posted by like_thatLet’s try this another way.
Do you think he was a terrorist? Why or why not (without using the US Government as your reasoning)?
I keep answering that I have no idea. For your sake I'll assume he is. If that's true, there's someone right behind him that will take up right where he left off. On top of that, I'm sure there are many other dangerous terrorists in the region. Killing this one guy because of an imminent threat seems very simple and timely.
posted by QuakerOats
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
How did this Iranian general threaten our liberty?
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieHow did this Iranian general threaten our liberty?
Because USA! FREEDOM! YEAAAAAAAAH!
posted by O-TrapWell, in the event that it was discussed with others that personal reasons fueled such actions, then sure. It wouldn't exactly require a ton of people to know the motivation for why the president would give the go-ahead for such action.
I'm not saying I buy it. Just that it doesn't really take a full blown conspiracy to think a president, with his ability to unilaterally approve a military attack, might do so with something other than self-serving motives.
And if he would do so for self-serving motives, why would it be a stretch for it to be as a distraction?
What you have described would require the ability to read minds. Its an impossible to discern hypothetical.
I would argue offensive military action is far more unlikely and politically difficult during domestic turmoil. The POTUS is weakened. Its just too risky it doesn't distract it draws attention. The POTUS unilaterally approves a military attack he does not unilaterally create it.
A situation warranting a possible military response would have to be planned and hold the support of many on the national security team and materialize during domestic turmoil. Boogie used the term "magically" to describe opportunities for these types of missile strikes. That term leans my mind toward an orchestrated illusion for action. Which would necessitate conspirators.
Your hypothetical leans to selfish human nature in weighing options presented. Plausible but not conspiratorial as the latter would take more than one. Like I said impossible to discern.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieHow did this Iranian general threaten our liberty?
Hell, I’m more worried about the radical leftists in congress and running for president, nearly as big an enemy as we have, along with their media allies.
But yeah, radical muslim terrorists are a threat to freedom worldwide.
posted by HereticOne could also play the "consider the source" game with the dude commenting so that you had to rephrase. The guy who hasn't met a right-wing talking point blog he doesn't love as much as life itself to the degree he's conditioned himself to believe they are the only true fact-presenters and everyone else offers nothing but bias. If it isn't free PR for hard-core conservatives, it's not legit to him.
The overall coverage of Trump is 94% negative, despite his incredibly positive accomplishments.
Own it / Spin it / Ignore it ………
posted by majorsparkWhat you have described would require the ability to read minds. Its an impossible to discern hypothetical.
I would argue offensive military action is far more unlikely and politically difficult during domestic turmoil. The POTUS is weakened. Its just too risky it doesn't distract it draws attention. The POTUS unilaterally approves a military attack he does not unilaterally create it.
A situation warranting a possible military response would have to be planned and hold the support of many on the national security team and materialize during domestic turmoil. Boogie used the term "magically" to describe opportunities for these types of missile strikes. That term leans my mind toward an orchestrated illusion for action. Which would necessitate conspirators.
Your hypothetical leans to selfish human nature in weighing options presented. Plausible but not conspiratorial as the latter would take more than one. Like I said impossible to discern.
If you think it would require reading minds, then I'm not explaining myself well enough.
I'm not sure how a president himself would be articulably weakened during an excessive amount of discord here in the US if military action draws attention to something other than itself (however that would work), unless you're talking about wanting re-election, which might, in theory, also be helped by military action, depending on how it's framed. Would you mind teasing that out?
I did use the term "approve" for that reason, as I understand that it's obviously more than just the president telling the military leaders, "Go invade BFEistan!" but I have to think the intelligence community is constantly feeding him intel, and at any given time, I'm sure there are at least a few national security leaders who would be on board, so I'm not sure why there wouldn't be an opportunity to move fairly frequently. As such, the "yes" really wouldn't HAVE to involve much consulting, and even if it did, there's nothing to suggest it would have to be honest.
Now, if I'm wrong about how frequently intelligence that could be argued as actionable comes in, or if I'm wrong about the notion that virtually any such action would be supported by at least a few military leaders, then certainly I'm willing to admit it, but if I'm right, then saying it's "magically" time to act with military force, while hyperbolic, would still lead to a plausible point.
But I digress to the fact that I don't actually espouse the view that military action is primarily a function of distraction. I think it's more arrogance, collective self-importance, and an inability to view other sovereign states as equal to our own, but that's one of those things that I think the two sides have demonstrated that they have in common.
posted by QuakerOats
Hell, I’m more worried about the radical leftists in congress and running for president, nearly as big an enemy as we have, along with their media allies.
But yeah, radical muslim terrorists are a threat to freedom worldwide.
Yes, we'll all aware of your fear of radical leftists.
Still, you've not made a compelling argument for why this guy was a threat to our liberty. "Freedom worldwide"? If that's the goal, why haven't we started bombing Saudi Arabia yet?
Fortunately the president's son-in-law is going to get the mideast mess worked out.
SMFH over all the whining over "lack of diversity" among Dem frontrunners. 2 women and a gay guy, but I guess this proves the only qualification that really seems to matter is the pigment of one's skin. Or are they starting to worry they might not be able to count on black people automatically voting Dem?
I honestly can't understand how, after Obama was elected (and re-elected), that people are concerned about a lack of racial representation. Isn't the whole point to look at qualification and not sex, errr gender, race or whatever else? Maybe if the people of color in this race were better candidates they would have made the debate stage?
posted by gutSMFH over all the whining over "lack of diversity" among Dem frontrunners. 2 women and a gay guy, but I guess this proves the only qualification that really seems to matter is the pigment of one's skin. Or are they starting to worry they might not be able to count on black people automatically voting Dem?
I honestly can't understand how, after Obama was elected (and re-elected), that people are concerned about a lack of racial representation. Isn't the whole point to look at qualification and not sex, errr gender, race or whatever else? Maybe if the people of color in this race were better candidates they would have made the debate stage?
Incoming.
posted by O-TrapIncoming.
It obviously doesn't reflect the electorate, or Booker or Kamala would still be around. Kamala, especially, was polling 3rd or 4th at one point but had fallen steadily since that first debate.
So obviously skin color is not an important qualification for voters. Yet it seems like the regressives want to make it one.
There's an actual ceremony to hand the articles of impeachment over to the Senate? Are you kidding me?!?
Although, if there wasn't one I'm sure Adam Schiff would have created it.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieBut don't you find it interesting that the opportunity to kill him just happened to come up right now?
Nope. The Dems and their media have been trying to impeach Trump since before he took office. And the actual impeachment proceedings started over 3 months ago, with the vote over a month ago. Everyone just assumed Trump was trying to start a war as a "distraction", but then he went and took the off ramp first opportunity he got. I'm not sure the media even cares any more that things they report as fact are quickly shown to be false.
So anyone claiming this was done to distract from impeachment is just a partisan shill. Now I'm sure being able to campaign on taking out "a real bad guy" and, hopefully, resolving [temporarily, as per usual] a growing Iran problem is something that factored in.
So for all the conspiracy nuts.....do you think Pelosi deliberately held the Articles of Impeachment in order to hurt the campaigns of Klobuchar, Warren and Sanders?
I don't know, but I'm not sure the Dems would be very happy with Warren or Sanders getting the nomination.
posted by gutSo for all the conspiracy nuts.....do you think Pelosi deliberately held the Articles of Impeachment in order to hurt the campaigns of Klobuchar, Warren and Sanders?
I don't know, but I'm not sure the Dems would be very happy with Warren or Sanders getting the nomination.
No. I think she did it to try and get witnesses to be called, which is what is going to happen. It won't matter though, the R's are just going through the motions. It also won't impact the three D Senators running for President as I think the Senate trial will be over either right before or a little after Iowa.
She was just waiting for her ceremonial pen order to come in.
posted by justincredibleShe was just waiting for her ceremonial pen order to come in.
Oh that was so bad. That whole signing ceremony and then walking it over was so over the top and cheesy.
I mean, no sane, intelligent person saw that spectacle and thought, "yeah, this is necessary." Right?
It felt WAY too ritualistic.
Somewhere, some guy who espouses some cannibalism/paedophilia Bilderberg conspiracy is shitting his pants, going, "They were way too comfortable going through that awkward ritual."
posted by gutSo for all the conspiracy nuts.....do you think Pelosi deliberately held the Articles of Impeachment in order to hurt the campaigns of Klobuchar, Warren and Sanders?
I don't know, but I'm not sure the Dems would be very happy with Warren or Sanders getting the nomination.
Calculated move to delay everything so that senators running for prez now have to sit in DC for the entire lead up to the Iowa vote, helping Dirty Joe – the fix is in, again. Also calculated to take the great China deal off the front page (not that it ever would have been front page anyway because it was another Trump win).
