Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

The rockets that killed an American contractor and wounded others were launched from somewhere.

---

"Some people did something" Rep. Ilhan Omar.

---

***?

My point is that Americans died and were injured as the result of rocket attacks. Biden authorized retaliatory strikes. Whether that is an appropriate response and wheter the Americans should have been there in the first place to be attacked are good questions. Pretending that Biden did this to appease the military-industrial complex ignores the dead and injured Americans.

---

What if that was his reason?

The reason matters, because it gives us insight into whether this will lead to fewer or more US casualties later on.

---

Pretty sure Joe Biden has enough on his plate that starting an unnecessary war in the Middle East is slated for fall, late summer at the earliest.

It is killing the people on this board that the American people are gravitating to Biden like we have not experienced since Reagan in the 80s.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

The rockets that killed an American contractor and wounded others were launched from somewhere.

---

"Some people did something" Rep. Ilhan Omar.

---

***?

My point is that Americans died and were injured as the result of rocket attacks.

---

Wait until you find out how they acquired those rockets.

---

Pallets O'Cash? Pls. Advize.

---

US-Middle East Arms contracts.

---

Highly unlikely.

Florda_mike said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

False flag attack then a military conflict to divert attention from something else that was about to happen to Deep State

Never ending cycle

I predicted this a week ago to a friend

Deep State is fixing to be exposed

---

Didn't you also predict the deep state would be exposed January 20th?

---

So has the Deep State not been exposed? All the way to Mike Pence?

So you must be saying I'm right again???

And yes, we created another false flag event here to justify another military intervention

And why? Because hammer was fixing to come down on Deep State/Globalists and a diversion was needed just like I recently predicted to others

It's very predictable when the cabal will do such. In fact, if this doesn't draw enough attention, and probably won't, then a much bigger false flag(Las Vegas type) will soon be required. Noose tightening on Globalist necks by the day and deals are being struck

---

It must be a trip to be this nuts. How many voices do you hear in your head from minute to minute?

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

He's not wrong you know. NOW, your US-Middle East arms deal comment would apply.

bubbadog said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I like striking against Iranian surrogates.

I supported it when Obama did it, when Trump did it and when O'Biden does it

---

I prefer the traditional Republican principle of not involving ourselves in foreign conflicts that have little if any benefit for our security or national interests.

---

Someday I'd like to meet the Republican Party that traditionally held this as a principle. They must have died out before the Cold War. Maybe they can be revived through DNA sequencing, like woolly mammoths.

---

See Reagan. When the neo-cons took over with Bush I and II, indeed it died out. Trump reviving it was one of the good things he did while in office.

His avg approval is about 55. A few have him at about 62. His COVID relief bill has bipartisan support everywhere except Capitol Hill with about a 76% approval rating.

PartyBear said:

---

His avg approval is about 55. A few have him at about 62. His COVID relief bill has bipartisan support everywhere except Capitol Hill with about a 70% approval rating.

---

Might shock you but GHW Bush had a much higher average approval rating than Reagan

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

To recap the consensus of this board:

Three days ago, Biden was soft on Iran, an appeaser who was willing to sell out our "friends," the Saudis, for the sake of reviving the nuclear deal with Tehran.

Now, by striking Iranian proxies in Syria (an action that also has the effect of supporting our Israeli and Kurdish allies), Biden is a dangerous neo-con warmonger.

Makes perfect sense.

---

First, that's your spin bubba, not the 'consensus'. I don't really see a consensus on this issue.

Second, maybe you should pay attention to what people actually post, not write in your spin to claim they say something other than what is really there. We have CNN if we want fiction for news.

Third, I'd like to hear how Biden reached the decision. Did he have something like this ready to go and wanted to take a measured action at the right time and place, or was he just doing what his aides said was necessary? That's important for understanding his Middle East doctrine, which historically has always been tricky for Presidents, of both parties.

---

Did I miss the part where you disagreed with those who said Biden is soft on Iran and that he is a warmonger?

---

You missed the part where a lot of us think for ourselves, and don't buy prepackaged opinions.

---

I never doubted it for one moment. So I ask for your free-thinking opinion: Do you disagree with those who said Biden is soft on Iran and that he is a neo-con warmonger?

Mothra said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I like striking against Iranian surrogates.

I supported it when Obama did it, when Trump did it and when O'Biden does it

---

I prefer the traditional Republican principle of not involving ourselves in foreign conflicts that have little if any benefit for our security or national interests.

---

Someday I'd like to meet the Republican Party that traditionally held this as a principle. They must have died out before the Cold War. Maybe they can be revived through DNA sequencing, like woolly mammoths.

---

See Reagan. When the neo-cons took over with Bush I and II, indeed it died out. Trump reviving it was one of the good things he did while in office.

---

I remember Reagan well. Got to meet him a couple of times when I was doing communications work for the RNC during the 80s. As warm and gracious in person as he came across on TV.

I also remember that Reagan ordered interventions in

El Salvador
Nicaragua
Grenada
Lebanon (where 250 Marines had no clear mission, became sitting ducks and got blown up -- imagine if Jimmy Carter had let that happen)
Proxy war in Angola, where we backed Jonas Savimbi, one of the most murderous thugs on the entire African continent (he was one of Paul Manafort's clients)
Support for Guatemalan military that conducted a brutal genocide campaign against indigenous Mayans

I'm probably leaving out some, but you get the picture. Reagan didn't commit tens of thousands of US troops to quagmires, but he definitely involved us in foreign conflicts that realistically had "little benefit for our security or national interests."

My dad was an intelligence analyst for the foray into Nicaragua. He was always adamant it was the right thing to do...but would never tell me why. He had pretty high level security clearances and I trust his judgement.

Overall your point stands.

Also, if you want to see super high approval ratings look at initial approval ratings for Ford and Carter. Carter had approval ratings in the low to mid 70s...and we know how that turned out lol

nein51 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

His avg approval is about 55. A few have him at about 62. His COVID relief bill has bipartisan support everywhere except Capitol Hill with about a 70% approval rating.

---

Might shock you but GHW Bush had a much higher average approval rating than Reagan

---

Yes when he started Desert Storm. I was talking more of a sustained type of approval coming from the state of affairs domestically rather than a quick temporary spike from a major military attack.

PartyBear said:

---

nein51 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

His avg approval is about 55. A few have him at about 62. His COVID relief bill has bipartisan support everywhere except Capitol Hill with about a 70% approval rating.

---

Might shock you but GHW Bush had a much higher average approval rating than Reagan

---

Yes when he started Desert Storm. I was talking more of a sustained type of approval coming from the state of affairs domestically rather than a quick temporary spike from a major military attack.

---

No. On average over the course of his tenure in office he had higher approval ratings than Reagan by about 4-5%

nein51 said:

---

My dad was an intelligence analyst for the foray into Nicaragua. He was always adamant it was the right thing to do...but would never tell me why. He had pretty high level security clearances and I trust his judgement.

Overall your point stands.

Also, if you want to see super high approval ratings look at initial approval ratings for Ford and Carter. Carter had approval ratings in the low to mid 70s...and we know how that turned out lol

---

Well, there's no doubt that Ortega and most of the Sandinistas were dictatorial thugs. Somoza, the dictator they overthrew, was an even bigger thug. The Contras, whom we backed, were thugs who were as bad if not worse than the Sandinistas.

That was pretty typical of our approach to all these Cold War proxy conflicts. We were willing to look the other way at the brutal behavior of "our" thugs because they professed to be anti-communist, and in our Cold War mentality we viewed any pro-Marxist regime as a direct threat to the US. Reagan talked on TV about how many miles it was from Nicaragua to the Rio Grande.

When Ortega came back to power after the Cold War ended, he hadn't really changed, but neither Republicans or Democrats raised a peep about it. Maybe what happens in Nicaragua isn't much a threat to the US after all.

Meanwhile, we left Nicaragua, Salvador and Guatemala with a whole lot of blood on our hands from poor peasants whose crime was to be caught in the middle.

Better the thug you know than the one you don't. We were also definitely responsible for the rise of Saddam Hussein to power in Iraq. Foreign policy is a gamble, sometimes you guess right...sometimes you don't. I prefer not to guess at all but I recognize that's not a real option in some instances.

bubbadog said:

---

nein51 said:

---

My dad was an intelligence analyst for the foray into Nicaragua. He was always adamant it was the right thing to do...but would never tell me why. He had pretty high level security clearances and I trust his judgement.

Overall your point stands.

Also, if you want to see super high approval ratings look at initial approval ratings for Ford and Carter. Carter had approval ratings in the low to mid 70s...and we know how that turned out lol

---

Well, there's no doubt that Ortega and most of the Sandinistas were dictatorial thugs. Somoza, the dictator they overthrew, was an even bigger thug. The Contras, whom we backed, were thugs who were as bad if not worse than the Sandinistas.

That was pretty typical of our approach to all these Cold War proxy conflicts. We were willing to look the other way at the brutal behavior of "our" thugs because they professed to be anti-communist, and in our Cold War mentality we viewed any pro-Marxist regime as a direct threat to the US. Reagan talked on TV about how many miles it was from Nicaragua to the Rio Grande.

When Somoza came back to power after the Cold War ended, he hadn't really changed, but neither Republicans or Democrats raised a peep about it. Maybe what happens in Nicaragua isn't much a threat to the US after all.

Meanwhile, we left Nicaragua, Salvador and Guatemala with a whole lot of blood on our hands from poor peasants whose crime was to be caught in the middle.

---

I think Ortega was elected President in the 90s.

I'm not sure why folks think the neo cons became part of the GOP coalition post Reagan. The GOP had been an internationalist/globalist party post WWII until the past few years. Many of the Democrats who were considered neo cons kind of left for the GOP in the late 70s and post Vietnam for a hiatus with the GOP which has pretty much ended in the past few years with many returning to the Democratic roots.

But the GOP was also an internationalist party for at least 40 years before the elder Bush was president.

PartyBear said:

---

It is killing the people on this board that the American people are gravitating to Biden like we have not experienced since Reagan in the 80s.

---

Man, you're smokin' some serious snit

PartyBear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

nein51 said:

---

My dad was an intelligence analyst for the foray into Nicaragua. He was always adamant it was the right thing to do...but would never tell me why. He had pretty high level security clearances and I trust his judgement.

Overall your point stands.

Also, if you want to see super high approval ratings look at initial approval ratings for Ford and Carter. Carter had approval ratings in the low to mid 70s...and we know how that turned out lol

---

Well, there's no doubt that Ortega and most of the Sandinistas were dictatorial thugs. Somoza, the dictator they overthrew, was an even bigger thug. The Contras, whom we backed, were thugs who were as bad if not worse than the Sandinistas.

That was pretty typical of our approach to all these Cold War proxy conflicts. We were willing to look the other way at the brutal behavior of "our" thugs because they professed to be anti-communist, and in our Cold War mentality we viewed any pro-Marxist regime as a direct threat to the US. Reagan talked on TV about how many miles it was from Nicaragua to the Rio Grande.

When Somoza came back to power after the Cold War ended, he hadn't really changed, but neither Republicans or Democrats raised a peep about it. Maybe what happens in Nicaragua isn't much a threat to the US after all.

Meanwhile, we left Nicaragua, Salvador and Guatemala with a whole lot of blood on our hands from poor peasants whose crime was to be caught in the middle.

---

I think Ortega was elected President in the 90s.

I'm not sure why folks think the neo cons became part of the GOP coalition post Reagan. The GOP had been an internationalist/globalist party post WWII until the past few years. Many of the Democrats who were considered neo cons kind of left for the GOP in the late 70s and post Vietnam for a hiatus with the GOP which has pretty much ended in the past few years with many returning to the Democratic roots.

But the GOP was also an internationalist party for at least 40 years before the elder Bush was president.

---

Plenty of Globalists in both parties indeed

Need purged yesterday and I'm praying military is doing it and now too!

BearTruth13 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

False flag attack then a military conflict to divert attention from something else that was about to happen to Deep State

Never ending cycle

I predicted this a week ago to a friend

Deep State is fixing to be exposed

---

Didn't you also predict the deep state would be exposed January 20th?

---

So has the Deep State not been exposed? All the way to Mike Pence?

So you must be saying I'm right again???

And yes, we created another false flag event here to justify another military intervention

And why? Because hammer was fixing to come down on Deep State/Globalists and a diversion was needed just like I recently predicted to others

It's very predictable when the cabal will do such. In fact, if this doesn't draw enough attention, and probably won't, then a much bigger false flag(Las Vegas type) will soon be required. Noose tightening on Globalist necks by the day and deals are being struck

---

It must be a trip to be this nuts. How many voices do you hear in your head from minute to minute?

---

Probably about 10% of the voices you hear but the 10% I hear come from God

Florda_mike said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Dnicknames said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

False flag attack then a military conflict to divert attention from something else that was about to happen to Deep State

Never ending cycle

I predicted this a week ago to a friend

Deep State is fixing to be exposed

---

Didn't you also predict the deep state would be exposed January 20th?

---

So has the Deep State not been exposed? All the way to Mike Pence?

So you must be saying I'm right again???

And yes, we created another false flag event here to justify another military intervention

And why? Because hammer was fixing to come down on Deep State/Globalists and a diversion was needed just like I recently predicted to others

It's very predictable when the cabal will do such. In fact, if this doesn't draw enough attention, and probably won't, then a much bigger false flag(Las Vegas type) will soon be required. Noose tightening on Globalist necks by the day and deals are being struck

---

It must be a trip to be this nuts. How many voices do you hear in your head from minute to minute?

---

Probably about 10% of the voices you hear but the 10% I hear come from God

---

Which God because you certainly are no Christian.