goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: ednksu on May 08, 2018, 01:55:32 PM
-
Israel sees "irregular" movement of Iranian forces and fears attack.
Total misrepresentation and ignorance about this plan from the White House. Total lies from Bibi.
How long until we're at war with Iran?
-
Weird how you’re now so concerned about war.
-
Weird how you aren't anymore
-
Give War A Chance
-
Weird how you’re now so concerned about war.
I'm pro right kinda war. Anti fucknuts who bumble their way through statecraft and lurch this country into another haphazard long war.
-
We've been in various stages of war with Iran since the Shah.
Nah there was that one time a demigod president committed treason to run guns to them. That was pretty sweet for them.
-
Personally, I don't look forward to another war like dax does. Different strokes tho I guess
-
Iran would be a very yuck war with lots of dead young men. and likely a lot of dead Iranians of all genders and ages.
-
We've been in various stages of war with Iran since the Shah.
yeah, i guess it turns out the iranians weren't so cool with us overthrowing their government. huh.
-
Did you guys not know that Obama did this deal? I mean how can we support that now, he isn't even like in government anymore.
-
I don't know anything about this stuff, so I'm just going to have faith that Trump read the entire deal and completely understands all of the ramifications of his actions.
-
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155854913976749&id=6815841748
-
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155854913976749&id=6815841748
Virus
-
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155854913976749&id=6815841748
Was just about to post that.
Barack?? Obama
26 mins ·
There are few issues more important to the security of the United ?States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.?
The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working – that is a view shared by our ?European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest – it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. ?And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish – its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes – with Iran – the very outcome that we are pursuing with the? North Koreans.?
That is why today’s announcement is so misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America’s credibility, and puts us at odds with the world’s major powers.
Debates in our country should be informed? by facts, especially debates that have proven to be divisive. So it’s important to review several facts about the JCPOA.
First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.
Second, the JCPOA has worked in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. For decades, Iran had steadily advanced its nuclear program, approaching the point where they could rapidly produce enough fissile material to build a bomb. The JCPOA put a lid on that breakout capacity. Since the JCPOA was implemented, Iran has destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced weapons-grade plutonium; removed two-thirds of its centrifuges (over 13,000) and placed them under international monitoring; and eliminated 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium – the raw materials necessary for a bomb. So by any measure, the JCPOA has imposed strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program and achieved real results.
Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust – it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.
Fourth, Iran is complying with the JCPOA. That was not simply the view of my Administration. The United States intelligence community has continued to find that Iran is meeting its responsibilities under the deal, and has reported as much to Congress. So have our closest allies, and the international agency responsible for verifying Iranian compliance – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Fifth, the JCPOA does not expire. The prohibition on Iran ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is permanent. Some of the most important and intrusive inspections codified by the JCPOA are permanent. Even as some of the provisions in the JCPOA do become less strict with time, this won’t happen until ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years into the deal, so there is little reason to put those restrictions at risk today.
Finally, the JCPOA was never intended to solve all of our problems with Iran. We were clear-eyed that Iran engages in destabilizing behavior – including support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel and its neighbors. But that’s precisely why it was so important that we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Every aspect of Iranian behavior that is troubling is far more dangerous if their nuclear program is unconstrained. Our ability to confront Iran’s destabilizing behavior – and to sustain a unity of purpose with our allies – is strengthened with the JCPOA, and weakened without it.
Because of these facts, I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake. Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East. We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to America’s own security; and trigger an arms race in the world’s most dangerous region. If the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost, we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat, or going to war to prevent it.
In a dangerous world, America must be able to rely in part on strong, principled diplomacy to secure our country. We have been safer in the years since we achieved the JCPOA, thanks in part to the work of our diplomats, many members of Congress, and our allies. Going forward, I hope that Americans continue to speak out in support of the kind of strong, principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country and uphold our responsibilities around the globe?.
