@no1marauder saidWrite all you want?. You may as well tell us who got elected and why and when they were born, and load some links.All that fluff does not affect the basis of why Reagan wanted Iraq to reduce the might of the slime Iranians. Did my post explaining same not do it for you, Mr Contrarian?? Tell us more!!
BTW, Reagan sold weapons to Iran during that war to, in his words. "to send a signal that the United States was prepared to replace the animosity between [the U.S. and Iran] with a new relationship. …". https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/reagan-explains-secret-sale-of-arms-to-iran-nov-13-1986-099742
Mostly it was really to raise money to illegally fund the contras ...[text shortened]... ut asking a US President to tell the truth about our foreign meddling is a seemingly hopeless dream.
Oh, did you tell us if you were in favor of attacking Iran, yes or no?
@Metal-Brain saidWho said that “what Iran did in the past “ is irrelevant (to present day situation )
Then all that Iran did in the past is irrelevant. Stop calling Iran a state sponsor of terrorism. Everybody supported terrorism in the past.
How long you gonna throw stuff at the wall that will not stick?
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidIran, of course, opposes Israeli expansionism and US military actions and meddling in the Middle East. They have done so since 1979.
Who said that “what Iran did in the past “ is irrelevant (to present day situation )
How long you gonna throw stuff at the wall that will not stick?
If that is sufficient to justify a war against them, the President should have went to Congress and asked for a declaration of war. That no President ever has just shows the after the fact justifications being spewed out by the present administration are BS.
@no1marauder saidSo, here we are, given all this information, what you suggest? Do we act on that, or do we all just move forward. I never really get what you fillers are trying to do with your posting.
Iran, of course, opposes Israeli expansionism and US military actions and meddling in the Middle East. They have done so since 1979.
If that is sufficient to justify a war against them, the President should have went to Congress and asked for a declaration of war. That no President ever has just shows the after the fact justifications being spewed out by the present administration are BS.
Prove something? To what end?
@AverageJoe1 saidI'd say the US government should end its military actions and violent meddling in the Middle East and then we'd have no beef with Iran.
So, here we are, given all this information, what you suggest? Do we act on that, or do we all just move forward. I never really get what you fillers are trying to do with your posting.
Prove something? To what end?
Clear enough for you?
@no1marauder said??? Tell us this… If simply leaving, the Middle East would solve the problem, why is a ranch spent decades, funding, malicious, and threatening its neighbors, even when the US wasn't directly involved?
I'd say the US government should end its military actions and violent meddling in the Middle East and then we'd have no beef with Iran.
Clear enough for you?
One of your problems, as you never think things through, is that you seem to be assuming that Iran's hostility only exist because of the USA. Do you realize their regime has opposed the US and our allies for decades regardless of what we do.
Don't tell us that the Koran requires strict adherence to goals of murdering us and infidels, as that is not relevant. I guess we could tell the heathens that we alosing them up because......... our Bible (and Nostradamus) told us to do what we did last week!!!!!!!!!!
Iran has funded militias, attacked US forces and our allies for decades. It is laughable that you think our leaving the region would make those conflicts disappear.
YOU are laughable. An Iran Lover!!!!!!!!!
1 edit
@no1marauder saidIn plain english, the attack had to happen. Rational minds would have approved the attack by simple text message to Trump.
Iran, of course, opposes Israeli expansionism and US military actions and meddling in the Middle East. They have done so since 1979.
If that is sufficient to justify a war against them, the President should have went to Congress and asked for a declaration of war. That no President ever has just shows the after the fact justifications being spewed out by the present administration are BS.
You pretend, though, that TDS would not enter into such decisions. So, since you all hate Trump, he will always do any 'end around' that he can to get the job done....in thes case, to stop the building of nuclear ballistic missles by a maniacal country guided by a 12th century shytty little book.
A vote in congress could have failed to produce a vote of confidence for Trump. Tell me, little feller, would cultural person Ilan Oman have voted to bomb hell out of Iran??????????????????????????????
Our president, empowered to protect us could not take that chance. "Tis better to ask for forgiveness than permission'. I made that up. Applies here, don't you think? Do you see that you and Sonhouse and Suzianne would have voted to NOT attack Iran if you were congressmen????
Is that clear enough for you??≥...Marauder?? Marauder JD.?
@AverageJoe1 saidSo you admit that Congress would have never OK'ed Netanyahu and Trump's war. That's who the Framers left the decision to, not our would be wannabe dictator.
In plain english, the attack had to happen. Rational minds would have approved the attack by simple text message to Trump.
You pretend, though, that TDS would not enter into such decisions. So, since you all hate Trump, he will always do any 'end around' that he can to get the job done....in thes case, to stop the building of nuclear ballistic missles by a maniacal ...[text shortened]... ttack Iran if you were congressmen????
Is that clear enough for you??≥...Marauder?? Marauder JD.?
@no1marauder saidAnother problem of you liberal posters, you will not recognize "changing times'.
So you admit that Congress would have never OK'ed Netanyahu and Trump's war. That's who the Framers left the decision to, not our would be wannabe dictator.
Here you ask me if the framers would have dreamed of what is going on now, when they sat down with quill and paper?
Well, I will try it on you. Do you think they would have been so lax , saying that people born here are automatic citizens, when they could not have known what the Biden madness at the Border has rained down on our country????.........the Biden being an actual PRESIDENT of the country succeeding Geo Washington, who was sitting across the room in Philadelphia??????
Answers: No, they would have written the constitution differently if they had seen dependent losers bleeding our government in the future. There were no such parasites in those days, and the members of congress would have voted for the good of the country, not based upon hatred of a president.
They would NOT have been so loose in handing out citizenships, which was intended mainly for children of slaves, born here.. Not intended for invaders of the country.
To answer your question, all dems in congress would vote against anything that Trump wants to do. Do you see that that is why he finds ways to avoid congress? When next president is a Dem, he will start getting stuff from producers to give to non producers, and he will likely succeed. It will be called the Leach Bill. However, if the next president is a Repub, he will tell people to go to work, and he will MAGA.
@AverageJoe1 saidIf you don't like what's written in the Constitution, you amend it.
Another problem of you liberal posters, you will not recognize "changing times'.
Here you ask me if the framers would have dreamed of what is going on now, when they sat down with quill and paper?
Well, I will try it on you. Do you think they would have been so lax , saying that people born here are automatic citizens, when they could not have known what the Biden ...[text shortened]... . However, if the next president is a Repub, he will tell people to go to work, and he will MAGA.
You want a dictator as long as he does what you like. The Framers thought differently and "changing times" isn't an argument for dictators as the 20th Century should have shown even someone with the obviously limited education you have.
@AverageJoe1 saidI did not say a single word about Trump.
My, my, the Trump haters are out today!!!! You realize that all we (repub conservatives) see in posts such as this is not your random 'shouse predictions', nor your failure to get what is going on, but rather your innate hatred for Trump. That's it. Your new word 'Proxy' is as silly as it gets.
You ignore all the hell of Iran. Their nuclear threats. You are ...[text shortened]... et them go unchecked, and hope that there will be peace? That, we do nothing??
This is a question.
@AverageJoe1 saidDon't act stupid. Arming both sides of a war is not like funding politicians.
Now you are a war expert?!?! Arming both sides is somehow a no-no??? Hmmmm, I don’t think so. Have you not ever in an election given money to both sides? Commonplace.
Whew.
As far back as the 80s they were weakening both sides because the plan was to invade both countries eventually. Wake up.
Oliver North sent arms to Iran while Reagan was pretending to be Saddam's ally.
@AverageJoe1 saidYou said the past did not matter. Because you didn't want to acknowledge that the USA funded terrorists. But now it is obvious you want to hold the past against Iran while ignoring US funding of terrorists.
Who said that “what Iran did in the past “ is irrelevant (to present day situation )
How long you gonna throw stuff at the wall that will not stick?
The USA is guilty of the same thing. You don't want to talk about that.
@Nanomaster saidyes you did not insert the word trump. if i say it sure was dark around 2pm, i dont have to say the word cloud.
I did not say a single word about Trump.