One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Could Have Been Is Profoundly Different Than Eminent, Esper Saw No Evidence Of Eminent
Page: 1 2 next>>
Jan 12, 2020 18:00:11   #
woodguru
 
So here we have the secretary of defence saying he saw no evidence of an eminent threat...

This is a big deal, that was not defense it was an act of war. Given the lack of credibility in regards to the lack of eminent threat prevention many who subscribe to the Geneva Convention and the rules civilized countries play by it was a war crime. Then given the lack of real reasons to do this when he did, it forced the accidental error that is a result of being in a retaliatory mode in response to an act of war.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2020 18:08:08   #
Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!
 
woodguru wrote:
So here we have the secretary of defence saying he saw no evidence of an eminent threat...

This is a big deal, that was not defense it was an act of war. Given the lack of credibility in regards to the lack of eminent threat prevention many who subscribe to the Geneva Convention and the rules civilized countries play by it was a war crime. Then given the lack of real reasons to do this when he did, it forced the accidental error that is a result of being in a retaliatory mode in response to an act of war.
So here we have the secretary of defence saying he... (show quote)


I watched them storming the Embassy on t.v.
They were not handing out cookies and milk.
What were they watching?

| Reply
Jan 12, 2020 18:11:22   #
Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone
 
woodguru wrote:
So here we have the secretary of defence saying he saw no evidence of an eminent threat...

This is a big deal, that was not defense it was an act of war. Given the lack of credibility in regards to the lack of eminent threat prevention many who subscribe to the Geneva Convention and the rules civilized countries play by it was a war crime. Then given the lack of real reasons to do this when he did, it forced the accidental error that is a result of being in a retaliatory mode in response to an act of war.
So here we have the secretary of defence saying he... (show quote)


Let me understand your position, if I understand correctly, it is fine with you if our embassies are stormed and Americans are murdered. Further, you believe that the POTUS is directly responsible for the training, discipline, and actions of muslim military. Interesting....

| Reply
Jan 12, 2020 18:13:43   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
woodguru wrote:
So here we have the secretary of defence saying he saw no evidence of an eminent threat...

This is a big deal, that was not defense it was an act of war. Given the lack of credibility in regards to the lack of eminent threat prevention many who subscribe to the Geneva Convention and the rules civilized countries play by it was a war crime. Then given the lack of real reasons to do this when he did, it forced the accidental error that is a result of being in a retaliatory mode in response to an act of war.
So here we have the secretary of defence saying he... (show quote)


It's imminent, not eminent. Eminent means important, high-ranking, esteemed, etc.
You don't even know what you are saying and if you don't know what you mean neither can anyone else. You can't express what you don't know, so you keep making things up as you go.

This doesn't sound like he was saying he saw no evidence of an imminent threat.

On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said in a statement that Soleimani was planning an attack that had been just days away at the time.

“I think it’s more fair to say days, for sure,” Esper said. “[Soleimani] was clearly on the battlefield, he was conducting and preparing, planning military operations, he was a legitimate target and his time was due.”

On Thursday morning, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Mark Milley, told senators in a briefing that the terror mastermind had been planning a “near term attack.”

“Any Senator who left the briefing on #Iran & claims #Soleimani wasn’t planning a near term attack on Americans is calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Milley a liar. Because Gen. Milley stated clearly & firmly that Soleimani was about to kill Americans.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2020 18:16:53   #
EL Loc: Massachusetts
 
woodguru wrote:
So here we have the secretary of defence saying he saw no evidence of an eminent threat...

This is a big deal, that was not defense it was an act of war. Given the lack of credibility in regards to the lack of eminent threat prevention many who subscribe to the Geneva Convention and the rules civilized countries play by it was a war crime. Then given the lack of real reasons to do this when he did, it forced the accidental error that is a result of being in a retaliatory mode in response to an act of war.
So here we have the secretary of defence saying he... (show quote)


So......what are you saying?

| Reply
Jan 12, 2020 18:25:23   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
EL wrote:
So......what are you saying?


He doesn't know what he's saying. It sounds like he is parroting something he heard from the Democratic party because he doesn't know the difference between imminent and eminent.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2020 18:45:03   #
Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas
 
woodguru wrote:
So here we have the secretary of defence saying he saw no evidence of an eminent threat...

This is a big deal, that was not defense it was an act of war. Given the lack of credibility in regards to the lack of eminent threat prevention many who subscribe to the Geneva Convention and the rules civilized countries play by it was a war crime. Then given the lack of real reasons to do this when he did, it forced the accidental error that is a result of being in a retaliatory mode in response to an act of war.
So here we have the secretary of defence saying he... (show quote)




He's dead, sorry one of your hero's got Trumped.......but he's as dead as this rehashed thread..

