• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump moment of glory.

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Yet they haven't fired in 60 years. I'd worry more about the tantrums of a loony manchild with nukes than this.
I'll see your looney man child claim and look meaningfully at the incumbent national leader of the only nation on the planet to have ever used nuclear arms in anger. Further, Marvin Jimmyjab is no longer the President of Iran, and even if he were, it's highly arguable as to whether his finger would have ever been "on the button", as it were.

With all due respect, I think your views on this have been a little flavoured by the new American nationalist punditry. With nothing but friendly intent, I suggest you may like to read a bit more widely on the issue, because at present you're (unconsciously, I'm sure) basically repeating misleading demagougic talking points. Like MOST issues, the situation is highly nuanced, and realy does not lend itself to the favourite American practice of reducing it to a righteous good guy vs. Insane bad guy dichotomy.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
  • Republican R. Reagan, with nothing better to do, went to war in Grenada.
  • Republican G. Bush Sr. invaded Iraq (perhaps justifiably).
  • Republican G. Bush Jr. invaded Afghanistan (justifiably).
  • Republican G. Bush Jr. invaded Iraq (totally unjustifiable).
  • Republican D. Trump threatened NK:
  • "The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."
  • Democrat W. Clinton invaded no Country.
  • Democrat B. Obama invaded no Country.
Your comment about Democrats "leading the war cry these days" is truly mystifying to me.
Clinton and Obama initiated plenty of military action of questionable legitimacy, legality and efficacy. Let's not play semantics based on the word "invasion".
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
  • Republican R. Reagan, with nothing better to do, went to war in Grenada.
  • Republican G. Bush Sr. invaded Iraq (perhaps justifiably).
  • Republican G. Bush Jr. invaded Afghanistan (justifiably).
  • Republican G. Bush Jr. invaded Iraq (totally unjustifiable).
  • Republican D. Trump threatened NK:
  • "The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."
  • Democrat W. Clinton invaded no Country.
  • Democrat B. Obama invaded no Country.
Your comment about Democrats "leading the war cry these days" is truly mystifying to me.

In case you miss it ,bill Clinton and Obama did nothing but try to appease other countries and it didn't work, that's why President Trump is having to clean up the mess they left behind.

Democrats are always trying to buy people, in given away in hand outs.
Not like what liberal democrats used to be.

Take for instance liberal democrat President JFK said ( Ask not what your country can do for you, But ask what you can do for your Country)
A big, big, big difference between what democrats once stood for, than what democrats of to day are doing., Nothing but hand outs, and trying to buy off other countries, but as it is, It didn't work and we have North Korea for that proof of evidence.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Oxford English Dictionary defines return as,
“Give, put, or send (something) back to a place or person.”

return | Definition of return in English by Oxford Dictionaries
You intentionally bolded only that part that suited your argument and completely ignored the operative word which I will now put in RED for you.



Oxford English Dictionary defines return as,
“Give, put, or send (something) back to a place or person.”

return | Definition of return in English by Oxford Dictionaries

I can give you something you never had or I can return (give back) something that was yours.

But then, perhaps when you give someone a present you are in the habit of just returning what they gave you last year. Perhaps that's why you don't understand the difference.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Well if you can not tell the difference between what is real and what is not real.
really feel sorry for you.
More insults rather than straight answers? Why? How do you think that helps anyone?

I'm pretty sure I can tell real news from fake, but YOU'RE the one making the claims here, so I'm asking YOU how YOU do it. See the difference? I'm trying to have a polite conversation with you, I'm at a loss as to why you feel the need to insult and obfuscate.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
In case you miss it ,bill Clinton and Obama did nothing but try to appease other countries and it didn't work, that's why President Trump is having to clean up the mess they left behind.

Democrats are always trying to buy people, in given away in hand outs.
Not like what liberal democrats used to be.

Take for instance liberal democrat President JFK said ( Ask not what your country can do for you, But ask what you can do for your Country)
A big, big, big difference between what democrats once stood for, than what democrats of to day are doing., Nothing but hand outs, and trying to buy off other countries, but as it is, It didn't work and we have North Korea for that proof of evidence.
Um... no. Just about all of this is wrong. But whatever. Clearly you're more interested in insulting people than learning anything contrary to your established world view.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
More insults rather than straight answers? Why? How do you think that helps anyone?

I'm pretty sure I can tell real news from fake, but YOU'RE the one making the claims here, so I'm asking YOU how YOU do it. See the difference? I'm trying to have a polite conversation with you, I'm at a loss as to why you feel the need to insult and obfuscate.

What do you mean by insults, there's no insults in saying to check out the Media News Networks. See who's lying and who's telling the truth.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
What do you mean by insults, there's no insults in saying to check out the Media News Networks. See who's lying and who's telling the truth.
Last time I'll ask, how do YOU determine who's lying and who's telling the truth? Perhaps you'd like to give some specific examples of news networks "lying", and the evidence you used to determine it?
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
I don't like false dichotomies, but in this case "either give Iran their money back (or something of similar value), OR be prepared to deal with a nuclear armed Iran in the near future" seem the two likely options. If you can think of another option, I'm interested to hear it.
Let's clarify a few things about the "$400 million"... (my emphases)

5 Things You Need to Know About the $400 Million America Sent to Iran
A stronger argument is that the U.S. had to make a big payment to Iran because of a 35-year-old deal for weapons that were never received. It wasn’t a matter of if, but when and how much. Washington was worried that the tribunal would impose a payment of several billion dollars, as Tehran demanded, and grabbed the opportunity to settle for the $1.7 billion as part of a overall pact at the same time Iran was benefiting from the nuclear agreement.
...
Sick concedes that the deal did “let the Iranian hardliners say they got something in the nuclear deal. Iran was happy to get the cash back. Perhaps that made it easier for them to give up the prisoners, I don’t know.” He doesn’t believe the three teams of negotiators were working together. “The negotiations for the hostages were totally separate channels, and handled by the Swiss,” he says.
Better yet, read the entire article.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Let's clarify a few things about the "$400 million"... (my emphases)

5 Things You Need to Know About the $400 Million America Sent to Iran
A stronger argument is that the U.S. had to make a big payment to Iran because of a 35-year-old deal for weapons that were never received. It wasn’t a matter of if, but when and how much. Washington was worried that the tribunal would impose a payment of several billion dollars, as Tehran demanded, and grabbed the opportunity to settle for the $1.7 billion as part of a overall pact at the same time Iran was benefiting from the nuclear agreement.
...
Sick concedes that the deal did “let the Iranian hardliners say they got something in the nuclear deal. Iran was happy to get the cash back. Perhaps that made it easier for them to give up the prisoners, I don’t know.” He doesn’t believe the three teams of negotiators were working together. “The negotiations for the hostages were totally separate channels, and handled by the Swiss,” he says.
Better yet, read the entire article.
Yes, but let's not run before we can walk here, huh?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Clinton and Obama initiated plenty of military action of questionable legitimacy, legality and efficacy. Let's not play semantics based on the word "invasion".

How many Americans died as a result of those "military action of questionable legitimacy, legality and efficacy." initiated by Democratic Presidents?

How many Americans died as a result of the "invasions" initiated by Republican Presidents?

Counting dead Americans is not semantics.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
In case you miss it ,bill Clinton and Obama did nothing but try to appease other countries and it didn't work, that's why President Trump is having to clean up the mess they left behind.
<snip>
Nothing but hand outs, and trying to buy off other countries, but as it is, It didn't work and we have North Korea for that proof of evidence.
See post #132 above.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Perhaps. Do consider Trump is attempting to play to Kim's ego with that video.
I definitely consider that, but the problem simply is that even if this is the case he operates out of a double-standard.

For example, whereas he condemned Obama's connection with Havana, he was secretly trying to secure funding to build a resort in Cuba, which was a violation of the law at that time.

Schmoozing can work to a point, no doubt, but Trump does much the same with other tyrants, such as Putin, Xi, Duterte (tyrannical leader of the Philippines that has had thousands arrested and killed), etc.

In his coauthored autobiography, Trump says his father constantly drilled into him that he is the byproduct of German warriors and kings, therefore he should both respect that heritage and use it for himself. To me, that explains a lot.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Please, give me an example of this real news.

What about the IG finding of former FBI director Comey broke protocol in the investigation of Hillary Clinton E-mails.
Watch Comey goes talking bringing down Hillary Clinton, Obama,
Loretta Lynch former AG, Comey will not take all the heat, Comey will let it all out. Stay Tune

Why is it always liberal democrats who are under investigation.
That there's a total fall out over the IG Report.
It's all coming down on liberal democrats criminal of corruption.
It will all lead right back to Obama, stay tuned.
But watch CNN, NBC, CBS and other news stations try to cover it all up.

Why is it that Foxnews does the best of putting out good and honest news and has the highest Ratings of all News Media Networks of putting out the truth than all the others.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
How many Americans died as a result of those "military action of questionable legitimacy, legality and efficacy." initiated by Democratic Presidents?

How many Americans died as a result of the "invasions" initiated by Republican Presidents?

Counting dead Americans is not semantics.
Goal post shifting. But feel free to count Americans that died in Iraq and Afghanistan under Obama if it makes you feel better.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
  • Republican R. Reagan, with nothing better to do, went to war in Grenada.
  • Republican G. Bush Sr. invaded Iraq (perhaps justifiably).
  • Republican G. Bush Jr. invaded Afghanistan (justifiably).
  • Republican G. Bush Jr. invaded Iraq (totally unjustifiable).
  • Republican D. Trump threatened NK:
  • "The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."
  • Democrat W. Clinton invaded no Country.
  • Democrat B. Obama invaded no Country.
Your comment about Democrats "leading the war cry these days" is truly mystifying to me.

Democrate W.Clinton didn't have to invade , he just gave them money, in hopefully that in the appeasement would please them.

Democrate Obama didn't have to invade,
Obama just bowed down to them showing that he was to weak to stand up to them.
If that didn't work, Obama would just give them money in appeasement.
 
Last edited:
Top