• 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!

WH memo: No mention of imminent threat

braindrain said:
So I don’t mention anything about Iran working with Iraq at the start of the war which you then claim I denied and you think that is me not making a point. Ok got it. You are just ignoring reality.
Click to expand...

Get it right; we worked with Iran after 9/11. Until the State of the Union Address. That's what I said.

So how did the US invading Iran’s enemy affect Iran in a way that justified them sending their forces in to Iraq to train and equip Iraqis to kill Americans. What changes did our invasion have on Iran. Actual changes. Not just feelings. Please be specific.
Click to expand...

Well for starters, what the **** do you mean by "actual changes. Not just feelings." Do the sentiments of the Iranian nation not matter when we're talking about Iran?

But ignoring that, let's discuss it in detail.

Immediately after 9/11, we started working with Iran against the Taliban. Iran hated the Taliban you see, and so for a brief period we worked alongside the Iranians against a common enemy. In early 2002 President Bush very stupidly lumped Iran along with Iraq as the "axis of evil", an incredibly stupid notion given that A) Iran did not like Ba'athist Iraq and B) US policy up until 9/11 had very much essentially been to play Iran and Iraq against each other. Not surprisingly after this happened Iran stopped cooperating with us against the Taliban, since Bush's statements just reinforced Iranian hardliner's beliefs that the US did not want to work with Iran.

It became very clear to the nations of the Middle East following the Iraqi Invasion that the United States intended to use it as a springboard to force America's will on the Greater Middle East. As a senior Bush official stated "The road to the entire Middle East goes through Baghdad." (Quoted in Hal Brands, "What Good is Grand Strategy?" (Ithaca, 2014), pg 163.

In case you forgot, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was incredibly controversial, namely because many people assumed that it would ultimately destabilize the Middle East and lead to countless deaths. Good thing that never happened right? The fact that the United States would invade another country even with so much the world criticizing it was not something that could just be ignored.

So in light of a blatant US invasion of a sovereign nation, along with statements made by the US President linking the invaded nation with it's next door neighbor despite the inanity of that statement, and you really think it's a stretch that Iran *might* be worried that the US would then turn its attention towards Tehran, especially with so many statements made by the Bush Administration indicating how they intended to enforce their will on the Middle East, then I really can't help you.

If you think none of the above matters because the US never said specifically "We're going to invade Iran", then I can't help. If you can't understand why the history of US actions against Iran, which involved shooting down an Iranian air liner while providing intelligence to Iraq, whom at the time was using chemical weapons against the Iranians, might lead to Iranian resentment, I can't help you. If you don't think the Iranians saw the US presence in Iraq as threatening to Iran given America's history towards Iran, then I don't know what to tell you.

But above all this, before you go clicking that reply button and insisting that I'm an Iranian apologist, I'm not saying Iran is right to do so. I am not suggesting that I support Iran's terrorist actions nor do I believe they are in the right. I am merely providing the context from which one can deduce why Iran did what it did and is doing what it does.
 
So if you question Trump's claim that Soleimani was on the verge of attacking various American Embassies you're anti-American?

laughable
absurd
comical
funny
hilarious
humorous
risible
derisory
droll
amusing
entertaining
diverting
chucklesome
farcical
slapstick
silly
facetious
ludicrous
hysterical
riotous
sidesplitting
crazy
priceless
killing
derisible
senseless
foolish
foolhardy
stupid
inane
nonsensical
fatuous
childish
puerile
half-baked
harebrained
scatterbrained
featherbrained
ill-thought-out
ill-conceived
crackpot
idiotic
brainless
mindless
witless
vacuous
asinine
moronic
halfwitted
preposterous
insane
unreasonable
irrational
illogical
outrageous
shocking
astonishing
monstrous
unbelievable
incredible
unthinkable
 
braindrain said:
Yes they were supported so strongly that many of them were arrested and their arms confiscated.

And Iran arming training and directing the militias is Iran directly attacking US forces. Your hate just blinds to to reality.

And like I said if the US were to send Special Forces in to your country to arm train and direct Canadians to attack the your government and its people you would be calling it an act of war. And it would be.
The only difference is you see this as an opportunity to attack the US so are ignoring reality.

And Iran is not a very militarized state because they don’t have the economy to support it. It’s not by choice.
Click to expand...

Braindrain:

Is Iran training militants and killing American military personnel in America? No. So your hypothetical is a washout. They're doing it in countries which America has invaded and occupied. My hate/biases do not blind me to reality. But your nationalism is acting like blinders to block your ability to see the big picture objectively. You're a military occupying power and your personnel are paying the butcher's bill for that occupation. You are on the doorstep of Iran and have been threatening it since early 1979. Your country has repeatedly attacked Iran both militarily and economically since then. You liticians sing, "Bomb, bomb, Iran", at rallies and your own former generals admit that regime change in Iran is the real American goal behind all this destabilisation. Iran just wants to be secure and left alone. It is only extending its influence because across Mesopotamia because your idiot Government destroyed the Ba'athist state of Iraq, creating a chaotic power vacuum. All this suffering and destabilisation is due to American militarism and myopic American foreign policy.

The United States of America invaded Iraq and therefore Iran is making sure that that occupation is very costly because American forces have invaded two countries on either side of Iran. Your American Government set this all in motion in 2003 and now your military is reaping the bitter corn of military occupation. The US military is also occupying northwestern Syria illegally. So you're going to be attacked there eventually, now that your government has betrayed and discarded the Rojava Kurds. You have military bases where you are welcomed or at least tolerated in Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, more than enough to control the region. But your government and military insist upon invading and striking into countries throughout the region in pursuit of your own self interests. In doing this you are continually destabilising the greater Middle East and killing millions of people either directly or indirectly. Iran is a rank amateur in terrorism compared to the state terrorism, killing and destruction meted out by the US military and Government in the greater Middle East. Your country and its wicked ally the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, not Iran, are the real threats to global peace.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
dave8383 said:
So if you question Trump's claim that Soleimani was on the verge of attacking various American Embassies you're anti-American?

laughable
absurd
comical
funny
hilarious
humorous
risible
derisory
droll
amusing
entertaining
diverting
chucklesome
farcical
slapstick
silly
facetious
ludicrous
hysterical
riotous
sidesplitting
crazy
priceless
killing
derisible
senseless
foolish
foolhardy
stupid
inane
nonsensical
fatuous
childish
puerile
half-baked
harebrained
scatterbrained
featherbrained
ill-thought-out
ill-conceived
crackpot
idiotic
brainless
mindless
witless
vacuous
asinine
moronic
halfwitted
preposterous
insane
unreasonable
irrational
illogical
outrageous
shocking
astonishing
monstrous
unbelievable
incredible
unthinkable
Click to expand...

Dave8383:

Great list, but can something be risible and derisible simultaneously?

Other than that, touché, sir.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Well, well, well The lying Trump Admin got caught war crime handed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Get it right; we worked with Iran after 9/11. Until the State of the Union Address. That's what I said.



Well for starters, what the **** do you mean by "actual changes. Not just feelings." Do the sentiments of the Iranian nation not matter when we're talking about Iran?

But ignoring that, let's discuss it in detail.

Immediately after 9/11, we started working with Iran against the Taliban. Iran hated the Taliban you see, and so for a brief period we worked alongside the Iranians against a common enemy. In early 2002 President Bush very stupidly lumped Iran along with Iraq as the "axis of evil", an incredibly stupid notion given that A) Iran did not like Ba'athist Iraq and B) US policy up until 9/11 had very much essentially been to play Iran and Iraq against each other. Not surprisingly after this happened Iran stopped cooperating with us against the Taliban, since Bush's statements just reinforced Iranian hardliner's beliefs that the US did not want to work with Iran.

It became very clear to the nations of the Middle East following the Iraqi Invasion that the United States intended to use it as a springboard to force America's will on the Greater Middle East. As a senior Bush official stated "The road to the entire Middle East goes through Baghdad." (Quoted in Hal Brands, "What Good is Grand Strategy?" (Ithaca, 2014), pg 163.

In case you forgot, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was incredibly controversial, namely because many people assumed that it would ultimately destabilize the Middle East and lead to countless deaths. Good thing that never happened right? The fact that the United States would invade another country even with so much the world criticizing it was not something that could just be ignored.

So in light of a blatant US invasion of a sovereign nation, along with statements made by the US President linking the invaded nation with it's next door neighbor despite the inanity of that statement, and you really think it's a stretch that Iran *might* be worried that the US would then turn its attention towards Tehran, especially with so many statements made by the Bush Administration indicating how they intended to enforce their will on the Middle East, then I really can't help you.

If you think none of the above matters because the US never said specifically "We're going to invade Iran", then I can't help. If you can't understand why the history of US actions against Iran, which involved shooting down an Iranian air liner while providing intelligence to Iraq, whom at the time was using chemical weapons against the Iranians, might lead to Iranian resentment, I can't help you. If you don't think the Iranians saw the US presence in Iraq as threatening to Iran given America's history towards Iran, then I don't know what to tell you.

But above all this, before you go clicking that reply button and insisting that I'm an Iranian apologist, I'm not saying Iran is right to do so. I am not suggesting that I support Iran's terrorist actions nor do I believe they are in the right. I am merely providing the context from which one can deduce why Iran did what it did and is doing what it does.
Click to expand...

So again please quote me denying the US worked with Iran. We both know you can’t and you just made that up.

And no the feelings of Iran don’t matter when we are talking about justifying directly killing around 1000 US soldiers and an untold number of Iraqis.

Except you have provided zero proof that the US ever seriously intended to invade other countries in the ME.

And again being worried is not a valid reason to kill thousands of people. Which Iran did. There is a large difference between being concerned that something might happen and justifying going in to another country and killing people. That you can’t understand that isn’t my problem.

And you can claim to not be defending Iran all you want but yet that is what you do with pretty much every post.
 
Winston said:
Well, well, well The lying Trump Admin got caught war crime handed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I didn’t realize the you now consider killing a terrorist who was working to kill Americans was a war crime.

That tds you are suffering from is pretty sever
 
braindrain said:
I didn’t realize the you now consider killing a terrorist who was working to kill Americans was a war crime.

That tds you are suffering from is pretty sever
Click to expand...

A "terrorist". That's cute.

"working to kill Americans" another one of your cutesy's. Except this thread is about there being no imminent threat. Thus, not working to kill Americans. Thus you are an authoritarian patsy barking orders from your commander.
 
braindrain said:
So again please quote me denying the US worked with Iran. We both know you can’t and you just made that up.

And no the feelings of Iran don’t matter when we are talking about justifying directly killing around 1000 US soldiers and an untold number of Iraqis.
Click to expand...

"Why the Iranians decided to kill a thousand US soldiers is irrelevant to the fact that they killed around 1000 US soldiers" is a really stupid take.

Except you have provided zero proof that the US ever seriously intended to invade other countries in the ME.
Click to expand...

Dude if you think the only way for a country to feel threatened is for the President or national leader to say explicitly "We are going to invade this country" then you are hopeless.

And again being worried is not a valid reason to kill thousands of people. Which Iran did. There is a large difference between being concerned that something might happen and justifying going in to another country and killing people. That you can’t understand that isn’t my problem.
Click to expand...

So when we bankrolled the Contras who would go on to murder and torture thousands because we were afraid a Central American country might go socialist, that was also not justified, right?
 
Winston said:
A "terrorist". That's cute.

"working to kill Americans" another one of your cutesy's. Except this thread is about there being no imminent threat. Thus, not working to kill Americans. Thus you are an authoritarian patsy barking orders from your commander.
Click to expand...
You realize it was Obama who declared soleimanis organization to be terrorists right? Was that cute as well.

So tell me why do you think the military was working to kill this POS.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
"Why the Iranians decided to kill a thousand US soldiers is irrelevant to the fact that they killed around 1000 US soldiers" is a really stupid take.



Dude if you think the only way for a country to feel threatened is for the President or national leader to say explicitly "We are going to invade this country" then you are hopeless.



