Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Military action ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Military action ...

    against Iran ?

    Do we think we'll end up in a war ?

    I suspect Iran wants this...

    Thoughts ?

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A discussion about whether to send additional American military forces to the Middle East following the attack on two oil tankers will take place this coming week among President Donald Trumps national security team, two U.S. officials told CNN on Sunday.

    The talks will concentrate on what specific forces are needed to counter Iranian aggression, although the officials said that combat troops are not being considered. Instead, the talks are to center on deploying more Patriot missile batteries, fighter jets and ships.

    Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan hinted at the considerations over the weekend when he said that since 15 percent of of the world's oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, we obviously need to make contingency plans should the situation deteriorate but we also need to broaden our support for this international situation."

    Already over the weekend, top national security officials met at the White House to talk about a proposal the Pentagon is considering to send more forces to the Persian Gulf region, according to The New York Times.


    ...

    https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ir.../16/id/920634/

  • #2
    It's not only America that is involved here

    Still, the " ..British defense ministry sought to downplay the move, telling The Sunday Times: "This is a pre-planned training deployment and is in no way related to the ongoing situation in the Gulf of Oman."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The United Kingdom will send elite forces to the Gulf of Oman to protect its warships amid rising tensions with Iran, according to The Sunday Times.

    The planned deployment follows Thursday's attacks on two oil tankers, which the U.S. has blamed on Iran. British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt on Friday said the U.K. would make its own assessment, but believed the U.S. claim that Tehran was behind the incident.

    One hundred Royal Marines are expected to be deployed 'within weeks' to join naval ships operating from the U.K.'s new naval base in Bahrain, The Sunday Times reported, citing unnamed military sources.

    The Marines will police the strait from helicopters and smaller boats, in a 'force protection' mission that has been planned for several weeks due to rising tensions with Iran, according to the newspaper.

    Yet the British defense ministry sought to downplay the move, telling The Sunday Times: "This is a pre-planned training deployment and is in no way related to the ongoing situation in the Gulf of Oman."


    ....

    https://www.politico.eu/article/brit...anker-attacks/

    ?


    • #3
      I wondered when we would start a war with iran given it is on the pnac list along with iraq libya and syria. We use false flags to war monger. I am voting for tulsi if trump is stupid and believes our out of control intel.

      ?


      • #4
        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
        I wondered when we would start a war with iran given it is on the pnac list along with iraq libya and syria. We use false flags to war monger. I am voting for tulsi if trump is stupid and believes our out of control intel.
        Irans "leaders" want a war with us, I think they're going to provoke us until they get one

        Let me be 100 % incorrect ! . . . I fear I'm not though

        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan announced on Monday the deployment of about 1,000 more troops to the Middle East for what he said were "defensive purposes," citing concerns about a threat from Iran.

        "The recent Iranian attacks validate the reliable, credible intelligence we have received on hostile behavior by Iranian forces and their proxy groups that threaten United States personnel and interests across the region," Shanahan said in a statement.


        ............

        https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/tr.../17/id/920789/

        ?


        • #5
          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

          Irans "leaders" want a war with us, I think they're going to provoke us until they get one

          Let me be 100 % incorrect ! . . . I fear I'm not though

          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan announced on Monday the deployment of about 1,000 more troops to the Middle East for what he said were "defensive purposes," citing concerns about a threat from Iran.

          "The recent Iranian attacks validate the reliable, credible intelligence we have received on hostile behavior by Iranian forces and their proxy groups that threaten United States personnel and interests across the region," Shanahan said in a statement.


          ............

          https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/tr.../17/id/920789/
          Nope not buying it. Iran is not suicidal. We on the other hand are war mongers and our later history proves that. Pnac was explicit and drives policy.

          ?


          • #6
            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
            Nope not buying it. Iran is not suicidal.
            Maybe, maybe not

            They ARE pretty wild-n-crazy with their hard-core Islamic ideas

            History has shown us many times over how they act because of that

            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
            We on the other hand are war mongers and our later history proves that. Pnac was explicit and drives policy.
            Did WE cause those ships to blow up a few days ago ? What ? So we could have an excuse to go to war with Iran ?

            Explain how PNAC is working here, I'm unsure myself

            You believe we're creating reasons to get a war going with Iran now, is what it seems like ?

            ?


            • #7
              I think the president will do all that he can to avoid a war too

              If it happens, it will be because Iran forced it

              But why would they ?

