Christian Forums and Message Board

Specifics and Interests => Christian Politics Forum => Topic started by: Johnb on Fri Jan 03, 2020 - 17:50:55

Title: Iran
Post by: Johnb on Fri Jan 03, 2020 - 17:50:55
So now the democrats are defending terrorist.  They thought Trump should have informed them (they have already proven they can not keep a secret). They also said it could escalate the conflict.  So now we should be afraid of Iran?
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Fri Jan 03, 2020 - 17:53:49
Shhhhhh, they think they are expressing the disdain of the American people. Freakin’ morons!
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Alan on Fri Jan 03, 2020 - 18:15:17
Obama handled Iran Sooooo much better, isn't that just obvious?  ::sarcasm::
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Fri Jan 03, 2020 - 19:58:41
A couple pallets of Benjamins would do it!
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Johnb on Sat Jan 04, 2020 - 07:40:06
Yet they still want to brag about Obama taking out osama.  I remember republicans rejoicing about that along with the democrats. 
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: mommydi on Sat Jan 04, 2020 - 14:10:32
So now the democrats are defending terrorist....


Pay attention to the people who are angry that Soleimani is dead. Pay very close attention to those who are angry about it.

People who normalize the dismembering of unborn babies in the womb are angry that Soleimani is dead. People who support the party of Molech are angry that a blood thirsty terrorist is dead.







Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Sat Jan 04, 2020 - 14:20:16
I heard some rep on TV this morning say he was OK in principal with the operation, just not the Commander in Chief. Strange times we live in.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: mommydi on Sat Jan 04, 2020 - 14:27:59
I heard some rep on TV this morning say he was OK in principal with the operation, just not the Commander in Chief. Strange times we live in.

I heard the same. Someone saying it was the right thing to do, but not the right president to do it.

The people who are angry about Trump taking out a blood thirsty terrorist sat quietly while Obama ok'd over 500 drone strikes without congressional approval. One of those drone strikes was a wedding where women and children were killed. Still...it's ok, cause it's Obama.

Title: Re: Iran
Post by: mommydi on Sat Jan 04, 2020 - 14:32:00
So now we should be afraid of Iran?

Saw this tweet today-

Matt Couch
@RealMattCouch

Democrats... Brave enough to kill our unborn children... Just not brave enough to take on our enemies..
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: RB on Sat Jan 04, 2020 - 14:49:39
Pay attention to the people who are angry that Soleimani is dead. Pay very close attention to those who are angry about it.

People who normalize the dismembering of unborn babies in the womb are angry that Soleimani is dead. People who support the party of Molech are angry that a blood thirsty terrorist is dead.
These very people that are angry that that wicked man is dead, reminds me of what God said to Israel of old:
Quote
Ezekiel 18:29~"Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?
What madness it is to vomit forth blasphemies and hatred against those in authority as if their actions were unjust when these very people have absolutely no understanding of what's going on! I'm reminded of what Jude said:
Quote from: THE HOLY GHOST
Jude verse 10~"But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves."
"in those things they corrupt themselves"~ People who normalize the dismembering of unborn babies in the womb are angry that Soleimani is dead....... Dismembering babies in their mother's womb.......Seriouly~which one is truly evil? Their ways are so UNEQUAL and proven to be so every time they open their filthy mouths and spue out their wicked madness and TRUE HATRED for that which is EQUAL and JUST and RIGHTEOUS.   
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Johnb on Sat Jan 04, 2020 - 18:39:27
RB +1
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Norton on Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 13:57:24
What a mess this is turning into. We killed a general to avert war, but immediately send troupes to Iraq in case there is a war set off by the killing. However; Iraq may be embargoed unless they pay for the bases we built there after our invasion, and unless they stop complaining about the killing of the general within  their borders. The terrorist state, Iran, has sworn vengeance on us, but we may become a terrorist state ourselves and target their cultural centers. Our European and Middle East allies are watching in alarm. All we need now is for Kim Jong to drop a test missile off the coast of Hawaii to see which way the seat of Trump's well worn pants will take him. But in the end maybe everything will be alright. We still have Israel to watch our backs.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 14:08:52
We don’t need Israel to watch our backs without Obama capitulating and appeasing our enemies at every turn. I WOULD BE worried if I were Soleimani’s replacement. Or at least he should be worried. Bush and Obama should have long ago taken out Soleimani. (Note the bipartisan bashing.)

European allies in alarm? Heck many American traitors are decrying the iconic Soleimani’s death. Many in the know are saying Soleimani was more dangerous than Bin Laden and Baghdadi.

 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/604378/ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/604378/)

So what that Iran has sworn vengence? They have been wagging the finger of vengence against us since 1979.

Oh well, at least the Dems will have some fodder for future impeachment charges that help re-elect Trump.

Norton have you been listening to that buffoon Colin Kaeperneck who calls America a terrorist nation for targeting brown and black skinned people like Soleimani? Shame on you!

I think Trump and the military are well able to handle any contingency that little Rocket Man might scheme up. Kim was paying attention to what happened to Soleimani. Don’t think his eyes didn’t get as big as saucers when he heard the news. Kim doesn’t want to have his body swept up into several dozen plastic bags.

I saw a meme today where Kim asked his advisors about the Soleimani attack. He said, “Trump did what?” The next frame was Kim on the phone to Trump, “Donald, we OK right?”
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Texas Conservative on Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 15:05:27
If we had had that Donkey's butt McCain in office at some point, we would have had full on war straight away.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 15:13:15
Yeah, with the Republican voters. Maverick McCain never met a Republican he liked very well.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Norton on Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 17:46:09
Soleimani was just as dangerous as Ben Laden or Baghdadi. As far as administering justice, for the death of our troupes in the middle East, he needed killing. As far as keeping peace in the world, the killing is more questionable. Ben Laden and Baghdadi did not represent any one nation. They were pure terrorists hiding out. How many nations rose up in anger when they were killed? Soleimani was a popular general in a sovereign nation. His death has united a whole nation, that was formerly not very united, against us. That is probably why Bush nor Obama did not take him out. There may be some evidence that when Soleimani was killed he was in Baghdad with Iraqis planning assaults against our soldiers. Killing Soleiman may have been the only way to save some of those troupes. But, if as has been reported, the military intelligence officers said they were surprised  that Trump chose the option to kill Soleimani, So I doubt that many lives were in imminent danger if he was not killed.

Killing the general may have been a brave and heroic action or it may, as I fear, have been a serious blunder, in part brought about by Soleimani's mocking of Trump on TV. What is not in doubt is that Trump's behavior right before and after the killing was appalling. He didn't brief Congress or our allies. His bullying of Iraq. Are we going to war with Iraq again to get a base of operation to counter Iran? Most of all was his threat, twice, to target Iran's cultural sites. Are we going to purposely destroy mosques, schools, hospitals, museums, recreational spots, civic auditoriums,etc, and the people in them? World opinion and allies are very important in the health of a nation, especially during military conflicts. Hitler may have whipped us if he had not betrayed his ally, Russia, who became our ally. Even with the atomic bomb, Japan may not have surrendered if Russia had not been closing in, ready to invade. I have never been as tough as I once thought I was. My country is not as tough as I once thought it was. We need allies.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Johnb on Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 18:03:44
The only reason we have not won a war since WW2 is we quit fighting them to win.  The purpose of war it to blow up stuff and kill people until the enemy no loner has the will to resist.  But now we talk about non combatants , innocent civilians and rules of how to treat prisoner.  War is a terrible thing and should be a last resort but when it starts it has to be total commitment.  Where was the military target when we dropped the atomic bombs that ended WW2?  Where was the military target when we fire bombed Berlin?  I could give more examples but we simply have lost the desire to fight and end a war.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 18:35:27
Norton, I strongly have my doubts that Pelosi and her anti-American minions would have kept a secret and I don’t blame Trump for not trusting them and THEIr behavior has been appalling. He did however give congress a lawful notice within 48 hours. Nothing wring with his notice. Especially with how it came down. The window of time for the decision was minutes, not hours or days.

I am reasonably sure that a lot of reasonable people in Iran, Syria and other places were plenty glad he is gone. In fact there were stories of cheering in the atreets. Not from Fake News CNN. The Iranian people at large are not supportive of their regime.

 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/604396/ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/604396/)

Let not your heart be troubled, the world will be better off with this bad guy gone. The Left in America will continue to decry his death.

Think about this one. Who would Russia, China, Iran, North Korea rather have as President, Trump or any of the Democrats running? You KNOW the answer!

By the way why would our allies prefer an appeaser like Obama rather than a strong President like Trump. I think you know the answer to that as well. Same kinda hysteria when the Left wet their pants over the election of Ronnie Raygun. And the associated clutching the pearls and suffering the vapors when Reagan insisted on leaving in bis speech in Berlin, “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Instead of WWIII, the Berlin wall came down and the Soviet Union dissolved. Yes Virginia a strong resolute President is by FAR better than a weasel appeaser like Obama.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: mommydi on Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 19:13:06


 Heck many American traitors are decrying the iconic Soleimani’s death.


You want to see something sickening- go to Hassan Rouhani's twitter account. (Yes, he has a verified account. Twitter kicks off American patriots on a daily basis, but lets the president of Iran keep his account). Look at his account and you'll see American Democrats kissing his ass - siding with him over our country. There are even idiot Hillary Clinton supporters on his twitter feed begging him to ignore Trump because Hillary is the rightful president.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 19:20:38
And Norton thinks Trump is unhinged! Lots of leftie jack asses need to be deported, with all due respect of course......... but none is due!!!!!
 rofl

Seriously I am beginning to feel sorry for these idiot Dems. Though someday they will understand just how self destructive they are becoming. It’s like watching the last half of almost any recent Dallas Cowboy season.
 ::clappingoverhead::
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: mommydi on Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 19:22:11
The only reason we have not won a war since WW2 is we quit fighting them to win.  The purpose of war it to blow up stuff and kill people until the enemy no loner has the will to resist.  But now we talk about non combatants , innocent civilians and rules of how to treat prisoner.  War is a terrible thing and should be a last resort but when it starts it has to be total commitment.  Where was the military target when we dropped the atomic bombs that ended WW2?  Where was the military target when we fire bombed Berlin?  I could give more examples but we simply have lost the desire to fight and end a war.

+1
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 19:30:46
I am absolutely sure that America would never have had the guts to save the world in WWII with the present “kind” of Americans that seem to proliferate on the wrong side. Especially with the treasonois Democrat bastions (pun intended) like AOC, Omar and Talib.   
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: mommydi on Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 20:09:36
I am absolutely sure that America would never have had the guts to save the world in WWII with the present “kind” of Americans that seem to proliferate on the wrong side. Especially with the treasonois Democrat bastions (pun intended) like AOC, Omar and Talib.
Yep, I agree.
What gets me is the libs here in U.S. kissing up to terrorists and dictators. The same libs who demand the right to rip babies limb from limb in the womb run to the Internet to condemn POTUS for killing a blood thirsty terrorist.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 21:07:21
With the anti-Semites in the Democrat ranks, such as Talib and Omar, Hitler would  be a crowd favorite with these Democrats.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Norton on Mon Jan 06, 2020 - 22:54:24
The only reason we have not won a war since WW2 is we quit fighting them to win.  The purpose of war it to blow up stuff and kill people until the enemy no loner has the will to resist.  But now we talk about non combatants , innocent civilians and rules of how to treat prisoner.  War is a terrible thing and should be a last resort but when it starts it has to be total commitment.  Where was the military target when we dropped the atomic bombs that ended WW2?  Where was the military target when we fire bombed Berlin?  I could give more examples but we simply have lost the desire to fight and end a war.
You brought up some good points Johnb. Yes. we dropped the atomic bombs on Japan and firebombed German cities without caring that much where the bombs landed. Some of the cities destroyed did not provide much in the way of military output or strategy. Although not many of us are proud of it we did what we had to do to defeat the enemy who killed tens of millions of civilians in China, Eastern Europe, and Russia. As far as I know the countries in China, Eastern Europe, and Russia did nothing to provoke the Germans or Japanese. If the Iranians start a mass slaughter of civilians, then it may be time to start talking about slaughtering their civilians, but until then the Pres needs to keep his mouth shut about it.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 05:22:25
You keep every option open in their minds. You don’t start eliminating the retribution we MIGHT do. Trump isn’t about to attack their cultural sites.  If cultural sites mean more to them than being part of civilized nations then we need to know that. He wants them to understand we are dead serious. I think they get the message. They certainly got Obama’s message of capitulation and appeasement. Now they have to be “re-educated”. America is NOT now or ever was what Obama wanted us to be. In his eyes, America was bad and the cause of all the bad in the world because of our exceptionalism, and unfair status as the only super power.

Yes, they know we are strong militarily, but they have seen our weakness of will. They need to wonder what kind of guy IS this Trump. And don’t forget, our other enemies Russia and China are taking note as well. China for sure knows Trump is all business, especially on trade where they have mauled us for 30 or more years.

Yes we live in treacherous times, but we need a leader that other countries believe will go to the mat, and they know we have the might, they have been coached that we don’t have the will. Trump is uncoaching their erroneous impressions.

We don’t need endless wars and nation building as we have had in the past. We can and will deter with our strength and will to slap down any stupid behavior quickly and decisively and quit trying to foist western democracy on our foes. Rogue nations play right or they must fear that we MIGHT actually do them harm. They must chose reasonable behavior or suffering. Being a worldwide sponsor of terrorism is not going to cut it. And of course continue extremely tough economic sanctions which they hate the worst. Have a price to pay and an expectation by our enemies that they WILL pay it. Very similar to Reagan’s Peace through Strength policies. Remember the Mullahs released the hostages in 1980 the day Reagan took office. I wonder why? Do you think they knew something? They knew the days of panty waist Carter were over.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: 4WD on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 06:12:11
The only reason we have not won a war since WW2 is we quit fighting them to win.
There is a repeating claim that we did not win the Vietnam War.  That is wrong.  We won that war.  There was the Paris Peace Accords. A peace treaty was signed on January 27, 1973, during the Nixon Administration, to establish peace in Vietnam and end the Vietnam War. The treaty included the governments of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam), the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), and the United States, as well as the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) that represented indigenous South Vietnamese revolutionaries. As a part of that treaty, the United States agreed to provide South Vietnam with the equipment and supplies needed to defend themselves against any attempt by North Vietnam to violate the treaty.  With the problems of Nixon and the subsequent takeover of the House and the Senate by the Democrats during the Ford Presidency, the Democrats refused to appropriate the necessary funds for the needed equipment and supplies to South Vietnam.  The result of that was North Vietnam, realizing that South Vietnam lacked the necessary equipment and supplies to defend herself, began their final offensive early in 1975.

Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese army supported by Viet Cong units on April 30, 1975. Not only did North Vietnam conquer South Vietnam, but the communists were also victorious in Cambodia when the Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh on April 17, as were the Pathet Lao in Laos successful in capturing Vientiane on December 2.

Therefore the United States did actually win the war in Vietnam; however, the Democrats refused to honor the treaty and therefore gave South Vietnam to North Vietnam.  The Democrats literally snatched defeat from the jaws of success.  That is a fact of history.

The real problem now is that we are not at war with any nation or country.  There is no entity against whom we can declare war and with whom we can sign agreements or treaties to end the war.  We are committing the U.S. military to combating terrorism, not fighting a war.  Terrorism is not an entity; terrorists do not constitute a nation, country or recognized state to defeat.  Terrorism is not an act of war; rather terrorism is a criminal act.  The U.S. military, like local law enforcement, cannot prevent such criminal acts. It can only respond to such criminal acts.  It can only provide a policing action in response to the violence.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Johnb on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 06:32:59
My service started in 1970.  There were ridiculous rules of engagement in Nam.  The first time we tried one of our own (Lt. Cally) for war crimes.  I don’t think you will find folks who served there saying we won.  A piece agreement that breaks a nation in two is not winning in Korea or Vietnam Nam.  Our hands were tied and the public was turned against the effort. Just like the democrats are trying to do today.  If you are not going to fight a war to win don’t fight.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: 4WD on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 07:10:11
My service started in 1970.  There were ridiculous rules of engagement in Nam.  The first time we tried one of our own (Lt. Cally) for war crimes.  I don’t think you will find folks who served there saying we won.  A piece agreement that breaks a nation in two is not winning in Korea or Vietnam Nam.  Our hands were tied and the public was turned against the effort. Just like the democrats are trying to do today.  If you are not going to fight a war to win don’t fight.
With all due respect, Johnb, you are only promoting the fallacies of the Left.  We are not fighting a war.  War has not been declared.  We are not at war with any nation.  Our military is acting in a mode of combating criminally violent acts.

Are you suggesting that we do not use our military to combat terrorism?  If that is your position, then so be it.  But I think that would be a mistake.  I, personally, do not have the answer for a national position against foreign terrorist actions against the U.S., but I rather suspect that limiting it to response to acts committed against the U.S. homeland will be even less effective than what is going on now.

As for the problems faced by the military in Vietnam, I think that was because it was being directed on a daily basis by government not the military.  And all the hype the anti-war sentiment, that sentiment was developed by those who did not object to war, per se, rather they objected to war against the communists.  It was initiated and led by the Leftists who objected to war against Leftists.  It was effectively communists here in the U.S. coming out against actions against the communists of North Vietnam, China, etc.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 07:48:10
I would agree that we did not win the Viet Nam War. WAY to much micro management. Exactly the opposite is why the Gulf War was so successful. And the fact that the Gulf War was carried out on a desert parking lot as opposed to a jungle.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: 4WD on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 08:03:44
I would agree that we did not win the Viet Nam War. WAY to much micro management. Exactly the opposite is why the Gulf War was so successful.
Jaime, I just showed you that we won the Vietnam War, but the Democrats literally gave the victory away.  They could not accept a victory against the communist regime.  Google it.  Look it up.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 08:08:39
No you showed just why we didn’t win. If we won the war, we definitely lost the peace afterwards. Yeah we won a lot of battles, but no one in government contemplated a victory there and government not the military was calling the shots. Victory was verboten for some of the reasons you did point out. War is not won with the ending in that one. Winners win, we did not. We certainly could have and should have, but didn’t. Winning in those kind of wars includes total victory, not what happened there at the end especially by our government. Nothing was achieved. Certainly not for the price paid.

Wars are won by kicking someone’s butt until they want no more. The VC was almost at that point, but correctly schemed to get what they had been fighting decades for in the “peace” talks. I think you are right about our communists didn’t want us bullying their communist. Winning a war takes military might and governmental will to inflict merciless pain until victory is achieved. We didn’t have the will. Therefore in the end the US lost what they spent decades and hundreds of billions of dollars and 57,000 plus lives for.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 08:43:22
As of this AM I have not heard anyone "declare" war against Iran.

I do hear those on the right saying the take out of Soleimani was a good thing. And it had been planned for, not a spur of the moment.

Millions of people turned out for Soleimani's funeral and a stampede ensued.

At least 50 people died and more than 200 were injured in a stampede at a funeral procession for Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, as Iranian authorities struggled to manage the large crowds rallying against the U.S.’s targeted killing of the powerful military leader.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/stampede-at-funeral-procession-for-iranian-commander-kills-35-11578390888

So... it would appear that they will declare war on us. That is, maybe cause they may not be smart enough to not to.

Does that mean POTUS needs to get congressional approval to defend us?

But a more troublesome question is bothering me.

We have about 50% of the population of the US with the mindset, intelligence and IQ of a gnat. No other explanation for their
vile hatred of POTUS and their not wanting anything good that the man has done for them.

It is understandable that they want every conceivable foreigner to move here and to give them things the citizens are not even entitled to to secure their votes... legal or not. It matters none to them.

BUT, can anyone explain, in an understandable way, to me..... why the left wants to let terrorists off the hook?
They will pull their very own baby out of their bodies and kill them but a terrorist like Soleimani ... who has killed more then 500 Americans, that we know about.... they, American citizens,  are horrified he is gone.

By their thinking, had it existed prior to 12/7/1941 Hawaii would be a Japanese extension and we all would be speaking German.





Title: Re: Iran
Post by: 4WD on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 08:43:55
We signed a treaty. North Vietnam signed the treaty.  South Vietnam signed the treaty. All treaties have to be enforced.  The Democrats defaulted on the enforcement of the treaty.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 08:54:28
Yes 4WD. We as a country and government gave away what the military achieved. In the end we conceded defeat, unfortunately for the thousands who suffered and died there, for WHAT? I am not minimizing what the military accomplished, but I am absolutely pointing out what the government did and didn’t do towards any victory. Victory in the classic sense was not achieved because of the government as you pointed out. I hated it then and still hate it.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 09:30:17
Sure did not take long for lefty ABC news to trot on over to talk to them.
____________________________________________

Iranian foreign minister says US 'will pay' for its 'act of war' originally appeared on abcnews.go.com

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says the United States "will pay" for its actions and must "be prepared for the consequences" in the wake of the death of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force who was killed by an American airstrike in Iraq last week.

In a sit-down interview with Zarif in Tehran on Tuesday, ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz asked, "Are you concerned that a strong response from Iran will end in an all-out war?"

"That depends on the United States," Zarif said. "The United States took an act of war against Iran; it will have to be prepared for the consequences. Then it will have to decide whether it wants to get itself into a quagmire or whether it wants to stop."

Zarif said his country is a "very patient" one and will take action "after necessary deliberation" and "at a time of our choosing." He added that Iran will announce and claim responsibility for whatever counteraction it decides to take.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/iranian-foreign-minister-says-us-pay-act-war-131147800--abc-news-topstories.html
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: mommydi on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 09:33:31
Striking our embassy was an "act of war."

Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 09:48:50
It certainly was. Except in the Left’s vernacular.

The party that needs to decide something is Soleimani’s replacement. Next on deck will be target number 2.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Johnb on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 15:48:45
4WD I was not making a comment about being at war today.  I was disputing the idea that we won Viet Nam.  A piece treaty does not make a win.  Kids an South Viet Nam scrambling to get on planes because they knew they would be killed by the North.  Even after the treaty we had troops in Cambodia still crossing in and trying to win.  You win a war when the other side no longer has the will or means to fight.  That was not the case it was a political goat rope that got 58,000 Americans killed including 4 of my best friends.  NO in NO rational way did we win that war.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Norton on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 18:01:59
But we did win the Iraq war under G W Bush. It only cost us a trillion dollars and a few 1000 dead and mangled troupes, and strengthened Iran's power, but we showed that SOB Hussein and anyone else not to mess with the USA. Yeah, I was cheering Bush on in that war, but after the smoke cleared it was a very hollow victory. One of the biggest blunders an American Pres has ever made. Second only to Johnson's Vietnam. Both were justified to the American people through misinformation and deceit. If you want to go to war because somebody needs their butt kicked, go yourself on your own money.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 18:27:02
That’s the point Trump won’t go to war like the Iraq war. Yes we will counter anything they do but we will not send hundreds of thousands of ground troops like in Iraq and Afghanistan. No need to if we don’t want to do regime change, which we don’t and won’t under Trump.

Also, I am convinced the WMD was in fact IN Iraq and moved to Syria. He had them and used them on his own people. Saddam unilaterally getting rid of his WMD is about as likely as Kim Jung Un unilaterally getting rid of his nukes. Bush was right but felt he couldn’t afford to incriminate the Russians for their role in moving the WMD. We had our hands full in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously. That was probably a blunder; however we did have the real culprits Iran completely surrounded on the East and the West and our ships in the Indian Ocean.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 18:35:56
But we did win the Iraq war under G W Bush. It only cost us a trillion dollars and a few 1000 dead and mangled troupes, and strengthened Iran's power, but we showed that SOB Hussein and anyone else not to mess with the USA. Yeah, I was cheering Bush on in that war, but after the smoke cleared it was a very hollow victory. One of the biggest blunders an American Pres has ever made. Second only to Johnson's Vietnam. Both were justified to the American people through misinformation and deceit. If you want to go to war because somebody needs their butt kicked, go yourself on your own money.

Did we? Did we really show them not to mess with the USA? NOT.

I was glued to the tube in that war that was televised and everything seemed to scream USA,USA,USA. And thought highly of GW when things were seeming to go our way....

But I have not forgotten how Bin Laden pulled one over on us in late 2001 when he escaped through the Toro Bora mountains.

I remember, all too well, the 3 separate times that when our troops were on his heels and word came down to them that he was going to surrender the next day but wanted the night to get his ducks in a row. Our guys said fine, and the next morning Bin Laden had escaped.

So ramping up the search we tracked him down again and yet a 2nd one came where surrender was imminent but needing some time.  And it was granted.

Finally the third time came. and the request was made yet again only this time he had managed to disappear the next day.

I knew then that he was not to be caught, but I did not know why.... only that it had to be orders from DC and most likely GW.

And so much following 911 up to and even today just smells like a week old fish out of water.

But now we have someone who is not playing by the political rules. Not the rules that are not in writing but "understood" by the leaders around the world, but by those that are right and just.

Jaime said
Quote
       
Also, I am convinced the WMD was in fact IN Iraq and moved to Syria. He had them and used them on his own people. Saddam unilaterally getting rid of his WMD is about as likely as Kim Jung Un unilaterally getting rid of his nukes.     

100% agreement.

 
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 18:47:02
Bush was an idiot for not revealing that fact, but he didn’t want to expose the fact that Russia helped Saddam move the WMD to Syria according to One of Saddam’s generals that wrote a book about it. The only logical explanation.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 19:25:36
Bush was an idiot for not revealing that fact, but he didn’t want to expose the fact that Russia helped Saddam move the WMD to Syria according to One of Saddam’s generals that wrote a book about it. The only logical explanation.

Was that the one about the rose garden?

I bought it, but it could not hold my interest.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 19:32:26
It was Saddam’s Secrets by Gen. Georges Sada.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Tue Jan 07, 2020 - 19:57:33
It was Saddam’s Secrets by Gen. Georges Sada.

Not the same.

Mine was about bomb parts being buried under the roses in the rose garden.

The write up sounded quite plausible when I bought it... but was way more technical then I wanted to read at the time. Though I forget the rank of the man who wrote it. I think also was a general, but perhaps not

(CNN) -- The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned.

The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel.

The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind

https://www.amazon.com/Bomb-My-Garden-Secrets-Mastermind/dp/0471741272

Title: Re: Iran
Post by: NorrinRadd on Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 01:58:27
The only reason we have not won a war since WW2 is we quit fighting them to win.  The purpose of war it to blow up stuff and kill people until the enemy no loner has the will to resist.  But now we talk about non combatants , innocent civilians and rules of how to treat prisoner.  War is a terrible thing and should be a last resort but when it starts it has to be total commitment.  Where was the military target when we dropped the atomic bombs that ended WW2?  Where was the military target when we fire bombed Berlin?  I could give more examples but we simply have lost the desire to fight and end a war.

Completely agree.  I have never really understood or accepted the idea of "rules" of war.  More than anything, "rules of war" and especially "proportional responses" lead only to decades of quagmire.  If you're going to fight, unleash war in all its fury and horror; otherwise, just stay home and surrender.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: AVZ on Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 04:20:30
But we did win the Iraq war under G W Bush.

I doubt it. From my point of view you are still fighting that war, have a military presence there and it cost you billions.
And now it looks like they want to boot you out.
So what is it that you won? Looks to me you never won anything but lost a lot.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: 4WD on Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 05:28:04
4WD I was not making a comment about being at war today.  I was disputing the idea that we won Viet Nam.  A piece treaty does not make a win.  Kids an South Viet Nam scrambling to get on planes because they knew they would be killed by the North.  Even after the treaty we had troops in Cambodia still crossing in and trying to win.  You win a war when the other side no longer has the will or means to fight.  That was not the case it was a political goat rope that got 58,000 Americans killed including 4 of my best friends.  NO in NO rational way did we win that war.
We wouldn't have "won the war" with Japan if we all we did was drop the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and sign a treaty. It is necessary to conduct the relevant follow through.  In the case of Vietnam, the democrats took direct action to cut off all the relevant follow through.  So yes, the military did win that war, the [democrat] politicians gave it away.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: 4WD on Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 05:31:16
I doubt it. From my point of view you are still fighting that war, have a military presence there and it cost you billions.
And now it looks like they want to boot you out.
So what is it that you won? Looks to me you never won anything but lost a lot.

We have a military presence in Japan and in Germany and it continues to cost us billions.  Are you suggesting that we did not win WWII with Japan and Germany?
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: mommydi on Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 09:48:37
If the Iranians start a mass slaughter of civilians, then it may be time to start talking about slaughtering their civilians, but until then the Pres needs to keep his mouth shut about it.

You mean like back in November when the Iranian regime murdered 1500 of their own people when they protested against their own government? Among the dead, were women and teens.
Or what about the Iranian militias who have murdered thousands in Eastern Syria?

I could go on with more examples, but does Norton the expert on foreign affairs give President Trump permission to open his mouth about these mass slaughters, or not?
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Norton on Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 10:50:11
I doubt it. From my point of view you are still fighting that war, have a military presence there and it cost you billions.
And now it looks like they want to boot you out.
So what is it that you won? Looks to me you never won anything but lost a lot.
Exactly my point. We subdued their military. Captured and executed their leader, but still came out a loser.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 12:09:56
4WD I was not making a comment about being at war today.  I was disputing the idea that we won Viet Nam.  A piece treaty does not make a win.  Kids an South Viet Nam scrambling to get on planes because they knew they would be killed by the North.  Even after the treaty we had troops in Cambodia still crossing in and trying to win.  You win a war when the other side no longer has the will or means to fight.  That was not the case it was a political goat rope that got 58,000 Americans killed including 4 of my best friends.  NO in NO rational way did we win that war.
.

NO, we DID NOT win that war.

As to winning a war when the other side no longer has the will or means to fight... ::doh:: Not in this day and age. Wars are being waged these days not with boots on the ground but using technology that should never have been invented, but was necessary.

The "other side" will always have the will to fight.. ergo no wins.

As long as there are terrorists and terrorism in the world those people feel incumbent to keep it going for it is their devine rewards they believe in and when one is gone another will step up to the plate.

There is no solution. Life has turned into a Vietnam.

But I ask you what would you do. Would you withdraw all troops world wide and let whatever happens happen?

Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 12:15:17
Completely agree.  I have never really understood or accepted the idea of "rules" of war.  More than anything, "rules of war" and especially "proportional responses" lead only to decades of quagmire.  If you're going to fight, unleash war in all its fury and horror; otherwise, just stay home and surrender.

Fully agree.

But the heads of state have their agreements of what can and cannot be done.

Now we cannot hit IRANS cultural sites.  Whoopie... though in the past many places were destroyed in WW1 andWW2....

But does that not give them a pass... a pass to hide all things nuclear knowing we can never get to them?

POTUS said cultural sites would be targeted.

The DEMS cried foul... it is against the law... now so written.

POTUS backed down from that last night on the public news.

And God forbid we would target a leader of a nation we are now at war with.... It is true insanity.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 12:17:18
I doubt it. From my point of view you are still fighting that war, have a military presence there and it cost you billions.
And now it looks like they want to boot you out.
So what is it that you won? Looks to me you never won anything but lost a lot.

                                                                                             .


And I mean every word of that.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 12:19:25
You mean like back in November when the Iranian regime murdered 1500 of their own people when they protested against their own government? Among the dead, were women and teens.
Or what about the Iranian militias who have murdered thousands in Eastern Syria?

I could go on with more examples, but does Norton the expert on foreign affairs give President Trump permission to open his mouth about these mass slaughters, or not?

No, he does not.

He leans too far away from understanding and is blinded by his jumbled mind to comprehend the whys, much less the wherefores. rofl
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 12:20:31
Exactly my point. We subdued their military. Captured and executed their leader, but still came out a loser.

It takes one to know one....

You give new meaning to "The Biggest Loser".
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Norton on Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 16:57:25
It takes one to know one....

You give new meaning to "The Biggest Loser".
Yes I know, everyone who does not praise Trump is a loser. You are getting the language down just right.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Wed Jan 08, 2020 - 17:18:54
Doesn’t it work the other way for your side with Obama and Hillary et al? Let’s at least be original! Trump is not perfect by any stretch. Can we find common ground on the many good things he has done. I can think of several things to criticize him about. Can YOU come up with several criticisms of Obama or any Establishment Republican for that matter? Any reasonable person must admit that the impeachment thing in the House was incredibly unfair and the media’s Trump derangement syndrome is wearing thin. If not then those people ARE in fact  unreasonable and losers. Try to give the man SOME credit, he deserves a lot. I’ll give you the criticisms of him saying women lets you grab their genitals, or when he gives his political enemies tacky nicknames. But all of Donald is bad all the time is simply stupid. I concluded with all his faults, he is hands down a better choice than any Democrat or Republican in 2016 or 2020. Ted Cruz would bave been great, but unelectable and beating Hillary was ALL IMPORTANT. Much moreso in 2020 with his accomplishments and promises kept. No one here worships Trump. An obvious admonition to anyone especially the anti-Trump all the time morons. Not saying anyone particularly is here, but I‘m starting to worry. Even Dems found a way to make Soleimani sound praiseworthy.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: AVZ on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 00:57:26
You mean like back in November when the Iranian regime murdered 1500 of their own people when they protested against their own government? Among the dead, were women and teens.
Or what about the Iranian militias who have murdered thousands in Eastern Syria?

I could go on with more examples, but does Norton the expert on foreign affairs give President Trump permission to open his mouth about these mass slaughters, or not?

Just to put things in perspective.
- The Iranian government as it is today is the product of meddling with internal politics in Iran by Western powers (UK & US)
- The reason why people take to the streets in Iran is due to the sanctions, issued and now increased by the US

The whole reason for Trump to tear up the agreement was to exercise not only international pressure, but also national pressure on the Iranian Government.
Do you really think Trump did not expect, know and perhaps even hoped for demonstrations with violent results when he abandoned the agreement?

This whole mess we are facing today in the ME is due to western powers dividing up the region for their own interests.
The UK and France however seem to have been a hell of a lot smarter than the US. They packed up and left a long time ago already.

Why do you think there is so much hatred against the USA in the ME?
Because you are the last colonial power that is still there meddling in politics, and if necessary by force.

In an amazing display of wisdom however has Trump made the sacrifice of the protesters in Iran a sacrifice in vain.
By taking out a prominent member of the government has he united the people of Iran again.

And finally, nobody cares about 1500 people (if it was that many). It makes for good political rhetoric, but do you really think anyone in the US government cares about 1500 Iranians?
We read it in the newspaper, shake our heads and have forgotten about it the next day.
Any idea how many people died by the hands of Saddam Hussein who was put in place by the US? Did anyone care?

I tell you what the US cares about in the ME. Three words...oil, power, money
Everything else is just noise.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: 4WD on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 04:50:46
The whole reason for Trump to tear up the agreement was to exercise not only international pressure, but also national pressure on the Iranian Government.
The reason Trump took us out of the Iran Nuclear deal was because it did nothing whatsoever to prevent Iran producing nuclear weapons.  All it did was given them 10 years from the start of the agreement [about five years from now] to develop the technology needed to build a nuclear weapon. And just as important as the weapon itself, there is the need for a means of delivering the weapon, namely, ballistic missiles.  The Iran Nuclear Deal did absolutely nothing to prevent Iran from developing ballistic missiles.

And on top of that, the Deal gave Iran one and a half a billion dollars and lifted all sanctions allowing them both money and opportunity to exercise their role as the number one country in the planning, organizing and exercise of terrorism throughout the ME and beyond.  It was a really stupid deal. 

Maybe, just maybe, Trump can correct a little of the damage done by Obama in entering into that Deal. However, the Democrats are fighting him every step of the way.  They are so bad that they are now even taking issue with his getting rid of Qasem Soleimani.  They praised Obama for getting rid of Osama Bin Laden who was probably much less effective enemy against the U.S. than was Soleimani.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 05:50:53
50 yrs ago our stance on Iran WAS probably about oil, money and keeping the Russians out of Iran. Now as we are virtually oil independent, our Iran stance is or should have been even with Obama about their worldwide sponsor of terrorism and the likely potential the will get a nuke  to add to their terrorism toys. As we have seen, Obama’s apology tour and disasterous deal with Iran only only project weakness. We have zero need for their oil or money and this President rightly has no desire for endless wars there especially hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground. I DO believe he WILL do whatever it takes to prevent Iran getting a nuke. I’m convinced most of the Iranian citizens are tired of the 7th century mullahs mucking up their lives. And I’m sure they don’t want us running their lives. We can get along with most Iranians. The longer the Mullahs stay in power, the less likely the Iranian people will flourish.

We can’t undo mistakes of the pat, but we also don’t have to repeat our mistakes of the past. We don’t need the Iran policies of the 1970’s and we certainly don’t need W Bush policies in the ME and we certainly do NOT need Obama’s Iranian policy or appeasement. I suspect Trump’s strength will result in some real negotiated progress. The last thing Trump needs is protracted war in and around Iran. And the Iranian people deserve better than what the Mullahs have wrought on them. Maybe the mullahs will see a little light.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: AVZ on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 06:16:24
50 yrs ago our stance on Iran WAS probably about oil, money and keeping the Russians out of Iran. Now as we are virtually oil independent, our Iran stance is or should have been even with Obama about their worldwide sponsor of terrorism and the likely potential the will get a nuke  to add to their terrorism toys. As we have seen, Obama’s apology tour and disasterous deal with Iran only only project weakness. We have zero need for their oil or money and this President rightly has no desire for endless wars there especially hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground. I DO believe he WILL do whatever it takes to prevent Iran getting a nuke. I’m convinced most of the Iranian citizens are tired of the 7th century mullahs mucking up their lives. And I’m sure they don’t want us running their lives. We can get along with most Iranians. The longer the Mullahs stay in power, the less likely the Iranian people will flourish.

We can’t undo mistakes of the pat, but we also don’t have to repeat our mistakes of the past. We don’t need the Iran policies of the 1970’s and we certainly don’t need W Bush policies in the ME and we certainly do NOT need Obama’s Iranian policy or appeasement. I suspect Trump’s strength will result in some real negotiated progress. The last thing Trump needs is protracted war in and around Iran. And the Iranian people deserve better than what the Mullahs have wrought on them. Maybe the mullahs will see a little light.

This has nothing to do with the US not needing access to Iran's resources, but it has everything to do with keeping the rest of the world away from it.
In particular Russia, China and Japan.

As far as terrorism is concerned, if you don't want terrorism...just leave!
And yes, there is a likely potential Iran will get either nuclear energy or nuclear weapons, especially now that Trump tore up the agreement that allowed control!

Finally, Iran actually is a very moderate Islamic country compared to for example Saudi Arabia.
Which very much proves that a country most certainly can flourish even under strict Muslim regime.

If you want the Iranian people to stop suffering and if you want them to flourish...lift the sanctions and let them become part of the international (trading) community!
If you would actually take the time to listen to the Iranian people themselves, that's exactly what they are asking for.
So if your concern is with the Iranians, don't try to take away their Mullahs. They do not want that and they do not need you to do that.
What they want is access to trade and commerce....but that is exactly what you take away from them.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 07:03:10
This has nothing to do with the US not needing access to Iran's resources, but it has everything to do with keeping the rest of the world away from it.
In particular Russia, China and Japan.

As far as terrorism is concerned, if you don't want terrorism...just leave!

If you want the Iranian people to stop suffering and if you want them to flourish...lift the sanctions and let them become part of the international (trading) community!

If you would actually take the time to listen to the Iranian people themselves, that's exactly what they are asking for.
So if your concern is with the Iranians, don't try to take away their Mullahs. They do not want that and they do not need you to do that.

What they want is access to trade and commerce....but that is exactly what you take away from them.

 ::doh::

There is so much wrong with these statements but be happy... I will not expound. You do not have the intelligence to understand why you are so wrong here.

We could give them what you seem to think they want. It would never happen as the powers that be would block progress for the people.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: 4WD on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 07:10:33
You are so right, Rella.  That entire post, being as nice as possible, was a post of naivete.  Putting it more realistic it was a post of ignorance.  Iran, and much of the ME, is lead by radical Islamists.  Islam is not just a religion; but it is also a political philosophy. It is a political philosophy which is seeking world domination and central control from the top.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 07:41:01
Not only that but the Shiite Muslims hate the Sunni Muslims almost as much as they hate the US and Israel. The Iranian Mullahs are not interested in peacefully co-existing with us OR its neighbors. We would much rather deter their aggression with strength rather than hope for their goodwill in the face of our appeasement and weakness. Which sensible people know doesn’t work.

If Russia or China could ensure the free  flow of oil for the rest of the world, great but we all know they wouldn’t do that. Russia uses their natural gas as a bludgeon against Eastern Europe and would LOVE that for Western Europe as well. Angela Merckel was hell bent on latching onto the the Russian Bear’s gas teat. The Russians don’t play nice with resources they control, neither does China. We don’t want to take their oil, just don’t screw up the free flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf  and hence the world economy. Everyone’s economy is inextricably linked. We have recently attained pretty much energy independence. But our economy is linked to everyone elses.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: AVZ on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 10:14:32
Not only that but the Shiite Muslims hate the Sunni Muslims almost as much as they hate the US and Israel. The Iranian Mullahs are not interested in peacefully co-existing with us OR its neighbors. We would much rather deter their aggression with strength rather than hope for their goodwill in the face of our appeasement and weakness. Which sensible people know doesn’t work.

If Russia or China could ensure the free  flow of oil for the rest of the world, great but we all know they wouldn’t do that. Russia uses their natural gas as a bludgeon against Eastern Europe and would LOVE that for Western Europe as well. Angela Merckel was hell bent on latching onto the the Russian Bear’s gas teat. The Russians don’t play nice with resources they control, neither does China. We don’t want to take their oil, just don’t screw up the free flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf  and hence the world economy. Everyone’s economy is inextricably linked. We have recently attained pretty much energy independence. But our economy is linked to everyone elses.

You are in fact quite mistaken.
The most strict and aggressive form of Islam is in Wahhabism, which is the dominant religion in Saudi Arabia.
And yet the Saudi's are your allies.
Once again, what again was the dominant origin of the terrorists that plunged themselves into the Twin Towers?

There are far more comparatives between Shia and Sunni. They may hate each other a lot...they hate Wahhabi's more.
It just shows that it is perfectly possible to live in co-existence with strict Islam, proven by your relationship with the Saudis.

The problem with the US is that they refuse to meet any of the Arabs on their terms, instead the Arabs are required to meet the Americans on their terms.
In centuries past many conquerors have tried to submit the Arabs and Persians to their rule...none ever succeeded.
The US will not succeed either.

The one and only reason why the US (for now) has a footing in the Middle East, is because you have the weaponry to suppress other countries.
If you would not have that armory, you would have been disposed off a long time ago.
For decades has the US been waging war in the region and besides everybody in the Middle East hating you more than ever before, you have not gained an inch.

