100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    We’re gonna try to stay on point in this one -🤞 .

    After the Iranian admission of shooting down the Ukrainian 737, which was carrying 82 Iranian passengers, protests against the Supreme Leader have broken out.

    The UK ambassador to Iran has been arrested for talking photos of the protests. President Trump has tweeted support for the protesters in English and Farsi.


     
    I believe it's the State Department's duty to do what the senator said he doing and the State Department is in the Executive Branch under the president, who provides the approval for all executive actions.

    NOT conducting diplomacy? To me, he was. Saying he wasn't is simply a CUYA statement.

    I've always tended not to be supportive of members of Congress performing State Department functions on foreign soil with military adversaries. Even the senator conceded that Iran is an adversary. That means it definitely falls under the Chief Executive/Commander-in-Chief.

    Now, it's also entirely possible that the senator and the State Department coordinated privately prior to the meeting.
    This would allow the administration to deny ownership, while at the same time floating trial balloons.

    At best, the senator is genuinely trying to help. At worst, he's showboating. Or, perhaps a bit of both.


    Would you say that the state department is gutted? Pretty much castrated.

    I certainly would.

    Now the real reasons the state department has been gutted you can come up with your reasons.

    I would say it would be easier to run scams on Ukraine or anyone else with a weak state department.

    If others feel the need to do what would be considered a state department job because those jobs are important then I applaud a senator for doing them.

    Do you want to ignore the obvious why has the state department been castrated?
     
    Would you say that the state department is gutted? Pretty much castrated.

    I certainly would.

    Now the real reasons the state department has been gutted you can come up with your reasons.

    I would say it would be easier to run scams on Ukraine or anyone else with a weak state department.

    If others feel the need to do what would be considered a state department job because those jobs are important then I applaud a senator for doing them.

    Do you want to ignore the obvious why has the state department been castrated?
    Yes, I agree.
    After being heavily stocked with Kerry and Clinton acolytes, there should have been little doubt what would occur if Hillary lost and a total outsider won.
    Still, the career diplomatic corps either retired or decided to try to stick it out. Administrations come and go.
    There's a lot of good folks committed to the work and the nation.
    I think more of them than I do a senator who answers to constituents from a postage stamp sized-state, when it comes to foreign diplomacy.
     
    In
    Yes, I agree.
    After being heavily stocked with Kerry and Clinton acolytes, there should have been little doubt what would occur if Hillary lost and a total outsider won.
    Still, the career diplomatic corps either retired or decided to try to stick it out. Administrations come and go.
    There's a lot of good folks committed to the work and the nation.
    I think more of them than I do a senator who answers to constituents from a postage stamp sized-state, when it comes to foreign diplomacy.


    Then what is the reason for them not being filled?

    Infact the vast majority of diplomats and state department employees have worked under numerous leaders of both parties.

    Just an example Marie Yovanovitch started working for the state department in 1986.

    So in 86 that was Ronald Reagan right?

    So she worked for the state department for more years under Republican leadership.

    So I guess working her way up the food chain in the state department made her a Democrat appointment opposed life long state department employee?

    And she was treated about as horrible as a state department employee can be because of Hillary?

    Or did it have to do with the scam Donald was trying to run?

    You can support what ever side you want but the ignoring the shambles the state department is in and why it is is just plain foolish.

    It is obviously done for a reason.
     
    In


    Then what is the reason for them not being filled?

    Infact the vast majority of diplomats and state department employees have worked under numerous leaders of both parties.

    Just an example Marie Yovanovitch started working for the state department in 1986.

    So in 86 that was Ronald Reagan right?

    So she worked for the state department for more years under Republican leadership.

    So I guess working her way up the food chain in the state department made her a Democrat appointment opposed life long state department employee?

    And she was treated about as horrible as a state department employee can be because of Hillary?

    Or did it have to do with the scam Donald was trying to run?

    You can support what ever side you want but the ignoring the shambles the state department is in and why it is is just plain foolish.

    It is obviously done for a reason.
    A confluence of combining forces that can't be foreseen over the span of a 20 - 30 year tenure as a federal employee is part of the deal you sign up for.

    I watched a ton of very good career people get hit by a 30% Reduction in Force (RIF) during the Clinton administration for no other reason than they were in the wrong federal job at the wrong time. They didn't foresee such circumstances when they signed up in the 1980s.

    I think you'll agree that the current president is about as unforeseen as circumstances get.
     
    A confluence of combining forces that can't be foreseen over the span of a 20 - 30 year tenure as a federal employee is part of the deal you sign up for.

    I watched a ton of very good career people get hit by a 30% Reduction in Force (RIF) during the Clinton administration for no other reason than they were in the wrong federal job at the wrong time. They didn't foresee such circumstances when they signed up in the 1980s.

    I think you'll agree that the current president is about as unforeseen as circumstances get.


    So you are now coming up with nothing rather than they were "Clinton acolytes"?

    It just happened? Decided to drain the swamp in the state department?

    It just happened that the the our Kerdish allies were served up on a silver platter? Or just maybe with a working state department whatever really happened would not have.

    Come on man you and I know all things happen for a reason.

    The other one that we both know like the back of our hands is the filthy rich if they do anything it is usually about money.

    So just give me a better guess of why you think he has dismantled the state department to the point that senators now feel they need to fill in.
     
    So you are now coming up with nothing rather than they were "Clinton acolytes"?

    It just happened? Decided to drain the swamp in the state department?

    It just happened that the the our Kerdish allies were served up on a silver platter? Or just maybe with a working state department whatever really happened would not have.

    Come on man you and I know all things happen for a reason.

    The other one that we both know like the back of our hands is the filthy rich if they do anything it is usually about money.

    So just give me a better guess of why you think he has dismantled the state department to the point that senators now feel they need to fill in.
    I think this is overstating the case a bit. Anybody who reached 20 years federal service can retire whenever they want. The ambassador had 30 years, so she already had one foot out the door and the other foot on a banana peel.

    As I mentioned before, I take a dim view of opposition party senators conducting foreign affairs business, particularly on foreign soil and especially in contradiction of the stated foreign policy of the Chief Executive/Commander-in-Chief with regard to adversary nations.

    It's a theme I've seen repeated again and again by both parties through the decades. I didn't like it when the Republicans did it to Obama. I don't like it now that the Democrats are doing it to Trump.

    Why would a senator from a postage stamp sized state deign himself empowered to treat with Iran is beyond me. Why don't you ask him?
     
    I think that is being a little ticky tack but I know a lot of people will disagree because of who said it.

    My thought is that during the initial damage assessment they were mainly focused on the usual result of usual missile attack, that being soldiers being blown apart and death.
    Still sucks for our guys and gals and I pray for a speedy recovery for them.
     
    I think that is being a little ticky tack but I know a lot of people will disagree because of who said it.

    My thought is that during the initial damage assessment they were mainly focused on the usual result of usual missile attack, that being soldiers being blown apart and death.
    Still sucks for our guys and gals and I pray for a speedy recovery for them.

    This quote maybe from a liberal rag MSM partisan slant but it says:

    "The commander in chief confirmed earlier reports that no U.S. personnel were injured in the missile attacks, which struck service member housing units at al-Asad airbase and Erbil International Airport. He also added that “only minimal damage was sustained and our military bases.”

     
    This quote maybe from a liberal rag MSM partisan slant but it says:

    "The commander in chief confirmed earlier reports that no U.S. personnel were injured in the missile attacks, which struck service member housing units at al-Asad airbase and Erbil International Airport. He also added that “only minimal damage was sustained and our military bases.”

    Yeah, I specifically remember reporting that he said the bases were evacuated ahead of time and that no personnel were injured. I breathed a huge sigh of relief when I heard that but I'm not surprised in the least that this is lie #13,926 in 3 years.
     
    Can we now say Trump lied about troop injuries in the bombing?


    Initial Battle Damage Assessments are highly classified for a reason.
    You don't want to tell the enemy exactly how effective their attacks were.
    Ever seen an actual BDA?

     
    Did the media keep track of or run a 'fact check' with the other past presidents or is this a new thing?

    This is a honest question because I don't recall and this has nothing to do with this thread but I was curious?
     
    I think this is overstating the case a bit. Anybody who reached 20 years federal service can retire whenever they want. The ambassador had 30 years, so she already had one foot out the door and the other foot on a banana peel.

    As I mentioned before, I take a dim view of opposition party senators conducting foreign affairs business, particularly on foreign soil and especially in contradiction of the stated foreign policy of the Chief Executive/Commander-in-Chief with regard to adversary nations.

    It's a theme I've seen repeated again and again by both parties through the decades. I didn't like it when the Republicans did it to Obama. I don't like it now that the Democrats are doing it to Trump.

    Why would a senator from a postage stamp sized state deign himself empowered to treat with Iran is beyond me. Why don't you ask him?


    Over a quarter of the 200 embassies have no ambassador. Is he waiting for people to donate more money to fill them?

    He keeps running them off and does nothing to fill the vacancies.

    So you think that is just by chance rather than by design to weaken the state department.

    Ok.

    I am sure the guy that golfs and has rallies all over the place has had the time to do the work considering just how much free time he has had.

    Just an example turkey just got David Satterfield first embassador in almost two years August the 28th and then trump sold the Kurds out just 5 weeks later.

    So if you are gonna ask what happened to the other guy? He got moved to another post.

    You think that all might have to do with the Michael Flynn's illegal dealings with Turkey?

    Do you think turkey did not need an embassador? If you consider they had a coup d'état was attempted just just a few years ago I would say it is one of the most important state department assignments when you consider the American business interest and the actual location of Turkey.

    Then again I did spend some time in turkey and read a bunch of news about what is going on there.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom