell will even leave leave the barrel of the artillery piece, explode in the barrel, or simply fire a short distance and possibly kill their own people.
The best you can describe them is as degraded former chemical weapons, not functional WMDs.And the planes used in 911 were not "weapons" because they could not be used that way without killing the terrorists that flew them into the towers. The bombs concealed jackets are not bombs because when they go off they will kill the terrorist wearing them.
And neither is a "maybe"; both will absolutely kill the terrorist, whereas those old WMD's are a "Maybe they won't work or maybe they will kill the one using them".
I find that your logic is severely lacking.As I said Dan, feel free to fire one and I'll accept your theory.
Your comment makes good common sense. However, it is possible that the degraded chemical weapons found in Iraq are officially considered to be WMDs. I mean, even though the ISG stated no WMDs were found in Iraq, perhaps they were imprecise and didn't really mean to say that.
I personally don't care to read the entire report to see if they specifically addressed whether those degraded chemical weapons are still considered to be WMDs. I'm content to accept their conclusion that no WMDs were found, but since wilderness emphatically asserts that those degraded chemical weapons are WMDs perhaps he is willing to show us where the ISG says so.
Isn't nitpicking fun!? Are we getting closer to the essential truth about the "rah-rah America" invasion of Iraq?"I mean, even though the ISG stated no WMDs were found in Iraq..."
Why do you keep claiming this false statement? Do you think repeated reiterations will make it true somehow?
As far as proving they aren't WMD's, that's easy - all you have to do is show that the gas put into them is no longer dangerous to humans. That regardless of what they were manufactured to be they are long long Weapons of Mass Destruction.I may be wrong in proving they are not WMD's. From the Dept. of Homeland Security: "A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, or other device that is intended to harm a large number of people."
Notice that it does not say "still capable of causing harm, only that it is intended to harm a large number of people. Nerve gas that is chemically changed into an inert substance was nevertheless intended to harm large numbers of people and thus still a WMD. Unless you would claim that it was manufactured with the intended use of rat control?
Okay, please Google the findings of the ISG report and you will find article after article stating the ISG found no WMDs in Iraq. If you have a direct quote from the report stating otherwise, please share. I am not interested in reading the report. You are the one making assertions counter to the conclusions of those who have read it. I know you are saying the degraded chemical weapons are WMDs, but I have seen no evidence that t he ISG considered them to be. It is up to you or GA to provide that evidence. In the meantime, as I have stated from the beginning and is corroborated by factcheck.org and many other sources if you care to look, the ISG found no WMDs in Iraq.
I'll wager both Gus and Dan voted for Dubya, Sandy. A dollar to a doughnut!
What does "Dubya" have to do with the discussion Randy? Either "Dan" and I are wrong, or we are right. A few simple questions could prove which it is.
Do you accept that the U.N. and its member nations agree that chemical weapons are WMDs? Or, by your determination they are not?
As I provided links that validate that both the NYT and the ISG report found chemical weapons, (a sarin gas weapon in the NYT instance), in Iraq, then for Dan and I to be wrong it must be your contention that chemical weapons are not a WMD-class weapon. Is that correct?
Come on bud, just a couple simple answers and you can validate your perspective—or not.
And look at the bright side, once your answers validate your inference, you can double-down on that "Dubya" thing.
GAWeapons which cannot be used as intended are ot really weapons, Gus. As in your broken gun example.
Oh buggers PrettyPanther. Even I don't have a shovel with a handle long enough for the hole you are digging.
Maybe a look at your specific claims might offer some clarity as to the root of the disagreement.
But first, I will once again offer that ISG Report quote about chemical weapons in Iraq:
"In its 2005 revised ISG Report Addendums, (pg. 21-22), it says this:
"ISG assesses that Iraq and Coalition Forces will
continue to discover small numbers of degraded
chemical weapons, which the former Regime mislaid
or improperly destroyed prior to 1991. "
You can revisit the clickable links HERE.
Do you disagree that chemical weapons are WMDs?
If not, then you can clearly see the ISG report says chemical weapons were, and will continue to be, found in Iraq.
You say you don't care to read the report, and continue to use it as validation of your point, yet deny the quotes provided by folks that did read the report and provided direct quotes from it. It would seem hard to accept that logic.
As for the degraded part, is a gun that no longer works no longer a gun, or is it still a gun with an added adjective. Such as non-working?
Now, to the crux, (as I see it); when you started this exchange, when you spoke of WMDs, were you speaking of WMDs as portrayed to the public at the time—as in stockpiles of usable chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons? Or, were you speaking categorically—as no weapons period?
Later in the exchange, what is your point of using the term "nitpicking"? Was it to say something like "okay, maybe there were some old useless chemical weapons, but not the stockpiles we were led to be a reason to go to war? Just what did you mean by "nitpicking"?
You can't have it both ways, if you are content to accept that there were no chemical weapons, then you have no reason to go with the "nitpicking" declaration.
On the other hand, if your original intention was to speak of the commonly held public perception of stockpiles of WMDs as the reason for war, then you could be comfortable accepting that no WMDs were found, but you wouldn't be making accusations of nitpicking.
So which is it? There were no chemical WMDs found, or there were no stockpiles of WMDs, (as previously described), found?
If one makes a statement and it is clearly misunderstood or misconstrued, wouldn't it be better to clarify the misunderstanding than to dig in and demand acceptance of one's intentions rather than one's stated words?
Unfortunately for me, I have allowed you to pull me into this hole with you, but relative to the described specifics of this exchange—from start to finish—when you are wrong, you are wrong. And as textually stated you are wrong. Maybe not wrong by implication, but wrong by specific statements.
GAA nonworking gun is no longer a weapon, Gus. Unless you want to beat the hell out of someone with it, of course. A weapon which cannot be used as intended, is no longer a weapon of "mass destruction." It's only going to affect those ignorant enough to try and use them.
It comes down to this, GA. Are degraded chemical weapons still chemical weapons? Yes. Are degraded chemical weapons still weapons of mass destruction? I don't know, but since multiple news sources read the report and said no WMDs were found in Iraq, couldn't one surmise that degraded chemical weapons, which were found in Iraq, are not considered to be WMDs?
It seems we have at least one point of agreement; chemical weapons are WMDs. Right?
But you have added a question of degree of functionality. I wonder if we can find any accepted threshold that is a transition point?
For instance; I hope you will agree that a sarin bomb, (artillery shell), is a WMD. Can we pick a line that changes that? The sarin gas attack in those Japan subways, (the mid-1990s?), killed and injured a lot of people, (I didn't Google for the numbers), and were publically declared to be a WMD attack. Do you disagree with that categorazation?
The sarin gas shell found in Iraq in 2004 only injured two soldiers before the gas was contained, but, even at a 43% degradation level, it could have killed many if it had exploded as designed instead of being sealed and contained as a leakage instead of an explosion. Would you deny that the sarin gas shell was a WMD?
If that sarin gas shell had been used as an IED, even at 43% of its original strength, it would have killed however many people might have been in its explosion radius—from dozens to multiple hundreds. Is it still a WMD?
I think you would certainly agree that a nuclear bomb that could kill millions is a WMD, but what about a suticase dirty bomb that will only kill hundreds or thousands, is that a WMD too? (the U.N. says it is)
I have tried to reach an understanding where I could agree with your original 'intentions' about WMDs found in Iraq, but between "nitpicking" and now degrees of lethality I am finding that to be a task.
I am the one that is usually accused of being obstinate, but in this case, I think I am the innocent one.
My answer to your question: "Are degraded chemical weapons still weapons of mass destruction?" I must answer yes. If you want to set the parameters for what constitutes "mass" then have at it. Then you can tell how sharp a knife has to be to still be considered a knife.