So when we bankrolled the Contras who would go on to murder and torture thousands
because we were afraid a Central American country might go socialist, that was also not justified, right?
Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter in the sense it’s not a valid justification. Sorry you don’t understand that.

Dude if you think that a country is justified in killing thousands of people because they simple feel threatened with no evidence to support their fears then you are hopeless.


No it wasn’t. Can you quote me somewhere saying otherwise. Oh that’s right. You can’t that is just you making things up again.

The US has done plenty of bad things. A lot of our work in Latin America is an example of that. So was going in to Iraq. Killing the POS soleimani was not one of them.
 
braindrain said:
You realize it was Obama who declared soleimanis organization to be terrorists right? Was that cute as well.

So tell me why do you think the military was working to kill this POS.
Click to expand...

Not playing the stupid partisan game. Both parties are bad on foreign policy. What the U.S. did was wrong, no way around it. And this new story in the OP proves they knew it was wrong since they lied about it.
 
braindrain said:
It doesn’t matter in the sense it’s not a valid justification. Sorry you don’t understand that.

Dude if you think that a country is justified in killing thousands of people because they simple feel threatened with no evidence to support their fears then you are hopeless.
Click to expand...

"No evidence"

Are you blind or just willfully ignoring history?


No it wasn’t. Can you quote me somewhere saying otherwise. Oh that’s right. You can’t that is just you making things up again.

The US has done plenty of bad things. A lot of our work in Latin America is an example of that. So was going in to Iraq. Killing the POS soleimani was not one of them.
Click to expand...

Lol it's the exact same situation, at least you can acknowledge it's wrong. I guess that's progress.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
"No evidence"

Are you blind or just willfully ignoring history?




Lol it's the exact same situation, at least you can acknowledge it's wrong. I guess that's progress.
Click to expand...

OK. Let's see the evidence you have that the US was planning on invading Iran.
Some supposed memo that was supposedly seen by a former general turned politician is so far the best you have come up with. That even he admits was not a real plan after he tried to claim it was. Not terribly convincing.

What's the exact same situation. The US dealing with the contras and Iran getting its proxies to kill Americans. Yes I agree they are similar and both are wrong. But then you are the one that had been defending Iran this whole time. Not me.

And you call it progress as if I have ever suggested that the US's actions are always right. You seem to have a habit of inventing things that people say and then acting like its real.
 
braindrain said:
OK. Let's see the evidence you have that the US was planning on invading Iran.
Click to expand...

Again, you are purposefully ignoring all the evidence in favor of thinking that only a clear cut statement can be used as proof.

Do you really think the only way a nation can interpret a potential for invasion can only come from an explicit statement? By that logic than Poland had absolutely no reason to fear a German invasion since Hitler never went on public radio and said "We're going to invade Poland on September 1st".

Some supposed memo that was supposedly seen by a former general turned politician is so far the best you have come up with. That even he admits was not a real plan after he tried to claim it was. Not terribly convincing.
Click to expand...

If you really are that oblivious to context then I don't expect anything more from you.

But then you are the one that had been defending Iran this whole time. Not me.
Click to expand...

There you go again, everyone who disagrees with you is defending Iran and hates America. Your whining is getting tiring.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Again, you are purposefully ignoring all the evidence in favor of thinking that only a clear cut statement can be used as proof.

Do you really think the only way a nation can interpret a potential for invasion can only come from an explicit statement? By that logic than Poland had absolutely no reason to fear a German invasion since Hitler never went on public radio and said "We're going to invade Poland on September 1st".



If you really are that oblivious to context then I don't expect anything more from you.



There you go again, everyone who disagrees with you is defending Iran and hates America. Your whining is getting tiring.
Click to expand...

So you claim there was evidence the US intended to invade Iran but when called on it you can provide nothing. Why am I not surprised.
And a public statement is not the only way to know if a country is planning to invade another. I never maid that claim. That is you once again, for like the third or fourth time just in this thread, dishonestly try to claim I said things I never did.

And the context was he made a claim unsupported by any evidence and people like you who are looking for any excuse to defend Iran will accept it face value no questions asked.
But to be honest I could not care less what you expect from me. I really don't care about the opinions people who can't even be honest.

No not everyone who disagrees with is defending Iran. But that sure is what you have been doing.
 
braindrain said:
So you claim there was evidence the US intended to invade Iran but when called on it you can provide nothing. Why am I not surprised.
Click to expand...

I have provided evidence. You have dismissed it out of ignorance. You then decided to ignore all the other sources of context and indications in favor of an obtuse world view that is at odds with reality.

And a public statement is not the only way to know if a country is planning to invade another. I never maid that claim. That is you once again, for like the third or fourth time just in this thread, dishonestly try to claim I said things I never did.
Click to expand...

For ****s sake, then quit implying it. Jesus Christ. You literally don't even know how you sound and you have the gall to criticize others for identifying it.

No wonder Oozlefinch keeps liking your posts, he pulls the same ****.

And the context was he made a claim unsupported by any evidence and people like you who are looking for any excuse to defend Iran will accept it face value no questions asked.
Click to expand...

You're right dude. Retired Four star general Wesley Clark deliberately lied about something he took part in in 2001-2002 so that 18 years later I could use it as an argument on the internet.

No not everyone who disagrees with is defending Iran. But that sure is what you have been doing.
Click to expand...

Nah, you've just been exposed for absolutely having jack **** for an argument and now you're declaring anyone who disagrees with you as an American hater and an Iran lover.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
I have provided evidence. You have dismissed it out of ignorance. You then decided to ignore all the other sources of context and indications in favor of an obtuse world view that is at odds with reality.



For ****s sake, then quit implying it. Jesus Christ. You literally don't even know how you sound and you have the gall to criticize others for identifying it.

No wonder Oozlefinch keeps liking your posts, he pulls the same ****.



You're right dude. Retired Four star general Wesley Clark deliberately lied about something he took part in in 2001-2002 so that 18 years later I could use it as an argument on the internet.



Nah, you've just been exposed for absolutely having jack **** for an argument and now you're declaring anyone who disagrees with you as an American hater and an Iran lover.
Click to expand...

You evidence was a disgraced general turned left wing politician who claims he saw a memo that he at first said was a plan and then later said it wasn't but has never provided any evidence it actually existed. Gee I wonder why your '"evidence" was dismissed. Furthermore Clark didn't even make his claims till 2007. Several years after Iran started killing Americans. So trying to use that as evidence to support why Iran did what they did is not only silly but dishonest as well.


I never implied that at all. That is you once again simply making crap up. No surprise. That seems to be all you can actually do.


Or maybe the problem is you simply struggle to comprehend what you read. I didn't say he made up his claims so you could use them I said you believe them with no questions asked because you think it helps support your world view. Those are not the same things. Try and read a little slower. It might help you out.

I am sure in your opinion it is me that has been exposed but the facts are you have repeatedly claimed you have evidence but when called on it you have nothing and you have over and over tried to dishonestly put words in other people's mouths.
Someone here has been exposed but it is not who you think it is.
 
braindrain said:
You evidence was a disgraced general turned left wing politician who claims he saw a memo that he at first said was a plan and then later said it wasn't but has never provided any evidence it actually existed. Gee I wonder why your '"evidence" was dismissed. Furthermore Clark didn't even make his claims till 2007. Several years after Iran started killing Americans. So trying to use that as evidence to support why Iran did what they did is not only silly but dishonest as well.
Click to expand...

And then you just decided to ignore all the other contexual reasons for Iranian fears because...

Oh right, you have no reason beyond your own bias.


I never implied that at all. That is you once again simply making crap up. No surprise. That seems to be all you can actually do.
Click to expand...

You are ****ing awful at explaining yourself or your position beyond obtuse statements.:doh

Or maybe the problem is..
Click to expand...

That you boil down everything to an absolute, can't make a coherent point over more than one or two posts, and then dismiss anything you don't like, as you do all the ****ing time.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
And then you just decided to ignore all the other contexual reasons for Iranian fears because...

Oh right, you have no reason beyond your own bias.




You are ****ing awful at explaining yourself or your position beyond obtuse statements.:doh



That you boil down everything to an absolute, can't make a coherent point over more than one or two posts, and then dismiss anything you don't like, as you do all the ****ing time.
Click to expand...

As I have already said fears unsupported by actual evidence are not a valid reason to start killing another countries citizens. And I noticed you don't want to address the fact that the one price of evidence you tried to use to defend Iran's actions didn't even exist until after Iran started killing Americans. Yeah I don't blame you. Makes you look pretty silly.

No you just struggle to comprehend what you read. Just like you claiming I denied the US worked with Iran despite me never saying anything at all about that one way or the other. So please tell how that was me not explaining myself.


What ever you have to tell yourself. The facts are you have posted garbage and been called on it and all you really have is to try and dishonestly put words in my mouth.
Pathetic.
 
braindrain said:
As I have already said fears unsupported by actual evidence are not a valid reason to start killing another countries citizens.
Click to expand...

There's no evidence that can convince you. You've proven yourself hopelessly stubborn, both here and elsewhere.


And I noticed you don't want to address the fact that the one price of evidence you tried to use to defend Iran's actions didn't even exist until after Iran started killing Americans.
Click to expand...

Are you daft or is reading hard for you? Clark's memo was written in 2001-2002, before the invasion of Iran. You are hopeless.

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are. I'm glad you have come to terms with it.
 
Last edited:
Jredbaron96 said:
There's no evidence that can convince you. You've proven yourself hopelessly stubborn, both here and elsewhere.




Are you daft or is reading hard for you? Clark's memo was written in 2001-2002, before the invasion of Iran. You are hopeless.



Yes, you are. I'm glad you have come to terms with it.
Click to expand...

You haven't produced any evidence. Do you actually know what the word evidence means.


Wow you really need to try and follow along. Clark claims he saw the memo in 2001. He didn't make that claim till 2007. So how was Iran using that to kill Americans in 2005. This is not a hard concept. Please try and keep up.

Says the person who can't go more then two or three posts with our dishonestly making crap up.
 
braindrain said:
You haven't produced any evidence. Do you actually know what the word evidence means.
Click to expand...

You have flat out ignored any of the context of the time period in favor of denying any implication thereof. Just like countless other threads, you take a hard line stance and refuse to budge at all. Smashing my head against the wall would be more productive than trying to have an honest discussion with you.

Wow you really need to try and follow along. Clark claims he saw the memo in 2001. He didn't make that claim till 2007. So how was Iran using that to kill Americans in 2005. This is not a hard concept. Please try and keep up.
Click to expand...

And if you really think that Iran wasn't aware of US ambitions prior then you truly are lost.

Says the person who can't go more then two or three posts with our dishonestly making crap up.
Click to expand...

Your insults are as poor as your debate skills.
 
braindrain said:
What ever you have to tell yourself. The facts are you have posted garbage and been called on it and all you really have is to try and dishonestly put words in my mouth.
Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Hence, why I have been ignoring his posts for ages now. Far to many times, he tried to claim I said something. And when I reposted myself saying the opposite he still insisted I was lying. I got tired of that game and only read them now when others quote him.

As for Iran, we have really only taken direct action against them once in 40 years prior to this and with the exception of the "Tanker War", where we responded to both Iran and Iraq. And that was the Stuxet Virus. Which was an attack against Iran, against a Nuclear Program which at the time they claim they had already shut down. Other than that, we have preferred to remain in the shadows, largely ignoring direct confrontation and flicking at them where it is not seen.

But just because for a change we have done it openly, that does not mean it was not happening. Iran has been "twisting the tail of the tiger" for decades, and maybe it is time for them (and others) to learn that doing so is not without a cost. There does come a time that if a nation does not realize from quiet nips to chill out, you have to make more and more public statements until they realize they are behaving like idiots.

And even the US learned that lesson early on. We call it the "War of 1812". Where we were all full of ourselves, and thought we were the kinds of the future. Until the UK spanked us and spanked us hard, and we realized we were not. It was almost another century before we dared to try such a thing again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom