On 1/20/2020 at 11:58 AM, Exilerunner said:

I disagree. I have seen lots of people in the Philippines speaking nothing but Tagalog even though it is supposed to be their primary language in school. I have seen many Thais speaking better English ...

In your dreams. The Philippines has more English speaking people than England. The Philippines is number 4 in the world for the most English speakers.  

They run their emergency (flashing) lights even when they are just transporting someone from one hospital to another. It is not an emergency, not much different than a taxi ride. The public knows this, that is probably why they don't treat it the same way as in the Western world. Make them not use the flashing lights unless it is a bona fide emergency.

On 1/9/2020 at 7:47 AM, neeray said:

That old saying, "you can't make this sh*t up"!

Apparently you can. It looks like the Foreign Minister just did!

 

IMO, no way did USA give little Thailand a heads up about the drone strike.

Why would they? It's not like Thailand is a major player in world events.

17 minutes ago, billd766 said:

So 80 US troops were killed and we have to accept your unsubstantiated word and that of a Philippine news agency against that of the rest of the world that it happened.

 

If it did happen, then the USAF would be flying out to collect the body bags to return to the US for burial. I assume that the nest of kin would have been informed and ordered to remain silent for ever.

 

If those 80 servicemen had been killed, every person on the base, US forces, contractors and Iraqi military would have known  and it would have leaked onto the social media very quickly.

To

Even Trump would have known and his Twittering fingers and thumbs would be working overtime telling the world and planning? a huge airstrike on Iran's 52 sites that are already targeted.

 

BTW, just how did YOU get classified information from intel sources

The troll has have no military Intel sourses. 

12 minutes ago, stevenl said:

First of all you're avoiding the point made. You claimed ' Iran doesn't need to invade Iraq. Iraq is pretty much a satellite country for Iran now. ', then you said ' Can you show me where I stated that Iran controlled Iraq? '.  See your first quote.

 

Secondly, you think it is ok for the US to stay in a country if the country tells the US to go away? Because the Iraqi PM certainly has the power to tell that to the US.

 

But at least you're honest and open about one thing: this is about control of the oil.

According to the 2005 Iraqi constitution, there is question if the interim Prime Minister has the authority to expel U.S. troops. 

Plus under the 2014 agreement, the Iraqi government requested the U.S. remain in country for security measures. Again, the Prime Minister does not overrule the Iraqi parliament. Plus, since most of the Iraqi parliament is controlled by one factional group, the Kurds and other minority religious and ethnic groups are not included in any votes. The U.S. doesn't put any credence on their rulings. 

 You may not agree with it, but that is the way it is.

Being a "pretty much" a satellite country doesn't make one part of a country. You can deny all you want that their are not proxy groups in Iraq that answer to Iran. But that would be naive. 

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I asked you how Iran was going to take control of Iraqi oil. By invasion? Here was your reply:

"Iran doesn't need to invade Iraq. Iraq is pretty much a satellite country for Iran now."

So, if Iraq is "pretty much a satellite country" why hasn't Iran already taken control of the Iraqi oil fields? For that matter, why hasn't Iraq long since asked the US to leave?

It's pretty plain to see that Iran has not taken control of the Iraqi oil fields because the U.S. is there. Under an agreement between the U.S. and Iraq. The oil revenue is to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. So, in this case, as of right now the U.S. isn't about to let Iran take control as long as U.S. troops are stationed there. Also, don't forget. The majority of the holdings are companies from the UK. 

 I believe the U.S. will leave Iraq if the government so demands. That does not include the Iraqi prime minister. Since he has no power to tell the Americans to leave.

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

As I pointed out, you claimed Iran controlled Iraq. So, if that's the case, why haven't they already carried out their nefarious plans for petroleum?

And because Soleimani could travel freely and met with a high ranking official, therefore Iran controls Iraq? That is your standard of proof? More nonsense.

Since the U.S. is oil independant and doesn't need Mid East oil, who is going to assure the rest of the world gets the oil they need if and when the U.S. leaves the Middle East? Because as soon as the U.S. leaves Iraq, it is a sure bet that Iran will take over and control the Iraqi oil. They will then be in a position to upset the Saudi oil production. Those dependant on Mid East oil will have to pay the price that Iran dictates from then on. 

Can you show me where I stated that Iran controlled Iraq? I said, they will control Iraqi Oil fields if and when the U.S. leaves Iraq.

But, nice try.

10 minutes ago, chokrai said:

If and when the US leaves Iraq there will be a civil war that will last years. 

I agree.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

So, if that's the case, why aren't they doing it already? Such nonsense.

 

Such nonsense? What planet are you living on? Why is that Qassem Soleimani could come and go at Baghdad airport so freely? Why was he with a high ranking Iraqi official when he was taken out? 

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's a sure bet? Really? How is Iran going to do that. Invade Iraq? It's got enough problems there already. But let's say you're correct? It's gotten a lot more likely that Iraq will order the US to leave given that Trump had assassinated not only Soleimani but a high-ranking military member of the Iraqi government as well.

Iran doesn't need to invade Iraq. Iraq is pretty much a satellite country for Iran now. 

4 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Lots of theories spoken as facts... You sound like you certainly hope Iran wins. The quicker the better with the election coming up. Let's watch the world opinion on Iran change as suspicions are becoming stronger about that plane being shot down. Refusing to hand over the black box isn't a sexy optic. 

 

 

Since the U.S. is oil independant and doesn't need Mid East oil, who is going to assure the rest of the world gets the oil they need if and when the U.S. leaves the Middle East? Because as soon as the U.S. leaves Iraq, it is a sure bet that Iran will take over and control the Iraqi oil. They will then be in a position to upset the Saudi oil production. Those dependant on Mid East oil will have to pay the price that Iran dictates from then on. 

4 hours ago, beechguy said:

They listened to Iranian news, nobody else reported any casualties. This was just a little temper tantrum to satisfy the Jihadis.

Iran also claimed to have sent a second volley of missiles, which we know is not true.

16 hours ago, ezzra said:

Many in America are ignorant when it comes to world affairs and will not be able to point to where Iran is on the world map, many American things that the US should not meddle in other countries affairs, but those people doesn't realise that it doesn't work that way and if the US want to remain a superpower, it have and must get itself involved or troubles even at costs of US soldiers or troubles will find their ways to their doorsteps wherever they are and whether they like it or not...

Really? I would bet that you are wrong. How many Americans have been to the Middle East? How many of their family members have kept track of where they are or where they have been? My guess is way more than most other countries. You are forgetting the hundreds of thousands of military and civilian contractors.

On 1/7/2020 at 1:02 PM, jany123 said:

International and US law makes it illegal to assassinate state leaders, which this general was deemed to be.... maybe that’s not a part of German law

 

This assassination reminds me of arch duke franky Ferdinand.... and look how that worked out. A match thrown on gasoline.

He was a soldier on Iraqi soil, which is still a combat zone. He wasn't assassinated. He was killed just like any other enemy soldier. Do you not thin Mussolini would not have been killed if he was spotted in Paris during WWII?

Not so!

1 hour ago, beechguy said:

This is on par with Palestinian kids throwing rocks at Israelis. The morons in the news media will try to make this a big deal, but it's not really. I hardly ever spent a night at Al Assad or Tikrit with out incoming fire of some kind, and almost every round hit in the dirt.

Those were rocket or mortars. Iran has fired surface to surface ballistic missiles. That is a game changer. 

23 hours ago, ballpoint said:

We've seen this type of thing before.  Trump accusing his "enemies" of something that he has either done, or will do, himself:

"In media appearances prior to the 2012 election, Donald Trump repeatedly predicted that then-President Barack Obama would start a war with Iran in order to win reelection".

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/03/politics/kfile-trump-obama-2012-iran-war-reelection/index.html

 

And, as for effectively declaring war on Iran without Congressional approval, well we've seen what happens when presidents try to do that as well.  In 2013 Obama asked for approval to launch strikes on Syria following the sarin gas attacks there.  The Republican controlled Congress denied it, and furthermore warned him that only Congress has the power under the Constitution to declare war (which is correct), and he would be up for impeachment if he were to bypass them in doing so.  I can't wait for Trump's 2020 campaign slogan, "Hypocrisy?  You know it makes sense!"  

 

Trump hasn't declared war on Iran. Though Iran might see it that way. He only killed a scum sucking terrorist.

On 12/31/2019 at 7:01 AM, tonray said:

Much of the blame rests on the US. Driving down interest rates and slowing macro economic data. If the US President was not openly calling for negative rates AND the FED not embarking on a policy of appeasment during what they claim is the best economy and job market ever we would have a stronger dollar. 

So I guess it is OK for other nations to have low interest rates. But, if the U.S. does it, it is the fault of the U.S. that you are getting a bad baht rate? 

  The real reason is that US interest rates are the highest among developed nations, and developed nations are lowering their interest rates even further. The United States' 10-year bond yield, which is the first mover for all domestic interest rates, is also the highest among those of other developed countries, and this is the reason why the Fed cannot keep the current level of interest rates.

18 hours ago, Sujo said:

She already has. Mitch has softened his stance. Its also driving trump crazy because he wants all the bells and whistles which is also putting pressure on mitch.

 

the longer she delays the more she will get.

Mitch McConnell wants the Bidens on the stand. 

On 12/23/2019 at 7:39 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Be assured Mitch McConnell doesn’t want to go near the impeachment trial.

 

How many ‘game plays’ has he proposed already?

 

And in the background court battles continue to gain access to/deny access to more evidence and more witnesses to more crimes.

 

Sure Mitch, we know you don’t want any of this, but you have no choice in the matter.

Sure he does. He runs the Senate, not Pelosi!

On 12/23/2019 at 5:30 AM, Bluespunk said:

If yours is so strong why are you scared to allow new witnesses?

Why should they? The Dems have no leverage. 

8 hours ago, marf said:

You do know that in the last 60 years, the Democrats have tried impeachment after the election of every president they didn't like - i.e. all the republican ones...

Well, almost correct. Gerald Ford is the only one they didn't go after.