2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: changemyoil66 on January 03, 2020, 09:09:33 AM
-
The fact that the media is calling Solemiani a religious leader/good guy, makes me question what has he been involved with all these years. But CNN did post an article that he was involved with Benghazi.
Looks like he has been using his title as a General as a shield to be untouchable. All while planning attacks against the US and others for the past 20 years.
-
The fact that the media is calling Solemiani a religious leader/good guy, makes me question what has he been involved with all these years. But CNN did post an article that he was involved with Benghazi.
Looks like he has been using his title as a General as a shield to be untouchable. All while planning attacks against the US and others for the past 20 years.
The media lies and they know it. Typical aftermath, "he was a good guy" BS. He was the leader of a state terrorist organization.
-
There's some chatter that he was the one holding peace talks back. The last party of the DS in Iran. Now that he's gone, more talks can begin. #tinfoil
-
Iran has reportedly been using Iraqi protest participants to escalate those protests to more violent actions against the US and US-friendly Iraqis.
Iran has been escalating their international violence for years -- threatening and seizing oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, harassing and detaining US warships, using Hezbollah and other terrorist groups to target civilians in Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.
Solemiani was the commander of Hezbollah.
https://youtu.be/DJ9T4FaP2Kc
-
https://youtu.be/oZv-J_RMaNQ
-
Iran has reportedly been using Iraqi protest participants to escalate those protests to more violent actions against the US and US-friendly Iraqis.
No real proof has been presented to the pubic in regards to those allegations.
Iran has been escalating their international violence for years -- threatening and seizing oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, harassing and detaining US warships, using Hezbollah and other terrorist groups to target civilians in Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.
You make it sound like Iran has always been the sole aggressor in the region. Got news for you, there have been a number of other aggressors in the Middle East in recent memory that you forgot to mention.
How about Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territories?
What about Saudi Arabia's war on Yemen?
Oh, let's not forget the illegal invasion of Iraq, Libya, and Syria by the US and her allies?
Solemiani was the commander of Hezbollah.
I beg to differ. I believe Sheik Hassan Nasralla is their leader and Secretary General.
-
Next general in line for promotion.
General, supreme leader, president Alladeen.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200104/9f429324c7ba49f0644322747436caa0.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
quoting your responses doesn't work, because you replied inside the [q u o t e] block you inserted from me. It would be better to cut/paste the comments from others if you want to make replies to your responses possible
I'm not going to copy and paste your replies, since you're not interested in properly posting them without making it difficult. I know you've had this brought to your attention before.
Let's just say that all of your comments are argumentative and opinions.
Nothing about what you posted justifies Iran's terrorist acts. As for who commands Hezbollah, there are militia commanders, and there are those who represent Iran, the country that provides material support and guidance to those militias and who gives the militias their marching orders.
You can argue about organizational charts and formal titles all you want, but in reality, the local commander of a militia, say Hezbollah, who does not act autonomously, but rather as a proxy for Solemiani and the Iranian Supreme Leader, is in fact a subordinate.
No different than the Commander of the Pacific Fleet or 3rd Air Force. They all answer to the branch secretaries, the joint chiefs, and ultimately the Commander in Chief.
Symantecs.
-
My thoughts?
US: Mess with the US, hurt/kill any US citizen, and you will pay.
Iran: Meh, US will continue to talk tough, but effectively appease us, like they did under Obama.
Iran: *proceeds as they have in the past and messes with various US personnel, embassy, etc*
US: Here, have a hellfire. . .
Simple. . .
Admittedly, I haven't read up on current events as I normally would have as I've been on vacation. But seems simple to me. Warning to not cross certain lines. Lines were crossed, to consequences ensued.
-
some people were concerned that this was President Trump's "Benghazi" and Iran played the same card...wrong move. The US responded with appropriate action.
USA > Iran.
#USAIsGreat
-
some people were concerned that this was President Trump's "Benghazi" and Iran played the same card...wrong move. The US responded with appropriate action.
USA > Iran.
#USAIsGreat
I laughed when they were trying to compare Trump sending in troops and preventing further loss of lives with Obama/Clinton getting people killed and then covering it up
-
I'm not going to copy and paste your replies, since you're not interested in properly posting them without making it difficult. I know you've had this brought to your attention before.
Let's just say that all of your comments are argumentative and opinions.
Nothing about what you posted justifies Iran's terrorist acts. As for who commands Hezbollah, there are militia commanders, and there are those who represent Iran, the country that provides material support and guidance to those militias and who gives the militias their marching orders.
You can argue about organizational charts and formal titles all you want, but in reality, the local commander of a militia, say Hezbollah, who does not act autonomously, but rather as a proxy for Solemiani and the Iranian Supreme Leader, is in fact a subordinate.
No different than the Commander of the Pacific Fleet or 3rd Air Force. They all answer to the branch secretaries, the joint chiefs, and ultimately the Commander in Chief.
Symantecs.
https://www.symantec.com/ (https://www.symantec.com/)
-
Nuke the camel jockeys!
-
Bold move to be sure.
Good or bad?
We gotta let it play....
-
There was actually a Leftist journalist who said, "This was the right response, but from the wrong Commander in Chief." :wtf: does that even mean?
Is he implying he'd rather have the wrong response from a President Clinton than the right one from President Trump?
TDS is real.
As for Benghazi rhetorical nonsense, you know this was NOTHING like Benghazi. No US personnel were left to die while the military were told to stand down. Trump sent military forces in to protect and evacuate BEFORE things got bad. The embassy there was actually a secure facility, not a compound with no real fortifications (even though the Ambassador there had asked for more resources to fix that) in Libya. Also, no YouTube content makers were arrested, and the Secretary of Defense didn't make a video apologizing to the Muslim world for killing a known terrorist leader.
If they want to call this "Trump's Benghazi" that's fine. I liked Trump's Benghazi WAY MORE than Obama's & Clinton's. :thumbsup:
-
hilarious, look at the date on this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZOXyOAymh8
and then consider that the BBC made the video
but I am sure he was a peaceful man who would never hurt anyone
-
The assassination of the loved and revered Major General Qassim Suleimani of Iran is a very bad move by the US in the Middle East for a number of reasons.
For example:
1. The deliberate targeting of military officials of a sovereign country that the US is not at war sets a terrible precedent to both the allies and enemies of the US.
2. This action does nothing to deescalate the tensions between the US and Iran.
3. The killing of General Suleimani will lead to a successor who most likely will be even more hostile and cunning than his predecessor.
-
https://youtu.be/gu3i5FJ_iPM
-
I am not necessarily against the retaliatory strike (I still need to learn more about it to have an informed opinion) but I do worry what will follow. Iran learns to not mess around or it starts WW3?
Sometimes doing something aggravates the situation and sometimes not doing anything aggravates it. Unfortunately it often isn't clear which one will aggravate the situation.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENYMj9WUEAEoJy8.jpg)
-
https://youtu.be/gu3i5FJ_iPM
The statements made on the actions of Iran in your video link are very compelling.
However, the CIA is just as, if not even more guilty of what that video says of Iran. I hope everyone educates and/or refreshes their memory of what the CIA has done and is continually doing to terrorize this planet since its birth after WWII.
Please see for details: https://www.globalresearch.ca/a-timeline-of-cia-atrocities/5348804
The only lacking thing of the linked article above is that it only covers what the CIA has been doing in the name of the US up until the 1990s. As we all know, the CIA continues to conduct its covert and unaccountable illegal evil activities to this day and God only knows what evils they have done that we will find out in the years to come.
-
I am not necessarily against the retaliatory strike (I still need to learn more about it to have an informed opinion) but I do worry what will follow. Iran learns to not mess around or it starts WW3?
Sometimes doing something aggravates the situation and sometimes not doing anything aggravates it. Unfortunately it often isn't clear which one will aggravate the situation.
to be, or not to be
that is the question...
-
We did nothing and solemianis attacks kept continuing.
So we finally did something. Remember what trump said when our unmanned drone was shot down? He called off the airstrike because no americans died or were harmed. So its not "fair" to kill 150 iranians.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
1. The deliberate targeting of military officials of a sovereign country that the US is not at war sets a terrible precedent to both the allies and enemies of the US.
That’s the bold part.
Where does it lead?
This ain’t Osama Bin Ladin who had no national affiliation.
This was a Country’s top general. (Evil or not)
Got it let it play.
Wild ride though.
-
to be, or not to be
that is the question...
Damned if we do, damned if we don't?
-
Bear with me while I to do a little mass murder math here.
If we killed half a million people in the War on Terror and the cost is estimated to be around 2.4 billion (yes- both are highly conservative numbers) then that puts the average cost per dead person around 4 million dollars, and over half of those were civilians while the rest were mostly low level fighters or people misclassified in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Let's just say today is the rare exception where actually feel like I got my money's worth.
-
That general was the leader of a designated terrorist organization which is part of a nation state. A country that is a dictatorship. A country that affords no rights what so ever to its people.
As I stated before, we were not going to let them play the Benghazi card again.
-
That’s the bold part.
Where does it lead?
This ain’t Osama Bin Ladin who had no national affiliation.
This was a Country’s top general. (Evil or not)
Got it let it play.
Wild ride though.
That's a real understatement.
Most people who understand the gravity of this situation knows that Iran will respond. What kind of response is anyone's guess. However, those who are wishing for a military response from Iran so they can orgasm watching the US demonstrate their military superiority may be gravely disappointed.
There are many other economic weapons Iran can use to fight back, especially at a time when Trump is seeking reelection later this year. If the US economy suffers anything significant from now till November, you can bet whoever the Democratic challenger at that time will have a strong argument to use against Trump, which in turn could possibly cause his defeat.
-
I think Trump just scored a touchdown here. Iranian government is already highly unpopular and now they seem a whole lot less invincible. Time will tell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGQaH3-LK54
-
I think Trump just scored a touchdown here. Iranian government is already highly unpopular and now they seem a whole lot less invincible. Time will tell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGQaH3-LK54
What many pundits are ignoring is the turmoil and protests inside Iran, primarily because the economic sanctions are working to put pressure on the government.
That internal unrest coupled with Trump's hardline stance could be the catalyst that results in reform, or at least changes in leadership.
Notice Iran said they would not retaliate if the US agreed to ease economic sanctions. So, their desire for revenge appears to be secondary to their need to ease the economic suffering of their citizens.
Nothing happens in a vacuum.
-
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
-
How about Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territories?
Kuleana
I take exception to this statement you made. I’ll try not to get into too much detail because it is long and drawn out. But basically, International law and the law in the U.N. at the time of the 6 Day War says otherwise. International law basically states that a country that was attacked on it’s sovereign soil can claim certain types of land from where the attackers came and occupy said lands. In order to do this legally, Israel has to abide by International law and norms. And Israel has done just that. Then there were a series of agreements between the PLO and Israel up to and including the Oslo Accords/Agreements (Oslo 1 and 2). Those agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at the time agreed to Israel’s occupation of certain territories. This is where we are left. We are still waiting to further negotiate the terms of the Oslo Accords. This is the actual law and agreements that are still in effect to this day. Anything else is all leftist BS.
These are the territories you claim are illegally occupied. I believe you that are incorrect about this. Israel has followed International law to a T. And is LEGALLY occupying the territories per their agreement with the Palestinian Authority and within International law. All of the laws and agreements that effect this situation are in this article below. It is very long and dry. But if you want to believe the leftist claims that all occurred after Israel’s LEGAL occupation of the territories, that is your prerogative. But you would be wrong to believe this. All resolutions past in the U.N. After the Oslo Accords are non-binding. Meaning it is just one country’s way of trying to condemn Israel. Because we all know people hate the Jews for no good reasons.
BTW, the article below is very good at providing links to the International law and agreements that were in place at the time. If you would like to dispute what I am saying here, please provide links to the international laws (Not condemnations and not non-binding issues) that are applicable BEFORE the 1995 Oslo 2 Accords since anything after that is not applicable.
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/294359/israels-rights-in-the-west-bank-under-international-law
“Firstly, and underscoring all other considerations, are the international legal rights emanating from the indigenous and historic claims of the Jewish people in the area as a whole, virtually from time immemorial. These rights were acknowledged in 1917 by the Balfour Declaration’s promise of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, and subsequently recognized internationally and encapsulated into international law through a series of international instruments.
Secondly, Israel’s legal rights following the 1967 Six-Day War, as the power administering the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria (so described in the U.N. 1947 Partition Resolution 181), and the concomitant, unique sui genesis status of the area.
Thirdly, Israel’s rights under international law following the 1993-1995 Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO, and especially the 1995 Interim Agreement, (commonly known as Oslo 2) which established a unique territorial arrangement as a form of lex specialis, that divided the control and governance of the West Bank areas between a Palestinian Authority established for that purpose, and Israel.”
***
“As such, the PLO, as the formal representative of the Palestinian people, formally agreed that in addition to those West Bank and Gaza Strip areas in which all powers and responsibilities for governance and administration would be transferred into the hands of the Palestinian Authority (Areas A and B and the Gaza Strip), Israel would retain powers and responsibilities in part of the area (Area C) vis-a-vis both local Palestinian residents in the area, as well as the Israeli citizens residing in settlements and villages. The parties agreed that this arrangement would remain valid pending the outcome of negotiations between them on the permanent status of the areas.
Despite attempts by the international community, through nonbinding political statements and resolutions in the U.N., to prejudge the outcome of the negotiations by claiming that the territories are “occupied Palestinian territories,” there exists no such legally accepted or agreed to determination.
Similarly, the Oslo Accords did not specify the form the permanent status of the area would take—whether one state, two states, federation, confederation or otherwise. Thus, states and organizations advocating a “two-state solution” are, in fact preempting the outcome of the negotiations that have yet to take place. Any agreed solution will only emanate from negotiations between the Palestinian leadership and Israel and cannot be imposed unilaterally by U.N. resolutions, or by any international forum, or individual leaders.
Any permanent status agreement, if and when reached, will be the sole agreed upon instrument duly determining the status of the area and the respective international and bilateral rights and commitments both of Israel and the Palestinians.
Time will tell.”
-
Bear with me while I to do a little mass murder math here.
If we killed half a million people in the War on Terror and the cost is estimated to be around 2.4 billion (yes- both are highly conservative numbers) then that puts the average cost per dead person around 4 million dollars, and over half of those were civilians while the rest were mostly low level fighters or people misclassified in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Let's just say today is the rare exception where actually feel like I got my money's worth.
4 for 1 deal. Cost of a hellfire? Art of the deal. Trump had a coupon.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200104/b9923ea38aab0364e2b2d187b140f99d.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I am sure he was a very nice man
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/soleimanis-legacy-the-gruesome-advanced-ieds-that-haunted-us-troops-in-iraq/ar-BBYAzkO?ocid=spartanntp
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/when-the-united-states-and-qasem-soleimani-worked-together/ar-BBYB0x4?ocid=spartanntp
-
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
I agree 100%!
Based on that fine piece of wisdom, all the nations and people that have suffered from the destabilization, illegal overthrows, and color revolutions as a result of the CIA and other US proxies should punish the US for its tyranny.
I guess that explains Iran's and all the other nations that are hostile to the US today.
See and read "Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire" by Chalmers Johnson for details
-
If you were President of the USA how would you handle Iran? Lots of anti US opinions. Should've could've done this & that...so let's hear it.
-
If you were President of the USA how would you handle Iran? Lots of anti US opinions. Should've could've done this & that...so let's hear it.
To address and alleviate the Iranian situation as it is now, the following is the basic strategy I would employ.
Militarily
1. Inform all the nations in the Middle East that the US will begin systematic withdrawal of all of its military personnel, equipment, and bases with a completion time of one year.
2. The only military presence that will remain will be proportionately deployed naval vessels that are there to safeguard America's oil transports in the region.
Given the national debt of the US, the US can no longer maintain its military outposts and garrisons. Hence, the following actions will not only free up resources to make America great again domestically, but show the World that the US is beginning to end its experiment of empire and, hence, begin to earn real respect and rebuild its global image.
As for the nations in the Middle East, they are all on their own. If they wish to kill each other in the name of Jihad, that is their own peoples lives and business.
As president, the only thing that matters to me are Americans. Hence, as long as this country gets what it needs to survive (oil), all other issues in the Middle East are not America's concern.
Political/Economical
1. Renormalize diplomatic relations with Iran.
2. Establish a new treaty of trade.
Peace through trade will start becoming the foundation of America's new foreign policy. America will begin a new phase of its history by focusing its efforts in trying to get the best trade deals with Iran and all other nations FAIRLY, while officially eliminating those elements in the US that planned and orchestrated the policies of regime change, color revolutions, illegal overthrows, perpetual wars, etc. in GOOD FAITH.
Nuclear Related
1. Sign a Joint US-Iran nuclear deal, which allows Iran nuclear power plants, but jointly constructed and operated by US scientists.
This would allow Iran to peacefully enjoy the advantages of nuclear power, but under American supervision.
-
If you refuse to fight someone who wants to kill you, it's not called "peace". it's called "surrender."
No matter what the US does, Iran will not "normalize diplomatic relations." They are an ideologically based society run by a religious leader. They chant "Death to America" and Death to Israel". They publicly call for the complete destruction of the state of Israel. They invade their neighbors with force to take what they have (review the Kuwait invasion by Iraq). No matter how much "trade" we have with them, they will never accept the US as worthy of respect.
Israel is the "Little Satan". America is the "Great Satan".
Change their minds? Good luck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Satan
The Great Satan (Persian: شيطان بزرگ; Shaytân-e Bozorg) is a derogatory epithet for the United States of America
in Iranian foreign policy statements. Occasionally, these words have also been used toward the government of the
United Kingdom.
The term was originally[citation needed] used by Iranian leader Ruhollah Khomeini in his speech on November 5,
1979 to describe the United States, which he accused of imperialism and the sponsoring of corruption throughout
the world.[1] The speech occurred one day after the onset of the Iran hostage crisis.
Ayatollah Khomeini also occasionally used the term "Iblis" (the primary devil in Islam) to refer to the United States
and other Western countries.
: :
: :
The State of Israel was condemned as the "Little Satan" in 1979 by Khomeini when he was addressing Israel's backing
of the Shah, its close ties to the US, and the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi
also stated that "Israel is the little Satan" in a July 1980 interview.[24]
-
If you were President of the USA how would you handle Iran? Lots of anti US opinions. Should've could've done this & that...so let's hear it.
I like to play Chess. I'm not as good as I would like, but I know you need to control
the center of the board. I would at the next Iranian provocation take out the 3 refineries
and one nuke power plant they have and then watch the results.
I'd expect they would declare war. We could then respond with a
Lawful declaration of war, the first in nearly 80 years.
We can then fix our problem. Moslems, here and there.
-
I like to play Chess. I'm not as good as I would like, but I know you need to control
the center of the board. I would at the next Iranian provocation take out the 3 refineries
and one nuke power plant they have and then watch the results.
I'd expect they would declare war. We could then respond with a
Lawful declaration of war, the first in nearly 80 years.
We can then fix our problem. Moslems, here and there.
Obama did nothing but present a weak underbelly to Iran. He gave them $1.7B in part to release hostages (let's call that what it is: extorted ransom money), and he unlocked upwards of $150B in frozen assets for Iran to access. He was scared of taking any actions against them for 5 years, because he was in the midst of negotiating the nuclear arms deal with them. Any tensions over other issues would slow or halt the signing of the deal.
So, if Obama "inherited" problems from the Bush administration, it's a fact that Trump inherited the problems with Iran from Obama. To hang 40 years of bad policy and terrorist aggression on Trump after 3 years in office is asinine.
I'm not saying you are laying this at Trump's doorstep. Just adding that to the discussion.
As for declaring war -- I think we are bound by the UN charter to let the UN step in to stop Iranian aggression. Declaring war, in and of itself, is illegal for member states. If a member state is attacked, the UN allies join to stop it. If a member state is the aggressor, they are punished in other ways as well, such as expulsion from the organization.
I don't think the US will ever declare war officially unless we decide the UN is no longer a viable endeavor.
-
Obama did nothing but present a weak underbelly to Iran. He gave them $1.7B in part to release hostages (let's call that what it is: extorted ransom money), and he unlocked upwards of $150B in frozen assets for Iran to access. He was scared of taking any actions against them for 5 years, because he was in the midst of negotiating the nuclear arms deal with them. Any tensions over other issues would slow or halt the signing of the deal.
So, if Obama "inherited" problems from the Bush administration, it's a fact that Trump inherited the problems with Iran from Obama. To hang 40 years of bad policy and terrorist aggression on Trump after 3 years in office is asinine.
I'm not saying you are laying this at Trump's doorstep. Just adding that to the discussion.
As for declaring war -- I think we are bound by the UN charter to let the UN step in to stop Iranian aggression. Declaring war, in and of itself, is illegal for member states. If a member state is attacked, the UN allies join to stop it. If a member state is the aggressor, they are punished in other ways as well, such as expulsion from the organization.
I don't think the US will ever declare war officially unless we decide the UN is no longer a viable endeavor.
"I don't think the US will ever declare war officially unless we decide the UN is no longer a viable endeavor."
That has haunted us since the Korean war.
Your insights on the UN are quite correct.
I for one would empty the UN building and tell everyone to
find another city. My choice would be Tehran.
I'd want the world to experience the best Islam has to offer.
-
"If you refuse to fight someone who wants to kill you, it's not called "peace". it's called "surrender.""
That's a too simplistic summary of things. If everyone did what you believe, everyone will eventually kill each other in the end.
"No matter what the US does, Iran will not "normalize diplomatic relations." They are an ideologically based society run by a religious leader. They chant "Death to America" and Death to Israel". They publicly call for the complete destruction of the state of Israel. They invade their neighbors with force to take what they have (review the Kuwait invasion by Iraq). No matter how much "trade" we have with them, they will never accept the US as worthy of respect.
Israel is the "Little Satan". America is the "Great Satan".
Change their minds? Good luck."
I think you are mistaken on the wars that Iran has participated with other internationally recognized sovereign countries. It was Iraq that invaded Kuwait in 1990 by the way, not Iran. Once more, it was Iraq with the support of the US that invaded Iran during the 1980s.
As for the ideological differences that you state would not allow Iran to ever accept peaceful coexistence with the US, why does not those same ideological differences hamper Iran's peaceful trade and coexistence with OTHER INFIDEL nations like SUNNI Turkey, Russia, China, India, Germany, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.?
Could it be, the mischief and covert actions by the US and Israel against Iran, as the reasons why Iran and her people say the things they do?
-
I like to play Chess. I'm not as good as I would like, but I know you need to control
the center of the board. I would at the next Iranian provocation take out the 3 refineries
and one nuke power plant they have and then watch the results.
I'd expect they would declare war. We could then respond with a
Lawful declaration of war, the first in nearly 80 years.
We can then fix our problem. Moslems, here and there.
I already have been seeing/hearing from some GOP minions such as Lindsey Graham saying to Iran things like “I can’t read the President’s mind nor have I seen his potential target list, BUT, if I were the President I would target Iran’s oil refineries”. Not their oil fields nor their ports. Specifically their refineries. Is he trying to put the fear of Trump in their heads? Is he actually speaking for the president without actually saying so? Is he really just guessing? I think he is probably speaking for the President without coming right out and saying so. But that is just my opinion.
So we’ll see what the targets are in the next move. I already have seen the reports of a base in Iraq has been hit by missiles.
-
"If you refuse to fight someone who wants to kill you, it's not called "peace". it's called "surrender.""
That's a too simplistic summary of things. If everyone did what you believe, everyone will eventually kill each other in the end.
"No matter what the US does, Iran will not "normalize diplomatic relations." They are an ideologically based society run by a religious leader. They chant "Death to America" and Death to Israel". They publicly call for the complete destruction of the state of Israel. They invade their neighbors with force to take what they have (review the Kuwait invasion by Iraq). No matter how much "trade" we have with them, they will never accept the US as worthy of respect.
Israel is the "Little Satan". America is the "Great Satan".
Change their minds? Good luck."
I think you are mistaken on the wars that Iran has participated with other internationally recognized sovereign countries. It was Iraq that invaded Kuwait in 1990 by the way, not Iran. Once more, it was Iraq with the support of the US that invaded Iran during the 1980s.
As for the ideological differences that you state would not allow Iran to ever accept peaceful coexistence with the US, why does not those same ideological differences hamper Iran's peaceful trade and coexistence with OTHER INFIDEL nations like SUNNI Turkey, Russia, China, India, Germany, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.?
Could it be, the mischief and covert actions by the US and Israel against Iran, as the reasons why Iran and her people say the things they do?
[I said: ] They invade their neighbors with force to take what they have (review the Kuwait invasion by Iraq).
-
"If you refuse to fight someone who wants to kill you, it's not called "peace". it's called "surrender.""
That's a too simplistic summary of things. If everyone did what you believe, everyone will eventually kill each other in the end.
"No matter what the US does, Iran will not "normalize diplomatic relations." They are an ideologically based society run by a religious leader. They chant "Death to America" and Death to Israel". They publicly call for the complete destruction of the state of Israel. They invade their neighbors with force to take what they have (review the Kuwait invasion by Iraq). No matter how much "trade" we have with them, they will never accept the US as worthy of respect.
Israel is the "Little Satan". America is the "Great Satan".
Change their minds? Good luck."
I think you are mistaken on the wars that Iran has participated with other internationally recognized sovereign countries. It was Iraq that invaded Kuwait in 1990 by the way, not Iran. Once more, it was Iraq with the support of the US that invaded Iran during the 1980s.
As for the ideological differences that you state would not allow Iran to ever accept peaceful coexistence with the US, why does not those same ideological differences hamper Iran's peaceful trade and coexistence with OTHER INFIDEL nations like SUNNI Turkey, Russia, China, India, Germany, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.?
Could it be, the mischief and covert actions by the US and Israel against Iran, as the reasons why Iran and her people say the things they do?
[/i][/u]
No. The US can't compromise with Iran, because they see it as a sign of weakness. We are THE super power in the world. As such, we are the lightning rod for attacks, ideologically, philosophically and violently.
We support Israel. That makes us an enemy to Islamic nations. During Obama, that support waned. Wonder why? Refer back to my point re: Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.
There are such things as "deal breakers" between countries. We refused to have normal relations with China until Nixon changed that due to their human rights violations. We still have the same relationship with Cuba. It's obvious the Democrats have restarted the Cold War with Russia in order to demonize Trump and illegitimatize his election win.
I think any regime that routinely takes hostages who broke no laws should not be treated "normally".
-
We are the UN. Without us, they're a joke. They wont do anything, even with Irans complaint filed.
So much false fears on social media. Everyone worried about ww3 and a draft.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I Heard Something Happened in Iraq
- Chad Prather
https://youtu.be/3ooIYLyUu7o
-
"No. The US can't compromise with Iran, because they see it as a sign of weakness."
Are you sure about that?
Seeing you can't predict what Iran's next response will be to America's assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani; how do you know what Iran's Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei or its government will think?
"We are THE super power in the world. As such, we are the lightning rod for attacks, ideologically, philosophically and violently."
Major correction/clarification here.
The US is the World's only EMPIRE at this moment in human history. As such, America is experiencing BLOWBACK for all of its overt and covert political meddling and illegal military operations around the Globe.
That sounds more accurate.
"We support Israel. That makes us an enemy to Islamic nations. During Obama, that support waned. Wonder why? Refer back to my point re: Obama's nuclear deal with Iran."
Question: If this is true, why aren't the other nations that support Israel being subjected to the frequency of blowback and hate harangues as the US and Israel receives?
Answer: The US and Israel has been screwing Iran way more than those other countries that are friends with Israel.
"There are such things as "deal breakers" between countries. We refused to have normal relations with China until Nixon changed that due to their human rights violations."
Please do not rewrite history.
Nixon began to normalize relations with China to further weaken ties between the Soviet Union and China as well as get help to end America's Vietnam War.
Your mention of human rights is laughable, since America always had a hatred to almost everything and anything Chinese. From America's Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 to attacking China's preeminent technological giant, Huawei, today; don't tell me how America cares how Chinese are being treated in China during Nixon's time to the present.
If anything, the US uses human rights as another geopolitical weapon against China and her people.
"I think any regime that routinely takes hostages who broke no laws should not be treated "normally".
If you are referring to the hostage situation in Iran during President Carter's administration, how can you say the above with any sincerity?
Do you forget how the US with the CIA OVERTHREW the democratically elected Iranian President Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, in order to install their puppet dictator, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi or more familiarly known as the Shah of Iran?
Got news for you; the Iranian people did not forget what those nations responsible did lead by the US. Hence, their revolution in 1979 that resulted in the taking of American hostages is a DIRECT RESULT of America's evil regime change back in 1953.
-
Well, I guess the Iranian retaliation is in full force:
https://anewspost.com/iranian-hackers-deface-us-gov-website-with-bloody-trump-photo/
The source is not reliable but it seems legit. If it is true, it is really a nothingburger considering the government agency they hacked into. :rofl:
-
"There are such things as "deal breakers" between countries. We refused to have normal relations with China until Nixon changed that due to their human rights violations."
Please do not rewrite history.
Nixon began to normalize relations with China to further weaken ties between the Soviet Union and China as well as get help to end America's Vietnam War.
Your mention of human rights is laughable, since America always had a hatred to almost everything and anything Chinese. From America's Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 to attacking China's preeminent technological giant, Huawei, today; don't tell me how America cares how Chinese are being treated in China during Nixon's time to the present.
If anything, the US uses human rights as another geopolitical weapon against China and her people.
Mao Zedong
Chairman of the Communist Party of China
March 20, 1943 – September 9, 1976
... his regime has been called autocratic and totalitarian, and condemned for bringing about mass repression
and destroying religious and cultural artifacts and sites. It was additionally responsible for vast numbers of deaths
with estimates ranging from 30 to 80 million victims through starvation, persecution, prison labour and mass
executions.
Maybe you don't believe human rights extend to "not being murdered or starved to death?"
-
Mao Zedong
Chairman of the Communist Party of China
March 20, 1943 – September 9, 1976
Maybe you don't believe human rights extend to "not being murdered or starved to death?"
I did not deny the tragedy of the cultural revolution that took many lives to which Mao takes the full blame.
I just challenged your assertion of how Nixon wanted to help the Chinese people. America does not give any shit to any atrocities that are occurring on the planet unless there is something in that country that America wishes to use for its own purposes.
-
I did not deny the tragedy of the cultural revolution that took many lives to which Mao takes the full blame.
I just challenged your assertion of how Nixon wanted to help the Chinese people. America does not give any shit to any atrocities that are occurring on the planet unless there is something in that country that America wishes to use for its own purposes.
You interpreted my comment incorrectly.
Maybe this helps:
We refused to have normal relations with China due to their human rights violations ... until Nixon changed that (that = relations).
-
You interpreted my comment incorrectly.
Maybe this helps:
We refused to have normal relations with China due to their human rights violations ... until Nixon changed that (that = relations).
Thanks for clearing that up, but you seem to be forgetting one thing.
America did not have any relations with China because they recognized the capitalist government of Chiang Kai Shek in Taiwan as the legitimate government of China. It was only the period after Nixon's trip to China that the US began to see the business opportunity that presented itself due to the capitalist business climate that Deng Xiaopeng began fostering in China at that time, which eventually led the US to recognize Beijing and not Taipei as the capital of China in 1979.
-
:stopjack:
What Americans painfully must realize is that the animosities that has led to the current situation today began with US imperialists back in 1953, when the US decided to install a puppet regime in Iran. The US choice of the Shah of Iran was a brutal dictator and terrifying human rights violator that did America's bidding for decades. It was only in 1979, when the people of Iran, tired of US imperialism decided to KICK OUT their puppet leader.
Since that time, the US never forgave Iran and continues to this day to work for a return of Iran into the vassal state that it was back in 1953. The Iranians are well aware of their history as well as America's intentions to REINSTALL a new puppet leader for their nation. Hence, all of their actions against the US since that time, no matter what form it took, essentially was DEFENSIVE in nature, as they are desperately trying to prevent the overthrow of their nation once again by the US.
Understanding this history is necessary, if the people of the US do not wish to have a war with Iran that WILL LEAD to WWIII.
BOTTOM LINE: THE US DREW FIRST BLOOD AGAINST IRAN and the US imperialists in this generation are HOPING no one remembers that CRITICAL HISTORIC FACT and will accept their plans to march America into another DISASTROUS WAR in the Middle East no matter the Iranian/US/Everyone Else's human lives it will cost.
-
Thanks for clearing that up, but you seem to be forgetting one thing.
America did not have any relations with China because they recognized the capitalist government of Chiang Kai Shek in Taiwan as the legitimate government of China. It was only the period after Nixon's trip to China that the US began to see the business opportunity that presented itself due to the capitalist business climate that Deng Xiaopeng began fostering in China at that time, which eventually led the US to recognize Beijing and not Taipei as the capital of China in 1979.
I was unaware it was my duty to educate everyone on all factors in the China-US diplomatic relationship.
I'll make sure to elaborate next time, even though nothing you've added changes anything I said.
-
:stopjack:
What Americans painfully must realize is that the animosities that has led to the current situation today began with US imperialists back in 1953, when the US decided to install a puppet regime in Iran. The US choice of the Shah of Iran was a brutal dictator and terrifying human rights violator that did America's bidding for decades. It was only in 1979, when the people of Iran, tired of US imperialism decided to KICK OUT their puppet leader.
Since that time, the US never forgave Iran and continues to this day to work for a return of Iran into the vassal state that it was back in 1953. The Iranians are well aware of their history as well as America's intentions to REINSTALL a new puppet leader for their nation. Hence, all of their actions against the US since that time, no matter what form it took, essentially was DEFENSIVE in nature, as they are desperately trying to prevent the overthrow of their nation once again by the US.
Understanding this history is necessary, if the people of the US do not wish to have a war with Iran that WILL LEAD to WWIII.
BOTTOM LINE: THE US DREW FIRST BLOOD AGAINST IRAN and the US imperialists in this generation are HOPING no one remembers that CRITICAL HISTORIC FACT and will accept their plans to march America into another DISASTROUS WAR in the Middle East no matter the Iranian/US/Everyone Else's human lives it will cost.
This is a very complicated issue which you are over simplifying which changes history a bit if you do not offer some background information to go along with it. You are leaving out some important details. Back during that period, Communism was considered a very real threat to our existence. And what you consider our imperialism was more just preventing Russia from making Iran its puppet. Whether you like it or not, based on what was going on in the world at that time, it was MUCH better to have Iran a puppet regime of the US than a puppet regime of Russia. Which is exactly what would have happened if we had not interfered. Considering Russia controlled a portion of the world’s oil supply, if they had control over Iran’s oil supply also, it was considered a threat to the world as the oil supply could then be used to black mail other countries including ours. Let’s face it, we have enjoyed cheap oil for over 70 years which has benefitted us and the rest of the world. Since then, things have changed and Russia is no longer considered a huge source of oil. But Iran is still significant. The difference is with a stabile government installed in Iran that was friendly to the US (and it’s Allies) and not controlled by Communist Russia, the world’s supply of oil was maintained stabile and cheap.
Now, how we acted after that is up for debate. If we had left Iran well enough alone after the coup, things would have probably ended up very different. I agree with our initial interference to prevent Russia from infiltrating Iran after WWII and up to the coup in 1953. What we did after the coup is what is probably a cause and effect situation between the US and Iran. Maybe that is what you call US Imperialism. I don’t see it that way but we disagree on a lot of things. I see it as stupidity and not seeing the unintended consequences of our actions. I personally think US Imperialism is going too far. Because I believe that was never our original intention.
Of course over the last 70 years we have seen the rise of OPEC and numerous other countries that have discovered oil and/or started selling their oil. The world’s oil market is stabile thanks to our interference back in 1953. Our relations between our countries is bad due ONLY IN PART to our interference after the coup. It takes two to tango and Iran is at least 50% to blame (if not MUCH more) for where we are today. They are a bad actor that kills Americans and Jews, has declared war on both of our countries and exports terrorism around the world. We did not force them to do any of these things. They CHOOSE to do these things because of hatred/religion, expansionism, imperialism, or whatever stupid excuse they have. They have/had choices to act anyway they choose and they made their bed and they are dealing with the consequences of their actions. Did we have a hand in how things got started? Absolutely. Are we responsible for the decisions they made since then? Mostly no. We did not force them to violate international laws and norms, we are not responsible for them killing people all over the world and we are not responsible for terrorism they export. JMHO
-
(http://www.payvand.com/news/14/mar/300-Rise-of-an-Empire-Xerxes-1.jpg)
-
So iraq parliament voting to kick the US out. Did Trump just find an exit for Iraq? 4D chess?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
"This is a very complicated issue which you are over simplifying which changes history a bit if you do not offer some background information to go along with it. You are leaving out some important details. Back during that period, Communism was considered a very real threat to our existence. And what you consider our imperialism was more just preventing Russia from making Iran its puppet. Whether you like it or not, based on what was going on in the world at that time, it was MUCH better to have Iran a puppet regime of the US than a puppet regime of Russia. Which is exactly what would have happened if we had not interfered. Considering Russia controlled a portion of the world’s oil supply, if they had control over Iran’s oil supply also, it was considered a threat to the world as the oil supply could then be used to black mail other countries including ours. Let’s face it, we have enjoyed cheap oil for over 70 years which has benefitted us and the rest of the world. Since then, things have changed and Russia is no longer considered a huge source of oil. But Iran is still significant. The difference is with a stabile government installed in Iran that was friendly to the US (and it’s Allies) and not controlled by Communist Russia, the world’s supply of oil was maintained stabile and cheap."
I am well aware of the containment of communism policy the US had in the aftermath of WWII and do not deny the VALID points you raise from the American point of view. I was never a fan of the Soviet Union.
However, the fact the US unilaterally made the decision to take away the self-determination of the Iranians, especially when America is supposedly the Protector of the Free World contradicted everything why America fought WWII. Moreover, the decision to take over Iran in 1953 was based on speculation, as President Mosaddegh was not a communist and America's beliefs that Iran would fall in the Soviet sphere of influence had no real evidence to show. What we do know was that by installing a US puppet, the US would be able to exploit Iran's oil at a discount favorable to the US and her allies at the UNFORGIVABLE PAIN AND SUFFERING of the Iranians. This fact can't be denied and, from the Iranian point of view, is undeniably in every way selfishly EVIL.
"Now, how we acted after that is up for debate. If we had left Iran well enough alone after the coup, things would have probably ended up very different. I agree with our initial interference to prevent Russia from infiltrating Iran after WWII and up to the coup in 1953. What we did after the coup is what is probably a cause and effect situation between the US and Iran. Maybe that is what you call US Imperialism. I don’t see it that way but we disagree on a lot of things. I see it as stupidity and not seeing the unintended consequences of our actions. I personally think US Imperialism is going too far. Because I believe that was never our original intention."
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't regime change and/or overthrow of a leader of a sovereign nation an act of imperialism? I think most honest and objective people in this World would think so. That's why I find it hard to believe how Americans can look at an illegal overthrow conduced by their own country, which deprived liberty from another people can somehow think it is something other than imperialism.
People in this forum always think I am anti-American anything. That is far beyond the truth. I am a pro-Constitutionalist and anti-imperialist. Hence, in this context with Iran, I am anti-US imperialism. There are GOOD AMERICANS in the US, but unfortunately its leadership at the turn of the 19th Century has fallen into the reigns or been persuaded into acts of imperialism that was not, as I always state, what the founding fathers intended America to be. They wanted to be FREE from the British Empire and TRIED to make laws from becoming one.
SADLY, LEADERSHIP OF AMERICA TODAY HAS FAILED THE FOUNDING FATHERS.
"Of course over the last 70 years we have seen the rise of OPEC and numerous other countries that have discovered oil and/or started selling their oil. The world’s oil market is stabile thanks to our interference back in 1953. Our relations between our countries is bad due ONLY IN PART to our interference after the coup. It takes two to tango and Iran is at least 50% to blame (if not MUCH more) for where we are today. They are a bad actor that kills Americans and Jews, has declared war on both of our countries and exports terrorism around the world. We did not force them to do any of these things. They CHOOSE to do these things because of hatred/religion, expansionism, imperialism, or whatever stupid excuse they have. They have/had choices to act anyway they choose and they made their bed and they are dealing with the consequences of their actions. Did we have a hand in how things got started? Absolutely. Are we responsible for the decisions they made since then? Mostly no. We did not force them to violate international laws and norms, we are not responsible for them killing people all over the world and we are not responsible for terrorism they export. JMHO"
I respect your opinion.
However, I have to disagree with your assertion that the acts of Iran today against the US and Israel for that matter is mostly their own doing and the US has only partial blame. You mention Iran exporting terrorism around the World. How is that any different from what the CIA has been doing since WWII. I would counter argue that the US via the CIA has and continues to commit more atrocities to more nations than Iran.
Once more, the US has never given up trying to return Iran to the vassal state that it was back in 1953. Do you remember that the US via Saddam's Iraq's invasion of Iran was a proxy war against Iran during the 1980's? In addition, as recent in 2009, American Jeremy Hammond (https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/06/23/has-the-u-s-played-a-role-in-fomenting-unrest-during-irans-election/) has reported how the US tried to meddle in the internal affairs and ferment revolution in Iran.
Question: Has Iran started a proxy war that has led to an invasions of the US?
Answer: NO.
Question: Has Iran spend large amounts of money to start a color revolution in the US?
Answer: NO.
Question: Has Iran overthrew a democratically elected president for some ideological or religious reason in the US?
Answer: NO.
Question: Do you think for one minute that Americans would behave any different than Iranians, if some other country did, what was and is continually being done to Iran, was being done to the US?
Answer: I WOULD HOPE NOT.
Consequently, with the US still working for regime change in Iran since 1979 to the present, as evidenced with Trump's former National Security Adviser, John Bolton, openly calling for America to conduct a regime change in Iran just TWO DAYS ago (https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-john-bolton-iran-assassination-20200103-6xfsnagacbg5rev7gjilar5iky-story.html), how can America and its imperial actions not be seen to play a MAJOR ROLE in the actions taken by Iran today?
-
You have an anti-US opinion. You don't want the US here in Hawaii and you've stated that numerous times. There's nothing wrong with that. It's your opinion.
-
You have an anti-US opinion. You don't want the US here in Hawaii and you've stated that numerous times. There's nothing wrong with that. It's your opinion.
I have an anti-US imperialist opinion in regards to the illegal annexation of Hawaii in 1898 that began with a REGIME CHANGE operation against Queen Liliuokalani made possible by the US marines in 1893.
:stopjack:
-
I have an anti-US imperialist opinion in regards to the illegal annexation of Hawaii in 1898 that began with a REGIME CHANGE operation against Queen Liliuokalani made possible by the US marines in 1893.
:stopjack:
I was referring to your statement that people think you have an anti-US opinion in this thread. What ever you label it. Imperialism etc.
You have a disdain for the US and it shows just like how you purposely referred to US Marines in a lower capital tense. But like I said. Its your opinion and some may disagree.
In regards to Iran they instigate a lot of nefarious activities in Iraq. They purposely incite sectarian violence against the Sunnis. I dont hear much about Muqtada al Sadr but he was their go to proxy. Wonder what happened to him?
-
I was referring to your statement that people think you have an anti-US opinion in this thread. What ever you label it. Imperialism etc.
You have a disdain for the US and it shows just like how you purposely referred to US Marines in a lower capital tense. But like I said. Its your opinion and some may disagree.
My view of US imperialism and what it has resulted for Hawaiians is no different from Iran or any nation that was on the receiving end of it. As I said in my previous post, Americans would feel and take similar actions to those of Iran, if their country had been previously and is currently facing another take over and having their resources once again exploited by some other imperial power.
-
My view of US imperialism and what it has resulted for Hawaiians is no different from Iran or any nation that was on the receiving end of it. As I said in my previous post, Americans would feel and take similar actions to those of Iran, if their country had been previously and is currently facing another take over and having their resources once again exploited by some other imperial power.
The modern US has no imperialist doctrine. If you dislike historical imperialist countries there are plenty around the world. Dwelling in historical victimhood is akin to not getting over high school ex girlfriends.
The US has no desire to take over Iran. What the US wants is regional stability.
Back to topic, Soleimani wasn't this celebrated Iranian "official". Again, he was the leader of a designated terrorist organization.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/iranian-journalist-reacts-qassem-soleimani-airstrike-death (https://www.foxnews.com/media/iranian-journalist-reacts-qassem-soleimani-airstrike-death)
-
Iran sees themselves as the "chosen leaders" of the caliphate.
Iran is in what was once Persia. The Persians lost their country through conquest by Arab Muslims.
Historically, the caliphate became, and is expected to become once again, an empire.
I guess imperialism isn't so bad as long as you're running the empire, huh?
-
I am well aware of the containment of communism policy the US had in the aftermath of WWII and do not deny the VALID points you raise from the American point of view. I was never a fan of the Soviet Union.
I didn’t make my statement to make YOU aware of your not including details that make your version of history different. I made my statement out of consideration to those that may not know the whole truth which changes your interpretation somewhat. I think it is only fair that everyone see how you are interpreting this piece of history knowing all the facts and not just what is convenient to say. That’s all.
However, the fact the US unilaterally made the decision to take away the self-determination of the Iranians, especially when America is supposedly the Protector of the Free World contradicted everything why America fought WWII. Moreover, the decision to take over Iran in 1953 was based on speculation, as President Mosaddegh was not a communist and America's beliefs that Iran would fall in the Soviet sphere of influence had no real evidence to show. What we do know was that by installing a US puppet, the US would be able to exploit Iran's oil at a discount favorable to the US and her allies at the UNFORGIVABLE PAIN AND SUFFERING of the Iranians. This fact can't be denied and, from the Iranian point of view, is undeniably in every way selfishly EVIL.[/b]
Let’s not exaggerate here. As much as you feel the US took over Iran, it is just not true. If the US had taken over Iran would be part of the US like any state or territory. That would be a true definition of taking over a country and Imperialism. But the fact is the US NEVER took over Iran. They may have gone as far as having some influence but taking over? Let’s be real here. Whether you like it or not the Shah made all final decisions. If he took away self-determination it is on him and not the US government. That is just silly. That statement you made is not just wholly true. My opinion is that the Shah was friendly to the US, and was influenced by the US but the US never made Iran a part of the US. If Iran was a state or territory of the US the coup to remove the Shah would never have happened. Because we would have troops on the ground and put down any coup attempt. The fact is we did very little to stop the coup attempt of the Shah.
So let me ask you a question. How did the US exploit Iran’s oil at a discount favorable to the US? The US didn’t start buying oil from Iran until 1973. TWENTY YEARS LATER! Please don’t make statements you don’t know the facts behind. And I suppose you were there in Iran at that time so you could experience their “UNFORGIVABLE PAIN AN SUFFERING”? I have spoken to numerous Persians and Iranians who were there during that time period and none of them ever mentioned suffering the likes you described. Give me a break. Yes things were bad then, but not as bad as they are now.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't regime change and/or overthrow of a leader of a sovereign nation an act of imperialism? I think most honest and objective people in this World would think so. That's why I find it hard to believe how Americans can look at an illegal overthrow conduced by their own country, which deprived liberty from another people can somehow think it is something other than imperialism.
Okay, you want to be corrected? Okay, you are wrong. While the US had a hand in the coup attempt in 1953, they were not the only actors by any means. You make it sound like the US did this single handedly. Don’t exaggerate here. It really was not exactly like you describe. I agree that I would prefer our country not to interfere in other countries affairs. But when our choice is to let the Soviets have influence on Iran, then I agree our interference and HELPING the Shah into power was the right move. Your exaggerations are probably why you keep saying Imperialism. But in fact you are taking events that occurred and are making a molehill into a mountain. Imperialism requires acts from the US government that just DIDN’T occur. Like actually taking over Iran and making them a state or territory.
People in this forum always think I am anti-American anything. That is far beyond the truth. I am a pro-Constitutionalist and anti-imperialist. Hence, in this context with Iran, I am anti-US imperialism. There are GOOD AMERICANS in the US, but unfortunately its leadership at the turn of the 19th Century has fallen into the reigns or been persuaded into acts of imperialism that was not, as I always state, what the founding fathers intended America to be. They wanted to be FREE from the British Empire and TRIED to make laws from becoming one.
I don’t think that you are anti-American. I think you are over reacting to most of the events in Iran’s history here. But I guess that is why we don’t agree on most things. Your claims to me are pretty wild here. I’m not saying that you are not entitled to your opinion. Nor and I saying that your idea of events in Iran are even wrong. I’m just saying you and I have different ways of looking at these events.
SADLY, LEADERSHIP OF AMERICA TODAY HAS FAILED THE FOUNDING FATHERS.[/b]
I agree with your statement but not for the same reasons.
I respect your opinion.
As I respect yours.
However, I have to disagree with your assertion that the acts of Iran today against the US and Israel for that matter is mostly their own doing and the US has only partial blame. You mention Iran exporting terrorism around the World. How is that any different from what the CIA has been doing since WWII. I would counter argue that the US via the CIA has and continues to commit more atrocities to more nations than Iran.
After the coup against the Shah and he was removed. Are you saying that Iran’s leaders are justified in their killing of innocents around the world? Because it is their decision and theirs alone to kill innocent people around the world. Whether the CIA was involved in shenanigans with Iran or not, how is NOT the decision of Iran’s leaders to kill innocent people around the world? Forget just the US and Israel. How do you justify Iran supporting terrorism of any type against innocent people, period? And if you decide to take a stab at answering it, I would appreciate an answer, not a question. Even when Obama paid off Iran, they slowed down their acts of terrorism, but never stopped. Maybe you don’t get that it doesn’t really matter what the US does? They are going to be terrorists to advance their agenda if that is what they decide to do. No one is putting a gun to their head and making them do this. It is ALL on them.
Once more, the US has never given up trying to return Iran to the vassal state that it was back in 1953. Do you remember that the US via Saddam's Iraq's invasion of Iran was a proxy war against Iran during the 1980's? In addition, as recent in 2009, American Jeremy Hammond (https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/06/23/has-the-u-s-played-a-role-in-fomenting-unrest-during-irans-election/) has reported how the US tried to meddle in the internal affairs and ferment revolution in Iran.[,quote]
I don’t believe your statement here. We severed ties with Iran. If you are going to say we never stopped then please provide some proof. I don’t agree that the proxy war is the same exact thing as making Iran part of the US. Sorry, in my mind they don’t compute. I’m not disagreeing the events didn’t happen. I just disagree with your premise.
-
"Let’s not exaggerate here. As much as you feel the US took over Iran, it is just not true. If the US had taken over Iran would be part of the US like any state or territory. That would be a true definition of taking over a country and Imperialism. But the fact is the US NEVER took over Iran. They may have gone as far as having some influence but taking over? Let’s be real here. Whether you like it or not the Shah made all final decisions. If he took away self-determination it is on him and not the US government. That is just silly. That statement you made is not just wholly true. My opinion is that the Shah was friendly to the US, and was influenced by the US but the US never made Iran a part of the US. If Iran was a state or territory of the US the coup to remove the Shah would never have happened. Because we would have troops on the ground and put down any coup attempt. The fact is we did very little to stop the coup attempt of the Shah."
You are right, as I stand corrected to the question did the US took over Iran directly. They did not.
The US, however, installed a US puppet, that did America's bidding. As is reported in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat:
"The Shah himself initially opposed the coup plans, and supported the oil nationalization, but he joined after being informed by the CIA that he too would be "deposed" if he didn't play along. The experience left him with a lifelong awe of American power, and would contribute to his pro-US policies, while generating a hatred of the British."
"So let me ask you a question. How did the US exploit Iran’s oil at a discount favorable to the US? The US didn’t start buying oil from Iran until 1973."
I stand corrected, as they only purchased oil from Iran starting in 1973.
"And I suppose you were there in Iran at that time so you could experience their “UNFORGIVABLE PAIN AN SUFFERING”? I have spoken to numerous Persians and Iranians who were there during that time period and none of them ever mentioned suffering the likes you described."
According to Professor of Political Science Richard Cottam's, Human Rights in Iran Under the Shah (https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1913&context=jil), the only three groups that were recognized as having been satisfied with the leadership of the Shah were the Security Forces, the large corporations, and the public/private technocracy. Everyone else was not satisfied and were the ones who suffered the worst human rights violations under the Shah.
"Okay, you want to be corrected? Okay, you are wrong. While the US had a hand in the coup attempt in 1953, they were not the only actors by any means. You make it sound like the US did this single handedly. Don’t exaggerate here. It really was not exactly like you describe."
I stand corrected, the Iranian coup in 1953 was a joint imperialist operation by the US (i.e., Operation Ajax) and the British (i.e., Operation Boot).
"I agree that I would prefer our country not to interfere in other countries affairs. But when our choice is to let the Soviets have influence on Iran, then I agree our interference and HELPING the Shah into power was the right move. Your exaggerations are probably why you keep saying Imperialism. But in fact you are taking events that occurred and are making a molehill into a mountain. Imperialism requires acts from the US government that just DIDN’T occur. Like actually taking over Iran and making them a state or territory."
The whole paranoia of the Soviets taking over Iran was purely speculation, preying on the communist boogieman. I still can't fathom your position that the US did not act imperialistically in their overthrow of a sovereign government. The US government has since acknowledged its wrongdoing to Iran back in 1953, yet you classify what happened as something other than imperialism.
With all due RESPECT, how would you describe then, to an Iranian today, America's direct involvement via the CIA in the events in Iran in 1953?
After the coup against the Shah and he was removed. Are you saying that Iran’s leaders are justified in their killing of innocents around the world? Because it is their decision and theirs alone to kill innocent people around the world. Whether the CIA was involved in shenanigans with Iran or not, how is NOT the decision of Iran’s leaders to kill innocent people around the world? Forget just the US and Israel. How do you justify Iran supporting terrorism of any type against innocent people, period? And if you decide to take a stab at answering it, I would appreciate an answer, not a question. Even when Obama paid off Iran, they slowed down their acts of terrorism, but never stopped. Maybe you don’t get that it doesn’t really matter what the US does? They are going to be terrorists to advance their agenda if that is what they decide to do. No one is putting a gun to their head and making them do this. It is ALL on them.
That's the point. Iran does not care who is on Obama's or the CIA's kill lists, as long as it does not include them. Hence, why should the US care if Iran wants to fight other Muslim countries?
In the ongoing cat-and-mouse game between the US and Iran, it is the legacy of what happened in 1953 and ongoing support to Iran's enemies that have a lot to do with, I know you describe it as terrorism, but I describe it as Iran's counterinsurgency.
-
"The US has no desire to take over Iran. What the US wants is regional stability."
If that were true Ren, how did the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, invasion of Libya in 2011, and invasion of Syria 2014 all by the US contributed to regional stability?
-
It is all about oil.
-
The US, however, installed a US puppet, that did America's bidding. As is reported in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat:
"The Shah himself initially opposed the coup plans, and supported the oil nationalization, but he joined after being informed by the CIA that he too would be "deposed" if he didn't play along. The experience left him with a lifelong awe of American power, and would contribute to his pro-US policies, while generating a hatred of the British."
There is a very fine line between the US having influence on and being a puppet of the US. Too fine, in my opinion to be even discussing. So let’s leave this as we generally agree. I’ll make a suggestion to you as I enjoy respectable conversations. I suggest you try and not use Wikipedia as a source for anything. If it is the only source then it is your decision. The problem with Wikipedia is that they are not unbiased. Both myself and my brother were approved editors and our edits continuously kept getting overwritten by people with a leftist agenda. Then we were both cut off from being approved editors. A lot of what I find on Wikipedia is VERY biased. As such, it can be considered an unreliable source. Again, this is just a suggestion.
According to Professor of Political Science Richard Cottam's, Human Rights in Iran Under the Shah (https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1913&context=jil), the only three groups that were recognized as having been satisfied with the leadership of the Shah were the Security Forces, the large corporations, and the public/private technocracy. Everyone else was not satisfied and were the ones who suffered the worst human rights violations under the Shah.
I won’t say you are wrong here. I was not there. As I stated before I feel I can only go by first hand knowledge and experience. And the people I know that used to live there during that time described events in a different light. I also won’t say you are right, either. As such, I feel your source is biased as most “professors of political science” have a leftist agenda. I don’t have the time right now to fully research the guy because it is possible he does not have an agenda. Just my personal bias that anything in the title with Political Science is suspect.
The whole paranoia of the Soviets taking over Iran was purely speculation, preying on the communist boogieman. I still can't fathom your position that the US did not act imperialistically in their overthrow of a sovereign government. The US government has since acknowledged its wrongdoing to Iran back in 1953, yet you classify what happened as something other than imperialism.
With all due RESPECT, how would you describe then, to an Iranian today, America's direct involvement via the CIA in the events in Iran in 1953?
Thank you. Your view is in hindsight. At the time all of this was going down, that was not the overwhelming thoughts. I can’t say what intelligence we had at the time. Maybe something has been released thru FOIA? I am sorry I don’t have the time to do full research whether some documents exist that support what you are saying is what we really knew at the time. I can only tell you what my memories are and my research tells me and that we found out later it was not as much of a big deal. In other words we over reacted. But again in hindsight.
I probably couldn’t have a conversation with an Iranian today that did not live thru that time. While I an atheist I was born to Jewish parents. So I am considered a Jew by the Jewish people. I do not consider myself this, but half of my family practices some sort of Judaism or another. I have family all over the world including Israel. My family and friends that used to live in Persia/Iran were either killed for being Jewish or got out when they had a chance due to being Jewish. So most Iranian’s today would probably want to kill me. Plus even if they didn’t know, they still would not believe me. Their history has been rewritten in much the same way you have described in our earlier discussions. Radicalization, propaganda. Not being able to have their own thoughts without being taken to jail. How do I try and explain how things went down differently. You can’t. Sad but true. They need to get back access to the Internet and to be put into a free society and they can determine themselves what really happened. That’s all we can do.
That's the point. Iran does not care who is on Obama's or the CIA's kill lists, as long as it does not include them. Hence, why should the US care if Iran wants to fight other Muslim countries?
In the ongoing cat-and-mouse game between the US and Iran, it is the legacy of what happened in 1953 and ongoing support to Iran's enemies that have a lot to do with, I know you describe it as terrorism, but I describe it as Iran's counterinsurgency.
My opinion is we should all care if Iran wants to fight other countries. We have allies in the Middle East. We need to actively support and defend them. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel are a few that come to mind. Well, I respect your opinion. Counterinsurgency? Terrorism? Proxy wars? Yeah, I don’t like some of the things we did on our side. Some I do. We disagree on words but I think to some extent here we agree on content. Not to the same degree, but to some degree.
-
Kuleana,
You said:
I still can't fathom your position that the US did not act imperialistically in their overthrow of a sovereign government. The US government has since acknowledged its wrongdoing to Iran back in 1953, yet you classify what happened as something other than imperialism.
The overthrow of a country does not Imperialism make. That is because you and I define Imperialism differently. I know most of the definitions I see on the Internet and by a very strict and narrow definition you are correct. But I was taught differently. I think where you and I differ is to the extent to which the US had a part in Iran AFTER the coup which put the Shah in place.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/imperialism
the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
You see the word “Over” is what I consider when we talk about Iran. I do not believe that we did extend our rule or authority over Iran. Even you agreed we did not take the country over. To me that is what taking over the country means. Extending the rule or authority over another country. I believe we helped put the Shah in place in exchange for a couple of things. I’m simplifying this. He needed to be friendly to us whether public or not. But overall he needed to agree to not nationalize the country’s oil production. These two things provided what I believe the US was after and that was stabile oil prices and a stabile government. They did this for the world’s benefit, not the US’s benefit specifically. And from where I see things that is exactly what we got. Did we have influence on the Shah? Of course. But he was still the final word since we had no troops on the ground there to force the country to do our bidding. If that was the case I would think we would have forced him to treat the citizens better. I am not so sure that we didn’t already know the Shah was going to rule the country the way he did. We probably did know. I am sure we didn’t want that. But sometimes the lesser of 2 evils is our only choice. Think both Bush’s. :rofl: An overthrow is an overthrow. If the US had forced control over Iran, then the overthrow would have been a part of the whole action. But we had the overthrow/coup and then we had Iran being run by the Shah. I don’t see us taking over the country which in my mind means we didn’t extend control or authority over Iran. I just don’t see Imperialism here.
I am not saying the US didn’t have any wrongdoing here. They did. They admitted it as they should have. But admitting what they did still in my mind does not Imperialism make. There are some very simplistic definitions out on the Internet that you can post here that would completely support your premise. I won’t deny that. I usually only use dictionary.com and Miriam-Webster. I do this as I find some sights leave out words or add words to change the definition. So I try and stay with sites that can’t be accused of bias in their definitions. I’m not trying to change your mind, just trying to answer your question as to how I can fathom not seeing this as Imperialism. :shaka:
-
This is a very complicated issue which you are over simplifying which changes history a bit if you do not offer some background information to go along with it. You are leaving out some important details.
SNIP
I admit I am very ignorant (at least compared to you scholars) on the Iran issues and Middle East, but a while back I did try to dig into why there's so much hatred in that region. Much of it goes back WAY before the US was even an idea of the "imperialists". It is VERY complicated and much like history of WWII (and most wars) it depends on which perspective you are reading/learning the history from. I still am very much into WWII history and was recently reading and watching perspectives from other countries, like Poland and of course Germany.
Context is also very much key and timelines back in the day are VERY hazy as to what was happening when. There's also a tendency to have the "it's obvious" in hindsight.
Anyways, all interesting stuff. Especially after my first coffee after being in vacation since 23 Dec. ;D
-
...Especially after my first coffee after being in vacation since 23 Dec. ;D
Enjoy your time off. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
Enjoy your time off. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Vacay ended already :(
-
Vacay ended already :(
Sorry... :( :( :(
-
I admit I am very ignorant (at least compared to you scholars) on the Iran issues and Middle East, but a while back I did try to dig into why there's so much hatred in that region. Much of it goes back WAY before the US was even an idea of the "imperialists". It is VERY complicated and much like history of WWII (and most wars) it depends on which perspective you are reading/learning the history from. I still am very much into WWII history and was recently reading and watching perspectives from other countries, like Poland and of course Germany.
Context is also very much key and timelines back in the day are VERY hazy as to what was happening when. There's also a tendency to have the "it's obvious" in hindsight.
Anyways, all interesting stuff. Especially after my first coffee after being in vacation since 23 Dec. ;D
While the prejudice against Jews has existed since as far back as some of human history, I feel, a lot of what we are experiencing here between the US and Iran has what had to do with the Nazis spreading the hate before and during WWII. Iran's leadership hates Jews and the Jewish state. And since we support and defend Israel, the hatred is toward us as well. The hatred is off the chart. But it was started (in writing) back in the 1930's and is alive and well today.
Here is an interesting article on the history of the hatred that was spread throughout the middle east:
http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/islamic-antisemitism-how-it-originated-and-spread
BTW, a good number of historians regarding WWII history are from Germany.
-
1) While the prejudice against Jews has existed since as far back as some of human history, I feel, a lot of what we are experiencing here between the US and Iran has what had to do with the Nazis spreading the hate before and during WWII. Iran's leadership hates Jews and the Jewish state. And since we support and defend Israel, the hatred is toward us as well. The hatred is off the chart. But it was started (in writing) back in the 1930's and is alive and well today.
Here is an interesting article on the history of the hatred that was spread throughout the middle east:
http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/islamic-antisemitism-how-it-originated-and-spread
2) BTW, a good number of historians regarding WWII history are from Germany.
1) What I noticed from what I've researched so far. Also interesting is the numerous and frankly wild hypocrisy of the Nazis (master race et al) as well as the propaganda. They were apparently amazing at it. I've said it many times, there are many parallels I see to what happened then to what I see going on now, just different method of conveying the messages, but just as dangerous. Especially when social media is lit up by the likes of Ms. Time Woman of the Year. :facepalm:
2) I've also noticed that too. A bunch of shows on AHC has many German historians. Their accents are interesting. . . ;D
As a side note, I've been getting caught up in the Marvel movie series. Damn Nazi's are all over the place there. Hail Hydra!
-
1) What I noticed from what I've researched so far. Also interesting is the numerous and frankly wild hypocrisy of the Nazis (master race et al) as well as the propaganda. They were apparently amazing at it. I've said it many times, there are many parallels I see to what happened then to what I see going on now, just different method of conveying the messages, but just as dangerous. Especially when social media is lit up by the likes of Ms. Time Woman of the Year. :facepalm:
2) I've also noticed that too. A bunch of shows on AHC has many German historians. Their accents are interesting. . . ;D
As a side note, I've been getting caught up in the Marvel movie series. Damn Nazi's are all over the place there. Hail Hydra!
The thing that scares me is how the racism is spreading in NYC. Here is an interesting 3-4 minute video:
https://youtu.be/Kvw4_boUOi0
Notice all the stereotypes? Something is fueling this.
-
1) What I noticed from what I've researched so far. Also interesting is the numerous and frankly wild hypocrisy of the Nazis (master race et al) as well as the propaganda. They were apparently amazing at it. I've said it many times, there are many parallels I see to what happened then to what I see going on now, just different method of conveying the messages, but just as dangerous. Especially when social media is lit up by the likes of Ms. Time Woman of the Year. :facepalm:
2) I've also noticed that too. A bunch of shows on AHC has many German historians. Their accents are interesting. . . ;D
As a side note, I've been getting caught up in the Marvel movie series. Damn Nazi's are all over the place there. Hail Hydra!
I've watched Hitlers speeches in history class in high school. I have no idea what he's saying, but was entertained by his speeches. So I can see how charismatic he was to the German people. I find it odd how someone who is not blonde hair and blue eyed was leading the Aryan purity stuff. Didn't know until recently that the lead singer of ABBA was a product of the Lebensborn program. Was on Netflix.
Hydra looks down on the Nazi's. #focus
-
The thing that scares me is how the racism is spreading in NYC. Here is an interesting 3-4 minute video:
https://youtu.be/Kvw4_boUOi0
Notice all the stereotypes? Something is fueling this.
Wow! While I'm not surprised, wow.
That guy at around 3:00 though. Need more like him.
Stereotypes, parallels, more. I could go on, but not appropriate for open forum. Best over beers. . . ;D
"We don't have nuffin" :facepalm: but I digress. . .
-
The first issue discussed is the Soleimani killing.
Much more detail on why we targeted him and the danger to everyone in the world, especially the US, he represented.
https://youtu.be/UZ-Yadespxg
-
Intel says that many are forced to attend his funeral or executed/hurt for not attending.
-
Intel says that many are forced to attend his funeral or executed/hurt for not attending.
Irrelevant. Most Muslim societies instill a deep-rooted hatred for the US and Israel in their children as soon as they start to learn.
It's almost impossible to reprogram people after a lifetime of being told these two countries are literally SATAN.
-
The first issue discussed is the Soleimani killing.
Much more detail on why we targeted him and the danger to everyone in the world, especially the US, he represented.
https://youtu.be/UZ-Yadespxg
he was a gut boi...
-
The thing that scares me is how the racism is spreading in NYC. Here is an interesting 3-4 minute video:
https://youtu.be/Kvw4_boUOi0
Notice all the stereotypes? Something is fueling this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnESNJBM_Eg
-
he was a gut boi...
That might be your opinion, but it's got nothing to do with the video I linked.
-
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: ;)
-
That might be your opinion, but it's got nothing to do with the video I linked.
it was a joke, son, a joke...
-
it was a joke, son, a joke...
That might be your opinion .....
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Irrelevant. Most Muslim societies instill a deep-rooted hatred for the US and Israel in their children as soon as they start to learn.
It's almost impossible to reprogram people after a lifetime of being told these two countries are literally SATAN.
Ono of the main goals of propaganda is to dehumanize the other side. There are plenty of decent people in Iran, and their safety and security also needs to be taken into consideration when making these kind of difficult decisions. If we do not then we truly are the evil empire that they say we are.
-
Ono of the main goals of propaganda is to dehumanize the other side. There are plenty of decent people in Iran, and their safety and security also needs to be taken into consideration when making these kind of difficult decisions. If we do not then we truly are the evil empire that they say we are.
"Difficult" is an understatement. That's like saying we just need to make sure guns only wind up in the right hands. Good idea in concept. Pretty close to impossible to find a solution that works.
Most people around the world get the fact that "the people" of a nation are not "their government." Unfortunately, unless the people change their government, nothing will change.
One of the reasons for the "never ending war" in Iraq is to gain a better PR image with the population. Driving out ISIS/The Taliban, killing tyrannical, murderous and oppressive dictators, building roads, improving infrastructure, etc., helps change hearts and minds.
However, it's just not enough. It takes generations to convince people "those others" are not out to destroy us. Refer to the "Russia!! Russia!! Russia!!" demonizing by the tolerant left the last 3 years after laughter when Obama poo-pooed Romney saying Russia is the nation's #1 foreign threat.
It's just too easy to convince people that someone they'll never meet are the enemy.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnESNJBM_Eg
Thanks for the vid. The cause and effect discussed makes sense to me. I don’t follow much of what is happening in NY so I was not sure why racism against Jews is increasing exponentially.
The Jewish side of my family has little to no knowledge of the squad and the goings on in NY. They know about the increase in racism but didn’t know who the mayor is, didn’t know what an AOC is, and didn’t know there are muslim representatives in the house. They do now.
-
Iranian Journalist Begs US Don’t Fall For Iran Propaganda
This is a click bait site. Sorry, I just don’t have the time to find the original artical/video from FOX.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2020/01/06/iranian-journalist-begs-us-media-dont-fall-iran-propaganda
-
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/01/07/iran-state-tv-tehran-fires-iraqi-base-housing-us-troops-ain-assad/2837693001/
Pentagon: Iran launched 'more than a dozen' missiles at bases in Iraq housing U.S. troops
-
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/01/07/iran-state-tv-tehran-fires-iraqi-base-housing-us-troops-ain-assad/2837693001/
Pentagon: Iran launched 'more than a dozen' missiles at bases in Iraq housing U.S. troops
I am afraid that Iran is not as afraid as it should be. Many years of appeasement will do that. We need to hit them hard and prevent them from launching these missile attacks again, also air bases and other high value targets like their planes. And if they continue their refineries and ports should be next along with pipelines.
This is sad as it may end up some of our troops may be wounded or dead. And I know we are going to retaliate.
-
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/01/07/iran-state-tv-tehran-fires-iraqi-base-housing-us-troops-ain-assad/2837693001/
Pentagon: Iran launched 'more than a dozen' missiles at bases in Iraq housing U.S. troops
This report, if true, is exactly what I thought as well as those NEOCONS where hoping happens when Trump ordered the assassination of one of Iran's most revered military figures. Anyone who thought this assassination would deescalate the tensions between Iran and the US was DELUSIONAL.
Now, the decisions the US makes in the upcoming DAYS/WEEKS/MONTHS will determine whether the IMPERIALISTS in this country get the WAR on Iran what they ALWAYS wanted since the Bush Administration or Trump will show restraint and put the brakes on the march to WWIII.
-
This report, if true, is exactly what I thought as well as those NEOCONS where hoping happens when Trump ordered the assassination of one of Iran's most revered military figures. Anyone who thought this assassination would deescalate the tensions between Iran and the US was DELUSIONAL.
Now, the decisions the US makes in the upcoming DAYS/WEEKS/MONTHS will determine whether the IMPERIALISTS in this country get the WAR on Iran what they ALWAYS wanted since the Bush Administration or Trump will show restraint and put the brakes on the march to WWIII.
You mad? Most of your replies are always bolded. You be like Professor Griff / S1W from PE.
-
This report, if true, is exactly what I thought as well as those NEOCONS where hoping happens when Trump ordered the assassination of one of Iran's most revered military figures. Anyone who thought this assassination would deescalate the tensions between Iran and the US was DELUSIONAL.
Now, the decisions the US makes in the upcoming DAYS/WEEKS/MONTHS will determine whether the IMPERIALISTS in this country get the WAR on Iran what they ALWAYS wanted since the Bush Administration or Trump will show restraint and put the brakes on the march to WWIII.
Why do I keep seeing people say "WWIII"? I haven't seen any other countries siding with Iran on this one.
Also, what the hell was a Iranian top general doing in Iraq anyway if not to cause havoc?
One other thing, this wasn't an "assassination" the guy was out of his bounds, got caught where he wasn't supposed to be, doing shit he wasn't supposed to be doing, and got whacked.... One less enemy terrorist contributing to global warming. You're Welcome
-
"Why do I keep seeing people say "WWIII"? I haven't seen any other countries siding with Iran on this one."
The US is not obligated to report to the World who they would support in a war between two other countries. Hence, why would those nations who would support Iran against the US make it known?
Just food for thought, please see https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/27/asia/china-russia-iran-military-drills-intl-hnk/index.html
"Also, what the hell was a Iranian top general doing in Iraq anyway if not to cause havoc?"
This general was instrumental in utilizing the forces at his disposal in combatting the Islamic terrorists of ISIS and Al-Qaeda in both Syria and Iraq. Hence, it would be very common for him to be in Iraq.
"One other thing, this wasn't an "assassination" the guy was out of his bounds, got caught where he wasn't supposed to be, doing shit he wasn't supposed to be doing, and got whacked.... One less enemy terrorist contributing to global warming. You're Welcome"
Killing this general is not like killing Islamic terrorist Osama Bin Laden or Japanese Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto in WWII. This general belonged to a nation state that the US was not in an official state of war. Hence, the appropriate term in this case is that of assasination.
-
Killing this general is not like killing Islamic terrorist Osama Bin Laden or Japanese Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto in WWII. This general belonged to a nation state that the US was not in an official state of war. Hence, the appropriate term in this case is that of assasination.
He was the leader of a designated terrorist organization who was also banned under the UN for travel outside of Iran.
Again I see no purpose in your bolding of your response over others. Why?
-
He was the leader of a designated terrorist organization who was also banned under the UN for travel outside of Iran.
Again I see no purpose in your bolding of your response over others. Why?
Button stay stuck
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Again I see no purpose in your bolding of your response over others. Why?
I bold them to distinguish my text from the original posts that I am referencing. It makes it easier for the reader with bad eyes like mine.
-
The US Embassy in Baghdad is sovereign soil belonging to the United States of America.
The "protestors" were organized and incited by Soleimani,
Protestors attacking the Embassy yelled and wrote on the walls, "Soleimani is our leader".
Soleimani was in Baghdad during the time of the embassy "protests".
Any attack on the embassy of ANY foreign power is AN ACT OF WAR when the people involved are representing another country's government. Soleimani was by anyone's estimation the number 2 leader and most revered military general in Iran. He received A BILLION US DOLLARS EVERY MONTH from Iran to fund his militia-based terroristic activities.
This was not an "assassination." Soleimani was a casualty of war. "Death to America?" Try "death to anyone who kills Americans." Nothing else will stop these bullies. Being unwilling to defend yourself merely emboldens these thugs.
-
The US Embassy in Baghdad is sovereign soil belonging to the United States of America.
The "protestors" were organized and incited by Soleimani,
Protestors attacking the Embassy yelled and wrote on the walls, "Soleimani is our leader".
Soleimani was in Baghdad during the time of the embassy "protests".
Any attack on the embassy of ANY foreign power is AN ACT OF WAR when the people involved are representing another country's government. Soleimani was by anyone's estimation the number 2 leader and most revered military general in Iran. He received A BILLION US DOLLARS EVERY MONTH from Iran to fund his militia-based terroristic activities.
This was not an "assassination." Soleimani was a casualty of war. "Death to America?" Try "death to anyone who kills Americans." Nothing else will stop these bullies. Being unwilling to defend yourself merely emboldens these thugs.
Those "protesters" were protectors who were oppressed by US Imperialism. They need a Walmart. There would be no "protests" if you gave them all EBT cards, free education and free healthcare.
-
"The "protestors" were organized and incited by Soleimani,"
If it were possible, I would like to see proof of this. Anyone who is upset with US imperialism could have orchestrated this attack.
"Protestors attacking the Embassy yelled and wrote on the walls, "Soleimani is our leader"."
How does the US know those who were doing the yelling and authored the above were actual agents of Soleimani and not ISIS or Al-Qaeda hoping to frame Soleimani?
Soleimani was in Baghdad during the time of the embassy "protests".
How convenient for ISIS and Al-Qaeda if they knew this also.
Any attack on the embassy of ANY foreign power is AN ACT OF WAR when the people involved are representing another country's government.
And Operation Ajax conducted by the US back in 1953 was not an ACT OF WAR against Iran?
He received A BILLION US DOLLARS EVERY MONTH from Iran to fund his militia-based terroristic activities.
SPECULATION.
Where did this information come from? Was this published at the Iranian government website?
This was not an "assassination." Soleimani was a casualty of war.
Your opinion.
I and many others even in America disagree with that interpretation.
"Nothing else will stop these bullies."
Your opinion again; I disagree.
Whether you liked the agreement or not, the Iranian Nuclear Deal that was internationally passed in 2015 was a step in the right direction to easing the tensions in that region.
Trump unilaterally pulled out of that deal and the rest is history.
-
Those "protesters" were protectors who were oppressed by US Imperialism. They need a Walmart. There would be no "protests" if you gave them all EBT cards, free education and free healthcare.
Or a Target...oh wait. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I saw the crowd and most who were throwing rocks, cocktails, battering rams, were in military style camo. It wasn't some grandma or female doing these.
They throw rocks and stuff because they know we won't shoot for just throwing rocks or using a battering ram. If they shot at us, then they will be shot back.
There was a story on the History channel about snipers. Some embassy in Africa had it's militia point their rifles at us, but not shoot. This went on for a few months until the ROE changed and anyone who points a gun at the embassy will be treated as hostile and shot. So 1 day some commander of the militia did it again, like how they always do and 1 of our snipers took him out. After that no militia pointed a rifle at the embassy. And anytime someone walked across the front gate, they would stop, remove their mag and hold the gun over their head. Then once the gate was crossed, they would stop again and insert their mag and carry on about their business.
-
"The "protestors" were organized and incited by Soleimani,"
If it were possible, I would like to see proof of this. Anyone who is upset with US imperialism could have orchestrated this attack.
No one here has access to this intel. This was reported by the white house. Could the WH be lying? Of course, but would they knowing the fake news is looking for anything to get rid of Trump?
But then again, same intel says steel beams melt at 1500 degrees.
-
No one here has access to this intel. This was reported by the white house. Could the WH be lying? Of course, but would they knowing the fake news is looking for anything to get rid of Trump?
But then again, same intel says steel beams melt at 1500 degrees.
No one has yet to bring this up, but just as President Clinton has done in the past, conducting air strikes to whoever, seems to be a great way of diverting attention away from one's own political problems.
-
Seems that there is some sympathy for the Soleimani in Hawaii.
Maybe they should organize a convoy of Toyota trucks with upside down Iranian flags.
#distressedOverSoleimani
-
No one here has access to this intel. This was reported by the white house. Could the WH be lying? Of course, but would they knowing the fake news is looking for anything to get rid of Trump?
But then again, same intel says steel beams melt at 1500 degrees.
New York Times seems to be reporting the very thing I posted:
Pro-Iranian Protesters End Siege of U.S. Embassy in Baghdad
When the demonstrators — largely members of Iranian-backed militias angered by deadly American airstrikes over the weekend...
The full withdrawal came after leaders of the Iranian-backed militias who had organized the demonstration called on the crowd to leave, and most gradually drifted away on foot or drove off in trucks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/01/world/middleeast/us-embassy-baghdad-iraq.html
Of course, this is where you call the New York Times "Fake News" that's supporting the lies told by the Trump Administration. We all know the NYT is 100% pro-Trump, right?
-
Well at least these Iranian proxies have balls to protest outside a US Embassy compared to our local anti-US protestors if there are any. The most Ive seen is a couple of white people outaide a US combatant command and some locals burning the US flag....weak sauce..
-
No one has yet to bring this up, but just as President Clinton has done in the past, conducting air strikes to whoever, seems to be a great way of diverting attention away from one's own political problems.
What political problems does Trump have? He's going to win 2020 by a landslide in spite of/because of the so-called impeachment "lite" that has yet to make its way to the Senate -- because, you know, he's a bad orange man and had to be impeached before Christmas.
"Clear and present danger," "threat to our national security," "time is of the essence."
What other lies are part of this "political problem" of which you speak?
-
No one has yet to bring this up, but just as President Clinton has done in the past, conducting air strikes to whoever, seems to be a great way of diverting attention away from one's own political problems.
There are new stations who reported what the WH said. And these stations are not pro Trump either. So there has to be some truth behind it.
-
Of course, this is where you call the New York Times "Fake News" that's supporting the lies told by the Trump Administration. We all know the NYT is 100% pro-Trump, right?
Interesting that you would put credibility in the NYT; the same NYT that did very little to critically analyze the evidence the Bush Administration shared to the World in regards to Saddam's possession of nuclear weapons and the need to invade Iraq in 2003?
THAT NYT?
-
"The "protestors" were organized and incited by Soleimani,"
If it were possible, I would like to see proof of this. Anyone who is upset with US imperialism could have orchestrated this attack.
"Protestors attacking the Embassy yelled and wrote on the walls, "Soleimani is our leader"."
How does the US know those who were doing the yelling and authored the above were actual agents of Soleimani and not ISIS or Al-Qaeda hoping to frame Soleimani?
That's not an argument of fact, but a cheap deflection based on unsupported speculation on your part alone.
Soleimani was in Baghdad during the time of the embassy "protests".
How convenient for ISIS and Al-Qaeda if they knew this also.
See reply above
Any attack on the embassy of ANY foreign power is AN ACT OF WAR when the people involved are representing another country's government.
And Operation Ajax conducted by the US back in 1953 was not an ACT OF WAR against Iran?
Another response that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the fact I stated. Is this your attempt at "what-about-isms"? Leave that to someone with experience -- like EEF.
He received A BILLION US DOLLARS EVERY MONTH from Iran to fund his militia-based terroristic activities.
SPECULATION.
Where did this information come from? Was this published at the Iranian government website?
You call it "speculation", but you have no facts to refute it. Read this for a small taste of where that money from Iran is going to support terrorist militias. Iran is the king of proxy terrorism. They have been called "the largest national sponsor of terrorism in the world" for decades. Maybe you missed that in your amateur study of world history?
Eizenkot further said that since 2012 Iran had also spent “billions” of dollars on Syria.
He said Iran currently had around 2,000 military advisers in Syria deployed alongside 10,000
foreign Shi’ite militiamen and 8,000 Hezbollah fighters.
Iran spends “hundreds of millions” of dollars more on allies in Iraq and Yemen, Eizenkot added.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-rallies-israel/top-israeli-general-sees-increased-iran-spending-on-foreign-wars-idUSKBN1ER0Q9[/color]
This was not an "assassination." Soleimani was a casualty of war.
Your opinion.
I and many others even in America disagree with that interpretation.
Wrong. It's the educated opinions of many giving insight into what happened including Jeh Johnson, Obama's former Secretary of Homeland Security. Soleimani was a legal and valid military target. I've seen no facts to dispute this. Only emotional anti-Trump rhetoric.
"Nothing else will stop these bullies."
Your opinion again; I disagree.
Whether you liked the agreement or not, the Iranian Nuclear Deal that was internationally passed in 2015 was a step in the right direction to easing the tensions in that region.
Trump unilaterally pulled out of that deal and the rest is history.
Wrong. It's the opinion of people who know a hell of a lot more about the situation than you OR I do. The nuclear deal was a farce. Even Kerry, who was peddling the deal to Congress admitted there are parts of it he was not allowed to know about. :wtf:
Who signs an agreement with a terrorist nation to stop their attempts to build a nuclear arsenal and doesn't know all the pieces? Stupid Liberals who don't give a rat's ass about this country as much as they do the appearance of doing "something".
-
Waiting for the #IAmSoleimani movement....maybe t shirts, gathering on the mauna etc.
-
"Wrong. It's the educated opinions of many giving insight into what happened including Jeh Johnson, Obama's former Secretary of Homeland Security. Soleimani was a legal and valid military target. I've seen no facts to dispute this. Only emotional anti-Trump rhetoric."
Your opinion.
"Wrong. It's the opinion of people who know a hell of a lot more about the situation than you OR I do. The nuclear deal was a farce. Even Kerry, who was peddling the deal to Congress admitted there are parts of it he was not allowed to know about."
The only people who say the Iranian nuclear deal in 2015 was a bad one was the US. Did the other nations who signed on to the deal feel the same way?
Who signs an agreement with a terrorist nation to stop their attempts to build a nuclear arsenal and doesn't know all the pieces?
As far I have checked, not all of the members of the UN Security Council sees nor has the UN condemned Iran as a terrorist nation. Hence, America's reference of Iran being a terrorist nation is that of their own.
Stupid Liberals who don't give a rat's ass about this country as much as they do the appearance of doing "something".
You should not demonize liberals just because they have a different view than you; they are as American as anyone else in the US. :shaka:
-
Demonize? He just said they are stupid. Not Damien.
-
Waiting for the #IAmSoleimani movement....maybe t shirts, gathering on the mauna etc.
I thought I saw one when people were protesting his killing on the mainland. Karen made signs.
-
If it were possible, I would like to see proof of this. Anyone who is upset with US imperialism could have orchestrated this attack.
You can ask the US govt. Not here on this forum though.
How does the US know those who were doing the yelling and authored the above were actual agents of Soleimani and not ISIS or Al-Qaeda hoping to frame Soleimani?
You can ask them...oh no you can't they are all in pieces.
Where did this information come from? Was this published at the Iranian government website?
because a theocratic country like Iran who still or tries to fly F14s (cue "Danger Zone" guitar riff) is so good at information sharing on the internet :crazy: :rofl: :rofl:
I and many others even in America disagree with that interpretation.
Your opinion again; I disagree.
Whether you liked the agreement or not, the Iranian Nuclear Deal that was internationally passed in 2015 was a step in the right direction to easing the tensions in that region.
Trump unilaterally pulled out of that deal and the rest is history.
We gave them billions of our money to appease them. I don't think we got our money's worth. They captured a US Navy patrol boat, terrorized the Strait of Hormuz and continuously called for the destruction of the USA. I want a refund.
-
I bold them to distinguish my text from the original posts that I am referencing. It makes it easier for the reader with bad eyes like mine.
I disagree. You could easily adjust your monitor's picture settings. You bold them to speak over other's opinions and statements and you purposely quote them in your own reply to deter a response.
-
As far I have checked, not all of the members of the UN Security Council sees nor has the UN condemned Iran as a terrorist nation. Hence, America's reference of Iran being a terrorist nation is that of their own.
same perception can be applied to the AQ and BinLaden was another religious leader
You should not demonize liberals just because they have a different view than you; they are as American as anyone else in the US.
just like in Hawaii - Americans! :shaka:
-
"Wrong. It's the educated opinions of many giving insight into what happened including Jeh Johnson, Obama's former Secretary of Homeland Security. Soleimani was a legal and valid military target. I've seen no facts to dispute this. Only emotional anti-Trump rhetoric."
Your opinion.
"Wrong. It's the opinion of people who know a hell of a lot more about the situation than you OR I do. The nuclear deal was a farce. Even Kerry, who was peddling the deal to Congress admitted there are parts of it he was not allowed to know about."
The only people who say the Iranian nuclear deal in 2015 was a bad one was the US. Did the other nations who signed on to the deal feel the same way?
Who signs an agreement with a terrorist nation to stop their attempts to build a nuclear arsenal and doesn't know all the pieces?
As far I have checked, not all of the members of the UN Security Council sees nor has the UN condemned Iran as a terrorist nation. Hence, America's reference of Iran being a terrorist nation is that of their own.
Stupid Liberals who don't give a rat's ass about this country as much as they do the appearance of doing "something".
You should not demonize liberals just because they have a different view than you; they are as American as anyone else in the US. :shaka:
What you call "demonize" I call "speaking the truth."
All depends on your maturity level as to whether you can accept the truth.
I didn't call all liberals stupid. I said "Stupid Liberals". That means "those Liberals who are stupid." If you believe I was talking about all of them, that says more about how you tend to stereotype and pigeon hole people into groups than it does about me.
It's not the job of "other countries" nor the UN to protect the US from our enemies. I think Iran counts as an enemy. Have you visited the US Embassy in Tehran? If you have, it was more than 41 years ago. That's how long it's been since the US and Iran had any sort of diplomatic relationship.
That is, before Obama sent them $1.7B in cash and unfroze another $50B in assets. I wonder where Iran got all that money to continue their global terrorism?
-
Trump announced today that Iran is standing down.
Even so, US agencies will remain on alert for further efforts to retaliate against us.
So much for:
OMG!!!! TRUMP IS AN ASSASSIN!!!!
World War Three!!!!
Armageddon!!!
WAR CRIMES!!!!
"WAG THE DOG"!!!!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Have you visited the US Embassy in Tehran? If you have, it was more than 41 years ago. That's how long it's been since the US and Iran had any sort of diplomatic relationship.
Gee Whiz.
I wonder why?
-
Gee Whiz.
I wonder why?
A sarcastic rhetorical question. :sleeping:
Trump won this round against Iran. We took one of their powerful knights off the board, and all Iran did was threaten some pawns without capturing a single piece.
4d Chess. :thumbsup: :geekdanc:
-
Gee Whiz.
I wonder why?
Because you can't reason with the unreasonable and irrational. . .
Ever listen to the "news" coming out of Iran, Iraq, etc? :facepalm:
Ever notice how Iran's rhetoric is just turning things back at the source. Sort of like:
A: You're fat
Iran: Noooo, YOU'RE fatter!
I mean not literally, but pretty close. . .
-
Word on the street is the Iranian airplane that was shot down had Soleimami's supporters on it and they were leaving Iran knowing their power is gone. Iran shot it down because they don't want them to return stronger at a later date. #Costcohassaleontinfoil
Peace talks will start once everything calms down.
-
Only good Iranian, is a dead Iranian
I was watching Starship Troopers this past weekend. ;D
-
Only good Iranian, is a dead Iranian
I was watching Starship Troopers this past weekend. ;D
So who would you pick? Ibanez or Flores? Ibanez looks like a dead fish type.
-
So who would you pick? Ibanez or Flores? Ibanez looks like a dead fish type.
Both!
Nah. Based on characters in the movie? Or in general?
But both!
Or AOC? :shake:
Kidding...
-
Both!
Nah. Based on characters in the movie? Or in general?
But both!
Or AOC? :shake:
Kidding...
If AOC flashed me I would probably vote for her!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Both!
Nah. Based on characters in the movie? Or in general?
But both!
Or AOC? :shake:
Kidding...
Based on what they looked like at the time the movie was made. Both are old AF now.
-
Based on what they looked like at the time the movie was made. Both are old AF now.
Flores is on NCIS:LA now. Showing her age for sure, but still looking good for 52.
Ibanez/Denise Richards in Wild Things :o
-
Bunch of intel officers loyal to soleiami arrested.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Iran sent messages through three back channels to US after attack to say they were done
https://www.dailywire.com/news/iran-sent-messages-through-three-back-channels-to-u-s-after-attack-to-say-they-were-done?itm_source=parsely-api%3Futm_campaign%3Ddw_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=housefile&utm_content=non_insiders&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8O6QlAGZ693FmuABEbXOIo2qzlM_UMNWz2_mJqAGeRrMHEQ_ijXK-9zqZEU1Kw1s2Z5hEIY-dvg-FJpQ0aLPufyESoTg&_hsmi=81733565