But, ya'know, he's a secret muslim that took it easy on Iran #daxplanations
-
Some libby lib with their fancy book learnin'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlzKuBpybMU&feature=share
-
He ran on ripping it up. He failed miserably on Mexico building the wall, he’s got to back out.
Now, he needs to go back to Iran and cut a real deal
-
Weird how you’re now so concerned about war.
I'm pro right kinda war. Anti fucknuts who bumble their way through statecraft and lurch this country into another haphazard long war.
So overthrowing sovereign nations and breaking up them up and/or just ceding the (former) country to radical Islamists is okay, as long as it’s done for the right reasons (and a Democrat is president)??
It’s good to see that getting out of a positively shitty deal and working towards a new one means we’re automatically going to war.
But one school of thought is that all regime changes or attempted regime changes to date, targeted the wrong countries.
-
Never heard much from Lib when his hero was PNAC on steroids.
Weird
-
I don't think dick cheney was ever my hero dax
-
I honestly thought regime change in iran would be the thing to finally knock dax off trump's dick but nope, bloodthirsty warpig DAX needs his dead American soldiers
-
Not really for it, Lib.
Weird though, regime change in Libya and Syria never knocked you off of Obama’s dick.
Were the American people ever given an explanation as to why “we came, we saw, he died” had to happen? (That would be a no).
Just another nation destroyed by Obama, no big woof.
-
bloodthirsty warpig DAX just goosestepping all over his own credibility...
really... kind of....
.
.
.
.
.
.
sad.......................
-
Reminds me of when the libtards said Trump was starting a war with NK.
:lol:
-
Also, lol at B.O. foreign policy
-
Weird how you’re now so concerned about war.
I'm pro right kinda war. Anti fucknuts who bumble their way through statecraft and lurch this country into another haphazard long war.
So overthrowing sovereign nations and breaking up them up and/or just ceding the (former) country to radical Islamists is okay, as long as it’s done for the right reasons (and a Democrat is president)??
It’s good to see that getting out of a positively shitty deal and working towards a new one means we’re automatically going to war.
But one school of thought is that all regime changes or attempted regime changes to date, targeted the wrong countries.
explain to me exactly, with specific plan points what makes the JCPA a "shitty" deal, especial compared to the status quo or what Trump's plan is (war).
-
I don’t think trump’s plan is war. And I pray it’s not. Seriously, we would smoke Iran but it would be at such an enormous cost. If you have any family or friends in service t&p if we send troops there.
-
Weird how you’re now so concerned about war.
I'm pro right kinda war. Anti fucknuts who bumble their way through statecraft and lurch this country into another haphazard long war.
So overthrowing sovereign nations and breaking up them up and/or just ceding the (former) country to radical Islamists is okay, as long as it’s done for the right reasons (and a Democrat is president)??
It’s good to see that getting out of a positively shitty deal and working towards a new one means we’re automatically going to war.
But one school of thought is that all regime changes or attempted regime changes to date, targeted the wrong countries.
How are we working towards a new one? Particularly interested in this since Trump added John “Bomb Iran” Bolton to his roster.
-
explain to me exactly, with specific plan points what makes the JCPA a "shitty" deal, especial compared to the status quo or what Trump's plan is (war).
Also, obviously don't think plan is war, but anyway, WaPo, from 2015 even, before Trump's influence on the perception. Also pre 400 billion walking around cash payment was known.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/07/16/10-reasons-the-iran-deal-is-ludicrous/?utm_term=.d3f17c7e1c4b
LA Times, same time period:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-boot-is-iran-more-like-north-korea-or-libya-20150721-story.html
Although Leon Panetta seemed to think the threat of war was the only way the deal could have any net positive outcome:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-panetta-iran-middle-east-strategy-20150904-story.html
Yet the Iran deal provides the United States with an opportunity to define a policy of strength, not ambivalence, in the Middle East. The administration need only make clear that the fundamental purpose of the nuclear deal is not just to constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions but to build a strong coalition that will confront both Iran and terrorism in the future.
The following steps are crucial for such a strategy:
Enforce the deal. A certain inertia follows the approval of any arms deal. That cannot happen in this case. The United States must work diligently with its allies, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency to fully implement the constraints in the agreement. Any violation, even a small one, must be swiftly and strongly addressed.
Maintain a strong military presence. Force projection by our naval, air and ground forces is vital for defending our interests.
Expand intelligence capability. If Iran violates the agreement, it will do so covertly. For that reason, the United States must restore its cooperative intelligence relationship with Israel and invest in intelligence operations with our other allies. Monitoring Iranian activity, targeting terrorist leaders and networks, and assessing potential threats and hidden activities will be crucial for both stability and security in the region.
Make it clear that force is an option. Although the use of force should never be the first response, the argument against military action has been made so often that it has created uncertainty about our will to do what we say. For that reason, Congress should pass a resolution authorizing the current and future presidents to use force to prevent Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is U.S. policy; there should be no doubt that force can be used if necessary to stop Tehran from building a bomb.
The last probably aimed squarely at the European partners of the agreement.
-
explain to me exactly, with specific plan points what makes the JCPA a "shitty" deal, especial compared to the status quo or what Trump's plan is (war).
Also, obviously don't think plan is war, but anyway, WaPo, from 2015 even, before Trump's influence on the perception. Also pre 400 billion walking around cash payment was known.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/07/16/10-reasons-the-iran-deal-is-ludicrous/?utm_term=.d3f17c7e1c4b
All we did was lift sanctions and unfreeze their money. The idea that the deal is bad because we can't re-impose sanctions without them being able to restart their nuclear program is just poor logic. Without the deal, they wouldn't need to relaunch their nuclear program because they wouldn't have shut it down.
-
the whole "we gave them 400 billion dollars!" is one of my favorite low-IQ 'pub talking points. It was their money to begin with.
-
It's very similar to "hillary gave the Russians all our uranium!"
-
We also can't refreeze their money, so backing out of the deal for not reason at all just left them with an additional $400 billion to kickstart things.
-
the whole "we gave them 400 billion dollars!" is one of my favorite low-IQ 'pub talking points. It was their money to begin with.
Oh, so you understand that but still claim that tax cuts for the wealthy are giving them money? <- probably a false equivalence but I couldn't help myself.
I am not terribly concerned that Iran will immediately do anything rash because then it would only prove Trump's point that they cant be trusted etc. So for optics sake they will hold off a little bit. This is honestly the same strategy Kim Jong Un is using - get sanctioned for being crap human being, threaten the world with nukes, have sanctions lifted.
I am probably most concerned that we are ostracizing ourselves from a broader group of allies that will exclude us from future decisions. But, I have always kinda thought "I sure wish the US didn't feel the need to be the world police" and this new brand of isolationism seems to assist that.
-
What did Iran do to get sanctioned, yard dog?
-
the whole "we gave them 400 billion dollars!" is one of my favorite low-IQ 'pub talking points. It was their money to begin with.
Just pointing that out as it has - as you all jumped on it as well - shaded perceptions. These are all pointing out the downsides just on the merits of the deal itself. Personally, I would have released those frozen funds on a balloon schedule.
-
What did Iran do to get sanctioned, yard dog?
Most recently because of their clandestine nuclear program, but that isn't all of it - I am also thinking about sponsorship of terrorism and human rights abuses.
U.S. sanctions on Iran, however, long predate these nuclear nonproliferation concerns. The United States first levied economic and political sanctions against Iran during the 1979–81 hostage crisis, shortly after Iran’s Islamic Revolution. On November 14, 1979, President Jimmy Carter froze all Iranian assets "which are or become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." The United States imposed additional sanctions when, in January 1984, the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah, an Iranian client, was implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine base in Beirut. That year, the United States designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism. The designation, which remains in place, triggers a host of sanctions, including restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance, a ban on arms transfers, and export controls for dual-use items. Sanctions related to sponsorship of terrorism and human rights abuses were not affected by the nuclear deal.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/international-sanctions-iran?cid=ppc-Google-iran_sanctions_backgrounder&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8oHGveP42gIVQySBCh0DzgsoEAAYASAAEgLS2PD_BwE
So, not exactly like Kim, but in essence it could be seen as a similar situation. I am definitely not educated enough on Iran's history and will honestly admit that I am limited by the articles I have read, reports I have watched / listened to , and a general "American education system ignorance" about that region.
-
Weird how you’re now so concerned about war.
I'm pro right kinda war. Anti fucknuts who bumble their way through statecraft and lurch this country into another haphazard long war.
So overthrowing sovereign nations and breaking up them up and/or just ceding the (former) country to radical Islamists is okay, as long as it’s done for the right reasons (and a Democrat is president)??
It’s good to see that getting out of a positively shitty deal and working towards a new one means we’re automatically going to war.
But one school of thought is that all regime changes or attempted regime changes to date, targeted the wrong countries.
https://twitter.com/KellyO/status/994246698754068481
Very reassuring
-
the whole "we gave them 400 billion dollars!" is one of my favorite low-IQ 'pub talking points. It was their money to begin with.
Oh, so you understand that but still claim that tax cuts for the wealthy are giving them money? <- probably a false equivalence but I couldn't help myself.
I am not terribly concerned that Iran will immediately do anything rash because then it would only prove Trump's point that they cant be trusted etc. So for optics sake they will hold off a little bit. This is honestly the same strategy Kim Jong Un is using - get sanctioned for being crap human being, threaten the world with nukes, have sanctions lifted.
I am probably most concerned that we are ostracizing ourselves from a broader group of allies that will exclude us from future decisions. But, I have always kinda thought "I sure wish the US didn't feel the need to be the world police" and this new brand of isolationism seems to assist that.
That absolutely is a false equivalence because that 400B isn't American money, being that it was at no point owned by the American government or any of it's citizens. Your bit about taxes, OTOH, is part of a conversation among the citizenry of this country about the best way to finance the cost of our collective governance. I absolutely understand that lowering taxes on the wealthy allows them to keep more of their money, I just don't think that trickle-down economics is a productive strategy for the collective whole.
-
:Woot:
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/994274695565504514
-
Awesome news
-
Putin will come in and save the day at the last minute. Then we will see what Trump’s Russia loving was really all about.
I am more worried about us blowing up from the insides. The plains against California.
-
Putin will come in and save the day at the last minute. Then we will see what Trump’s Russia loving was really all about.
I am more worried about us blowing up from the insides. The plains against California.
california would absolutely crush flyover country in that war
-
Libtards! OMG, you'll regurgitate any nonsensical talking point.
-
Reminds me of when the libtards said Trump was starting a war with NK.
:lol:
-
Honest question: do libtards ever get tired of being wrong, or do they genuinely refuse to believe they are wrong?
-
Seems a lot safer in the Middle East today.
-
Seems a lot safer in the Middle East today.
don't worry the KUSH is on the case
(https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/59ea725825ed7b53f5cdf011/master/w_600,h_720,c_limit/Jared-Kushner-Awkward-Friendships-SS02.jpg)
if he can figure out as a liberal New Yorker to earn the support and defense of countless conservatives the conflicts of the Middle East will be a piece of cake
-
Pretty remarkable to argue things are great in the ME while simultaneously throwing a tantrum about the hundreds of thousands of refugees "racist don" is denying entry to the u.s.
Libtards: we don't let our nonsensical talking points get in the way of being wrong about everything
-
Pretty remarkable to argue things are great in the ME while simultaneously throwing a tantrum about the hundreds of thousands of refugees "racist don" is denying entry to the u.s.
