First, show me where someone here said that. No reason to get into what someone said, if that person is not even in our group or a high-ranking officialbubbadog said: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?Oldbear83 said:You missed the part where a lot of us think for ourselves, and don't buy prepackaged opinions.bubbadog said:Did I miss the part where you disagreed with those who said Biden is soft on Iran and that he is a warmonger?Oldbear83 said:First, that's your spin bubba, not the 'consensus'. I don't really see a consensus on this issue.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.
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.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier