• Hey guys, I just got a report from my ad network that we've gone over 80% of users blocking ads. Please allow our ads to run or think about donating $5.00 a month to remove ads. Ad Free Choices

Issues of a Domestic Nature (READ WARNING ON PAGE 1 BEFORE POSTING)

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

CleveRocks

There go the Cavs!
Administrator
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
6,036
Reaction score
3,057
Points
113
They shot a drone and blew up some tankers.. we let it happen without response, it builds thier credible threat in the region. Same effect as terrorism.. I am not for sending in the Marines..but countering as with the Cyber attack on the launchers, is a good idea..
 

King Stannis

Maréchal d'Empire
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
14,736
Reaction score
20,297
Points
135
They shot a drone and blew up some tankers.. we let it happen without response, it builds thier credible threat in the region. Same effect as terrorism.. I am not for sending in the Marines..but countering as with the Cyber attack on the launchers, is a good idea..
Yeah, the tanker thing is in dispute.

There are many credible people that think that this non-credible Administration might be making shit up or willingly peddling a Saudi or Israeli ruse. Not the first time Trump has fallen for their bullshit. Remember when Trump said MBS was innocent?

It is also not Iran’s MO to seek direct confrontation.

The drone thing, would not be surprised if it were flying in their space.

What are the wags saying, @jking948?
 
Last edited:

Phills14

Cleveland Sports Fan
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
10,783
Reaction score
13,677
Points
123
Why does it have to be a military exercise to fight back? Why can't it be economic sanctions above and beyond what they are already seeing? Why can't it be a crippling UN thing? Why does it have to involve military action to satisfy the "retaliation" threshold?

The American public does not want another war. The congress does not want another war. That's literally the ONLY thing we can agree on. Why do we have to take aggressive military steps that could put us perilously close to something that every agrees they do not want?
 

Cavatt

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
20,563
Reaction score
21,057
Points
135
Why are American's allowed to shoot people that come on our property, but Iran isn't allowed to shoot an unmanned craft that is flying into their airspace.

Everyone knows we shot down an Iranian passenger jet before right? Asking why they take a threatening posture with us after we shut down the deal unilaterally and have been crossing lines drawn in the sand seems pretty biased to me.
 

jking948

Hall-of-Famer
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
9,609
Reaction score
16,047
Points
123
Yeah, the tanker thing is in dispute.

There are many credible people that think that this non-credible Administration might be making shit up or willingly peddling a Saudi or Israeli ruse. Not the first time Trump has fallen for their bullshit. Remember when Trump said MBS was innocent?

It is also not Iran’s MO to seek direct confrontation.

The drone thing, would not be surprised if it were flying in their space.

What are the wags saying, @jking948?
I just don't think them shooting down a drone really effects how Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc. view Iran. They've always wanted war and the only reason they have not attacked is because the US alliance restrains them from doing so.

I am pretty comfortable with the idea that Iran blew up a US drone... but so what? What effect have sanctions had, historically, that makes people think this is an effective retaliatory technique? I mean, if it appeases the US public, that's fine. But those sanctions have real impacts on the Iranian population - the same population that elects politicians who are fighting with Iran's hawkish military.

I see no reason the US should escalate. From a strict security perspective, it never actually makes problems better, and is really only necessary when you are trying to build alliance reputation.
 

CleveRocks

There go the Cavs!
Administrator
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
6,036
Reaction score
3,057
Points
113
So I think I see people making Iran equivalent to the US in this conversation. I don't see them as equivalent at all. So the arguments that hey we do x so why can't they is in my mind flawed.

I think there are quite enough global military powers, and in fact we should reconsider our policies to demilitarize our potential enemies.. Iran is a pretty spectacular example of a country which at various points in recent history claimed to have peaceful intention, while aggressively pursuing violent solutions to achieve their foriegn policy goals.. they have presidents who are Holocaust deniers, far more than any neo Nazis splinter group in the US, and yet we walk past that kind of crap whistling loudly.. They are a politically repressive relious state, ruled by zealots. As long as they are using this as a vehicle to commit violence, we should pressure them at every point.

I am against boots on the ground, butdropping their navy to the bottom should remain on the list..
 

kosis

Creeping like Sharia
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
2,579
Reaction score
2,162
Points
113
So I think I see people making Iran equivalent to the US in this conversation. I don't see them as equivalent at all. So the arguments that hey we do x so why can't they is in my mind flawed.

I think there are quite enough global military powers, and in fact we should reconsider our policies to demilitarize our potential enemies.. Iran is a pretty spectacular example of a country which at various points in recent history claimed to have peaceful intention, while aggressively pursuing violent solutions to achieve their foriegn policy goals.. they have presidents who are Holocaust deniers, far more than any neo Nazis splinter group in the US, and yet we walk past that kind of crap whistling loudly.. They are a politically repressive relious state, ruled by zealots. As long as they are using this as a vehicle to commit violence, we should pressure them at every point.

