• 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!

Missiles fired toward US consulate in Iraq came from Iran: officials

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,041
Reaction score
33,367
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Hey Biden, going to bomb one of Iran's big war leaders like Trump did? How's that Iranian peace deal going?

I stand with the Freedom Fighters on this issue American.

I always cheer and do my little happy dance when a downtrodden people fight to throw off the yoke of oppression.

Rah Rah sis boom bah.....gooooOOOO FREEDOM FIGHTERS!!!!

cheerleader.gif
 
Every tyrannical regime in earth is on the move. They see a weak American president and have decided now is their window of opportunity.
I see this repeated a lot but rarely substantiated. Thus far the US has undertaken some of the strongest sanctions against a nuclear power, and should there be a direct attack against Iran, will you then turn and say that the current president is getting us into foreign wars?

So I guess I'll turn the question over to you: what would be a sign of strength?
 

Hey Biden, going to bomb one of Iran's big war leaders like Trump did?
How did that prevent this?

How's that Iranian peace deal going?
That's going to be a really interesting question, and the current issue with global oil demand might be what helped tip the hand in conducting this kind of exercise. The other question would be is how has not having a peace treaty fared? Is the Iranian government gone; have they stopped funding Hezbollah etc.?
 
Last edited:
I see this repeated a lot but rarely substantiated. Thus far the US has undertaken some of the strongest sanctions against a nuclear power, and should there be a direct attack against Iran, will you then turn and say that the current president is getting us into foreign wars?

So I guess I'll turn the question over to you: what would be a sign of strength?
“Strong sanctions “ lmao
To liberals in America that actually is the definition of being strong. God help us.
 
What is China going to do? They are watching the current happenings.
 
“Strong sanctions “ lmao
To liberals in America that actually is the definition of being strong. God help us.
You didnt answer his question Chainsaw.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Try again please!
 

Hey Biden, going to bomb one of Iran's big war leaders like Trump did? How's that Iranian peace deal going?
Survey say..."It was a mistake. We were going after Nazi terrorists. There was a bioweapois lab there. Global warming. Racism. January 6th protesters were at our border."
 
So I guess I'll turn the question over to you: what would be a sign of strength?
Tough would have been controlling the Afghanistan withdrawal and leaving on our timetable on our terms after all our people were out.
Tough would have been arming Ukraine to the teeth with Stingers and Javelins and fighter jets as we simultaneously negotiated with Russia.
 
“Strong sanctions “ lmao
To liberals in America that actually is the definition of being strong. God help us.
The sanctions against Russia have crippled much of their economy without having to risk US lives and the potential for a nuclear conflict.
 
The sanctions against Russia have crippled much of their economy without having to risk US lives and the potential for a nuclear conflict.
So I guess I'll turn the question over to you: what would be a sign of strength?

Tough would have been controlling the Afghanistan withdrawal and leaving on our timetable on our terms after all our people were out.
Tough would have been arming Ukraine to the teeth with Stingers and Javelins and fighter jets as we simultaneously negotiated with Russia.
 
Tough would have been controlling the Afghanistan withdrawal and leaving on our timetable on our terms after all our people were out.
That's not "tough" that's in the realm of logistics. What specifically shows strength about timing a departure? The only area I do think played the had the US was not interested in foreign conflicts was the Doha Agreement and the subsequent violations of it the Taliban made with no change in US policy. The former administration did not turn course despite of the Taliban's actions and neither did the current one.

As for timetables, the US did withdraw its troops according to the established timetable; the former president kept critiquing the current administration for not removing troops sooner.

Tough would have been arming Ukraine to the teeth with Stingers and Javelins and fighter jets as we simultaneously negotiated with Russia.
Except weapons have continually gone into Ukraine throughout this conflict, with the exception of jets of course. Basically removing Russia from most of the world market isn't a sign of weakness either. You seem to be more willing to push the boundaries of armed conflict with Russia.
 
The sanctions against Russia have crippled much of their economy without having to risk US lives and the potential for a nuclear conflict.
What is it that makes you think Putin, a guy that invaded Ukraine without provocation, would be less provoked by economic sanctions than by material, meaningful, defensive assistance inside Ukraine? Economic sanctions are actually a direct attack on Russia while strictly defensive assistance to Ukraine is immaterial to Russia as long as they don't attack. I mean, I get the fear but I really don't get what's passing for "logic" in this argument.
 
That's not "tough" that's in the realm of logistics. What specifically shows strength about timing a departure? The only area I do think played the had the US was not interested in foreign conflicts was the Doha Agreement and the subsequent violations of it the Taliban made with no change in US policy. The former administration did not turn course despite of the Taliban's actions and neither did the current one.

As for timetables, the US did withdraw its troops according to the established timetable; the former president kept critiquing the current administration for not removing troops sooner.


Except weapons have continually gone into Ukraine throughout this conflict, with the exception of jets of course. Basically removing Russia from most of the world market isn't a sign of weakness either. You seem to be more willing to push the boundaries of armed conflict with Russia.
Biden was president in the Afghanistan debacle and he failed to adjust to a changing situation and lost all control.

Arming Ukraine as we negotiated would have been negotiating from a position of strength and sending arms post invasion is a lot like shutting the barn door after the horse is out.
 

Hey Biden, going to bomb one of Iran's big war leaders like Trump did? How's that Iranian peace deal going?

Something doesn't add up here. Why would Iran fire missiles at the U.S. consulate when they are attempting to ratify a nuclear treaty with the U.S.?

I think we need to find out who stands to gain by destroying the nuclear treaty. It sure doesn't seem like Iran would.

And piling on Biden right now is the last thing we need to do.
 
What is it that makes you think Putin, a guy that invaded Ukraine without provocation, would be less provoked by economic sanctions than by material, meaningful, defensive assistance inside Ukraine? Economic sanctions are actually a direct attack on Russia while strictly defensive assistance to Ukraine is immaterial to Russia as long as they don't attack. I mean, I get the fear but I really don't get what's passing for "logic" in this argument.
Economic sanctions are something he has been shielding against since the 2014 invasion of Crimea; he's been expecting them. What it seems he might not have expected is that they would be as broad as they have become, but perhaps he did; no one can say for sure. You have to wonder how immaterial defensive assistance to Russia is considering the last US arms deal to supply Ukraine with defensive assistance had a condition they could not be used against Russian separatist groups.
 
Something doesn't add up here. Why would Iran fire missiles at the U.S. consulate when they are attempting to ratify a nuclear treaty with the U.S.?

I think we need to find out who stands to gain by destroying the nuclear treaty. It sure doesn't seem like Iran would.

And piling on Biden right now is the last thing we need to do.

Everyones favorite phony pseudo-"democracy" in the Mid East at it again?:unsure:
 
Economic sanctions are something he has been shielding against since the 2014 invasion of Crimea; he's been expecting them. What it seems he might not have expected is that they would be as broad as they have become, but perhaps he did; no one can say for sure. You have to wonder how immaterial defensive assistance to Russia is considering the last US arms deal to supply Ukraine with defensive assistance had a condition they could not be used against Russian separatist groups.
Russia has been creating, funding and advising many of those separatist groups all along. They are and have been a Russian Proxy in Ukraine for more than a decade.
 
Every tyrannical regime in earth is on the move. They see a weak American president and have decided now is their window of opportunity.

Do you want the US to be the World's Police force? Yes or No will do.
 
Biden was president in the Afghanistan debacle and he failed to adjust to a changing situation and lost all control.
If you're going to posit this as your thesis for "American weakness", then you can't just focus on this administration since the course of policy in Afghanistan ran across two administrations with a fair degree of consistency. What could be perceived as "weakness" is less about US military might and more about a desire to withdraw from theaters that require seemingly never ending engagement.

The argument you could make is the lack of a course correction by both administrations in the face of Taliban aggression could be perceived as "weakness" in the context of a broader US interest in not engaging in foreign wars; something already displayed by the withdrawal from Syria during the previous administration as well. My point isn't about blame, but pointing out actual policies and actions.

Arming Ukraine as we negotiated would have been negotiating from a position of strength and sending arms post invasion is a lot like shutting the barn door after the horse is out.
Do you think an arms deal that sets a condition where the arms cannot be used against pro-Russian separatist forces shows strength to the Russian government?
 
Back
Top Bottom