Find something new that offends you, slow twitter week or something?

| Reply
Jan 12, 2020 19:53:45   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
woodguru wrote:
So here we have the secretary of defence saying he saw no evidence of an eminent threat...

This is a big deal, that was not defense it was an act of war. Given the lack of credibility in regards to the lack of eminent threat prevention many who subscribe to the Geneva Convention and the rules civilized countries play by it was a war crime. Then given the lack of real reasons to do this when he did, it forced the accidental error that is a result of being in a retaliatory mode in response to an act of war.
So here we have the secretary of defence saying he... (show quote)
Yessir, turning a Muslim terrorist into Hadji Hamburger is an act of war. This one was a preemptive strike. Kill the SOB before he kills another thousand people. This particular subhuman cockroach has been killing Americans and others, including Sunni Muslims, for 40 years.

Iran was handed a tube of rotting Shiite Salami that once was a murdering thug and they can't even bury it without 50 or 60 of their own people trampling themselves to death.

American gunslingers sent Ali and the mullahs a strong message. So, what are they going to do now? Are they going to take on the US military in an all out gun fight? They are going to need a hell of a lot of help with that one. Maybe your good buddy Putin could give them a hand, he's been accommodating in that respect.

Or, did the delivery of a card board box half full of Muslim mince meat give them pause? They definitely have something to think about.

It is no surprise that you and the "Death to America" crowd are on the same page.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2020 21:04:24   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Pennylynn wrote:
Let me understand your position, if I understand correctly, it is fine with you if our embassies are stormed and Americans are murdered. Further, you believe that the POTUS is directly responsible for the training, discipline, and actions of muslim military. Interesting....


By all means, protect the embassies...

| Reply
Jan 12, 2020 21:18:22   #
Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
By all means, protect the embassies...


When I said embassies, I had in mind our people. I don't think I was too clear on that point...sorry for any confusion I may have caused. I also think we need to find an alternative to fossil fuel immediately so we can cut these people out of Wall Street and foreign aid.

| Reply
Jan 13, 2020 01:35:24   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Pennylynn wrote:
When I said embassies, I had in mind our people. I don't think I was too clear on that point...sorry for any confusion I may have caused. I also think we need to find an alternative to fossil fuel immediately so we can cut these people out of Wall Street and foreign aid.


My point was that if an embassy is attacked, then those striking the embassy should be eliminated...

Seems to me that the Iranian are already sanctioned... Perhaps lifting the sanctions and allowing them opportunity to prosper as a member of the International community is a route that will pay better dividends...

| Reply
Jan 13, 2020 02:05:32   #
Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
My point was that if an embassy is attacked, then those striking the embassy should be eliminated...

Seems to me that the Iranian are already sanctioned... Perhaps lifting the sanctions and allowing them opportunity to prosper as a member of the International community is a route that will pay better dividends...


Apparently the UN agrees with you, they enacted an updated blocking statute on 7 August 2018 to nullify US sanctions on countries trading with Iran.

| Reply
Jan 13, 2020 02:42:04   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Pennylynn wrote:
Apparently the UN agrees with you, they enacted an updated blocking statute on 7 August 2018 to nullify US sanctions on countries trading with Iran.


That could be an interesting olive branch. Lift sanctions, then when Iran no longer has reason to object, but attacks us, even with proxies, we fix this mess, once and for all. Naw, it won't work. You can't deal with terrorists and irrational governments. I feel sorry for Iranians stuck with the theocratic government and despot leaders. One would hope they could see their way to becoming part of the global community and not the Islamists fringe.

| Reply
Jan 13, 2020 02:44:43   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
My point was that if an embassy is attacked, then those striking the embassy should be eliminated...

Seems to me that the Iranian are already sanctioned... Perhaps lifting the sanctions and allowing them opportunity to prosper as a member of the International community is a route that will pay better dividends...


Does anyone else think this would be possible? I think Trump and the rest of the world would be ecstatic if this could happen!

I was kind of hoping that Trump and Kim Jong Un would have their summit in Vietnam, seeing how far Vietnam has come, and N. Korea would see the wisdom of abandoning their nuclear ambitions in exchange for joining the global community to help their citizens become prosperous. N. Korea is so insecure that our guarantee to not overthrow or push for a regime change might have been enough to break the ice. That would have been a great signal to Iraq that they could achieve the same result.

| Reply
Jan 13, 2020 03:08:58   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
My point was that if an embassy is attacked, then those striking the embassy should be eliminated...

Seems to me that the Iranian are already sanctioned... Perhaps lifting the sanctions and allowing them opportunity to prosper as a member of the International community is a route that will pay better dividends...
dtucker300 wrote:
Does anyone else think this would be possible? I think Trump and the rest of the world would be ecstatic if this could happen!
At 06:00 in this speech after the drone strike, president Trump did exactly that.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2020 IDF International Technologies, Inc.