• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Immediate Threat is a Lie!

justabubba said:
unlike you, i know exactly what i am posting about
let's recall your prior - and incorrect - insistence that the Constitution was being ignored by the president when he took out soleimani
and you continue to be able to identify for us what tRump did which was in violation of the war powers act - the act you repeatedly insist he has violated

despite the ignorance displayed within your posts, this thread is not about you


nothing you have posted to date indicates it emanated from a knowledgeable person, which then causes me to question whatever "success" you claim to have accomplished
Click to expand...

By the way, I have just supplied more proof that Trump has broken an established law and lied about the killing of Soleimani.

How are you going to explain this away?
 
Jack Hays said:
No. Some is not necessarily better than none if that "some" creates a false illusion of safety and enables a fundamentally hostile regime to improve its resource base.
Nothing we do to or for the Iranians will shorten or lengthen the problem so long as the current regime remains in power. Our proper objective is to restrain them. Eliminating Soleimani was a move in that direction.
Click to expand...

See this post and comment on it.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/381068-immediate-threat-lie-48.html#post1071171640
 
AlphaOmega said:
My question wasn't about Trump it was this:
How many Americans do you let die before you fight back? Answer it or please stop wasting my time.
Click to expand...

You should be asking your fool’s gold fuhrer that one.

Trump made the snap decision to take the US to the brink of war, and leave the next move up to Tehran.

Tell it to all the families whose members got sudden deployment notices, as the crowds filled the streets and the world rose up in condemnation.

Tell it to the men (and women) who are now off to the Middle East on Trump’s whim, with no idea what to expect.
 
snakestretcher said:
What an absurd strawman. I expect you think you're being clever:roll:
Click to expand...

CORRECT:
- Are Americans safer since Trump ripped up the JCPOA? NO in fact we are less safe with more of them in harms way.
- Are we closer to our established policy goals with Iran since Trump ripped up the JCPOA and began his maximum pressure campaign? NO, in fact Trump has taken us farther away from it than ever while taking us perilously close to a war that would make the Iraq War look sane!
- Are we now even able to continue our mission in Iraq? NOPE, we are hunkered down behind our fortifications meaning we are nothing more than targets. I suspect the proxies will do their darn best to keep us hunkered down behind our fortifications as it makes Trump look that much sillier.
 
jnug said:
OK so you really want somebody to point this out to you. I tried to give your idiot question some context. But no, you won't have any of it.

Your's is a LOADED question. It assumes that the best option available to the administration was to assassinate Soliemani and that is an absurd assumption to make. It is painfully clear for example that the "maximum pressure" campaign is a complete failure that has not and will not force Iran back to the negotiating table. Trump's smartest move might have been to relieve some of the sanctions pressure to get them back. But of course Donald won't do that because it would suggest the truth, that he had no earthly idea what he was getting into when he ripped up the JCPOA. But nobody was going to prevent Donald from ripping into more of Obama's policy initiatives especially if it gave him an opportunity to play the bully.

So, no I have no interest in answering a LOADED question that assumes Donald knew what the frig he was doing in the first place and goes on to assume that there was anything in this assassination that was in the National Security Interests of the United States. A poster this weekend more than suggested that the assassination was about revenge. I am not comfortable about revenge against the government official of a sovereign nation we have not declared war upon being a predicate for overt assassination but at least that was an honest answer. None of the administration's Imminent Threat arguments are going anywhere and they are up to about explanation #25 by now.

The evidence is pretty compelling that Donald had no earthly idea what he was doing from the minute he ripped up the JCPOA to this one for one thing. For another, the War Powers Act is designed to keep Presidents from going off half cocked to make a political splash among other things, to make the so called "bold move". It should be apparent that the administration did not have an Imminent Threat case that they could make and didn't EVEN TRY before or after the assassination. They have been speaking in tongues for 10 days and STILL don't have a reasoned argument they can make.

So sorry, yours is a loaded question that adds nothing to the discussion. Keep peddling it all you want. Nobody has answered it yet and I doubt anybody will as it is loaded with the worst kinds of assumptions. Anybody ASSUMING Donald has a clue with regard to Iran policy has headed off on an impossible mission.
Click to expand...

Sorry the first part of the answer should be a number for me to finish reading. My how this simple question has aggravated the hive. lol
 
AlphaOmega said:
Sorry the first part of the answer should be a number for me to finish reading. My how this simple question has aggravated the hive. lol
Click to expand...

Sorry, loaded questions don't count for anything in debate. So your desire will go unabated. It is getting EXACTLY the response a loaded question should get. Loaded questions get short shrift in debate. You would never see an actual competitive debate based on a loaded question. Bad form old man.....very bad form.
 
Last edited:
snakestretcher said:
It didn't start with Obama, so your attempt at obliterating the past fails.
Click to expand...

Oh I know but the question arose about bombing innocent people. Obama was the resident expert on that. He bombed a hospital killing 22 innocent people.
 
TomFitz said:
You should be asking your fool’s gold fuhrer that one.

Trump made the snap decision to take the US to the brink of war, and leave the next move up to Tehran.

Tell it to all the families whose members got sudden deployment notices, as the crowds filled the streets and the world rose up in condemnation.

Tell it to the men (and women) who are now off to the Middle East on Trump’s whim, with no idea what to expect.
Click to expand...

****hands participation trophy****
 
jnug said:
Sorry, loaded questions don't count for anything. So your desire will go unabated. It is getting EXACTLY the response a loaded question should get. Loaded questions get short shrift in debate. You would never see an actual competitive debate based on a loaded question. Bad form old man.....very bad form.
Click to expand...

Loaded question to dems = anything that proves them wrong. Hilarious watching lefties squirm on a straight up question on point question.
 
Ask a Democratic Senator or anybody who is anti Trump and they will say there was no imminent attack planned. Ask an American soldier based in the middle east and I assure you he will have a different answer.
 
AlphaOmega said:
Loaded question to dems = anything that proves them wrong. Hilarious watching lefties squirm on a straight up question on point question.
Click to expand...

The most basic definition of a loaded question is:
" A loaded question or complex question is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption"

I have already pointed out where your question qualifies. So sorry....you are just going to have to gag on this one.
 
Mongidig said:
Ask a Democratic Senator or anybody who is anti Trump and they will say there was no imminent attack planned. Ask an American soldier based in the middle east and I assure you he will have a different answer.
Click to expand...

Which of course even if true has nothing to do with the policy initiatives or even the National Security Interests of the United States. Troopers have their function in a combat zone. Their opinions, they keep to themselves for obvious reasons.
 
jnug said:
The most basic definition of a loaded question is:
" A loaded question or complex question is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption"

I have already pointed out where your question qualifies. So sorry....you are just going to have to gag on this one.
Click to expand...
No you pointed out where your version of my question qualifies. Keep dodging, I find it most amusing. You lefties literally refuse to answer how many Americans can be killed before you would fight back. I find that most interesting.
 
TomFitz said:
You should be asking your fool’s gold fuhrer that one.

Trump made the snap decision to take the US to the brink of war, and leave the next move up to Tehran.
Click to expand...

There was no "brink of war." That only happened in the minds of the liberal media and their lemming followers.

Tell it to all the families whose members got sudden deployment notices, as the crowds filled the streets and the world rose up in condemnation.

Tell it to the men (and women) who are now off to the Middle East on Trump’s whim, with no idea what to expect.
Click to expand...

You mean the families who are paid with taxpayer dollars because their loved ones signed up to serve our nation? I think that's called earning one's keep. No one is drafted into the military these days -- it's all volunteer.
 
apdst said:
Trump offed a terrorist. That's a win for the USA.
Click to expand...

Terrorists are a dime-a-dozen. The greatest concentration of them are found in Washington DC and Tel Aviv.
 
Luckyone said:
I think you need to learn to read.
Click to expand...

You guys can't make up your mind. First you say Trump is an immediate threat then, even during the Iran crisis, you purposely withheld the articles to delay the trial. Guess Trump wasn't such an immediate threat after all.
 
jnug said:
OK so you really want somebody to point this out to you. I tried to give your idiot question some context. But no, you won't have any of it.

Your's is a LOADED question. It assumes that the best option available to the administration was to assassinate Soliemani and that is an absurd assumption to make. It is painfully clear for example that the "maximum pressure" campaign is a complete failure that has not and will not force Iran back to the negotiating table. Trump's smartest move might have been to relieve some of the sanctions pressure to get them back. But of course Donald won't do that because it would suggest the truth, that he had no earthly idea what he was getting into when he ripped up the JCPOA. But nobody was going to prevent Donald from ripping into more of Obama's policy initiatives especially if it gave him an opportunity to play the bully.

So, no I have no interest in answering a LOADED question that assumes Donald knew what the frig he was doing in the first place and goes on to assume that there was anything in this assassination that was in the National Security Interests of the United States. A poster this weekend more than suggested that the assassination was about revenge. I am not comfortable about revenge against the government official of a sovereign nation we have not declared war upon being a predicate for overt assassination but at least that was an honest answer. None of the administration's Imminent Threat arguments are going anywhere and they are up to about explanation #25 by now.

The evidence is pretty compelling that Donald had no earthly idea what he was doing from the minute he ripped up the JCPOA to this one for one thing. For another, the War Powers Act is designed to keep Presidents from going off half cocked to make a political splash among other things, to make the so called "bold move". It should be apparent that the administration did not have an Imminent Threat case that they could make and didn't EVEN TRY before or after the assassination. They have been speaking in tongues for 10 days and STILL don't have a reasoned argument they can make.

So sorry, yours is a loaded question that adds nothing to the discussion. Keep peddling it all you want. Nobody has answered it yet and I doubt anybody will as it is loaded with the worst kinds of assumptions. Anybody ASSUMING Donald has a clue with regard to Iran policy has headed off on an impossible mission.
Click to expand...

Liberals have made another mountain out of a molehill -- or they've tried. Susan Rice said in an interview that Soleimani was also on the Obama Administration's "list" but that, as far as she knew, they never had the opportunity to take him out.

Gaddafi wasn't an "imminent threat," and yet Obama led the bombing to take him out.

Consistency and hypocrisy cannot coexist.
 
jnug said:
Which of course even if true has nothing to do with the policy initiatives or even the National Security Interests of the United States. Troopers have their function in a combat zone. Their opinions, they keep to themselves for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

The number one priority of the President is to keep his citizens safe. This requires that he keeps his troops safe. The President took out a terrorist known to have orchestrated numerous attacks on American troops over the course of many years. There was no indication that he was going to stop with these terrorist attacks anytime soon. Even if it's not true that the President has intelligence indicating an attack was planned and imminent for a specific target, history shows that one is not far away. Maybe the President is lying. I don't know. I do like the bottom line results.
 
Last edited:
Luckyone said:
Update! Additional Proof that Trump has no respect for established laws and is a pathological liar!



This breaking piece of news shows that Trump has no respect for our laws and no respect for anyone other than himself. Our intelligence agencies (which by the way, he has disparaged greatly in the past) gave Trump the option (and reasons for) of killing Soleimani 7 months ago. Trump should have taken this to the "gang of eight" and gotten approval for the killing. If the reasons for the killing were valid and everyone here seems to think so, he would have gotten the approval he needed and by doing that would have assured himself that the decision was likely the "right one" no matter the consequences that might follow.

It has been proven over the years that the gang of eight do not leak information and therefore there was no reason to break the law (War Powers act) by not getting approval before "doing the deed". Trump then lied about there being "imminent" danger. The danger has been the same for a long time and it has been a good reason for killing the man, nonetheless there was no "imminent" new threat.

Evidently, Trump not only has no respect for the law (that stating that acts such as this have to be approved by Congress before being done) but has no respect for the "gang of eight" that are part of our established form of government that has served us well for 244 years.

It goes to prove once more that our entire nation's future is dependent on the decisions of one man and that is not what our forefathers ever wanted.

I rest my case.
Click to expand...

President Trump is doing great while his pissant enemies sit on the sidelines and criticize his every move. May God help America if these disgruntled pissants ever take over the US government.
 
AlphaOmega said:
My question wasn't about Trump it was this:
How many Americans do you let die before you fight back? Answer it or please stop wasting my time.
Click to expand...

Zero. We stop fighting back, and bring them all home.

I am not a supporter of our illegal occupation of sovereign nations.

Apaprently you are.
 
