back to an endless Republicans war so 30 years in Iran over or under

This is your speculation and what you used as a softening minimizing what Trump/Netty did here. A hope and a wish and a benefit is not terms to start a war. I do not recall Trump engaging with anyone except Jared and Steve to make this decision. I know he did not consider what anyone thought but Netty as the last thing this region seems to fall on is WAR. You have no examples of WAR from the regional countries so you are left with speculation and hopes of a good outcome. This does not meet the merit of need to START a war but maybe for the group of war fans who will cover for whatever Trump does it might. Our ex-allies do not share your view but I guess that works out just fine since Trump is going to threaten leaving NATO if he does not get his way.

@wallstreetcappers 

 This is your speculation and what you used as a softening minimizing what Trump/Netty did here.

Got it. 

No sir.  Those things have nothing to do with each other.  I was not addressing my stance on what they did. 
I was simply addressing the way the NATO/European countries might react.  

Then I was saying it might help or ‘influence’ them to help with an armada if the MENA countries would more openly say more positive things about how it might help their countries. 
So, nothing at all about my stance on USA/Israel or Iran.  

Hopefully, that clears that part up.  

@Raiders22

 Dont super glide your way out of a discussion. Why are you making a reply from now some "armada" and the reply was made in response to not agreeing with this war and then say "it was not me it was them" to take yourself out of the equation? You posted your message not a member of whatever armada you claim said something. The point of discussion is to have something to say either to agree or disagree or just add your opinion yet you do this pocket expert/armada or whatever else you are tossing out there and what purpose does this serve to the core point of the thread and the issue?

Sorry if the term dood is not acceptable to you or casting shade or zero ego offends you (even though you know the reference point) the use of a term does not change the point being made and not sure what the relevance is as you DO understand and yet when all else fails pout about the term dood or casting shade and then you try to reduce the value of a POINT being made by demeaning the person by the term choice made. 

You can keep referencing third parties who nobody has a clue who they are or why you do it and say YES SIR and all the quirky things you do, that does not mean I ignore a point you are making when YOU make it. My issue isnt a term or word or phrase but the purpose and meaning and the ownership of what YOU write. The above messages you created are example of that. At this point it is never clear if you are the owner of your words or it is some third party who nobody knows and then you can walk back from your words to say it was not you.

 @wallstreetcappers

 Dont super glide your way out of a discussion.

I never do that — I just answered it and cleared it up for you.

Why are you making a reply from now some "armada"

Go back and read it — in context.  It was a direct reply to Nature about his armada question.

and the reply was made in response to not agreeing with this war 

No sir.  I have never answered that question on Covers.

I have written about it in great detail elsewhere. 

The question I answered was about his armada question.  

@wallstreetcappers

Gotta love the maga clowns that love coming here just to argue with Wallstreet, instead of acting like little bitches and just leaving this site like grown men and going somewhere that has fellow maga clowns, they stay here spinning shit daily. Especially our resident silver spoon who doesnt like being called a maga, but probably owns more trump gear then anybody here.

Wasn't that difficult to figure out if you have common sense....your point of view was spot on unless someone just wanted to argue with you...you raised a hypothetical prognosis, meaning it hadn't happened, but a what if....no one knows what will happen in the days/months/years going forward in those countries and it is very probable that one country steps up and other joins...even if it doesn't happen, it's not a reason to berate you on your ideology, which is completely rational thinking....so, are you dealing with rationality on the other side or someone who likes to engage in telling you that you offended everyone in words mixed up that did not actually take place...you think you are engaging in a spirited debate but in actuality he is laughing at you and trying to make you look bad, when in actuality you are one of the most intelligent on this site....problem is, you spend so much time trying to convince someone who is intentionally trying to spin your words....what do you call a person who repeatedly does that??? 

Gotta love negative clowns that love coming here just to put down and argue about the same thing every day, instead of acting like little bitches and just leaving this site like grown men and going somewhere that has fellow negative clowns like a negativity clinic, they stay here spinning hate and negativity all daily every day. Especially our resident unhinged poster who just who doesnt like being called out and gets protection, but probably owns more trump gear then anybody here.

@ABooksNightmare

It is in the spirit of debate/discussion to engage with what the person stated/wrote/thinks that you have an issue with.

Not to turn it into something you want to discuss first that you have an issue with.  Both people could agree with the second topic but still disagree with the first topic.

Most folks cannot focus on multiple things at once.  That is why it is so important in public forums, or private ones, to not scattershot your responses.

It clouds the discussion and the initial question never fully gets addressed -- let alone resolved.

It doesn't get resolved because that's the intent of most of the posters here are led by one mythical character who wants to tell you that your ideas are horrible and offended all these various groups when you actually never stated that at all....does it all the time...did it with me with the whole women not being able to vote until I stopped discussing because he thinks women have to have their birth certificate changed when they get married, when that is not even a thing...it was then I realized that I had been discussing an issue with someone who doesn't even know the reality but thinks voter ID will suppress women....I mean, anyone that thinks that there is no way to have a rational discussion with them because they simply just want to be against everything that is thrown out there....immediately after that discussion he started in with you and was very accusatory about facts that were not said but insisted they were....the pattern of behavior is borderline crazy and he does it with you, he does it with me, he does it with barb, he does it with mugg, he does it with rush and he does it with others, but the pattern is very easy to see and has been brewing for years....he just wants to talk shit to you and act like he isn't doing the exact same thing he claims others are doing...he's perfect and everyone else he dislikes is wrong....it's a bit delusional at this point, kind of like thinking women who get married have to change their name on their actual birth certificate to get verification to vote....that's just silly and not rational... 

Good luck bro...more power to you for putting up with that...

@cd329

At least he does not solely resort on insults and personal attacks unlike you. When someone references OTHERS words and does not preface such, it muddles conversation and dialogue. There are other members who quote other sources but they  PREFACE it before doing so. Raiders mixes up his stuff with others and then backs out of his actual words by saying he was quoting someone else.

Yeah...but at least he is above your personal attacks and insults, he gives content some effort which is admirable.

@Raiders22

 It is muddled because the intent of this thread is about WAR and being against it, that is the title and obvious subject of the thread so if you start hypothesizing and theorizing something with ZERO historic fact, what do you think is going to happen? Your pal does the same thing, ignore actual reality and fact by glossing over some wish and hope and fake narrative about why this happened. This to me is just partisan cover and since that is pretty much all you have done here, what conclusion should be drawn? I rarely if ever see you go non-partisan and state what is actually happening and what is truth not theorizing what poofy glorious outcome MIGHT come, that is the methodology of the GOP to validate wars. The last 3 times there has been an event like THIS where we had to go in with military citizens with big boy bombs and heavy weapons THIS has been the same tired song and dance. 

I know you are old enough to recall CIA Bush and those lies, I would imagine we are close to similar age, I had several national guard co-workers get called up and serve there and when they came back they gave the scoop that the media did not and that Bush did not and back then the media was not at or in front of the propaganda lies that Bush spun, the entire premise for the Gulf War was based on lies and this came to proof much longer down the path. Same with BushLite, his reasons were lies and fraud just like his dad. This Iran WAR is the exact blue print so for anyone who has lived long enough and is smart enough to  THINK, this wishy washy hope and believe what the POTUS says is just not going to work anymore. You need PROOF not hope and pixie dust. All of your replies here neglect reality and facts for the region and are based on I dunno your sources who are either partisan or deeply out of touch to surmise that the "armada" is HOPING for a benefit, in what decade has Iran ever given the idea that they can be warred to death and everything will magically be wonderful? Iran is likely the toughest most determined and strong willed of any country in the region, the happy endings farce did not work in Iraq which IS a completely different and softer country and it will for sure not work with Iran. You can theorize and hope and wish all you like, not saying you cannot but there is zero fact, proof or reasoning to support this and even up to now they have shown resolve and your guy is annoyed with this fact.

@ABooksNightmare

 it was then I realized that I had been discussing an issue with someone who doesn't even know the reality

immediately after that discussion he started in with you and was very accusatory about facts that were not said but insisted they were

This is what people reflexively do.  This is done even in formal debates and discussions.  Before you know it you are discussing something that has very little relation to the topic.  That is why a lot of times you are asked to have an opening statement that lays out your points before you start and counters to the topic.

But online it is a little different.

Sometime it is because folks are just more comfortable about the topic they are wanting to discuss -- or find it more interesting.

But, you are correct, that even 'professionals' do this.  You will see it when they are not prepared for what you counter with.

But, as I always tell folks -- you can simply conced those points if they have nothing to so with your overall point.

For example, in this instance I have not expressed any opinion about the war itself.

So, there is nothing wrong with simply conceding that point and addressing the armada question and the other countries possible relations.

Then the opposing side could concede that and say -- can we now discuss the war overall and what your thoughts are on that?

It is NOT a win-lose situation.  Too many people approach it that way.

You should stay on topic as much a possible until that is deadended or resolved and then move to the next topic.

@wallstreetcappers

  It is muddled because the intent of this thread is about WAR and being against it,

No problem.  That is why I explained at least three times what I was answering.

American politics is binary,  you vote for A or B.  In this case Trump or Kamala.

I'm one of those Trump voters.  On the domestic front,  I am getting what I expected, not what I wanted.  Disruption and a roll back or at least a speed bump that slows down the marxist woke mind virus.  It's always been unfortunate that Trump is too disorganized or too lazy to engage in the hard job of politics and institutional reform.  But there is good reason to believe that our politics and culture are too far down the road for that sort of thing.  Disruption and breakage is probably the best we can hope for.

On the Foreign Policy front,  one hoped we were voting for a "no war" president in contrast to the "more war" Biden administration.  That was only a hope, since Trump never explicitly said that he favored the founders "no foreign entanglements" advice.  Evidence to the contrary were always there in his Marvel Comic book framing of the world.  But American politics is binary.  You get A or B.

So no surprise, but disappointment:  I'm happy with most of the domestic program and hate most of his foreign policy.  Unfortunately his failure in Foreign Policy will probably undo anything he accomplished on the domestic side.

Arguments can be made for and against the war in Iran.

There are no real arguments that can be made about the fact that he started a war without preparing the country for a major commitment to winning with the possibility of thousands of casualties, years of effort and trillions of dollars in expense.  He gambled on a short quick win because in his and his advisors view all men everywhere are a species of "Financial-Man" where all decisions boil down to debit and credits on the balance sheet and income statement.  He gambled while embracing ignorance towards any consideration of the risks and assumptions the gamble was based on.  He took a leap into the unknown without considering the consequences of a failure of Plan A and without doing anything to prepare the country.

However, I don't think you should be too disappointed about Trump going into Iran...after all, he made NO SECRET about restraining or restricting Iran specifically...he stated on numerous occasions, "No Nukes for Iran" so, I see him as following through on that even though I would have been happier with no new war.

seems to b  what  the crime boss wants 

And yet you continue to berate him on writings that were never said....good comeback...you intentionally twist words to start friction and then you have berated him on multiple occasions in here about things he never said just to make him look bad and how awful he is....you won't even admit that you do this...and he's not the only one you do it to....you carry on about something never said because you think you are the smartest person here and no one will catch the fact that you completely made it up...

You would be the pure definition of clickbait in how you spin conversations in here.....

voter Id would suppress women because they would have a hard time changing their name on their birth certificate after marriage to obtain voter ID....you argued an entire page on that premise.....oh, I know you just want to argue once I saw that....you are arguing with raiders to, and this is the second time in just a couple weeks, on a premise that he said something and offended entire groups of people when he indeed did not...you can't argue with craziness...

It's just attack anyone on the right and anyone they think is on the right even if they are not...it's their go to...not all of them can comprehend logical reasoning instead they have already pinned you as being right so no rational conversation can be had...instead of calling you names, he accused you of saying multiple heinous things you never said and that you offended half the world because this is what woke individuals do....he's not dumb, he is smart, but he plays this game on here for other purposes....he was trying to discredit you and did it a couple of weeks ago to you....by leaps and bounds you are more credible and a critical thinker on here than anyone who tries to spin someone else's words....and you do not always side with the right, which makes categorizing you completely unacceptable....you weigh both sides, which is the correct way, and make informed decisions or pose questions that should make people think....your posts never come from a place of hate, like many here, and so that already puts you ahead of them....   

But again, you have to be a reasonable person to understand that type of thinking....

@nature1970

I see the Supreme Court there was unanimous against expanding Ranked Choice Voting to the Governor, Senate, and House elections.

They said it was against the constitution, that stated a plurality of votes to win, as opposed to a majority of votes.

No idea if you had kept up with this or not.  But very glad to see them take this stance.

@ABooksNightmare

 Of course you understand him and agree because he shares your viewpoint. You have optimism without fact or premise just like he does. There is zero fact or proof to support either contention you two make. There is mountains of proof to the opposite, our Iraq messes are 100% proof of the fallacy about changing that part of the world and it is laughable now as it was then the absurd narratives spun to support all of this crap. There is no happy ending there is no wonderful benefit or expectation of change and if Iraq, Afghanistan has not proven this fact I have no clue what either of you can surmise that is going to be different.

I am not interested in subjective optimism or theory about what MIGHT be and how wonderful this will end up or stealing all the oil all the blabbering Trump muses on about. We will not steal oil there will not be change there will not be democracy there will not be Christianity or rights for women and minorities or golf courses with resort amenities this is not Florida or the Bahamas this is a brutal religious male dominated disaster zone. We are messing with the worst of the worst IMO, Iran is the toughest country and will not be a sloppy pushover like Iraq was. 

What universe do you live in to come up with the outcome as you have stated several times? Are you willing to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to occupy the area for twenty years so that your thesis can come true? This bombing is the soft easy stuff and does not get you to your desired outcome and in fact this broad sweeping bombing and weaponry actually harms those alleged citizens you are concerned with. Now people living there will be in worse condition just like Gaza and Iraq and Lebanon, this bomb dump approach does damage that will take decades if at all to repair and how does this help anyone but Israel?