How to go to War for Dummies Part I

@wallstreetcappers

What is my narrative?

What do you think was a fraud and not justified?

@Raiders22

 Your narrative is as it always is to blindly support Trump and to try and find nuances to smooth over this fraud cake he failed to bake.

The fraud is to say they are in the process of making nuclear weapons that they were WEEKS AWAY from making weapons, that is the fraud. The fraud is stepping away from a peaceful and international plan to push forward with a plan to give Israel what it wants. The fraud is to call it an excursion and not a war but to make it so they dont toss Donny into the clink and then say it is over when it is not over to also keep congress from tossing him in the clink. Every bit of this entire farce is a fraud.

Justified is a question you should be answering since your guy took us into a war without a valid reason without using proper protocol and deceiving the US at every turn and doing all and any fancy footwork to try and scheme his way from being stopped.

Why do you ask questions that you know the answers to already? Is it to just try and debate without a real purpose? 

@wallstreetcappers

Your narrative is as it always is to blindly support Trump and to try and find nuances to smooth over this fraud cake he failed to bake.

No it isn’t.  That is a weak assumption to say ‘always’.  
My narrative is never to blindly support anyone, no matter their party.  
It is far more likely to just say that you blindly support anyone Democrat.   Just because you never post against them should not mean that.  

You can say ‘mostly’ or ‘usually’ in those situations, maybe.  But a reasonable person should never fall in the ‘always’ category.

I agree that far more Democrats probably do it today because they simply hate Trump, especially with you guys on here.

But if one is objectively looking at things when deciding what is best for the country they should not blindly ‘always’ agree with any person.

Maybe a lot of folks do not research the subject or do not understand it, so they just naturally go with their party and what their news sources or friends tell them to believe.   
But on critical things they should not do that.  

Because remember that even the ignorant get to vote. 

@wallstreetcappers

 The fraud is to say they are in the process of making nuclear weapons that they were WEEKS AWAY from making weapons, that is the fraud. 

Where are you getting this information from?

@wallstreetcappers

 Justified is a question you should be answering 

No sir.  I should not be answering it.  
It is your statement.

So, first we have to parse through exactly what you mean and are saying to see if I even disagree or not.

Just stop with this crap Raiders...its public info out there being spun to try and frame this garbage. I will stick with my original comment, Raiders=Always this is based pretty much only on the body of your work so spare me the generalizations about those lazy nasty DEMS. Where you fit into the always category is you will never admit what is truth and proof because you cannot it will destroy your narrative.

The proper way to handle this Iran mess is to follow the agreement we entered into WITH Iran not scrap it and cry foul. I would rather the US/UN try and fail 100 times at a peaceful path using the framework that is in place than to just toss it in the Trumpster and start a war.

You continue to deflect from what is known that Netty sold Trump a pile of lies and we entered a fraudulent war and with that decision there should be recourse...this is worse than Watergate and Trump should have been tossed already.

@wallstreetcappers

 Why do you ask questions that you know the answers to already? Is it to just try and debate without a real purpose? 

For clarification.  That is the problem with assumptions.  Why make a statement like you did by ‘assuming’ my stance without making sure first?

Then, you can debate the finer points if you largely disagree on the overall subject.  

That is the purpose.  
That is why it is always done in any setting.  I know this is very informal.  
But you need clarification on your terms and what you are saying to get started.  

Like we always say:  in any debate or discussion, you need to start where you first start to separate it disagree.   
Why start at the end, where you know you disagree strongly and try to work backwards.  
Because it does not work very well and makes for a convoluted discussion.

When YOU question my premise then YOU provide your counter point not go professor questions as you do and try and dominate the conversation. If you feel it is JUSTIFIED where I do not, YOU prove it or just move along. Ive said why I feel it is not justified there is no need to try and play these silly games you do.

YOU prove it is justified, anything less and you might as well pack your bags and move on.

edit) let me stipulate that when I say YOU prove it I am not wanting another droning copy/paste from your pocket experts as I am not looking to refute some faceless partisan hacks the conversation here is with YOU not some whatever nonsense you usually fall back on since you refuse to debate yourself alone.

 @wallstreetcappers

 Just stop with this crap Raiders...its public info out there

Okay, then kindly give two or three sources. 

@wallstreetcappers

Either explain the fraud and what exactly is not justified or pack your bags and move along if you are unable.  

Never forget you started this, yet again.  

You assumed something and you either need to back it up or concede that you once again cannot ever answer questions about anything you say, yet want to pummel someone else with questions.  

So?  Post it?

I gave an opinion and stated how I arrived at the opinion. You on the other hand enter a conversation where you are not part of it and start with the usual condescending nonsense.

If you have a differing view then STATE it, I have to prove nothing to you as I know you are seeking to provoke as you do and are not actually going to engage with your own words to a conversation.

You know the parties who made the claim Raiders... just stop with this idiocy and either state your counter position or just move along. I am not a student you can dictate terms to and this has been discussed in the past. So if you have a point or response please make it and keep this about conversation not your condescending attacks.

My position is that you are wrong.

Until you provide anything backing it up I will just go with the experts that said the opposite of you.

I did not ‘enter a conversation’.  
You can NEVER have a ‘conversation’ with that poster.  
I was just pointing out the post was incorrect.  

But you carry on with your ‘conversation’ — such as it is.

@Raiders22

 Ok so nice job captain obvious you think my position is wrong. Now what is YOUR position?

You could be an adult and state that you disagree and then state WHY you disagree and then what YOUR position is.

This control mech you have is quite a snoozer, if I disagree with you I will not require a research paper from you in order to have a convo about a difference of opinion.

@wallstreetcappers 

 Okay.  Start over at the beginning of where you entered with me just now.

First: Trump stupid withdrawal from 2015 Iran nuclear deal allows Iran to legally enrich uranium. 

Me: False: This claim mixes up cause and effect and misunderstands what the Iran deal did 'legally'.

You: That does not mean we invade even if Trumps obvious pullback from the agreement was to lay the ground work for Israel.

Now tie these three things together.

A claim, a correction of that claim, a political interpretation/speculation.

Do you see how that shifted the topic from a legal claim into a political interpretation/speculation.

It shifts it into at least three separate questions.

1) Was it legal

2) What was/were Trump's motive(s)

3) Should military escalation follow

There is simply no proof that Trump withdrew specifically “to lay the groundwork for Israel”

It comes down to the third statement being politically connected to the first two; but not logically required by them.

#1 and #2 are about factual accuracy and legal accuracy.

#3 is about political inference.

They are related in a subject matter but not all making the same kind of claim.

See the confusion when the three are mixed?

That is why I asked for clarification.

You can assume, or even imply, that you are referencing the earlier posts.  But the clarification needed is about where I posted the reply to the legal nonsense topic.

Hopefully, you can clear that part up first.

If not, we can jump around to the escalation itself.  I just wanted to see exactly what your tie-in was with it, instead of assuming I was agreeing with something I had not even posted about but was disagreeing with something I did post about.

Maybe that clears it up a bit.

Raiders, 

What is the title of this thread and what is the flow of discussion of this thread?

You are entitled to not agreeing with what I stated but you cannot just say I am wrong all Trump style and that your experts and you say so and thus it is so. The groundwork was laid out last year by Trump and several others about Iran and tell me what was going on at the time this scheme was laid out? Who was invading another party during this time and what happened in the flow of the event from that portion to where we are today?

Israel destroys Gaza against the wishes of most all of our ex-allies and continues forward from Gaza into other areas using the Hez excuse then they con Donny into joining this and invading Iran. This the flow of events and if you say otherwise tell me exactly what the FLOW of events were to lead Trump to destroy an agreement made and discard it without making EVERY POSSIBLE EFFORT from a peaceful perspective and using our allies and the actual agreement first?

So if you want to say that Iran broke the agreement thus we can start a war with them, is that what it says in the agreement and is that how as a country we go forward when we have agreements? As I stated above I would rather have 100 failed attempts at working with the framework in place and avoiding war than to just take a Trump dump and in we go to fight Isreals war for them.

Even if the other party allegedly breaks the terms it does not equate to starting an excursion which costs us BILLIONS and likely a Trillion long term and causing the loss of life all because allegedly Iran broke the terms of the agreement.

Why do you guys discuss this ? Trump said almost a year ago that he had destroyed every possibility of Iran making a nuclear bomb - now almost a year later it was a few weeks from being done - so at some point in time he has lied about this - there is no way around that fact - my money is on him lying about it twice (that you haven’t destroyed their ability to make one - but they don’t have any plans of making one to use) - because it is against their religion to even use a nuclear bomb - which in my book is the main reason they haven’t bombed you with one already 

@wallstreetcappers 

What is the title of this thread and what is the flow of discussion of this thread?

I replied to one post, then you replied to that.

You can ask me something separate if you like.  But when you reply directly to the post that I posted -- then I can only assume that is what you have an issue with and not something I was not addressing.

@wallstreetcappers

 You are entitled to not agreeing with what I stated but you cannot just say I am wrong all

I am not sure why you think this?  I asked you what you based it on that you said was public information and you never said.

So, why can I not say you are wrong?  The reports from experts and the folks reporting on it and the analysts came to a very different conclusion.  The evidence now clearly supports their conclusion.

They based their conclusion on apparent facts and things available for quite some time.

What are you basing your opinion on -- other than just, 'I do not like it'?

You have had a conflict with Iran since the late 70’s - the atomic bomb was invented in the 40’s - do you know how small the chance is that they were weeks away from developing it when Trump came into office? - there is a bigger chance that both of you win the lottery back to back without consulting with each other about the numbers to play 

Well, you mentioned TDS right off the bat in post #3 I was just following suit.

First of all I see ground invasion not needed, off the table.

Second, I tend to believe an international team of experts who warned the world that Iran was at 60% enrichment. And I conclude those who ignore these experts.....well.......must have issues.

And I research to understand. https://research.anu.edu.au/research-innovation-news/what-is-uranium-enrichment-and-how-is-it-used-for-nuclear-bombs-a

And all this research says you don't climb that difficult hill to 60% for civilian nuclear power. As the above article states that was the hard part, 90% comes easier. At some point we either deal with it or hope Iran can't do it and ignore it and that I believe is stupid. Hearing that over 150 Russian scientists, engineers, and nuke workers had to evacuate Iran is a bit disturbing too.

High gas prices do hurt but I think Trump is doing the right thing at the right time. Iranian people rose up in January only to get slaughtered. Their inflation is bad. They have a huge water stortage because they have mismanaged their water systems for years. Iran's only leverage ( without nukes) is the Strait of Hormuz and they even bombed Saudi and EAU pipelines that bypass the straits. Squeeze them hard and they will crack.

I had to think twice when I heard Spanky was starting an Escort Service in the Strait. 

Wouldn't put it past him.

And how can you make such a claim? DID NOT AN INTERNATIONAL TEAM WHO INSPECTED IRAN SAY THAT IRAN HAD 60% ENRICHMENT VIOLATING THE TREATY???? 

How does Trump affect your mind so much that you blockout this information?? I find it astounding. Psychologists will be studing this era of human behavior for centuries. WOW!

It is literally against the Koran to use a nuclear bomb - the people you should fear the least of ever using an atomic bomb is fanatic Muslims !

And my answer earlier was pure math and probability calculations - they have had 47 years or 2444 weeks to potentially develop it during an active conflict with you - then you just need to calculate the probability of them making it between week 2445-2447 not before not after - then you have your chance of them being two weeks from developing it - I thought I would save you the time - by saying it is so unlikely - it is close to impossible - but you are free to do the math - I can even find the formal you should use if you interested - and let’s be real - if they want to bomb you with a nuclear bomb - they wouldn’t make it themselves - they would get them from Russia - it is no secret Russia don’t like you guys either