Luckyone said:
Update! Additional Proof that Trump has no respect for established laws and is a pathological liar!



This breaking piece of news shows that Trump has no respect for our laws and no respect for anyone other than himself. Our intelligence agencies (which by the way, he has disparaged greatly in the past) gave Trump the option (and reasons for) of killing Soleimani 7 months ago. Trump should have taken this to the "gang of eight" and gotten approval for the killing. If the reasons for the killing were valid and everyone here seems to think so, he would have gotten the approval he needed and by doing that would have assured himself that the decision was likely the "right one" no matter the consequences that might follow.

It has been proven over the years that the gang of eight do not leak information and therefore there was no reason to break the law (War Powers act) by not getting approval before "doing the deed". Trump then lied about there being "imminent" danger. The danger has been the same for a long time and it has been a good reason for killing the man, nonetheless there was no "imminent" new threat.

Evidently, Trump not only has no respect for the law (that stating that acts such as this have to be approved by Congress before being done) but has no respect for the "gang of eight" that are part of our established form of government that has served us well for 244 years.

It goes to prove once more that our entire nation's future is dependent on the decisions of one man and that is not what our forefathers ever wanted.

I rest my case.
Click to expand...

These "Officials" need to come forward. I am sick and tired of this game.

Anonymous needs to be a patriot.

Come out now. The admin is a major threat. Let's end this charade.
 
Mongidig said:
The number first priority of the President is to keep his citizens safe. This requires that he keeps his troops safe.
Click to expand...

You know a good way to keep troops safe? Withdraw them from occupying foreign countries.
 
AlphaOmega said:
No you pointed out where your version of my question qualifies. Keep dodging, I find it most amusing. You lefties literally refuse to answer how many Americans can be killed before you would fight back. I find that most interesting.
Click to expand...

OK argue the point. Where does it not qualify as a loaded question by definition? The assumption in your qustion is that Trump knew what he was doing in ripping up the JCPOA, beginning his maximum pressure campaign and subsequently assassinated Soliemani. I would contend that assumption was at the best questionable and at the worst flat wrong:
- Are we closer to a settlement with Iran or farther away since Trump ripped up the JCPOA and began his maximum pressure campaign?
- Is the relationship better or worse since DonDon ripped up the JCPOA?
- Is our geopolitical position in the ME better or worse since DonDon ripped up the JCPOA, began the maximum pressure campaign and subsequently assassinated Soliemani?
- Has DonDon bullied himself to a position where he has taken us perilously close to a war in the ME that would make the Iraq War look sane?
- Has DonDon not driven a wedge between ourselves and our traditional allies over his bullying nonsense?

i have purposefully not asked any questions about whether Americans are safer or less safe since DonDon began his campaign of STUPID with Iran. We have not been "safe" with regard to Iran since 1953 when we planted the seed for the current relationship. Interesting that so many US Iran Hawks have decided that this is a "40 year old problem". Talk about convenient memory. The JCPOA could have given everybody involved a building block and the chance to maintain their sovereignty and lowered the temperature in the ME, though DonDon would have no earthly idea what I am talking about. That said if my country had been bent over the desk the way the UK and the US bent Iran over the desk, I might pursue the ultimate deterrent in the world until I had it. I can't blame Iran for something I could likely rationalize for myself.

Oddly enough, Iran is in more trouble with its own people for its rank uncaring incompetence in the whole Ukraine airliner affair than all of DonDon's bluster and bravado and pressure in spite of the inherent dangers of Trump's reckless behavior. On a relative basis Trump's nonsense has been a very very dangerous but unproductive pursuit.
 
Last edited:
Obscurity said:
Zero. We stop fighting back, and bring them all home.

I am not a supporter of our illegal occupation of sovereign nations.

Apaprently you are.
Click to expand...
...not the question I asked. Participation award given.
 
Praxas said:
You know a good way to keep troops safe? Withdraw them from occupying foreign countries.
Click to expand...

This sounds reasonable. The question is would we be safer if we brought all the troops home from the ME? We saw what happened with Hitler and the NAZIS when we didn't have a presence. We know the Russians would love to extend their reach. We know that terrorists would love to have a safe haven to train(BTW....I'm not one to believe that once we leave the ME the Terrorists will stop hating us.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom