• 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!

White House effectively admits that Iran was not an imminent threat

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
deter future ones

How is that contradictory to "imminent"?




In my view, "imminent" means something that's already planned, set in motion, and will definitely happen if someone doesn't do something to stop it. It would have to be something specific, concrete, and provable, not a vague "we think maybe he might do something bad someday."
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You mean, Iran wasn't really about to invade the USA? :rolleyes:

Apparently not, although in all fairness, this isn't the first time the US government has exaggerated these supposed "threats" (imminent or otherwise). Remember, these are the same people who claimed that the tiny island of Grenada was a mortal threat which had the capability of conquering all of America (which would have been quite a feat, considering they had a population of less than 100,000 at the time).
 

Audie

Veteran Member
In my view, "imminent" means something that's already planned, set in motion, and will definitely happen if someone doesn't do something to stop it. It would have to be something specific, concrete, and provable, not a vague "we think maybe he might do something bad someday."

There is no bright line distinction, and your snarky
exaggeration tends to demonstrate that.

The editorial cant of "effectively admits", and, "hogwash"
is more blatant than anything the big t supposedly did.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There is no bright line distinction, and your snarky
exaggeration tends to demonstrate that.

The editorial cant of "effectively admits", and, "hogwash"
is more blatant than anything the big t supposedly did.

Your opinion has been noted.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Your opinion has been noted.

There is nothing I said that is not very
obviously so.

Your response seems to me so emblematic of
what bedevils American politics in this time,
the mousetrap readiness to play gotcha, and the
utter inability of either armed camp to see their
own "hypocritical and sanctimonious talk, typically
of a moral, religious, or political nature".
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There is nothing I said that is not very
obviously so.

Your response seems to me so emblematic of
what bedevils American politics in this time,
the mousetrap readiness to play gotcha, and the
utter inability of either armed camp to see their
own "hypocritical and sanctimonious talk, typically
of a moral, religious, or political nature".

I think you have me confused for someone else. I responded as I did because there was nothing for me to actually address, other than your opinion that I made a snarky exaggeration, but what difference does that make? You didn't like the terms I used, and that is your opinion. I didn't think they were that bad.

At least I didn't say "basket of deplorables."

But in a way, I do agree with your point here that there is a great deal of hypocritical and sanctimonious talk dominating US politics. There is a certain toxicity in the American political culture which many people have talked about, but no one really seems to know what the solution is. The main disagreement I have with this viewpoint is that many seem to believe that all this is a relatively recent phenomenon coinciding with the election of 2016, but I've been around long enough to know that this has been around for a lot longer.

This is particularly true when it comes to foreign policy and some of the actions our government has taken in the name of "national security." If you think that I'm singling out Trump or any particular "camp," then you would be incorrect. To me, this is no different than JFK and the Bay of Pigs, or LBJ and the Tonkin Gulf, or Nixon and bombing Cambodia or getting rid of Allende. This is what our government does - Democrats and Republicans alike. Sure, it's a bunch of BS, hypocritical, sanctimonious, or whatever you want to call it. It is what it is.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I think you have me confused for someone else. I responded as I did because there was nothing for me to actually address, other than your opinion that I made a snarky exaggeration, but what difference does that make? You didn't like the terms I used, and that is your opinion. I didn't think they were that bad.

At least I didn't say "basket of deplorables."

But in a way, I do agree with your point here that there is a great deal of hypocritical and sanctimonious talk dominating US politics. There is a certain toxicity in the American political culture which many people have talked about, but no one really seems to know what the solution is. The main disagreement I have with this viewpoint is that many seem to believe that all this is a relatively recent phenomenon coinciding with the election of 2016, but I've been around long enough to know that this has been around for a lot longer.

This is particularly true when it comes to foreign policy and some of the actions our government has taken in the name of "national security." If you think that I'm singling out Trump or any particular "camp," then you would be incorrect. To me, this is no different than JFK and the Bay of Pigs, or LBJ and the Tonkin Gulf, or Nixon and bombing Cambodia or getting rid of Allende. This is what our government does - Democrats and Republicans alike. Sure, it's a bunch of BS, hypocritical, sanctimonious, or whatever you want to call it. It is what it is.

Hmph. You could try a little harder to give me
something to argue about.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I think you have me confused for someone else. I responded as I did because there was nothing for me to actually address, other than your opinion that I made a snarky exaggeration, but what difference does that make? You didn't like the terms I used, and that is your opinion. I didn't think they were that bad.

At least I didn't say "basket of deplorables."

But in a way, I do agree with your point here that there is a great deal of hypocritical and sanctimonious talk dominating US politics. There is a certain toxicity in the American political culture which many people have talked about, but no one really seems to know what the solution is. The main disagreement I have with this viewpoint is that many seem to believe that all this is a relatively recent phenomenon coinciding with the election of 2016, but I've been around long enough to know that this has been around for a lot longer.

This is particularly true when it comes to foreign policy and some of the actions our government has taken in the name of "national security." If you think that I'm singling out Trump or any particular "camp," then you would be incorrect. To me, this is no different than JFK and the Bay of Pigs, or LBJ and the Tonkin Gulf, or Nixon and bombing Cambodia or getting rid of Allende. This is what our government does - Democrats and Republicans alike. Sure, it's a bunch of BS, hypocritical, sanctimonious, or whatever you want to call it. It is what it is.

They stopped a Dhow in the Persian Gulf yesterday loaded with Iranian weapons headed for Yemen. Iran is still pushing the envelope.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
They stopped a Dhow in the Persian Gulf yesterday loaded with Iranian weapons headed for Yemen. Iran is still pushing the envelope.

That may be so. I suppose if we want to make a blanket declaration that "any and all countries which send weapons to other countries at war are bad," then we can chastise Iran on that basis alone.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
That may be so. I suppose if we want to make a blanket declaration that "any and all countries which send weapons to other countries at war are bad," then we can chastise Iran on that basis alone.

US politicians have been very vocal in their opposition to the war in Yemen and the humanitarian disaster it has caused. What is Trump saying this week?

US Navy Boards Dhow, Seizes Iranian Missiles in Arabian Sea

Other weapons components seized aboard a dhow ... air missiles,” Reuters reported, quoting the US military. It’s believed the weapons may have been intended for the Houthis in Yemen.
 
Top