Need Trump Tweet Explained-Possible Iran Attack

It’s all some people have. “Monkeys Flinging Poo at The Zoo”.

Off topic one time only.

With the way events have unfolded since the Kurds declared independents would you still make the same arguments today we had in that thread?

Yes. They should not have done it. They were offered an almost independent defacto government. But they went all out with something that couldn’t be tolerated. And the Iraqi federal government had to respond. Which is why the Kurds lost control of wide swaths of important territory in Iraq. Kirkuk, Sinjar, Tuz Khurmatou. Places they held and took while the Iraqi government fell before ISIL. Horrible strategic decision. So no. I have not changed my opinion. Was so frustrated when they did that.

Last diversion. Your argument at the time was that we couldn’t afford to anger the Turks.\

I would think by now you’ve reversed yourself on that.

That needs to be more specific. I’m sure I talked about how an independent Iraqi Kurdistan would cause all kinds of problems with Turkey. History since has backed that up.

Not really, unfortunately I can’t find the original thread but i’m looking.

I don’t mind talking about this. I believe my goals and concerns have been consistent over the years. But I always enjoy talking about a topic that we should care more about. But we can start a new thread on Kurds in the middle east. Or add to the Kurds in Syria thread.

Let me just keep digging, I hate thread derailments and they are a violation.

EDTA: Looking at the calendar it must have been on the old format.

When there’s less hate flying around we can bring it up again.

Just to be clear, you’re randomly trying to find what?

Kurdish Independence Thread. It was 2017 and I think that was on the old format.

And I’m sure I’m consistent. My views on Kurds in Iraq and Syria and our support for rebels in Syria havent changed over the years even with the change in administrations. I still am one of the few that follows on a daily basis.

1 Like

But isn’t that exactly what Iran wants. If we simply take our ball and go home, they win. They would then be free to do anything they want in the Middle East.

It means the President believes Iran or it’s proxies are about to attack our troops in Iraq and if they do, he’ll deliver Iran a heavy military blow. This seems simple enough.

1 Like

No it’s not. If he’s using an unusual legal phrase normally used to protect one from perjury when talking about a possible attack by Iran or their proxies, it’s not that simple.

In my world, I attempt to take complex things…and simplify them. I’ve not witnessed too many like yourself take something simple…and attempt to make it complex? What ever though…carry on. :sunglasses:

It’s an entirely retarded purely partisan premise to begin with.

These are the same people that told us weekly to get ready for a WTD scenario during impeachment.

No, he can’t be held for perjury period since the statement wasn’t under oath.

He heard someone say it and thought it sounded erudite and cool so he repeated it.

Which is why it’s so weird. I didn’t realize it was a legal expression. If you don’t know that it’s weird. And even if you do it’s weird for him to do that in a tweet. It’s why I needed someone to explain it. And I’m a relatively educated and informed guy. How does that read to most other people though? It’s just odd.

Not really coming from him.

Typical for people with a weak vocabulary and poor writing/speaking skills.