I am against boots on the ground, butdropping their navy to the bottom should remain on the list..
OK, but how about the US directly supporting the destruction in Yemen? Many Iranians would say that we deserve to have our navy "dropped to the bottom" because we continuously poor money into Iran's enemy next door to strengthen them and commit horror in the region. And our country isn't even located out there. Goes both ways. You can't sit here and scold Iran when Saudi Arabia is worse in practically every sense.
 

Cavatt

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
20,563
Reaction score
21,057
Points
135
So I think I see people making Iran equivalent to the US in this conversation. I don't see them as equivalent at all. So the arguments that hey we do x so why can't they is in my mind flawed.

I think there are quite enough global military powers, and in fact we should reconsider our policies to demilitarize our potential enemies.. Iran is a pretty spectacular example of a country which at various points in recent history claimed to have peaceful intention, while aggressively pursuing violent solutions to achieve their foriegn policy goals.. they have presidents who are Holocaust deniers, far more than any neo Nazis splinter group in the US, and yet we walk past that kind of crap whistling loudly.. They are a politically repressive relious state, ruled by zealots. As long as they are using this as a vehicle to commit violence, we should pressure them at every point.

I am against boots on the ground, butdropping their navy to the bottom should remain on the list..
We use violent solutions to our foreign policy goals all the time. Which country has toppled more democratically elected governments? We need to stop flipping the board when the game doesn't go our way.

The Iran deal was working, we pulled out, and now we are antagonizing them so we can go to war. Who is the bad faith actor here.

We pulled out of deal and are now blaming the other party for not living up to it. It's absurd and childish.
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,307
Reaction score
7,213
Points
113
So I think I see people making Iran equivalent to the US in this conversation. I don't see them as equivalent at all. So the arguments that hey we do x so why can't they is in my mind flawed.

I think there are quite enough global military powers, and in fact we should reconsider our policies to demilitarize our potential enemies.. Iran is a pretty spectacular example of a country which at various points in recent history claimed to have peaceful intention, while aggressively pursuing violent solutions to achieve their foriegn policy goals.. they have presidents who are Holocaust deniers, far more than any neo Nazis splinter group in the US, and yet we walk past that kind of crap whistling loudly.. They are a politically repressive relious state, ruled by zealots. As long as they are using this as a vehicle to commit violence, we should pressure them at every point.

I am against boots on the ground, butdropping their navy to the bottom should remain on the list..
Fuck war, full stop. If they aren't actively committing genocide (even then, entering the fray via military combat should be weighed very heavily) or attacking our homeland, no war. It's costly and only causes more harm to the people living there.

I don't know where you get the idea that everybody's peachy keen with the current regime in Iran, but we don't get to drop bombs on every country with shitty leaders, or we'd have to start bombing Washington (that joke sidesteps your entire point I realize).
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
37,338
Reaction score
40,706
Points
148
Huge day for unfair elections that marginalize the minority vote.

Congratulations to the pro-Republican court and those who support them.

Subverting Democracy is the goal, and that goal was advanced today.
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,307
Reaction score
7,213
Points
113
This gerry-mandering ruling, along with Citizens United, is going to allow a Republican minority to retain control, or at least partial control, for another couple decades probably. They won't always have the presidency but they'll be a strong enough coalition to ensure we don't act on climate change and we're all die by 2050. Weeeee!
 

Cavatt

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
20,563
Reaction score
21,057
Points
135
Huge day for unfair elections that marginalize the minority vote.

Congratulations to the pro-Republican court and those who support them.

Subverting Democracy is the goal, and that goal was advanced today.
Marginalizes the majority vote too. If only voting rights were protected the way gun rights are things wouldn't be so messed up
 

King Stannis

Maréchal d'Empire
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
14,736
Reaction score
20,297
Points
135
This gerry-mandering ruling, along with Citizens United, is going to allow a Republican minority to retain control, or at least partial control, for another couple decades probably. They won't always have the presidency but they'll be a strong enough coalition to ensure we don't act on climate change and we're all die by 2050. Weeeee!
Not really.

The Court is involved because there exists no Federal law governing districting.

One can be passed.

Moreover, they didn’t say that Gerrymandering is legal, they said that SCOTUS can’t scotch something outright.

And that there are Federalism questions. Therefore a State Court could rule against gerrymandering.

This is still not set in stone. A New Democratic Congress can pass anti-gerrymandering legislation based on Federal jurisdiction over Federal elections.
 

Radio

Top