Stupid Watergate - or how to impeach Donald Trump.

Crni

So again, if Irans going to get the bomb anyways, why pay them to do so? Keep the sanctions in place. This is why JCPOA was monumentally stupid.

Benefit

Regardless, do you disagree corps like airbus stood to make a fortune from Iranian contracts? All I am saying is everyone naturally looks out for their own interests. More air bus orders means more jobs. Europe it seems would have broken away with the NATO, or the U.S. were it not for the fact that having a real military costs money. Making sure European interests get precedence, costs money and a little coercing. Most of this Europe would not do.
 
Because every diplomatic approach that might have avoided a war is a good one. But hey! We are dumb Europeans, remember?
 
We already established that Iran will get the bomb.

N. Korea most likely has a bomb and we are not at war with them.

The war thing was total bullshit. No nuke deal doesn't equal war, it just means sticking with the status quo.

Bush had his WMD fuckup. The war lie is Obamas.
 
The Iran deal also had the intention to strengthen moderate voices and groups within Iran which are now completely silenced and actually in accord with the current regime due to the death of a national hero though.

Like I said somewhere else. Imagine if Iran killed Mike Pence or a high ranking General of the US. Would it lead to a situation where it would bring the US to the negotiating table?

Seriously I am completely lost here, what the hell did you or anyone else REALLY(!) expect here to happen? Hearts to hearts. Did you really expect Iran to back down from this? Like really? A dictatorship that as many say is lead by religious fanatics that see it as their greatest achievement to die in martyrdom. And people seriously think this would not spawn a reaction?

Does anyone of you guys here actually play chess?
 
I fully expected the Iranians NOT to back down. I also said targeting Solemanei was not proportional. Lastly, even if he were to die, it should have been covert.

But the argument isn't about whether Iran will respond. It WAS about how Obamas weakness emboldened and financed the Iranians to do more.

It is no coincidence that the Chinese militarized the Spratleys on Obamas watch. Same with the Chineae getting all uppity during Clintons administration. It is no surprise that a majority of anti-U.S. actions all coincide with little bitch dem presidents.

We have dreamed about regime change in Iran since bitch ass Carters mishandling of the Shah. It isn't going to happen. They got religion on their side and years of American hate. To say the JCPOA was somehow a stepping stone to that is ridiculous. The moderate folks are still slaves to the Ayatollah.. He has supreme authority. Just lile the N. Koreans, the Iranian people will never rise up. They have been effectively cowed and the military establishment in these nations are firmly with the dictator.

Everyone knows coups are not possible without the support of the police and the military.

JCPOA has always been a bullshit legacy project and always will be.
 
I really really really hope that you will be still posting here after Trumps presidency, what ever if it ends in 2 or 6 years and when we will (hopefully) discuss all the ramifications of HIS policies, decisions and political decisions.
 
DarkCorp said:
But the argument isn't about whether Iran will respond. It WAS about how Obamas weakness emboldened and financed the Iranians to do more.

It is no coincidence that the Chinese militarized the Spratleys on Obamas watch. Same with the Chineae getting all uppity during Clintons administration. It is no surprise that a majority of anti-U.S. actions all coincide with little bitch dem presidents.
Click to expand...
Ok. Before anything, let me say first that I consider you a rational being despite our strong disagreements here. But I do believe that you're completely underestimating many factors at play here.

Anyway my intention now is not to convince you of the pros and cons of the Iran deal or what ever despite the fact that China, Russia and most of Europe thought it was a good deal and many American politicians including also a lot of conservatives thought it was "good". But consider this for a moment.

We are actually in a position that we can talk about the Iran deal. It was a policy. With clear goals. It can be actually criticised. And we can even do this with the policies of the Bush administration. The reason for this is very simple. They had actual policies and plans in place that could be discussed. Now hearts to hearts can you tell me what the actual goals and targets of this administration are? What are the strategic (long term) and tactical (short term) goals of this administration? What are the policies of the advisors? What do they actually want to achieve in the middle east and what are the guide lines of their foreign policies?

Why do I ask this? Because I honestly believe that this administration has zero goals or even any kind of strategy in how to deal with foreign affairs. Leave alone the middle east.

And this above all issues, more than Obamas Iran deal, is going to hurt the United States in the short and long term - I am talking here from your position.
 
The JCPOA, IMHO, served every other interests OTHER than the U.S.