It is quite strange you blame China and Russia for not assuring free flow of commodities, whilst the only person in recent history who has been obstructing free trade is Donald Trump.
As far as the world aconomy is concerned, the main aggressor at the moment in neither Russia nor China...it is in fact the USA.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: 4WD on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 10:42:02
It is quite strange you blame China and Russia for not assuring free flow of commodities, whilst the only person in recent history who has been obstructing free trade is Donald Trump.
you think China is actually in favor of the free flow of commodities?  That is a laugh; it is more than a laugh; it is sheer ignorance.
Quote
As far as the world aconomy is concerned, the main aggressor at the moment in neither Russia nor China...it is in fact the USA.
I don't really know what you even mean by an aggressor of the world economy.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 10:53:43
Trump is trying to get fair trade with China. I think he will achieve it.

And yes Wahabiism is definitely a huge problem. I don’t believe it is a state sponsored terrorism like with Iran.

We don’t need to “conquer” Arabs or Persians. We would like for them to live in peace. We would have been perfectly happy to leave Afghanis to their poppy fields and such but when they became Al Queda’s training base, that’s a no go. Same with Iran. I am in total favor of letting them live peaceably IF they would. We don’t need them as a punching bag.

I do agree with something you said a few days ago about the problems in the Middle East began with the random map drawing of the British Empire. And of course oil has muddied the water. Between haves and have nots in the region.

I do believe we can have peace with the Iranians, but it will always be from a position of strength, or an imposed peace. From a position of weakness, the Arabs and Persians would have long ago wiped each other out.

And we learned that secular strong men like Saddam are not all bad in controlling their radical religious factions.

When we were separated by vast oceans in a world of telegraphs etc who would cate what went on in these countries. Now with ease travel and missile technology, it matters where ever in the world the trouble spot is. I would assume the best we could hope for is a slow boil in these countries. As long as we are strong, we will try to affect behavior. When we are weak, bad behavior will overtake the world.

The disaster of WWII was largely because of isolationist and appeasers. Millions of lives later, things were righted, but a lot could have been prevented by not falling back on appeasement. It NEVER works.





Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 11:00:23
4WD, I would say AVZ’s country, whatever it is, is an aggressor of the world economy. If he does’t want to share what his home country is, anything we say is fair game. I’m guessing he lives in one of those S-hole countries that Trump spoke about. He’s welcome to prove he doesn’t.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Alan on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 12:24:35
Looking quite evident now that the commercial airliner was intentionally shot down. Not sure how this will be dealt with, Canada may issue a cheque for the 63 Canadians on board.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Johnb on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 13:57:37
4WD. Not only was I alive I was serving during that time and we got out of Nam because of all the anti war rallies and public opinion.  We cut bate and ran and then tried to declare it a victory.  Ford announced there would not be any more US involvement Jan 1975.  In April Saigon (the capital of south Viet Nam) fell and was over run by the communist forces and the government of south Viet Nam surrendered.  Now how in any way is that a victory???
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Norton on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 15:31:01
50 yrs ago our stance on Iran WAS probably about oil, money and keeping the Russians out of Iran. Now as we are virtually oil independent, our Iran stance is or should have been even with Obama about their worldwide sponsor of terrorism and the likely potential the will get a nuke  to add to their terrorism toys. As we have seen, Obama’s apology tour and disasterous deal with Iran only only project weakness. We have zero need for their oil or money and this President rightly has no desire for endless wars there especially hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground. I DO believe he WILL do whatever it takes to prevent Iran getting a nuke. I’m convinced most of the Iranian citizens are tired of the 7th century mullahs mucking up their lives. And I’m sure they don’t want us running their lives. We can get along with most Iranians. The longer the Mullahs stay in power, the less likely the Iranian people will flourish.

We can’t undo mistakes of the pat, but we also don’t have to repeat our mistakes of the past. We don’t need the Iran policies of the 1970’s and we certainly don’t need W Bush policies in the ME and we certainly do NOT need Obama’s Iranian policy or appeasement. I suspect Trump’s strength will result in some real negotiated progress. The last thing Trump needs is protracted war in and around Iran. And the Iranian people deserve better than what the Mullahs have wrought on them. Maybe the mullahs will see a little light.
I would say that is a good assessment of the Iran situation. Because of our need to control the supply of oil and fear of communist influence, the CIA, along with Britain's blockades, helped overthrow Iran's newly elected Prime Minister and gave the Shah full power. A large part of Iran's population has hated us ever since. Of course the Shah was overthrown by the mullahs after 25 years. and so here we are, and we can't change it. Trump's strength may indeed result in real negotiated progress if he shows Iran he can be trusted. But one man's negotiated progress is another man's appeasement. Was Obama's deal that Trump tore up, negotiated progress or appeasement? I don't have foresight enough to say one way or the other, but with the obvious misleading characterizations Trump put out about the deal, with giving Iran $150,000,000,000 so on and so forth, I am sorry to say, I trust Obama's version of this matter more than I trust Trump's.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 16:35:46
Obama’s deal was pure appeasement. Why do you Trust Obama’s deal? Iran used the money we released to build the missiles they shot at us. What part of cash strapped state sponsor of terror with 150 Billion dropped in their lap is hard to understand? And they had a clear pathway in 5 years to attain a nuke. Nah, no can trust Obama on this one. Most everyone with any sense agrees a Nuclear Iran would be catastrophic, except the appeaser and apologist in chief Obama. Obama’s deal bought us nothing, except a projection of weakness and appeasement? Not even good will. I think there IS a deal with Iran we could live with and they SHOULD, if they want sanctions off. I don’t think Trump mislead about Obama’s deal. We gave them 150 Billion dollars that we were holding from them for good reason because of the sanctions had the same effect of us just giving them 150 Billion of our own money. It went to fund terrorism. I would hope you strongly reconsider your Obama thoughts or just don’t vote. PLEASE! You are probably ga ga over the Democrat lineup this time around. I would just as soon not know who strikes your socialist fancy from that band of ne’er do wells.

What difference does it make if we characterize it as giving them 150 Billion or releasing 150 Billion we were holding because of sanctions? They didn’t fix their behavior to have money released. It was an incredibly stupid deal so Obama could kick the nuclear can to the next President. Very noble of him!
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: mommydi on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 17:20:17
... I am sorry to say, I trust Obama's version of this matter more than I trust Trump's.

It's strange that someone who comes to the political forum and spews nothing but Democratic talking points would be "sorry" he supposedly trusts Obama more than Trump.

You're not fooling a soul, Norton. Not.one.soul.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 17:50:24
with giving Iran $150,000,000,000 so on and so forth, I am sorry to say, I trust Obama's version of this matter more than I trust Trump's.

It truly does not matter about the $150,000,000,000.

Did you ever once stop to ask yourself why it was done in secret, in the middle of the night?

First, it is not the $150,000,000,000 that is of key importance it is what one of your preferred news agencies CNBC has to say on the subject. Surly you will believe them........



The Obama administration secretly sought to give Iran access to the US financial system

KEY POINTS
The Obama administration secretly sought to give Iran access — albeit briefly — to the U.S. financial system by sidestepping sanctions kept in place after the 2015 nuclear deal.

The administration did so despite repeatedly telling Congress and the public it had no plans to do so.

“The Obama administration misled the American people and Congress because they were desperate to get a deal with Iran,” said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/06/the-obama-administration-secretly-sought-to-give-iran-access-to-the-us-financial-system.html

No, it is not the $ $150,000,000,000   it is the fact

The US paid Iran $1.3 billion in secret.

https://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12830688/us-iran-cash-payment-ransom

And had they not been discovered we would never have known.

This is "Your" Obama.... not exactly an upstanding citizen and not a politician to be proud of.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Norton on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 19:30:33
Rella
The 1.3 billion was a settlement the US and Iran reached in an international court of arbitration involving $400 million worth of arms that Iran had paid for but the US had not delivered. The sale of the arms took place shortly before the hostage crisis of 1979 and the US had been withholding the money since then. The court case drug on for years but the money, was paid in 2016. The money was paid in installments over several days. I have not found out what time of day the payments were made.

Rella! Did you not read the Vox article you referenced? They were refuting your wild tale of a conspiracy.




 
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: AVZ on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 19:40:15
Trump is trying to get fair trade with China. I think he will achieve it.

And yes Wahabiism is definitely a huge problem. I don’t believe it is a state sponsored terrorism like with Iran.

We don’t need to “conquer” Arabs or Persians. We would like for them to live in peace. We would have been perfectly happy to leave Afghanis to their poppy fields and such but when they became Al Queda’s training base, that’s a no go. Same with Iran. I am in total favor of letting them live peaceably IF they would. We don’t need them as a punching bag.

I do agree with something you said a few days ago about the problems in the Middle East began with the random map drawing of the British Empire. And of course oil has muddied the water. Between haves and have nots in the region.

I do believe we can have peace with the Iranians, but it will always be from a position of strength, or an imposed peace. From a position of weakness, the Arabs and Persians would have long ago wiped each other out.

And we learned that secular strong men like Saddam are not all bad in controlling their radical religious factions.

When we were separated by vast oceans in a world of telegraphs etc who would cate what went on in these countries. Now with ease travel and missile technology, it matters where ever in the world the trouble spot is. I would assume the best we could hope for is a slow boil in these countries. As long as we are strong, we will try to affect behavior. When we are weak, bad behavior will overtake the world.

The disaster of WWII was largely because of isolationist and appeasers. Millions of lives later, things were righted, but a lot could have been prevented by not falling back on appeasement. It NEVER works.

The Arabs and Persians have been at each others throat for centuries, far before Islam even.

You somehow seem to insinuate that if the US would not have stepped in, we would have an Arab/Persian-free society because the two groups would have wiped each other out.
The reality is of course that nations and people have been going at each other for as long as the world exist, and no ruler has ever succeeded to "make" Arabs and Persians live in peace.
And guess what...the Arabs and Persians are still here.

The Saud family would be a good example of how a strong leader can control (religious) factions.
But lets not have any misunderstanding here, the only reason why the Saud family runs the show is because they killed anyone who opposed them.

Now Saddam Hussein also was a strong leader who killed anyone who opposed him. Nothing different from the Saudi's.
Yet we find fault in Saddam...and praise the Saudi's.

Once again, lets come to the core reason why the US plants its foot down in the region and rolls its muscles continuously: oil!
This is not about human rights or whether the Arabs kill the Persians, nobody cares.
Do you really think that if there was no oil in the region, the US would have its presence there protecting people from each other?

The USA and UK made a massive miscalculation a few decades ago by trying to assimilate the Middle East.
Do you know that even Nixon actually had plans to invade the Middle East and take it by force?
All this is about oil and oil only.

But now that you have plenty of it yourself at home, you feel the urge to make sure the oil fields in the Middle East do not come under the influence of Russia and China.
And that's why you wish to enforce your rule on the nations there.

Anyone who thinks the deserts and people in the Middle East enjoy but a shred of interest from the international community besides for the presence of oil, is sorely mistaken.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 20:09:02
Rella
The 1.3 billion was a settlement the US and Iran reached in an international court of arbitration involving $400 million worth of arms that Iran had paid for but the US had not delivered. The sale of the arms took place shortly before the hostage crisis of 1979 and the US had been withholding the money since then. The court case drug on for years but the money, was paid in 2016. The money was paid in installments over several days. I have not found out what time of day the payments were made.

Rella! Did you not read the Vox article you referenced? They were refuting your wild tale of a conspiracy.

Not MY wild tale of conspiracy... part of the money went this way

The United States airlifted $400 million in foreign currencies to Iran in January to partially settle a decades-old dispute over an aborted arms deal. On the same day, Tehran released four American hostages, but Washington is denying the exchange amounted to a ransom payment.

The U.S. stacked the cash — in euros, Swiss francs and other currencies — on wooden pallets and flew it into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane. It was the first installment on a $1.7 billion settlement stemming from the failed U.S. weapons pact with Iran in 1979 just before its last monarch, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was toppled. The U.S. dispatched the cash in foreign currencies because any transaction with Iran in dollars is illegal under U.S. law.

No conspiracy son, just facts.

I know why things were converted to foreign currency.... as is the last sentence above, BUT WHY was it flown on an unmarked cargo plane.... This should bother you and make you querry why also.

https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-paid-iran-400m-tehran-freed-4-american-hostages

We did not pay for the hostages to be released..... timing is sure suspect as is the secretive manner of what they now claim was the proper thing to do.

Title: Re: Iran
Post by: AVZ on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 20:46:49
It truly does not matter about the $150,000,000,000.

Did you ever once stop to ask yourself why it was done in secret, in the middle of the night?

First, it is not the $150,000,000,000 that is of key importance it is what one of your preferred news agencies CNBC has to say on the subject. Surly you will believe them........



The Obama administration secretly sought to give Iran access to the US financial system

KEY POINTS
The Obama administration secretly sought to give Iran access — albeit briefly — to the U.S. financial system by sidestepping sanctions kept in place after the 2015 nuclear deal.

The administration did so despite repeatedly telling Congress and the public it had no plans to do so.

“The Obama administration misled the American people and Congress because they were desperate to get a deal with Iran,” said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/06/the-obama-administration-secretly-sought-to-give-iran-access-to-the-us-financial-system.html

No, it is not the $ $150,000,000,000   it is the fact

The US paid Iran $1.3 billion in secret.

https://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12830688/us-iran-cash-payment-ransom

And had they not been discovered we would never have known.

This is "Your" Obama.... not exactly an upstanding citizen and not a politician to be proud of.

The problem with the media in the USA is that it is hopelessly divided for political reasons.
Whilst the US proclaims freedom of press, you actually know very little of it. It is very unfortunate for the American people that there is very little independent press left.
And this is not a reflection of the media only, it is a reflection of American society in general.

Whilst there are many intelligent and informed people in the USA who can see through the politicization of the press, there are a whole lot more who can't and who won't.
Most, because of the sharp lines drawn within US society, will stick to their side of the story by any means, and absorb anything their side proclaims as being the truth.
And almost none will actually invest some time to check out what the real facts are, which usually is right in the middle.

With exception, this is a typical American thing. Americans have not been raised with an outward view of the world.
You do not understand most of the foreign cultures because there never was a need for it. Instead foreign cultures were supposed to align with US policies.
And for a while most foreign cultures did to some extend align themselves with US interests for economic gain.

That position however is shifting. Where in the past the British Empire was the global economic power house, that has all but disappeared.
And now the position of the US is on the decline.
So what you have right now in the USA is exactly the same as what the British had a few generations ago: a generation that finds it increasingly difficult to accept that the world no longer is the playground of the west, and in particular the US.
And that's why American politics has become increasingly more populist and utterly divided.

And guess what, you can't really blame the average American for having a subjective view.
The lies coming from both sides are getting bigger and bigger and the media, equally divided, forwards the lies into society depending on which political camp they support.

So, lets address that 1.5Bn first.
As Norton already said, this was a settlement by arbitration. Nothing secretive about it.
See how easy that was? It was neither secretive, nor in the middle of the night.

The 150Bn is a detraction as well.
First and foremost, nobody "gave" Iran anything or dropped a gift in their lap. That money was Iran's to start with.
But here is the reality of the situation...

Even before the US released that 150Bn, Iran was already developing nuclear capabilities. They did not need that 150Bn to continue their nuclear program.
In fact the rest of the world was getting very nervous about Iran progressing their nuclear capability even though so much of their assets and funds were frozen.
Oh sure, the US could have kept that 150Bn in their pocket. Would that have stopped Iran? Not at all!
So the choice was made to release those funds in exchange of an agreement that allowed foreign access.

See how simple that was? Nothing shady about it.
But now that Trump has torn up the agreement, we are worse off than before.
Not only do the Iranians have the 150Bn, they are now completely free to continue nuclear development without foreign control.


And finally that "secretive" access to the US banking system.
In order to transfer funds from one currency to the other, you need to go through the so-called "swift" system, which happens to be an American system.
Every day millions of transactions are being made over that system, and numerous banks and financial establishments are granted access to the American financial system to complete their transfers.

The US has tried before to force pressure on foreign nations by threatening to cut them off from that payment system.
In case of Russia, the message came back that if the US dared all hell would brake loose. The US quickly backed off.

Also in this case, the US did not want any trouble with Oman.
Oman lies in the so-called sphere of influence of the US, it has significant gas reserves and is the largest non-OPEC oil producer with massive oil reserves.
And Oman needed to transfer funds to Iran. Hence Iran was given access to the American financial system in order for the transfer to succeed.

See how simple that was? It is all out there in the open.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: AVZ on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 21:00:47
Not MY wild tale of conspiracy... part of the money went this way

The United States airlifted $400 million in foreign currencies to Iran in January to partially settle a decades-old dispute over an aborted arms deal. On the same day, Tehran released four American hostages, but Washington is denying the exchange amounted to a ransom payment.

The U.S. stacked the cash — in euros, Swiss francs and other currencies — on wooden pallets and flew it into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane. It was the first installment on a $1.7 billion settlement stemming from the failed U.S. weapons pact with Iran in 1979 just before its last monarch, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was toppled. The U.S. dispatched the cash in foreign currencies because any transaction with Iran in dollars is illegal under U.S. law.

No conspiracy son, just facts.

I know why things were converted to foreign currency.... as is the last sentence above, BUT WHY was it flown on an unmarked cargo plane.... This should bother you and make you querry why also.

https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-paid-iran-400m-tehran-freed-4-american-hostages

We did not pay for the hostages to be released..... timing is sure suspect as is the secretive manner of what they now claim was the proper thing to do.

Lol. this is so funny.
You are aware that even AirForce 1 is an "unmarked" plane right?
The reason why they call those planes "unmarked" is that they cannot be tracked by conventional means, which in normal circumstances means they switch off the transponders.
I am however pretty sure that AirForce 1 also has a whole lot of other equipment on board that makes sure the plane cannot be traced.

You are of course also aware that if this was an "unmarked" plane...the US actually loaded the money in that plane, right?
Hence if there was some kind of secret conspiry going on, the US was part of it.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Norton on Thu Jan 09, 2020 - 23:41:10
Rella
I consider VOA and Vox reputable news outlets. Thanks for providing those links that seem to provide a full story. Both the Vox and the VOA articles said we owed Iran 1.7 billion. That we paid them 400 million, the hostages were released, then we paid them 1.3 billion. I guess one might say the 400 million was for ransom, but if we owed them 1.7 billion and paid them 1.7 billion, I don't see any scandal in that.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: 4WD on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 05:26:21
I don't necessarily think that it constituted a scandal; however, knowing full well how they would use the money I think it was incredibly stupid.  And if they didn't know full well how they would use the money, that would be even worse.

The really stupid move was to enter into an agreement that didn't preclude research, development, manufacturing or procuring nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and one that didn't preclude support for terrorism by Iran or Iranian proxies.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 05:26:51
We should have only released the money with evidence of their behavior change. Yes us dropping this cash in the laps of a cash strapped terrorist state is totally stupid. Obama and Kerry’s deal was pure appeasement and financed their terrorism. Norton, THAT is the scandal. Appeasers ALWAYS presume appeasement will buy future good behavior. The fact that it was their money originally has nothing to do with it. We rewarded bad behavior.  It is possible to successfully reward good behavior (though never pre-emptively) especially in the case of money being withheld in the case of sanctions for bad behavior. Obama’s deal was a bulls eye for exactly the wrong wrong way to handle Iran. Kicking the Iranian nuke can down the road to the next President was    not enough in any scenario, especially for a cash strapped state sponsor of terrorism. There was no change of behavior, except on our part to give them a path to a nuke.

If Trump or any other future President does anything this stupid, I will happily condemn them. This made Neville Chamberlain look like a tough guy, and it was about as successful as Chamberlain’s non-sensical appeasement of Hitler with expectation of peace in their time.

I suspect and hope Trump is correct in his tough stand with Iran as Reagan was and was ridiculed for his tough stand on the Soviets. Peace through strength only, as the media gasped collectively at the words reviled by Reagan’s own State Dept, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Or even better walking away from the Rekyavik Summit caused a collective gasp from the handwringers. I remember well the media with their jaws on the floor. For the Trump haters, there is a LOT of parallels in Reagan and Trump.

This is all from a guy who said Trump had zero chance to be nominated and if he was nominated he would have zero chance against Hillary. He was a decisive victory because he is a winner and a fighter against tremendous odds.

Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Texas Conservative on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 07:26:00
Just to put things in perspective.
- The Iranian government as it is today is the product of meddling with internal politics in Iran by Western powers (UK & US)
- The reason why people take to the streets in Iran is due to the sanctions, issued and now increased by the US

The whole reason for Trump to tear up the agreement was to exercise not only international pressure, but also national pressure on the Iranian Government.
Do you really think Trump did not expect, know and perhaps even hoped for demonstrations with violent results when he abandoned the agreement?

This whole mess we are facing today in the ME is due to western powers dividing up the region for their own interests.
The UK and France however seem to have been a hell of a lot smarter than the US. They packed up and left a long time ago already.

Why do you think there is so much hatred against the USA in the ME?
Because you are the last colonial power that is still there meddling in politics, and if necessary by force.

In an amazing display of wisdom however has Trump made the sacrifice of the protesters in Iran a sacrifice in vain.
By taking out a prominent member of the government has he united the people of Iran again.

And finally, nobody cares about 1500 people (if it was that many). It makes for good political rhetoric, but do you really think anyone in the US government cares about 1500 Iranians?
We read it in the newspaper, shake our heads and have forgotten about it the next day.
Any idea how many people died by the hands of Saddam Hussein who was put in place by the US? Did anyone care?

I tell you what the US cares about in the ME. Three words...oil, power, money
Everything else is just noise.

(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/82274052_10157061030425028_7074550897384095744_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_eui2=AeHCYBNWnQORGmgtPL0CFu9cJhbqigvPnHumWR5t4WHyJMPsnFcCGhI1y7B2XVs17KWDuVOrntofNWtd_4d-r5XbP0ZFHHl_t0T0xz2q4sRlvw&_nc_ohc=E2Wawauku3AAQmu8k929u_H0yUf19AzeKzSJwuJ-lYkClVS9g8Tk_m6qA&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=44dbffd8ea3c29fc0fe3c155a37df11e&oe=5E96110A)
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 08:15:02
Lol. this is so funny.
You are aware that even AirForce 1 is an "unmarked" plane right?
The reason why they call those planes "unmarked" is that they cannot be tracked by conventional means, which in normal circumstances means they switch off the transponders.
I am however pretty sure that AirForce 1 also has a whole lot of other equipment on board that makes sure the plane cannot be traced.

You are of course also aware that if this was an "unmarked" plane...the US actually loaded the money in that plane, right?
Hence if there was some kind of secret conspiry going on, the US was part of it.

AVZ

Middle initial indication middle name is vacant as in the inability to understand what is said.

You give a whole new meaning to the name "space cadet"  ::whistle::

It was an unmarked plane.... and it was done in the dead of night.

YES... THE US VIA OBUMA WAS INVOLVED. It WAS his plan.

This is quite a coup for the one who took this pic of air force one. Guess they used special invisible cameras to take pics of the "UNMARKED" plane   ::frustrated::

(https://i.postimg.cc/ncVXGrGT/Air-Force-One.jpg)[/url]      [/img]

I have not yet figured out if you have communist leanings from your socialist beliefs, perhaps just a commie sympathizer. Perhaps mixed in with your love of all things Muslim. One thing certain... clueless needs added to that mix.

Your disdain and hatred of the US is very apparent.

No wonder you wont let anyone know where you live.

Now... once again, as English is not your first language or your preferred choice.

Money was moved at the orders of OBUMA... (That would be the USA son) ... during the night on pallets in an unmarked plane.

4 Hostages were released that night.

There was a witness who saw the action and reported it.

They have tried to keep it hush hush and articles about this from years ago are disappering from the internet.

Was the money their's? Irans?

I dont know and I dont care.....

It was the hidden way this particular transaction was carried out..... by Obuma... and the USA that makes it simply wrong.

Kenn'-nen ze ferstayen?

 (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 08:20:59
Rella
I consider VOA and Vox reputable news outlets. Thanks for providing those links that seem to provide a full story. Both the Vox and the VOA articles said we owed Iran 1.7 billion. That we paid them 400 million, the hostages were released, then we paid them 1.3 billion. I guess one might say the 400 million was for ransom, but if we owed them 1.7 billion and paid them 1.7 billion, I don't see any scandal in that.

Are you and AVZ one in the same or do you just share a common brain?

The scandal part is ...........

Money was moved at the orders of OBUMA... (That would be the USA son) ... during the night on pallets in an unmarked plane.

4 Hostages were released that night.

There was a witness who saw the action and reported it.

They have tried to keep it hush hush and articles about this from years ago are disappearing from the internet.

If it was all above board, then this part would not have needed to be done so covertly.

If it was their money due them... even by exchanging into foreign currency ( legal necessity) why this particular amount
done in secret?

This smells like a week old fish.

If other money was returned to them, why not this amount also?

Something is wrong and you are an American.... you speak the language... it should bother you .
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 08:26:50
I don't necessarily think that it constituted a scandal; however, knowing full well how they would use the money I think it was incredibly stupid.  And if they didn't know full well how they would use the money, that would be even worse.

The really stupid move was to enter into an agreement that didn't preclude research, development, manufacturing or procuring nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and one that didn't preclude support for terrorism by Iran or Iranian proxies.

Part of it was scandal.

But the apologizer in chief was quite happy to "fund" some weapons in secret.
 
Remember... neither he or his wife had any love for the US any more then Ilhan  Omar (Remember her laughing through the talk of dead Americans 3 days ago?) orRashida Tlaib.

It was a way to help Iran.... and done quietly not one need answer what the expected use of the money would be for.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 08:44:17
Any idiot or most, would get the punch line of us dropping much money in the laps of a cash strapped regime that exports terrorism. It was money they didn’t have access to to fund their terrorism.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: AVZ on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 08:56:28
AVZ

Middle initial indication middle name is vacant as in the inability to understand what is said.

You give a whole new meaning to the name "space cadet"  ::whistle::

It was an unmarked plane.... and it was done in the dead of night.

YES... THE US VIA OBUMA WAS INVOLVED. It WAS his plan.

This is quite a coup for the one who took this pic of air force one. Guess they used special invisible cameras to take pics of the "UNMARKED" plane   ::frustrated::

(https://i.postimg.cc/ncVXGrGT/Air-Force-One.jpg)[/url]      [/img]

 (https://postimages.org/)

FYI,

The term "unmarked plane" does not refer to a plane having no markings, letter, text, colors, call sign or identifications painted on it.
The term is used for planes that are not on a specific flight plan, or schedule, or do not have a flight number or responder.

You really think that is your President wants to fly in secret from one location to the other, they have to paint the plane white first?

You seem to insinuate that the transport is done in the middle of the night, and that is somehow suspect.
Why? Many flights leave in the middle of the night, especially if they depart for intercontinental flights.
And besides that, at some point during the flight the plane will be flying at day time.

The plane now departed at night and arrived in the day...would it have been better for the plane to have departed during the day and arrive at night?
Whats the difference?
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Norton on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 09:18:55
I suppose we could as a nation repudiate the agreements we signed with the World Trade Organization and go back on other international agreements we have made. With our military might we could conquer the world and do everything on our terms, not being bothered with any of that kind of stuff.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 09:25:49
Obama’s Iran deal was by all definitions a treaty that should have come before the Senate to be ratified by the Senate as all treaties are, except when Obama didn’t have the support necessary in the senate.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: AVZ on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 09:35:07

Remember... neither he or his wife had any love for the US any more then Ilhan  Omar (Remember her laughing through the talk of dead Americans 3 days ago?) orRashida Tlaib.

So let me get this correctly.

You have a guy who does not love the USA, entering the political arena for many years, sat in the Illinois Senate and then move on to the US Senate and was finally voted President of the United States.

Doesn't that say everything about the total inadequacy of the US political system, and would that not make the voters in the USA incredibly dense?
A guy that does not love his country can actually be elected President of that country?
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: AVZ on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 09:41:41
Obama’s Iran deal was by all definitions a treaty that should have come before the Senate to be ratified by the Senate as all treaties are, except when Obama didn’t have the support necessary in the senate.

Was the Iran deal a treaty?
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 09:51:22
FYI,

The term "unmarked plane" does not refer to a plane having no markings, letter, text, colors, call sign or identifications painted on it.
The term is used for planes that are not on a specific flight plan, or schedule, or do not have a flight number or responder.

You seem to insinuate that the transport is done in the middle of the night, and that is somehow suspect.
Why? Many flights leave in the middle of the night, especially if they depart for intercontinental flights.
And besides that, at some point during the flight the plane will be flying at day time.

The plane now departed at night and arrived in the day...would it have been better for the plane to have departed during the day and arrive at night?
Whats the difference?

Then all planes are unmarked as even UPS and Fed Ex only have their names on them.

"Whats the difference?"

It was loaded at night, in the dark.  So no one would see.  It is a huge issue cause.........

I am not subscribed to the Wall Street Journal so they will not permit me full access to articles, but surly you can see this is highly suspect. No matter the reason... it was an odd timing to send money to a terrorist nation.

U.S. Transferred $1.3 Billion More in Cash to Iran After Initial Payment
First $400 million coincided with Iran’s release of American prisoners and was used as leverage, officials have acknowledged

officials have acknowledged
By Jay Solomon and Carol E. Lee
Updated Sept. 6, 2016 9:38 pm ET

The Obama administration followed up a planeload of $400 million in cash sent to Iran in January with two more such shipments in the next 19 days, totaling another $1.3 billion, according to congressional officials briefed by the U.S. State, Treasury and Justice departments.

The cash payments—made in Swiss francs, euros and other currencies—settled a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal dating back to

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-two-more-planeloads-of-cash-to-iran-after-initial-payment-1473208256

If It Walks Like a Duck…
The Iranian press and military enthusiastically spun the payment as ransom, and more proof of how Tehran had rolled the U.S. in the nuclear talks.

Most of all, the tale of cash going one way and prisoners the other, all on the same day, just doesn’t look right. The suspicion is that the teams working on the financial, hostage and weapons negotiations did indeed collaborate, and that the hostage release was the essential sweetener needed to clinch the highly controversial nuclear agreement that’s a pillar of Obama’s legacy.

The “sweetener” view may have some validity. Sick concedes that the deal did “let the Iranian hardliners say they got something in the nuclear deal. Iran was happy to get the cash back. Perhaps that made it easier for them to give up the prisoners, I don’t know.” He doesn’t believe the three teams of negotiators were working together. “The negotiations for the hostages were totally separate channels, and handled by the Swiss,” he says.

“The optics do look bad, and the timing was awkward,” says Slavin, a supporter of the nuclear agreement. “But it wasn’t a package deal.”

Slavin still insists that the U.S. did the right thing settling a financial issue that was festering for over three decades.

https://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/

Now dont go spinning this into what you see as proof it was the right thing to do.

HISTORY will show, but we will all be dead before it does.

But from CNN

US officials said cash had to be flown in because existing US sanctions ban American dollars from being used in a transaction with Iran and because Iran could not access the global financial system due to international sanctions it was under at the time. The details of the how the transaction occurred were first reported by The Wall Street Journal. CNN reported in January that the transfer of funds had been arrangement.

Critics on Wednesday were further incensed by Iranian claims that the cash amounted to a ransom payment for the four prisoners.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: AVZ on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 10:00:05
Then all planes are unmarked as even UPS and Fed Ex only have their names on them.

"Whats the difference?"

It was loaded at night, in the dark.  So no one would see.  It is a huge issue cause.........

I am not subscribed to the Wall Street Journal so they will not permit me full access to articles, but surly you can see this is highly suspect. No matter the reason... it was an odd timing to send money to a terrorist nation.

Any idea how many times AirForce 1 departs at night?

You see, if the plane departs at daytime and arrives at night...you will complain it arrived in secrecy.
And if the plane departs at night and arrives during the day...you will complain it departed in secrecy.
And if the plane leaves midday and arrives midday...you will complain it traveled in secrecy.

You are on a ghost hunt. Whatever time the plane would have departed...you would have found something suspect with it.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 11:29:10
Seems to me an electronic transfer woulda sufficed, especially in this day and and time. Swap the parties around trump sends Kim Jung Un a pallet of 100 dollar bills on a plane at some hour of the night to not test anymore missiles. Whatever the reason, Trump would have been drawn and quartered.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: AVZ on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 11:50:46
Seems to me an electronic transfer woulda sufficed, especially in this day and and time.

You are absolutely right, if not for the US Congress having banned electronic transfers to Iran or Iranian owned accounts.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: 4WD on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 11:59:43
Was the Iran deal a treaty?
No. 

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2).

Two thirds of the Senators did not concur.  Obama knew that he could not get concurrence and therefore did not even present it to the Senate.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: 4WD on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 12:06:58
A guy that does not love his country can actually be elected President of that country?
I think that anyone that proposes Socialism as the  economic-political system for the United States does not love this country.  But that is just my opinion; and hopefully the opinion of most.  I would bet that most people who voted for Obama had no idea about what he believed.

Quote
.....would that not make the voters in the USA incredibly dense?
Perhaps, but intellectual prowess is not a requirement to vote. Whether you think that is good or bad, it is the way it is. 
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Norton on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 12:08:28
Obama’s Iran deal was by all definitions a treaty that should have come before the Senate to be ratified by the Senate as all treaties are, except when Obama didn’t have the support necessary in the senate.
Yes, I would say that was an overreach of executive power. That was worse than Trump unilaterally moving funds out of the military to build the border wall. Congress did pass a law that mandated that the Senate could review, debate, and add restraints to the treaty, that Obama said was not a treaty. And restraints were added to the treaty.

I assume you were talking about the agreement where Obama gave the Iranians 150 billion, not the one where Hilliary gave the Iranians 400 million for the hostages.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 12:14:10
Seems to me an electronic transfer woulda sufficed, especially in this day and and time. Swap the parties around trump sends Kim Jung Un a pallet of 100 dollar bills on a plane at some hour of the night to not test anymore missiles. Whatever the reason, Trump would have been drawn and quartered.

US officials said cash had to be flown in because existing US sanctions ban American dollars from being used in a transaction with Iran and because Iran could not access the global financial system due to international sanctions it was under at the time.

The details of the how the transaction occurred were first reported by The Wall Street Journal. CNN reported in January that the transfer of funds had been arrangement.

The money was procured from central banks in Switzerland and the Netherlands, official said, and an unmarked cargo plane loaded with Swiss francs, euros and other currencies were flown to Iran.

"They were totally cut off from global banks and there was no other way to get them the money," one senior official with knowledge of the transaction said.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 12:20:33
Any idea how many times AirForce 1 departs at night?



You see, if the plane departs at daytime and arrives at night...you will complain it arrived in secrecy.
And if the plane departs at night and arrives during the day...you will complain it departed in secrecy.
And if the plane leaves midday and arrives midday...you will complain it traveled in secrecy.

You are on a ghost hunt. Whatever time the plane would have departed...you would have found something suspect with it.

Weekly or more.  ::nodding::

But do you call Air Force One a cargo plane?

The money was procured from central banks in Switzerland and the Netherlands, official said, and an unmarked cargo plane loaded with Swiss francs, euros and other currencies were flown to Iran.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html

I would love to learn it was Air Force One cause his supporters would be named traitors in my mind if that was the case.

PLEASE  ::bowing:: see if you ccan prove it... You would make my day
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 12:25:15


Doesn't that say everything about the total inadequacy of the US political system, and would that not make the voters in the USA incredibly dense?


Yep, and getting more so every day.....

Those who rely on a lot of the illicit drug smuggling from your part of the world for their daily uses.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: AVZ on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 19:37:50
Yes, I would say that was an overreach of executive power. That was worse than Trump unilaterally moving funds out of the military to build the border wall. Congress did pass a law that mandated that the Senate could review, debate, and add restraints to the treaty, that Obama said was not a treaty. And restraints were added to the treaty.

I assume you were talking about the agreement where Obama gave the Iranians 150 billion, not the one where Hilliary gave the Iranians 400 million for the hostages.

The Iran deal was not a treaty, it was an executive agreement.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Fri Jan 10, 2020 - 20:15:49
Right. It wasn’t but it had every earmark constitutionally of a treaty that should have been ratified by the Senate. Which of course it would ‘t have been, which is why it was a “non-binding” executive agreement, and a bad one, which is why Trump tore it up.

When you want to kick something even a dangerous something down the road a FEW years you don’t do a treaty. If someone with some sense wants to nullify it, it is easy.

If someone is intent on a good bipartisan plan for the long haul, you go for a treaty that requires 2/3 of the Senate to ratify. If not, it isn’t worth the paper it is written on or the paper currency we hauled over there.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: AVZ on Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 01:01:10
Right. It wasn’t but it had every earmark constitutionally of a treaty that should have been ratified by the Senate. Which of course it would ‘t have been, which is why it was a “non-binding” executive agreement, and a bad one, which is why Trump tore it up.

When you want to kick something even a dangerous something down the road a FEW years you don’t do a treaty. If someone with some sense wants to nullify it, it is easy.

If someone is intent on a good bipartisan plan for the long haul, you go for a treaty that requires 2/3 of the Senate to ratify. If not, it isn’t worth the paper it is written on or the paper currency we hauled over there.

An executive agreement is considered politically binding, but not legally binding.
And yes the rest of the world is well aware of the US signing agreements, and subsequently not ratifying them...or simply ignoring them.
In particular the native American population can testify to that.

Just to mention a few that you claim are not worth the paper its written on:

1919 - Treaty of Versailles
1949 - International Labor Convention (freedom of association and protection of the right to organize)
1954 - Geneva Agreement (end to the Korean War and First Indochina War)
1966 - ICESCR (human Economic, Social and Cultural rights)
1979 - CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
1989 - CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child

1996 - Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
1997 - Mine-Ban Treaty, or Ottawa Treaty
1998 - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Since you say these agreements are not worth the paper its written on, get this right:

There are 156 countries outside of the US where women enjoy a higher level of protection against discrimination than in the USA.
The USA is the ONLY country that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

And whereas the US promulgates to be the peacekeeper of the world, with the interest to reduce human suffering at heart, it has not ratified the Nuclear Test Ban treaty, nor the min ban treaty.
All in all this is quite remarkable because it is exactly the US who demands that both North Korea and Iran cease nuclear testing.
If the US is not ratifying these agreements...why the audacity to demand someone else must?
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: NorrinRadd on Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 02:04:38
Was the Iran deal a treaty?

No, which is why Bad Orange Man could just dump it.  An actual treaty requires Senate approval to enact, and can't be readily vacated by unilateral Executive action (though the actual wording of the treaty itself could probably make it easy in certain cases).
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: NorrinRadd on Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 02:16:42
An executive agreement is considered politically binding, but not legally binding.
And yes the rest of the world is well aware of the US signing agreements, and subsequently not ratifying them...or simply ignoring them.
In particular the native American population can testify to that.

Just to mention a few that you claim are not worth the paper its written on:

1919 - Treaty of Versailles
1949 - International Labor Convention (freedom of association and protection of the right to organize)
1954 - Geneva Agreement (end to the Korean War and First Indochina War)
1966 - ICESCR (human Economic, Social and Cultural rights)
1979 - CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
1989 - CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child

1996 - Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
1997 - Mine-Ban Treaty, or Ottawa Treaty
1998 - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Since you say these agreements are not worth the paper its written on, get this right:

There are 156 countries outside of the US where women enjoy a higher level of protection against discrimination than in the USA.
The USA is the ONLY country that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I'm not even going to bother trying to find all those documents, let alone study them.  I'm just going to assume they're the usual lefty, globalist excrement and be glad we're not really bound by them.

Quote
And whereas the US promulgates to be the peacekeeper of the world, with the interest to reduce human suffering at heart, it has not ratified the Nuclear Test Ban treaty, nor the min ban treaty.
All in all this is quite remarkable because it is exactly the US who demands that both North Korea and Iran cease nuclear testing.
If the US is not ratifying these agreements...why the audacity to demand someone else must?

I could try to make arguments about the fact that those nations are notorious human-rights violators and exporters of terror, while the U.S. is not; but various lefty U.S.-haters here and abroad would not acknowledge the veracity of that.

So I'll make the argument that really matters:  It's the Golden Rule -- Whoever has the most gold makes the rules.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: 4WD on Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 06:00:58
Why do you think there is so much hatred against the USA in the ME?
Because you are the last colonial power that is still there meddling in politics, and if necessary by force.
The US is not a colonial power. If it was then Japan would be a part of the USA and parts of Europe would also be a part of the USA.  Japan sought to be a colonial power over much of the Far East.  Nazi Germany sought to become a colonial power over Europe. The USSR exercised colonialism over much of Easter Europe.  Iran, even today, seeks to become a colonial power over much of the Middle East and more.

For what it is worth, here is an interesting discussion of colonialism:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Jaime on Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 07:29:29
AVZ, the Iran Agreement was not only not worth the paper it was written on as to compliance, it was a horrible agreement. Thankfully as Norrinradd said the horrible orange man could tear it

At the very best it was nothing more than kicking the nuclear can down the road for another President to address what Obama didn’t want to address.

By the way......... AGAIN, which country  are you from so WE can critique it and you defend IT? This forum is not just for the politics of the USA. And no need for us to put up with drive by assaults from someone who will not reveal their country. Your country may be great, let’s hear about it.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: Rella on Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 09:01:02


By the way......... AGAIN, which country  are you from so WE can critique it and you defend IT? This forum is not just for the politics of the USA. And no need for us to put up with drive by assaults from someone who will not reveal their country. Your country may be great, let’s hear about it.

Perhaps he is the reincarnation of  Philip Nolan... hence his seeming fascination in US politics and policies. rofl  There is quite a belief in his part of the world in that. ::eek::

But I think I know exactly why he is so silent on that subject.

He IS the whistleblower. ::noworries::  AN I am outing him.
Title: Re: Iran
Post by: mommydi on Sat Jan 11, 2020 - 09:32:35
I'm not even going to bother trying to find all those documents, let alone study them.  I'm just going to assume they're the usual lefty, globalist excrement and be glad we're not really bound by them.



Well, you'd be right.
I know a little about this UN Convention on the Rights of the Child he's touting and so horrified we haven't adopted.
To make a long story short, it would override our Constitution.
It practically wipes out parental authority.
In the USA, a child cannot petition the court over issues that don't involve abuse or neglect. IOW, a child can't take his/her parents to court and legally force them to stop taking him to church twice a week. Under the convention, they can. Under the convention, your minor child can legally stop you from taking them to Bible study classes on Wednesday nights or having nightly at home devotionals.
Under the convention, your 12 year son William can be persuaded by leftist folks to become Wilma (even has his genitals surgically removed) and his parents must allow it - by law. Under the convention, children have the right to reproductive healthcare, surgery, whatever without parental consent. Under the convention, your 12 year old daughter can have as many abortions as she wants without your consent.

The UN Convention of the Rights of the Child is like you say - lefty excrement we're happy to be without.