One final point. Relative to the ISG Report, shouldn't quotes of what the report actually says—taken directlyu from the report, carry more weight than what other "articles" say the report says? We seem to have agreed that chemical weapons are WMDs, and I have twice presented the quote and link of the ISG Report's own words speaking of chemical weapons found, and expected to be continued to be found.
GAI already agreed that the report states chemical weapons were found, specifically, degraded chemical weapons.
I also stated I have not read the report and have no intention to. Have you read it? My next comments are made under the assumption that you have not read the report.
Since neither of us has read the report, we must rely on others to report what is in there. A Google search reveals multiple headlines from reputable news sources that say "no WMDs found in Iraq." I didn't read every article but the ones I did said no WMDs were found. Do you not believe these sources?
Now, I understand that you are saying these degraded chemical weapons are WMDs, but you and wilderness are merely lay people expressing an opinion. Unless you can show me a direct quite from the report saying these are WMDs, I cannot assume they are.. The quote you supplied only states they are "degraded chemical weapons." For all I know, they have degraded so far that there is no way Hussein or anyone could unearth them from the ground, transport them to a location where they could be deployed, and then unleash them on masses of people.
I have to assume that factcheck.org and all these other news organizations accurately reported that no WMDs were found in Iraq unless shown otherwise.
You asked for my opinion about levels of degradation but my opinion means nothing. We are looking for facts, are we not?
Last, no, I am not stubborn, I merely insist that you support your conclusion since your conclusion runts counter to the report's conclusion, as reported by factcheck.org and others.
Stubborn, indeed. Harumphth!You are working me now PrettyPanther.
It appeared that you agreed that chemical weapons are WMDs. I previously provided links showing that the U.N. and the signatory nations to its CWC, (Chemical Weapons Convention) define chemical weapons as WMDs.
Can we call it settled that chemical weapons, et al. are WMDs?
As for the ISG Report, I have not read all of it, but I skimmed most of it and read the parts that seem pertinent. One such was the previously, (and repeatedly), presented direct quote from the report that spoke of finding chemical weapons in Iraq.
Here it is again:
"In its 2005 revised ISG Report Addendums, (pg. 21-22), it says this:
"ISG assesses that Iraq and Coalition Forces will
continue to discover small numbers of degraded
chemical weapons, which the former Regime mislaid
or improperly destroyed prior to 1991. "
Can we agree that the report did state that chemical weapons were found?
So if you agree that chemical weapons are WMDs, and you go to the supplied link to read the report's own words, (it will only take seconds, I directed you to the pages), that chemical weapons were found. then we can move on to address the point that you think makes a difference—whether degraded chemical weapons are still WMDs?
For this, I will go to the NYT article about the 2004 finding of the sarin gas artillery shell. I may not be remembering exactly right, but I recall a claim that the sarin gas shell was degraded to 43% of its full-strength deadliness, but, had it exploded instead of just leaking, (from degradation), it could have killed hundreds, or more depending on the explosion environment.
So, do we want to argue about what level of degradation determines a WMDs effectiveness as a standard of whether they are WMDs, or would the more logical and truthful stance be that a WMD is a WMD, and any other determination is just a qualifier to be added to its designation as a WMD?
What about a full-strength new chemical weapon that turned out to have a dud detonator, would you no longer call it a WMD? Is a rifle shell that misfires no longer a rifle shell? Is a soda that has lost its fizz no longer a soda?
As for your thoughts about all those Google headlines claiming no WMDs were found, I could only guess that those were contextual claims relative to the publically promoted understanding of the WMDs being discussed were stockpiles of new WMDs manufactured and just waiting to be unleashed. If that guess is close, then I would agree that none of those types of WMDs were found.
But otherwise I am at a loss, because I am sure they could find the same information I did about the classification of chemical weapons as WMDs, and the ISG Report's blunt statement that chemical weapons were found.
Whether those chemical WMDs were old and rusty, or brand new and ready to fire, they were still chemical WMDs. I can think of no other explanation than the one I first offered in this exchange—folks are talking about two different things. One being the public's perception of chemical weapons stockpiles that we just had to go to war to prevent, or two, the understanding that any chemical weapon is classified as a WMD—regardless of condition or strength.
Which WMDs have you been talking about PrettyPanther?
Relative to your 'assumptions' about factcheck.org and those other headline providers . . . we both know how dangerous assumptions can be.
Also, if you are more concerned with facts instead of opinions, why are you denying that chemical weapons are classified, without qualifiers of condition, as WMDs?
[EDIT]
I found this for you. It is from the U.N.'s Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Here is the link to the OPCW Definitions page that discusses just the point you are making.
Here is the blurb I think you will like, it relates to old and/or degraded chemical weapons:
"“Old Chemical Weapons” means:
Chemical weapons which were produced before 1925; or
Chemical weapons produced in the period between 1925 and 1946 that have deteriorated to such extent that they can no longer be used as chemical weapons.
“Abandoned Chemical Weapons” means:
Chemical weapons, including old chemical weapons, abandoned by a State after 1 January 1925 on the territory of another State without the consent of the latter."
If you follow the link you will see that the OCPW is an arm of the U.N.'s CWC which is a categorization of one of the four defined types of WMDs. So the U.N. thinks that old degraded chemical weapons are still classified as WMDs.
Does that help answer your question about whether old degraded chemical weapons are still WMDs?
GAWhat is a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD)?
According to the Dept. of Homeland Security: "A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, or other device that is intended to harm a large number of people." https://www.dhs.gov/topic/weapons-mass-destruction
Notice that there is no limitation of age or effectiveness; a chemical weapon intended to harm a large number of people, whether it is capable of doing so or not, is classified by the DHS as a WMD.
(I thought I posted this some time ago, but apparently it didn't "take". Sorry.)
*edit* A little more from the FBI definition:
"A WMD is defined by U.S. law as any of the following:
A destructive device, such as an explosive or incendiary bomb, rocket, or grenade;
A weapon that is designed to cause death or serious injury through toxic or poisonous chemicals;
A weapon that contains a biological agent or toxin; or
A weapon that is designed to release dangerous levels of radiation or radioactivity." https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/wmd
Again, no limit on effectiveness; just that it was designed to kill or cause serious injury through chemical means.I did not follow all your links, as I trust you and the accuracy of your research.
You did it! You proved that experts believe degraded chemical weapons are WMDs.
Now, did you enjoy playing the nitpick game? Was it meaningful? Did we gain any insight into....anything?
I guess we need to write to factcheck.org and urge them to change the title of their article.. "No WMDs in iraq" is clearly wrong.
Whew! I'm glad that's over."Was it meaningful?" is key when you go back to the original claims - That Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld lied about WMD stockpiles in Iraq. The issue was whether the claims they made were true or not - AND they were not.
There was no stockpile, just a few degraded munitions that Hussein may or may not have known about. And even if he did, he couldn't use it the way B-C-R say that he would.
Bush, et al claimed "that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and that he thus presented a threat to his neighbors and to the world community. " - AND THAT was a lie as the ISG reported.Yes, but wilderness must state, every time the topic comes up, that WMDs were found in Iraq. Because, you know, he cares about the truth. Maybe we should have a philosophical discussion of the meaning of truth versus tacts. That would be a nitpicker's heaven on earth.
Okay, I want to hedge a little on complete agreement with the Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld basket, but I agree with the thrust of your comment.
I would have loved to offer that same agreement to PrettyPanther after her first comment.
GAThe reason I went as far as I did is I have been on these forums long enough to have seen wilderness' "but they did find WMDs in Iraq" comment several times and he never voluntarily qualifies it without a bunch of arguing. This time, I decided to play his stupid game and make him work for it. Sorry you got stuck in the middle and then he gave up and let you do all the work.
??? You gave the answer in your very first post - nothing to work for.
You know, the funny part is that I said in that very first post what you are saying as well; that Bush did not refer to a few buried WMD's. Said it later as well, too.
"But you are willing to call "foul" because hindsight showed he made (mostly-there WERE some) the wrong choice. https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/346 … ost4114929
So right from the start I said Bush was wrong but you had to pursue it because I mentioned as an aside that there were some WMD's found. But, of course, it was my fault that you read into the comment what was never there, isn't it?I wonder how many people buy your "I'm-so-innocent" act.
Probably about as many buy into your "Anyone that doesn't agree with my is guilty of a crime".
Me too.
Now, is it safe for me to agree that no WMDs, as they were perceived by the public in regards to the reason for invading Iraq, at the time, were found in Iraq?
GA
And a fair one too. But, I think the answer would be yes, they are. In the NYT article, it spoke of the sarin shell being degraded to 43% effectiveness, but it still injured those soldiers and was still classified as a chemical weapon.
But, maybe you could dig deeper to see if there is a percentage of degradation that limits that classification. I wouldn't think so, but us nitpickers have been surprised before.
GAAs I stated to wilderness, I believe the onus is on you and wilderness to prove your conclusion is correct, since it runs counter to the stated conclusions of multiple news sources including factcheck.org who have presumably read the report.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/346 … ost4115582
You cannot prove the buried and deteriorate shells were even able to be fired. What a bunch of BS, Dan.
Makes no difference, Randy, the only point for Wilderness is that since PrettyPanther failed to add the word "stockpile" to "WMD" he found a chance to use one of those Texas Sharpshooter Fallacies he loves to deploy.
WMDs are weapons of mass destruction. Old deteriorated artillery shells are simply that, There's probably a lot of the same type of shells buried in many countries around the world as they were used in WWI. Does this mean we can invade those countries because they have old WMDs buried in the ground?
Does that mean they aren't a weapon, or that they don't exist? There is BS here, all right, as you twist and turn trying to turn a never gas shell into anything but a Weapon of Mass Destruction. It was manufactured as just that and it will remain that until it is disassembled or destroyed. Your spin and your desperate efforts to deny that nerve gas doesn't count is not worth the time to type it.
Just one of many statements he should be ashamed of ... but hey, what wouldn’t you expect from the looney left?
Wilderness, PrettyPanther, do you folks need a referee? Or maybe some knuckle bandages?
I can't resist offering an outside observer's view of your recent WMD exchanges. And you are not going to like it PrettyPanther, because Wilderness is right and you are wrong. But you are only wrong because you were sloppy. It looks like you two are arguing two different things.
Wilderness is arguing that technically, and specifically, WMDs were found. PrettyPanther seems to be arguing contextually, relative to the claims of WMDs used as the pretext for the Iraq war.
I called PrettyPanther sloppy only in the respect that she did not define the WMD claim she was arguing. Had she done that she would have been right and Wilderness' claim of specifically finding WMDs—in the form of old Mustard Gas shells, would not have been relevant to PrettyPanther's point. She would have been right.
But, nooooo, she continues to argue that no WMDs were found when she should have been arguing that no WMDs were found relative to the currently held common understanding of what was meant by that claim as the reason Pres. Bush went to war with Iraq.
Tsk. Tsk. Sandy. If your point is as I understand it, (as I explained), then I agree with you. You are right. But, you abandoned being right when you denied the truth of Wilderness' claim. The U.N. does define chemical weapons as WMDs, and Mustard Gas artillery shells are certainly chemical weapons. Whether they are old and rusty or brand new.
Wilderness is completely right because he limited his claim to whether WMDs were found, not whether the WMDs, ("yellowcake" dirty bomb components, mass stockpiles of the most deadly chemical weapons, etc.), that the public was led to believe were there, really were there.
It seems PrettyPanther has been arguing against the existence of that latter WMD description while Wilderness has steadfastly stuck to a different but equally correct point—the former description, WMDs really were discovered in Iraq. Just not the ones PrettyPanther is arguing.