              ..there's no reason for us to get into a war with them in any case - see the last 3 sentences of the below article

              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              President Donald Trump cannot want war with Iran.

              Such a war, no matter how long, would be fought in and around the Persian Gulf, through which a third of the world's seaborne oil travels. It could trigger a worldwide recession and imperil Trump's reelection.

              It would widen the "forever war," which Trump said he would end
              , to a nation of 80 million people, three times as large as Iraq. It would become the defining issue of his presidency, as the Iraq War became the defining issue of George W. Bush's presidency.

              And if war comes now, it would be known as "Trump's War."


              [ Imagine that ? ]

              For it was Trump who pulled us out of the Iran nuclear deal, though, according to U.N. inspectors and the other signatories Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China Tehran was complying with its terms.

              Trump's repudiation of the treaty was followed by his reimposition of sanctions and a policy of maximum pressure. This was followed by the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist" organization.

              Then came the threats of U.S. secondary sanctions on nations, some of them friends and allies, that continued to buy oil from Iran.

              U.S. policy has been to squeeze Iran's economy until the regime buckles to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 12 demands, including an end to Tehran's support of its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

              Sunday, Pompeo said Iran was behind the attacks on the tankers in the Gulf of Oman and that Tehran instigated an attack that injured four U.S. soldiers in Kabul though the Taliban claimed responsibility.

              The war hawks are back.

              "This unprovoked attack on commercial shipping warrants retaliatory military strikes," said Senator Tom Cotton on Sunday.


              But as Trump does not want war with Iran, Iran does not want war with us. Tehran has denied any role in the tanker attacks, helped put out the fire on one tanker, and accused its enemies of "false flag" attacks to instigate a war.

              If the Revolutionary Guard, which answers to the ayatollah, did attach explosives to the hull of the tankers, it was most likely to send a direct message: If our exports are halted by U.S. sanctions, the oil exports of the Saudis and Gulf Arabs can be made to experience similar problems.

              Yet if the president and the ayatollah do not want war, who does?


              Not the Germans or Japanese, both of whom are asking for more proof that Iran instigated the tanker attacks. Japan's prime minster was meeting with the ayatollah when the attacks occurred, and one of the tankers was a Japanese vessel.

              Writing in The Wall Street Journal Monday were Ray Takeyh and Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a neocon nest funded by Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson.

              In a piece titled, "America Can Face Down a Fragile Iran," the pair make the case that Trump should squeeze the Iranian regime relentlessly and not fear a military clash, and a war with Iran would be a cakewalk.

              "Iran is in no shape for a prolonged confrontation with the U.S. The regime is in a politically precarious position. The sullen Iranian middle class has given up on the possibility of reform or prosperity.

              "The lower classes, once tethered to the regime by the expansive welfare state, have also grown disloyal. The intelligentsia no longer believes that faith and freedom can be harmonized. And the youth have become the regime's most unrelenting critics.

              "Iran's fragile theocracy can't absorb a massive external shock. That's why Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has, for the most part, adhered to the JCPOA (the nuclear pact) and why he is likely angling for negotiation over confrontation with the Great Satan."

              This depiction of Iran's political crisis and economic decline invites a question: If the Tehran regime is so fragile and the Iranian people are so alienated, why not avoid a war and wait for the regime's collapse?

              Trump seems to have several options:

              Negotiate with the Tehran regime for some tolerable detente.

              Refuse to negotiate and await the regime's collapse, in which case the president must be prepared for Iranian actions that raise the cost of choking that nation to death.

              Strike militarily, as Cotton urges, and accept the war that follows, if Iran chooses to fight rather than be humiliated and capitulate to Pompeo's demands.

              One recalls: Saddam Hussein accepted war with the United States in 1991 rather than yield to Bush I's demand he get his army out of Kuwait.

              Who wants a U.S. war with Iran?

              Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and who oppose every effort of Trump's to extricate us from those wars.

              Should they succeed in Iran, it is hard to see how we will ever be able to extricate our country from this blood-soaked region that holds no vital strategic interest save oil, and America, thanks to fracking, has become independent of that.



              https://www.newsmax.com/patrickbucha.../18/id/920877/

              ?


