President Donald Trump
President Donald Trump
8
zs

President Donald Trump

I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?

So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at

- 102 Views
28 April 2019 at 04:18 AM
Reply...

38687 Replies

8
zs


by checkraisdraw m

And remember, chezlaw has “no problem with Victor”. lol

I have no problem with him either.

otoh I have a lot of problems with your double standards, your wanting to have your cake and eat it and your US exceptionalism nonsense.


by Rococo m

It has been more than 45 years since Iran had a government that was more pro-Western. And Iran effectively has no experience with democratic government. The Iranian government under the Shah was more pro-Western, of course, but it wasn't a democracy. It was an authoritarian monarchy.

It did have a democratic government but he had this outrageous idea that the Iranian oil belonged to Iran so we imposed a brutal dictator on them.


by checkraisdraw m

The difference is that there is a moral difference between rebelling against a democracy and a totalitarian dictatorship.

I don't think Victor agrees with this statement.

Victor has said on several occasions that some of the basic freedoms that people associate with Western democracies (e.g., freedom of movement, freedom to criticize the government without being jailed, freedom of the press, etc.) are not especially high priorities for him. Maybe he wishes they could exist, but if an authoritarian government asserts that those freedoms have to be ignored or rolled back in order to pursue leftist economic goals or resist Western influence, that's a tradeoff that he believes is worth it. (Whether he would still feel the tradeoff was worth it if his personal freedom of movement or personal freedom to criticize his government was being circumscribed is harder to know, of course.)


To be completely and absolutely clear, Comrade doesn’t give two shits about a single Palestinian life. Any assertion to the contrary is dumb as **** spoken by people either:

1. Just as stupid as he is or
2. Find him to be a useful idiot while they argue themselves

Let’s just call a spade a spade. This dipshit has the intelligence and moral strength of a wet paper bag

Having the ****ing gall to make gEnOcIdE your Internet persona while implying the Iranian protestors killed had it coming. I mean ****ing lol

Eat glass, you stupid ****er


by Rococo m

(Whether he would still feel the tradeoff was worth it if his personal freedom of movement or personal freedom to criticize his government was being circumscribed is harder to know, of course.)

Maybe not that hard, not really. I mean one could take a not so wild guess.


by chezlaw m

It did have a democratic government but he had this outrageous idea that the Iranian oil belonged to Iran so we imposed a brutal dictator on them.

That very brief and tumultuous period in the early 1950s isn't within the memory of many living Iranians.


by StoppedRainingMen m

Hey dumbshit:

That was an airforce general playing politics. of all the branches the air force is not going to have a problem against iran. I said mostly adults! and he was confident they would win he was just crying about potential casualties. Which I mean... thats war. the 40-1000 American lives that it will take to overthrow iran will be worth it trust me!

Thats like trading a mass shooting for a chance of a free country of 90 million. good deal!

also I dont think that report was ever proven. not sure a general can publicly come out and say that tho


by StoppedRainingMen m

Having the ****ing gall to make gEnOcIdE your Internet persona while implying the Iranian protestors killed had it coming. I mean ****ing lol

a perfect summary of vic


viktor are you on the no-fly list yet?


by Rococo m

That very brief and tumultuous period in the early 1950s isn't within the memory of many living Iranians.

It still informs their worldview and it should probably inform ours more as well. We talk up democracy but when we had a chance to welcome a potential friendly democratic nation we imposed a brutal dictator on them.

Dismissing it is like dismissing the relevance of WW2 for us because we weren't alive at the time.


by rickroll m

a perfect summary of vic

theres videos of "protesters" burning people alive, beating people to death, shooting people, firebombing mosques. and then we have statements from Israeli and American officials telling them to keep it up and that "Mossad" is on the ground with you.

its weird that there were weeks of protest prior to that with no violence. and there were protests at the Universities weeks after with no violence.


by Rococo m

That very brief and tumultuous period in the early 1950s isn't within the memory of many living Iranians.

It still informs their worldview and it should probably inform ours more as well. We talk up democracy but when we had a chance to welcome a potential friendly democratic nation we imposed a brutal dictator on them.

Dismissing it is like dismissing the relevance of WW2 for us because we weren't alive a the time. Pahlevi was a monster and he was our doing and our friend.


by Victor m

it is also funny how much you guys fought tooth and nail over the Gaza death toll and required meticulous oversight. but now its like, yep, some Iranian diaspora propaganda outlet said so. must be true!

ive never doubted the Gaza casualties. I actually thought they were kind of low and isreal did a reasonable job considering lol. I think I ever argued the same thing that Russia has kept the civilian casualties low and you agreed with me. Russia has also bombed civilian infrastructure.

i guess your not talking about western estimates tho


by Rococo m

It has been more than 45 years since Iran had a government that was more pro-Western. And Iran effectively has no experience with democratic government. The Iranian government under the Shah was more pro-Western, of course, but it wasn't a democracy. It was an authoritarian monarchy.

Fair enough. Democratic reform goes too far. So I'll walk that back to reform to the way it was pre revolution.

But I'll stick with the rest because it doesn't really affect my point if they heard about "before" from their parents, grandparents or even read about it.


Bombing is fine if we just dont have too many people killed?


by Rococo m

Nah. It's always been obvious, especially if the U.S. was willing to bring the level of commitment it brought to the second Gulf War. But military smashing of course isn't a legitimate goal in and of itself, as the second Gulf War proved.

Iraq and Iran are two different countries. It's not been obvious to anybody that is literate and willing to read experts on the topic that the U.S. ability to defeat Iran militarily rests on "level of commitment" unless by that you mean drop a nuke on them.

Where do you get this nonsense? I mean, it's either out of your own ass or from ZBS propaganda so which one?


iran and iraq fought to a stalemate for TWENTY YEARS.

iraq was then destroyed in a week.

same country


Btw, there's another war going on with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Let's don't forget Ukraine either. Donnie should be getting that nobel peace prize any minute .


There military capabilities might be similar but thats about it . (and that was never the problem)


by Victor m

no I dont know exactly what happened but I know a lot more than you.regardless, your people are razing neighborhoods, bombing schools, bombing police station, and bombing hospitals all over Iran right now. so save the crocodile tears. when this is all over the Ameri-Israeli Empire will kill tons more anti-government Iranians than Iran is alleged to have killed during the rec

I’m not in favor of the war in Iran for many reasons. Trying to move the goalposts to talk about the war when I was clearly talking about the actions against protestors is just another example of your dishonest tactics.

by jalfrezi m

I have no problem with him either.

otoh I have a lot of problems with your double standards, your wanting to have your cake and eat it and your US exceptionalism nonsense.

You having a problem with me thinking that there are good things America does really well (I don’t think I have ever called myself an exceptionalist but I assume that’s what you’re talking about) which is just objectively true, but having no problem with someone supporting the Supreme Leader of Iran and multiple terrorist groups or state sponsors of terror like the IRGC, Hezbollah, and Hamas says everything a rational and moral person would need to know about you


by Victor m

theres videos of "protesters" burning people alive, beating people to death, shooting people, firebombing mosques. and then we have statements from Israeli and American officials telling them to keep it up and that "Mossad" is on the ground with you. its weird that there were weeks of protest prior to that with no violence. and there were protests at the Universities weeks a

it's the inconsistent part

you point to atrocities done by the usa but then claim stalin did nothing wrong and only got those who had it coming

we have october 7th and when israel responds it's not the palestinians had it coming but rather israel had it coming

now with iran, those pesky protestors had it coming

it's just incredibly evident to all that you only pretend to have an actual argument - everything you say or do is inconsistent

if they are the usa or usa allies it was evil - anyone else is just doing what they needed to do


by rickroll m

if they are the usa or usa allies it was evil - anyone else is just doing what they needed to do

Seems pretty consistent to me.


Maybe the neck rash made him do it.

Barbabella did not specify why Trump needed the skin treatment, and the White House did not immediately respond to questions about his condition.


by rickroll m

it's the inconsistent partyou point to atrocities done by the usa but then claim stalin did nothing wrong and only got those who had it comingwe have october 7th and when israel responds it's not the palestinians had it coming but rather israel had it comingnow with iran, those pesky protestors had it comingit's just incredibly evident to all that you only pretend to have an ac

It's not inconsistent. We disagree on facts. And you are making bad faith interpretations of things I've said.

But yes, the USA is always evil and those opposing it is always correct.


by Deuces McKracken m

Iraq and Iran are two different countries. It's not been obvious to anybody that is literate and willing to read experts on the topic that the U.S. ability to defeat Iran militarily rests on "level of commitment" unless by that you mean drop a nuke on them.

Where do you get this nonsense? I mean, it's either out of your own ass or from ZBS propaganda so which one?

I don't even know what ZBS stands for.

By level of commitment, I don't mean nuclear weapons. I mean (i) U.S. willingness to direct valuable military assets to a war with Iran at the expense of other areas of the world; (ii) U.S. willingness to put American troops on the ground; (iii) U.S. willingness to spend an enormous amount of money; and (iv) U.S. tolerance for American military casualties and Iranian civilian casualties. The U.S. military has a huge financial and technological advantage compared to Iran.

By smashing Iran's military, I mean inflicting much, much heavier losses on the Iranian military than Iran is able to inflict on the U.S. military and severely diminishing Iran's ability to project power in the immediate term. I mostly certainly don't mean transforming the region or achieving long term goals such as durable regime change in Iran or long term nuclear deterrence. I've been very clear that I am highly skeptical about the U.S.'s ability to achieve long term goals. I've also been clear that I don't attach much intrinsic value to smashing Iran's military in the short term, especially when you consider the human cost.

Reply...