1. Russia and China.

These folks are our competitors. Naturally, being our competitors, they see a very unique business opportunity with Iran. They also want to stick their fingers in the ME. Both nations want to be seen as powerful world players and have interests. Russia has Tartus as a reason. The Chinese, with Xi, are heavily pushing their Belt and Road Initiative. Lastly, a non sanction Iran, flush with money, will send it to Russia for weapons. China votes pro as it is a kind of black eye for us without the Chinese really doing anything. China isn't Russia and they wish to avoid overt ways with which to challenge the U.S.

2. Europe

Europe has no historical beef with Iran, with the exception of GB. They are not involved in the ME. You folks resent the fact that Iran is a good business opportunity that is closed because of Iran - U.S. relations. Obama, most likely figured that through the JCPOA, he could cement his legacy and open up Iran for business interests in Europe (I doubt Iranian businesses want to buy from U.S. companies). Airbus had a hyuge contract to modernise the Iranian air fleet, as just one example.

We are debating JCPOA based on what has been presented to the public. If we were only able to debate if we were really in the loop, then we would have nothing to say and this would be a very boring place.

Dems

Seriously, anyone can look it up. The majority of shit happens during a dems administration. I already brought up Carter, Clinton and Obama. I am not talking about stateless terrorists here but concrete moves by a major foreign power.

Forgot to address this one.

Until Trump, we have never, at least AFAIK, assassinated another member of a foreign government in peacetime, or in such an overt fashion. America, at least TRIES, to not go full on Nazi or SU. But remember, geo politics is an inherently dirty game and not playing is not an option. Also, while we have been shady globally, we have always reigned in corruption at home. We have a separation of powers. Our politicians have a healthy fear of the press. We cannot kill detractors. And an impeached president gives up powers peacefully, no civil wars or people dying. Very different than in other places.
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
Dems

Seriously, anyone can look it up. The majority of shit happens during a dems administration.
Click to expand...
*goes and looks it up*

Yup.

Bush-IraqiFreedom.png


mb.jpg


2016-12-21T04-18-15-533Z--1280x720.1200;630;7;70;5.jpg
 
I guess he meant stupid shit concerning Iran.
Operation Iraqi Freedom, as the name implies, was about Iraq. Small letter, but a significant difference.
Iran-Contra? You do know what that was about, right? They secretly sold weapons to Iran, despite not being on good terms with them since the revolution, and them being at war with Iraq (note the little letter difference again), which was kinda sorta supported by the US as well. Hussein kinda fell from grace afterwards, I guess...
Dunno what the last one is supposed to be about. The Vietnam war, I guess? The one started by Johnson?
 
So what?

Again your not getting it.

I was arguing that OTHER countries tend to start shit with us when a dem is in office. I am talking about how world powers tend to see us as weaker during a dem administration.
 
Hassknecht said:
I guess he meant stupid shit concerning Iran.
Click to expand...
Even if that's the case. What shit have the Dems done to Iran exactly? And I am by no means someone who has a huge "love" for the democrats.

I mean Iran and the United States have issues with each other since the 1979. If not even earlier. And it doesn't seem like there is any normalisation in sight.

What I find funny, because I think it's correct, someone said the reason why Iran and the US have such huge issues is because heir foreign policies are so similar. The way how they think here.​

DarkCorp said:
I was arguing that OTHER countries tend to start shit with us when a dem is in office. I am talking about how world powers tend to see us as weaker during a dem administration.
Click to expand...
And I am pretty sure you have a ton of data to support that.

As far as I can tell, but I can only speak for Europe there was a higher support for the United States from Europe with Obama in office compared to Trump or Bush. But I am not saying this as someone who likes Obama, I actually think he was a terrible president. I can not speak for North Korea of course. I mean it seems Trump was well received by Kim. But I am not sure if being "liked" by Dictators is a good thing.

Anyway. I am tired of this. This topic was about Trumps impeachment trial. Not about his foreign policy. But then ... what coincidence ... this whole Iran thing happend.
 
Data

We had the Taiwan Strait crisis during a dem administration. The Iranians kicked their regional power play into overdrive thanks to appeaser Obama. I brought up how Carter mis managed the Shah sitiuation. Or how Kennedy mis managed the Diems . How about how America was caught with its pants down after socialist policies from Wilson took precedent over the military? FDR in WW2. Every time a dem is in office, our military gets ignored and we stick our heads into the sand or try to appease.

Europe isn't a competitor so it is completely different. I speak of nations like Russia and China viewing us as weak during a dem administration.
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
Europe isn't a competitor so it is completely different. I speak of nations like Russia and China viewing us as weak during a dem administration.
Click to expand...
And you're sure this isn't just your perception? The way how you view things and project on to others? I am not saying that you're necessarily "wrong", it just seems to me a bit biased like, a dem can't do anything right in your eyes ... why? Because they are dems of course!

You have no clue what the officials of China, Russia or any of the nations you named really thought about the people in office outside of the things they actually say. So did China come out and said, oh hey! There is a dem in office now! We can be more expansionistic now cuz they are weak. If you ask me one person Putin really hated was Hillary. And one person he really loves and doesn't fear. Is Trump. Same with China I think. But that's just a guess. Can't say if it's right or wrong.

As someone with Yugoslavian parents I can tell you that I do NOT(!) have a particular love for the democrats due to Clinton and his role in the Yugoslavian civil war. But that's a story for a different day.

What I do know however is that we're all one way or another biased. We have some kind of idea and then we look for confirmation to those ideas. I mean even I do it. Either consciously or unconsciously. All I would ask you to do is to simply challenge your own perception from time to time and to also consider the opposing view, if not for being correct but at least for the possibility that they might have a unique outlook on things that you don't. I am not opposing conservative views and talking points at every opportunity even if it might seem like it. - It's just that I honestly refuse to see Donald Trump as a real Conservative. And believe me there will come a point where conservatives will spit on his name and image. It might take a decade but they will do it because Trump did something no one else ever could. He destroyed the Republican party. But that's also a different story.
 
Nobody can read minds, we can agree. We are also not 'in the loop'.

That is why we can only debate with what we can see. What HISTORY shows, is that foreign powers have acted much more aggressively during a dem administration. You wanted data? I presented it.

Donald has a history of flip flopping and was more of a libertarian than a true conservative. He is conservative on economic policy but liberal in geo politics. I mean he ran on a platform of isolationism FFS.

And lile I said, I never liked Trump. I wanted Fiorina.

It is funny how any criticism of the left and everyone forgets what I said and assumes I am pro Trump. This kind of thinking is EXACTLY what got Trump elected.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that you "love" Trump. However I thought that you are more sympathetic toward Trump. If that's not the case well then my apologies.

That is why we can only debate with what we can see. What HISTORY shows, is that foreign powers have acted much more aggressively during a dem administration.

Maybe those "powers" have been just as aggressive with republican administrations but they chose different methods? Historic events like you mention them are hardly just one dimensional or as easily to analyse as we think. Even if we do not look at them from an academic perspective. Historic events usually have many layers to them. I do not believe that it makes such a huge difference to a power like China if there is a democrat or republican in office. Particularly a player like China thinks in the long term. They plan for decades. Atom has posted a pretty good video about China and their current strategies some time ago, maybe I can find it again. It contained a lot of information not even I knew. And to me it seems they really are not more impressed with a Republican in office than they are with a democrat. But that's just a guess.
 
Argue against history if you want, no sweat off my back. Doesn't change the fact that provocations against the U.S. have a higher chance of happening on a dems watch.
 
Again according to you. Which, without any offense, might be a bias in the form that you have the perception that it happens only under democrats or at the very least more frequently. I mean you could also make the argument that less acting means less military intervention which means less American deaths.

Every policy has positive and negative aspects to it. And if I remember correctly the majority of Americans would actually welcome a more isolationistic approach. It was one of the talking points that got Trump elected. The idea to get more troops out of conflicts and particularly the middle east.
 
Crni

You are right. There are some who wish for us to hide.

Those who take their safe life in America, free from being picked on by other countries, free from sanctions and civil war, those who are spoiled, are often the most clueless and the most likely to be hippies. They have no idea that American hegemony has a big part to do with that. They would have less, as most countries not in the west have. If we were a weak nation, the tables turned with Russia and China, we would be on the receiving end of the shit stick. We would be at best like you euros, or worse, like Syria or Iraq.

Do you disagree that America became what it was today because you euros foolishly squandered your wealth and position in the world with multiple world wars, amongst each other no less. Had you stuck with conquering the less advanced, the world could be much different today.

Do you disagree that, had the allies lost WW2, that we, as losers, would pay the price and be much weaker and less better off under the Nazis or the Japanese?

Prosperity is based on force. European socialism was built upon brutal capitalism. Your hippy attitudes now are only sustainable because America gets mucked up in blood and shit. Otherwise, a euro force would be needed when other countries step out of line. Much like the power and wealth of the church was built on the blood of innumerable dead. Like Islams rise was built upon centuries of violence.

Would christianity be nearly as powerful today had it not taken over the empire with Constantine and eliminating the competition?

Sure I may be biased. History maybe biased, at least on the political end, but the violence was always there. The reasons for killing can be subjective, but they happened. Death can be proved by carbon dating. Backed up by physical trauma on the bodies. Mass graves can be found.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top