A simple 'yeah but . . .' would have stopped Wilderness in his tracks. Without that "yeah, but . . ." he is right and PrettyPanther is wrong.
Hold on Ms. No 'But you know what I meant' defenses allowed when such clear opportunities for clarification were presented so many times. You just skipped past them. That was sloppy.
GAI argue about what matters. Wilderness argues to give the Bush administration an out for their lies. I knew what he was doing because that is his usual shtick.
I feel perfectly at peace with my position. I wonder if wilderness feels the same.Of course he does, he's a Trump enabler isn't he? I suppose you can call him a Dubya enabler as well.
Wilderness is absolutely at peace with he he said. He even went to so far as to offer an olive branch in an agreement that old weapons (and indicated they were insufficient for a reason to attack) were found but nothing newer...which was again ignored in favor of "NO WMD'S FOUND". In line with her usual shtick PP continued the same line of argument in order to stick with the "Bush did wrong" rather than with fact and truth.
Okayyyyy. . . Everybody is at peace. Now, how about them Mets? ;-)
GALol, don't have a clue. Looking forward to the college football championship game, though.
I am a great NFL fan, but have not been able to get enthused about college ball. Maybe there is only so much football I can take. There were a couple of really good playoff games this past weekend.
GA
It's so much fun to read through a pointless conversation that is the result of someone just not being able to admit they are wrong.
Yeah, it's fun isn't it? Maybe wilderness should just take a Sharpie to a map showing us where all those dangerous WMDs were stashed just waiting to be unleashed by Saddam Hussein upon innocent people. I mean, all those lives lost or forever altered by trauma and the trillions of dollars spent were worth preventing the imminent threat posed by those WMDs.
Easier to ask the ISG - they're the ones reporting the find(s).
LOL Not as much fun as poking it with a stick!
TRUMP HAS ALREADY KILLED MORE CIVILIANS THAN OBAMA IN U.S. FIGHT AGAINST ISIS. More false flag attacks, it never ends. I don't watch football anymore because it reminds me of war.
I just like to know where they are going on, so I can stay out of their personal hell and let as_hole be as_holes and let Americans go into deeper debt. That will someday force change from their world surroundings directions more than anything.
Related Discussions
- 9
U.S. Moving Heavy Bombers To Middle East After Iran Vows Revenge
by Ken Burgess 3 days ago
As we near the election, military actions abroad are escalating at an alarming pace, from North Korean troops being deployed to battle Ukrainian troops along (and within) Russia's borders, to Iran (and China) heightening military efforts in Iran. The U.S. Department of Defense announced this week...
- 129
Iranians terrorists funded by the US!
by Deforest 11 years ago
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The US administration just gave them the...
- 28
Are many American reasonable about guns and terrorism?.
by Castlepaloma 7 years ago
I was told by a few gun fans that hammers kill more people than guns. Personally I could not beat a man into a hamburger. Or Hamburger hill would be grossly rewritten. If someone challenge you to death duel, would your choice weapon be a hammer or a gun? I rest my case. Trump speeches is Mr....
- 76
Where are we going with Iran?
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 5 years ago
Should the president have a meeting with Rouhani? Should a "deal" be made? The wrong response might provoke some radical reaction in the US. Is the president walking back on his position? Who should be advising the preisdent on Iran?
- 37
Three U.S. Service Members Were KILLED And 25 Others Were INJURED
by Sharlee 9 months ago
Last I knew this was a political forum. So, let's talk politics.Is there anyone out there ready to dig into the complexities of my equation? The political dimension it unfolds, exploring all the 'what could haves' and even entertaining 'what should have been' before this gut-wrenching tragedy...
- 5
The Geopolitical Poker game that will define the New Mideast
by Tammy Barnette 12 years ago
http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/th … m-1.472966 From Lybia to Syria, Turkey, Iran to China and Germany to Isreal...this article explains how very delicate the situation really is in the mideast...From rebellion to revolution, it is hard to know who to trust, in some cases those would be...