Trump discusses Iran, names Military Industrial Complex; doesn't want war.

[shakey1]

Seems to all be building up to something tho.

[RonZeplin]

I am not saying he should be taken to Guantanamo bay but if that is what is takes to rid this country of traitorous globalist shylls? then so be it.

+rep

[Zippyjuan]

https://s.abcnews.com/images/Interna...n_16x9_992.jpg

Trump Orders An Additional 1,500 Troops To The Middle East

President Trump has ordered some 1,500 troops to the Gulf region to serve a "mostly protective" purpose for American forces and interests.

Trump made the announcement to reporters on the White House lawn before boarding Marine One.

In a Pentagon briefing on Friday, Director of the Joint Staff Vice Adm. Michael Gilday would not say where the additional troops would be sent, other than that they would not be heading to Iraq and Syria.

Some of the forces have already arrived. A defense system designed to track and destroy incoming missiles, called a Patriot battery, is already in the region, staffed with about 600 troops.

The remaining 900 troops will operate intelligence surveillance radar and drones. A fighter squadron will also be deployed, though no specifics were provided.

The deployment of additional troops comes with the Pentagon's announcement that attacks on four oil tankers, carried out two weeks ago in the Persian Gulf, were the work of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Gilday said the attackers used limpet mines, a type of mine that is attached to a vessel and then detonated.

He also blamed a rocket fired at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad earlier this week on an Iranian proxy. Iran supports Shia militias in Iraq, but the Pentagon did not identify which group had fired the rocket.

There were no reported injuries in either incident.

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told The Washington Post Thursday that the deployments were about deterrence, "not war."

Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 Iran nuclear accord a year ago, and the rhetoric between Tehran and Washington been increasingly belligerent. Iran recently announced that it would accelerate uranium enrichment if other countries don't help it mitigate economic sanctions imposed by the Trump administration.

Also on Friday, members of Congress said the Trump administration is selling more arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates without the usual congressional approval.

Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey who is the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the administration informed Congress that it was invoking an obscure provision to avoid the congressional approval usually required.

"In trying to explain this move, the Administration failed to even identify which legal mechanism it thinks it is using," Menendez said in a statement.

Arms sales to both countries have been criticized as supporting the war in Yemen, in which the Saudi-led coalition has repeatedly killed civilians and stands accused of indiscriminate air strikes.

In his remarks Friday, Trump also discussed the possibility of pardoning military service members charged with war crimes. He told reporters that he hasn't "done anything yet" and was considering issuing pardons for some service members after their courts-martial.

[Swordsmyth]

https://s.abcnews.com/images/Interna...n_16x9_992.jpg

The Pentagon wanted 10,000.

[TheCount]

The Pentagon wanted 10,000.

Hillary wanted 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.


If you do the math, this is actually a negative increase of troops.

[Swordsmyth]

In perhaps the best sign thus far that a potential US war with Iran has been averted (at least for the near term), given the possibility that both heightened saber-rattling and the potential for an "accidental" deadly encounter between IRGC forces and the recent build-up of American deployments could have led to a major conflict, White House National Security Adviser John Bolton himself appears to now be fast climbing down the escalation ladder.
According to Reuters on Thursday Bolton is singing a different tune compared to the war rhetoric of the past weeks since the crisis began: "The threat from Iran is not over but quick action from the United States has helped deter it." This echoes a prior Pentagon statement essentially saying the "clear" Iran threat intelligence against US forces was accurate but that the US carrier and other extra force deployments to the Persian Gulf region thwarted Iran's intentions.
“I don’t think this threat is over, but I do think you can make at least a conditional claim that the quick response and the deployment and other steps that we took did serve as a deterrent,” Bolton told reporters during a visit to London on Thursday.


When pressed over whether he was at odds with President Trump who has repeatedly stated the US is not looking for regime change in Tehran, Bolton responded:

“The policy we’re pursuing is not a policy of regime change. That’s the fact and everybody should understand it that way.”

Bolton even seemed to have backed away from prior statements of defense officials which accused Iran's leaders of having "ordered" attacks on oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz as well as a Saudi oil pipeline in the past weeks.
Late last week an official Pentagon statement said "the leadership of Iran at the highest level" ordered a spate of disruptive attacks.

