US and Iran Relations (News and Discussion)

[Dan T.]

 

Ain't religion grand!

[visionary]

 

[LD0506]

[Larry]

Just pointing out. Just because Trump says Iran did this, doesn't mean they didn't. 

 

Let's not go from dubious skepticism to reflexive opposition to anything Trump. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

 

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

[NoCalMike]

I can't believe this is happening, all over again. 

[Larry]

17 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I can't believe this is happening, all over again. 

 

You just watched a Republican government just pass a huge spending increase, and a huge tax cut (almost entirely on the rich), based on claims that this time, it will pay for itself, and it will trickle down. 

[NoCalMike]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

You just watched a Republican government just pass a huge spending increase, and a huge tax cut (almost entirely on the rich), based on claims that this time, it will pay for itself, and it will trickle down. 

 

I suppose I am not surprised the GOP is trying to pull this pre-imminent war ruse again, more so that people are going to fall for it again.

[nonniey]

3 hours ago, Larry said:

Just pointing out. Just because Trump says Iran did this, doesn't mean they didn't. 

 

Let's not go from dubious skepticism to reflexive opposition to anything Trump. 

Too late that is where most are in the "resistance."

[Bozo the kKklown]

52 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I can't believe this is happening, all over again. 

I can, America and Americans do not appreciate history. Even recent history.

 

It’s why we elect a president who promises to bring the 80s back.

 

Or try the same strategies to diplomacy that we have seen failed in the past.

 

Or bring back concentration camps after fighting a “war to end all wars” to eradicate it.

Edited June 18, 2019 by BenningRoadSkin

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

 

[Springfield]

I don’t reject that Iran attacked those tankers.  I do reject the notion that those attacks require military intervention.

[visionary]

  

 

 

 

 

[NoCalMike]

When do Rumsfield and Wolfowitz show up to the party to get their input in?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Attacking Iran would be a huge mistake.  I think Bolton is smarter than that.

[PeterMP]

25 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Attacking Iran would be a huge mistake.  I think Bolton is smarter than that.

 

Uh Bolton has been calling for us to attack Iran for years.

 

e.g

2012- https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-mitt-romney-want-bomb-iran/

2015- https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/to-stop-irans-bomb-bomb-iran.html

 

Was it a good idea then?

Edited June 18, 2019 by PeterMP

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

@PeterMP Do you think the situation is the same now as it was 4-5 years ago?

 

I think the situation is vastly different now that it was 5 years ago. There are too many players involved now.

Edited June 18, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Riggo-toni]

From the article.

 

Or how about John Bolton, Bush’s U.N. ambassador and a frequent speaker on behalf of the MEK, who has said, “The better way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons is to attack its nuclear weapons program directly and break their control over the nuclear fuel cycle,” and that “we should be prepared to take down the regime in Tehran.”

 

For those unaware, the MEK is a terrorist organization that began as advocating a communist takeover when the Shah was in power. They were long-time allies of Saddam and are (rightfully) hated by the Iraqis. They got themselves off the US terrorist list by murdering Iranian nuclear scientists for Israel.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Riggo-toni

[mcsluggo]

36 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Attacking Iran would be a huge mistake.  I think Bolton is smarter than that.

 

Bolton has always WANTED a war with Iran.   Trump probably did not.  But Trump (stupidly) believed Bolton that the US could provoke Iran scott free, because Iran would buckle under pressure like a dime-store mobster  (Bolton never believed this...but it was important to Bolton that TRUMP believed this... but in any case, for bolton it was a zero risk game:  If Iran caves, then Bolton is seen as the master poker player/negotiator;  if Iran fights back, he gets the conflict he wants anyway.      

 

Bolton is getting exactly what he wanted all along.   he is the very DEFINITION of a war-monger.  

Edited June 18, 2019 by mcsluggo

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

@PeterMP Do you think the situation is the same now as it was 4-5 years ago?

 

I think the situation is vastly different now that it was 5 years ago. There are too many players involved now.

 

No, I don't think it really is.  If anything, with ISIS largely diminished you've reduced one of the players.

 

He was also calling for us to bomb Iran during the worse parts of the Iraq war when other countries were assisting us in fighting in Iraq.  Certainly, then there were as many if not more players involved.

 

If anything an attack now makes more sense.

 

But it isn't just 4 or 5 years ago either.

 

Here is in Aug of 2017:

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/iran-nuclear-deal-exit-strategy-john-bolton-memo-trump/

 

"This effort should be the Administration’s highest diplomatic priority, commanding all necessary time, attention, and resources. We can no longer wait to eliminate the threat posed by Iran. The Administration’s justification of its decision will demonstrate to the world that we understand the threat to our civilization; we must act and encourage others to meet their responsibilities as well."

 

(And this is him on NK in 2017 too:

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/09/03/john_bolton_only_diplomatic_option_left_is_to_end_north_korean_regime.html

 

"JOHN BOLTON: The only diplomatic option left is to end the North Korean regime by effectively having the South take it over. You've got to argue with China--

TRISH REGAN, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: That's not really diplomatic!

BOLTON: That is their problem, not ours."

 

I'll point out that South Korea doesn't want to take over North Korea.  South Korea doesn't want the responsibility of over 25 million poor nourished educated Koreans.  When it comes to pushing for diplomacy, South Korea is always on the fore front.)

[CousinsCowgirl84]

@PeterMP Valid points, however Iran agreed to give up its nuclear weapons and signed a treaty that everyone   it was living up to and then US pulls out and threatens to put sanctions on any company that does business with Iran (European Countries). 

 

Over the past 5 years the Russia/Chinese relationship has strengthened and so has their influence in the Middle East. Russia is allies with Iran. Our relationship with both russia and China has deteriorated over the past 5 years.  So has our relationship with our allies. And the entire West has no confidence in its leadership.  President Trump has one of the west’s highest approval ratings at around 40 percent. Let that sink in a minute.

 

Now is a far worse time to attack Iran.

Edited June 18, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Larry]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

I'll point out that South Korea doesn't want to take over North Korea.  South Korea doesn't want the responsibility of over 25 million poor nourished educated Koreans.  When it comes to pushing for diplomacy, South Korea is always on the fore front.)

 

I assume that the fact that any conflict will result in thousands (tens of thousands?  hundreds?) of dead South Koreans in the first half hour might be a factor in them preferring a diplomatic solution, too.