Libtards: we don't let our nonsensical talking points get in the way of being wrong about everything
"a lot safer" in the middle east is a relative statement
-
Relative to the "I'm butthurt it took Don a matter of months to clean up the ethnic clensing murdering conflagaration b.o. created and left behind, but won't admit it"
-
personally i would not be butthurt if something like that happened
however i cannot think of a situation that fits this narrative
-
Relative to the "I'm butthurt it took Don a matter of months to clean up the ethnic clensing murdering conflagaration b.o. created and left behind, but won't admit it"
israel and iran have both performed proxy attacks against one another in Syria since Trump violated the agreement <------ that's what you call "cleaning up"?
-
it is going to be hard for iran to continue their nuke program when we turn them into the next Libya or Syria #TEAMDAX
-
Syria is Trump's fault now--->AMAZE :lol:
Libtards can't stop saying ridic stupid crap. It's an epidemic
-
Syria is Trump's fault now--->AMAZE :lol:
Libtards can't stop saying ridic stupid crap. It's an epidemic
you have serious reading comprehension issues
-
How binding is an unsigned agreement? Sounds pretty Blixian.
No former Libyan army (Sourced via Yugoslavia) weapons flowing to Iranian opposition, yet.
-
Man, just think if Leon, Hillary and Barry, fresh of their great “success” in destroying Libya. Hadn’t gotten all cocky and decided they wanted to run Assad out as well.
Thus giving every reason for Iran and ultimately Russia to get fully engaged (and diminishing Syria’s ability to oversee its sovereign territory, which in turn gave ISIS a free run through much of the country).
Then again that trifecta never met a moderate government they didn’t want to overthrow.
-
Poor Russia really had no choice
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/17/north-korea-trump-latest-warning-kim-jong-un-gaddafi
Trump's Bolton boner aimed at Kimmy. Dax's war clue must be raging.
-
Oh ya, I’m all about war.
Any comments as to who created the concept of “just like Gaddafi”? Wanna pine on some bullshit about how it was just a popular uprising? Ya know “Arab Spring” (replete with F15’s, drones, NATO special forces/JSOC, British ships delivering weapons).
Didn’t even get the common courtesy of getting an explanation as to why.
“We came, we saw, he died” got that tattooed on your arm EDN?
-
Thanks Lib Hero Obama! (and Lib Hero Hillary)
http://fortune.com/2017/11/29/libya-slave-trade/
-
Thanks again Lib Heroes Obama and Hillary.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/22/world/africa/in-a-turnabout-syria-rebels-get-libyan-weapons.html
-
Just can’t imagine why all those emails fell down the stairs.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/marc-turi-libyan-rebels-hillary-clinton-229115
Benghazi: just another CIA operation disrupted by a YouTube video.
But Libs are/were all in on the CIA
-
:Woot:
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/994274695565504514
If Iran does? If they weren’t already seeking nuclear weapons, why do we have a meaningless, unsigned Nuke “agreement” with them?
Iran: We aren’t seeking nukes, just don’t pay any attention to our military bases, and our missile program is for “space research”.
We’re going to turn Israel into a cauldron of Fire . . . with “conventional” weapons.
-
Daxbot is overloading, take shelter :ohno:
-
Daxbot is overloading, take shelter :ohno:
Anything substantive to add Lib?
It’s sad your hero was such a war monger. As in actually overthrowing governments and destabilizing others while creating a massive clusterfuck.
All the while emboldening truly dangerous regimes.
SMDH
-
Calm down dax, you're in the red
-
Calm down dax, you're in the red
So, nothing (as usual)
SMDH, sad
-
Will invading north korea be enough to satiate bloodthirsty warpig DAX, or will he require regime change in iran as well?
Just asking questions
-
Will invading north korea be enough to satiate bloodthirsty warpig DAX, or will he require regime change in iran as well?
Just asking questions
Why would invading NK bother a complicit (hero worshiping) follower of War Monger Obama?
-
Dax's war boner is only going to get soothed with that sweet magic from Johnny Bolton's smooth stache.
It's sad when you see some one who doesn't know that everything isn't the same as everything else.
-
Libtards are really struggling with Don's success as president, particularly the ease in which he made world peace.
-
Libtards are really struggling with Don's success as president, particularly the ease in which he made world peace.
Was this before or after NK pulled out like Dax's dad should have done?
-
NK did not back out, they will denuclearize. Trump not looking impotent depends on it
-
north korea isn't going to denuclearize, but there's a chance trump can convince 'pubs they don't need to worry about north korea having nukes after all, which would be a significant accomplishment.
-
We have different impressions of our president. Time will tell if he’s the loser you say or the stud I think he is.
-
north korea isn't going to denuclearize, but there's a chance trump can convince 'pubs they don't need to worry about north korea having nukes after all, which would be a significant accomplishment.
i remember that trump's original position on nukes was that if countries like japan and SK were worried about NK having nukes, they should just get nukes of their own. i also pointed out that only an idiot would think that NK would give up their nukes and dax called me a bloodthirsty warpig.
-
Libtards are really struggling with Don's success as president, particularly the ease in which he made world peace.
Was this before or after NK pulled out like Dax's dad should have done?
See what I mean
-
Libtards are really struggling with Don's success as president, particularly the ease in which he made world peace.
Was this before or after NK pulled out like Dax's dad should have done?
See what I mean
Damn edn gets so pissy.
In other news, they’re never giving up their nuclear ambitions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/iran-israel-mossad-nuclear.html
Amazing how there’s the protectors of the horrific legacy of the Ayatollah Kerry always there to explain and reexplain.
-
Dax I’m not foolish enough to think you are wrong, but can you explain this war mongering stuff to me?
Are you talking about pols that are bought by defense contractors and promote small skirmishes around the globe to spur sales, or is there some group I don’t know about that want to nuke people or take on larger military powers?
-
Dax I’m not foolish enough to think you are wrong, but can you explain this war mongering stuff to me?
Are you talking about pols that are bought by defense contractors and promote small skirmishes around the globe to spur sales, or is there some group I don’t know about that want to nuke people or take on larger military powers?
We’re at perpetual war. Nukes end perpetual wars rather quickly.
Let’s take a look at one item. Muammar Gaddafi miscalculated badly. The US/West didn’t give a crap that he swore off WMD’s and was fighting AQ. He was talking African Union, a single gold backed African currency and massive uptick in intra African trade (which is very low). While allowing Chinese energy investment. Using oil money to buy influence for his African Union concept.
Blam. Libyan oil is still not really pumping and is hotly contested (major issues right now with UAE and certain Libyan factions) and the Chinese are still trying to recoup billions, but trying to reinvest. The African Union is basically dead. Look for Libya to stay a mess for a long time, on purpose.
-
So we took G out to stop this? For US benefit of keeping China out? I’m guessing nobody cared about African trade.
-
Seems a lot safer in the Middle East today.
don't worry the KUSH is on the case
(https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/59ea725825ed7b53f5cdf011/master/w_600,h_720,c_limit/Jared-Kushner-Awkward-Friendships-SS02.jpg)
if he can figure out as a liberal New Yorker to earn the support and defense of countless conservatives the conflicts of the Middle East will be a piece of cake
Kush's plan to pay the Palestinain's to accept occupation is not going over well
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/reality-palestinians-reject-economic-plan-190626165401951.html
who woulda guessed :dunno:
-
Should probably not even try :frown:
-
Maybe we should have had a better criteria for deciding who we were going to task with peace in the Middle East than "smartest guy at the Thanksgiving table."
-
Maybe we should have had a better criteria for deciding who we were going to task with peace in the Middle East than "smartest guy at the Thanksgiving table."
Well we tried Captain TelePrompTer, Queen Reset, and then Mullah Kerry and all we got was more bombs dropping, more refugees, horrible relations with only secular Democracy in the Middle East, pallets of cash left on the tarmac in Tehran, worthless nuclear “deals” and more regime change.