But now Bolton seems have have introduced more ambiguity, identifying Iran's "surrogates" - and stopping short of prior direct and more aggressive "top leadership" accusations - as possibly behind the attacks. Per Reuters:

Bolton said there was some prospect that evidence Iran was behind attacks this month on oil tankers in the Gulf would be presented to the United Nations Security Council next week.
“I don’t think anybody who is familiar with the situation in the region, whether they have examined the evidence or not, has come to any conclusion other than that these attacks were carried out by Iran or their surrogates,” he said.

Over the past week, following Trump's extended hand for Iran's leaders to "call me," we've seen a consistent deescalation following weeks of dangerous escalation, including threats and counter-threats of military action by both sides.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani reportedly said this week that the "road is not closed" on talks with the US if Washington drops the sanctions and returns to upholding the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) - something not at all likely to happen.


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...eterred-threat

[Swordsmyth]

Bump.

[PAF]

Bump.

Ok. Bump.




29:48 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA)

[Swordsmyth]

Ok. Bump.




29:48 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA)

JCOPA was an illegal and unconstitutional payola to enemies who have been at war with us by a treasonous muslim usurper.

[PAF]

JCOPA was an illegal and unconstitutional payola to enemies who have been at war with us by a treasonous muslim usurper.

Legal, illegal... it is the intention behind it.


Updated Donald Trump On The Record

[TheCount]

You're absolutely right in that he appears to be playing both sides. Despite what they regularly claim, his Trumpkin base seems content so long as he occasionally says what they want to hear, and the neocons are content so long as his actions maintain the status quo.

Still accurate. Trumpkins will never demand action

[TheCount]

JCOPA was an illegal and unconstitutional payola to enemies who have been at war with us by a treasonous muslim usurper.

The best lies are half true.

Yours hold no truth at all, which is why they're so unconvincing.

[jmdrake]

JCOPA was an illegal and unconstitutional payola to enemies who have been at war with us by a treasonous muslim usurper.

https://reason.com/2015/07/19/ron-pa...-nuclear-deal/

Ron Paul, the former Texas congressman who ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 and 2012, has spoken out in support of the deal negotiated between Iran, the U.S., and five other world powers earlier this week.

Paul expressed his support for the deal, which he acknowledged was not perfect, in an interview on Newsmax TV's "Hard Line." Via Newsmax:

Paul told host Ed Berliner that the deal echoed Ronald Reagan's deal with the Soviets in the 1980s. Paul's biggest problem with the deal was that the United States had to work under the confines of the United Nations and NATO.

"There's something to be said about moving in the direction of at least talking to people instead of saying, 'All right, you're scoundrels, we'll keep our $100 billion we've taken from you and all options are on the table, like if you don't do what we tell you, we're allowed to use our nuclear weapons against you,'" Paul said. "The tone has been changed. It's to our benefit; it's to the benefit of world peace."

Paul also pointed out that in its history Iran has never invaded any of its neighbors, though Newsmax notes Iran critics would list Iran's support for militant and rebel groups in the region as a counterargument to that.

Paul didn't appear to mention Mohammed Mossadegh, a democratically-elected Iranian prime minister overthrown in a CIA-backed coup in 1953, though Paul mentioned him often when talking about Iran as a congressman and two time Republican presidential candidate. The coup that overthrew Mossadegh brought back the Shah, an unpopular Iranian leader who was eventually overthrown by a presumably non-CIA-backed coup led by Ayatollah Khomeini and other Islamist extremists. For all of Mossadegh's faults, he was a democratically-elected politician who was not an Islamist extremist. Where Iran would be now had he not been overthrown is an open question, though it's difficult to see how the unpopular Shah would have been able to retake power in Iran without the support of a global superpower like the U.S. Maybe the ayatollahs would've been able to launch a successful coup in 1979 against a democratic Iranian government—it certainly would have been harder than in the conditions that actually existed thanks to reckless U.S. intervention.



Paul's son, Rand, a senator from Kentucky seeking the 2016 Republican nomination, has sounded amenable to negotiations with Iran before but, keeping in line with a troubling lurch rightward on foreign policy, condemned this week's deal and not enough. His lurching hasn't helped—Republicans like South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, another presidential contender, continue to maintain Hillary Clinton, running for the Democratic presidential nomination, would've gotten a better deal with Iran than Rand Paul would be capable of.

Ron Paul called the deal a "gamble" but "the right gamble to make" and not as big a gamble as when Reagan negotiated with the Soviets over weapons.

And what was the reason for Trump giving offensive weapons to Ukraine, something Obama refused to do?

[Swordsmyth]

Legal, illegal... it is the intention behind it.


Updated Donald Trump On The Record

Yes, the intent was to give aid and comfort to the enemy and fund terrorism and war in the middle east.
Trump put a stop to it.

[Swordsmyth]

And what was the reason for Trump giving offensive weapons to Ukraine, something Obama refused to do?

Let them pay to defend themselves instead of having an excuse to get us involved.

[Swordsmyth]

https://reason.com/2015/07/19/ron-pa...-nuclear-deal/

Ron Paul, the former Texas congressman who ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 and 2012, has spoken out in support of the deal negotiated between Iran, the U.S., and five other world powers earlier this week.

Paul expressed his support for the deal, which he acknowledged was not perfect, in an interview on Newsmax TV's "Hard Line." Via Newsmax:

Paul told host Ed Berliner that the deal echoed Ronald Reagan's deal with the Soviets in the 1980s. Paul's biggest problem with the deal was that the United States had to work under the confines of the United Nations and NATO.

"There's something to be said about moving in the direction of at least talking to people instead of saying, 'All right, you're scoundrels, we'll keep our $100 billion we've taken from you and all options are on the table, like if you don't do what we tell you, we're allowed to use our nuclear weapons against you,'" Paul said. "The tone has been changed. It's to our benefit; it's to the benefit of world peace."

Paul also pointed out that in its history Iran has never invaded any of its neighbors, though Newsmax notes Iran critics would list Iran's support for militant and rebel groups in the region as a counterargument to that.

Paul didn't appear to mention Mohammed Mossadegh, a democratically-elected Iranian prime minister overthrown in a CIA-backed coup in 1953, though Paul mentioned him often when talking about Iran as a congressman and two time Republican presidential candidate. The coup that overthrew Mossadegh brought back the Shah, an unpopular Iranian leader who was eventually overthrown by a presumably non-CIA-backed coup led by Ayatollah Khomeini and other Islamist extremists. For all of Mossadegh's faults, he was a democratically-elected politician who was not an Islamist extremist. Where Iran would be now had he not been overthrown is an open question, though it's difficult to see how the unpopular Shah would have been able to retake power in Iran without the support of a global superpower like the U.S. Maybe the ayatollahs would've been able to launch a successful coup in 1979 against a democratic Iranian government—it certainly would have been harder than in the conditions that actually existed thanks to reckless U.S. intervention.



Paul's son, Rand, a senator from Kentucky seeking the 2016 Republican nomination, has sounded amenable to negotiations with Iran before but, keeping in line with a troubling lurch rightward on foreign policy, condemned this week's deal and not enough. His lurching hasn't helped—Republicans like South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, another presidential contender, continue to maintain Hillary Clinton, running for the Democratic presidential nomination, would've gotten a better deal with Iran than Rand Paul would be capable of.

Ron Paul called the deal a "gamble" but "the right gamble to make" and not as big a gamble as when Reagan negotiated with the Soviets over weapons.

Ron was wrong, and the results under O'Bummer/Biden vs. under Trump speak for themselves.

They don't want peace and will take everything you give them and use it to attack you and to spread war and terrorism.
When they change peace might be possible, and then Trump might visit like he did in N. Korea and try to make a lasting peace.

[acptulsa]

Ron was wrong...

... and you think somebody here thinks you're enough smarter than him to know it.

You're more wrong. 100% more wrong than Ron.

[Swordsmyth]

... and you think somebody here thinks you're enough smarter than him to know it.

You're more wrong. 100% more wrong than Ron.

LOL

[acptulsa]

LOL

OK Kamala.



Does the FEC know you're here every morning trying to make your opponent's supporters look like bloodthirsty morons?

[jmdrake]

Let them pay to defend themselves instead of having an excuse to get us involved.

Pay to defend themselves? That's not what happened. They were given $391 million to buy weapons by Trump and they used that money to buy the weapons from American companies.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress...trump-delayed/

So no. Ukraine wasn't "paying to defend itself." Trump delayed the money because he wanted Biden's corruption investigated. I agree with that delay. Biden delayed the money as a favor to Burisma, a company paying his son $80,000 a month, and that needed to be investigated. But nowhere was it in the cards that Ukraine would "pay to defend itself." I'm not sure how you came up with that nonsense.

[jmdrake]

... and you think somebody here thinks you're enough smarter than him to know it.

You're more wrong. 100% more wrong than Ron.

LOL

You missed your calling at the neocon forums.