              • #8
                Who wants a war? A force of pnac neocons including bolton and intel neocons. The people that schumer told us could get trump 6 ways from Sunday

                ?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                  Who wants a war? A force of pnac neocons including bolton and intel neocons. The people that schumer told us could get trump 6 ways from Sunday
                  Those people referred to in the above article with this sentence;

                  " Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and who oppose every effort of Trump's to extricate us from those wars. " ?

                  Why would they want a war ? It makes no sense.

                  But yes, I think a war won't help Trump. I think America is sick & tired of war with external enemies.

                  We have a more important war, right here at home with ourselves.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                    Those people referred to in the above article with this sentence;

                    " Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and who oppose every effort of Trump's to extricate us from those wars. " ?

                    Why would they want a war ? It makes no sense.

                    But yes, I think a war won't help Trump. I think America is sick & tired of war with external enemies.

                    We have a more important war, right here at home with ourselves.
                    Indeed we do. Trump is not the war monger that the left is presently making him out to be. They must figure that it is to their political advantage, otherwise they wouldn't do it, and that's about all the level of truth and their thought of what they are claiming.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                      Indeed we do. Trump is not the war monger that the left is presently making him out to be.
                      No

                      ..the Russian crap didn't settle out the way they hoped it would. They get desperate and say stupid things about him being "in love" with North Koreas bung chuk chow etc

                      Of course NOW they're going to yabber on endlessly about how Trump "wants a war with Iran"

                      If it's desperate & stupid, they're going to holler it... right along with "impeach blah blah blah.."

                      Their stupidity is so predicable it's just boring anymore

                      Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                      They must figure that it is to their political advantage, otherwise they wouldn't do it, and that's about all the level of truth and their thought of what they are claiming.
                      I really do hope most of America sees them for what they really are

                      Desperate and sick

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                        No

                        ..the Russian crap didn't settle out the way they hoped it would. They get desperate and say stupid things about him being "in love" with North Koreas bung chuk chow etc

                        Of course NOW they're going to yabber on endlessly about how Trump "wants a war with Iran"

                        If it's desperate & stupid, they're going to holler it... right along with "impeach blah blah blah.."

                        Their stupidity is so predicable it's just boring anymore



                        I really do hope most of America sees them for what they really are

                        Desperate and sick
                        Well, the electorate say Hillary for what she was and voted for Trump, in spite of the DC swamp machine being behind her, and the media, and the CIA, and the FBI, and the DOJ, and the NSA.

                        <*shrug*> Maybe they will.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

                          Well, the electorate say Hillary for what she was and voted for Trump, in spite of the DC swamp machine being behind her, and the media, and the CIA, and the FBI, and the DOJ, and the NSA.

                          <*shrug*> Maybe they will.
                          I do hope so

                          I have no interest in what demorats want to do to our country

                          People that hate a place SHOULD HAVE NO POWER OR SAY IN WHAT GOES ON THERE

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                            I do hope so

                            I have no interest in what demorats want to do to our country

                            People that hate a place SHOULD HAVE NO POWER OR SAY IN WHAT GOES ON THERE
                            Agreed. The Democrats in their extremist leftist hell bent for leather tyranny would be the death of individual liberty and freedom and the onset of the administration state, the state uber alles.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                              Those people referred to in the above article with this sentence;

                              " Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and who oppose every effort of Trump's to extricate us from those wars. " ?

                              Why would they want a war ? It makes no sense.

                              But yes, I think a war won't help Trump. I think America is sick & tired of war with external enemies.

                              We have a more important war, right here at home with ourselves.

                              Why? It is detailed in that neocon think tank paper. P.N.A.C. available online. They listed nations to be taken down like iraq Libya Syria and iran and that we weaken nations like russia. We have followed that scheme since 911 with Syria being the only potenial failure.

                              Apparently this is a potent force in DC infecting both parties and Intel at the top. The power this mob weilds is a threat to our apartrepublic and they transcend our rconstitution. JFK wanted to tear the cia apart as he saw the danger of secrecy plus power. Schumer warned trump on cnn to not mess with the CIA for they could get a president 6 ways from Sunday. Out press never made an issue from this earth shaking bomb shell!

                              So our press is dead with .Msm eager for more war. And never question anything. Trump only got good words when he shot missiles at assad.

                              A smart president would never trust the cia and always question them. Their history demands it! This is the. agency that spied on their oversight committee with no punishment at all.
                              Last edited by Blue Doggy; 06-18-2019, 09:14 PM.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X