Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

US and Iran Relations (News and Discussion)


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

@Riggo-toni

 

I don’t think Bolton would have ever suggested backing down from a red line once announced. 

Probably because he would have been too busy trying to promote another invasion. Occupying a country divided by Sunni Shiites and Kurds was child's play - how exciting would it have been to attack a country with Sunni, Christians, Alawites, Druze, Kurds, Twelvers, and Ismailis.

Obama getting Assad to hand over stockpiles of chemical weapons may have been an ephemeral remedy, but it was still more effective than Trump's token airstrikes that did no real damage - planes were flying out of the bombed airstrips the next day.

 

The Neo Cons like Bolton predictably led to the creation of a previously unthinkable alliance between secular Baathists and hardcore jihadists that created a new terrorist organization worse than Al Quaeda, and set the wheels in motion for a greater Middle East series of wars along the Sunni Shiite divide. Powell's speech to the UN, spoon fed to him from the NeoCon cabal of Bolton, Wolfowitz, and Dumsfeld, gave celebrity status to the most violent sectarian of them all, Zarqawi.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

He wrote a book!

 

Thats not the only book he story but it does lay out the case for statehood over globalism pretty succinctly. Surrender is not an option is another one, he was proven right about that. Surrendering power to the U.N. is a huge mistake.  John Bolton has no doubts about what Russians motives were and are.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

John Bolton has no doubts about what Russians motives were and are.... 

 

To weaken the Western world, by encouraging racists, Nazis, trade wars, division among NATO, Donald Trump, the NRA, and the Republican Party?  

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Bolton is a paranoid dishonest war monger.

 

I guess he might also be intelligent.

 

This was my thought as well as far as the "he's intelligent" angle. A person can be intelligent and at the same time be a despicable, amoral warmonger. I think Bolton is intelligent but he's also the latter. Which, to me, makes him even more dangerous. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Thats not the only book he story but it does lay out the case for statehood over globalism pretty succinctly. Surrender is not an option is another one, he was proven right about that. Surrendering power to the U.N. is a huge mistake.  John Bolton has no doubts about what Russians motives were and are.... 

 

Who has ever suggested that we surrender power to the UN?

 

Power over what?

 

On another topic:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/06/15/taliban-claimed-an-attack-us-forces-pompeo-blamed-iran/?utm_term=.170a6d554f58&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

 

The Taliban claimed an attack on U.S. forces. Pompeo blamed Iran.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2019 at 9:33 AM, Larry said:

 

It's like deja vu all over again.  

 

(Famous quote.)

 

Just pointing out, "Hey, there's a 40 year old excuse we can point at" does not equal "not preemptive".  

 

As long as we're arguing over terminology, and all.  

I think it is obvious she means an action would be retaliatory therefore not preemptive. She would be right if the action was taken to punish Iran for what they did. Now if the action is taken to stop something we think they plan on doing that would be preemptive.

 

Frankly I think a stealth bombing or two on Quds  force targets would be ok in my book. We could also deny any knowledge of said attack.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Barry.Randolphe said:

You guys are on bath salts if you think its so simple to launch missiles/airstrikes against a country like Iran and then that's the end of it

 

Well, then they can say that their next "strike" isn't preemptive.  It is retaliatory.

 

(but we'll say our strike after that isn't preemptive, but is retaliatory for their strike from our strike from their strike.

 

Of course, Iran is still retaliating from the 1953 coup so they see all of their attacks on the US as retaliatory and preemptive (preempting another coupe))

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Barry.Randolphe said:

You guys are on bath salts if you think its so simple to launch missiles/airstrikes against a country like Iran and then that's the end of it

 

Well, remember that Bolton climbed out of the same stagnant pond of refuse as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. The same guys who insisted that 150,000 troops would easily be enough to invade Iraq (despite actual military experts saying it would need between 300,000 and 500,000), that the war would be over and we'd be out quickly, and who said the Iraqis would greet us with open arms as liberators. 

 

Not sure why we wouldn't trust them this time.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Springfield said:

So what does Saudi Arabia stand to gain in all of this?

The Saudis want to weaken Iran at any cost.  The official religion of Saudi Arabia is Wahhabi Islam, which considers Shiites to be apostates and treats them as third class citizens.  One of the first acts committed by the Wahhabists after taking power was to blow up Shiite tombs of Imams buried in Arabia.

The problem is most of the oil rich areas in Saudi Arabia are in regions where the Shiites are a majority.  The Saudi royal family is terrified of these people becoming a fifth column for Iran.  Iran has the only army that has beaten back the Israelis, and that success in Lebanon has made them heroes among many Shiites suffocating under Sunni rule.  This has led the Saudis to do what was once considered inconceivable - they have formed a tacit alliance with Israel.  The Saudis and Israel combined their lobbying muscle to end the JCPOA because any wealth Iran gains can be used to finance Shiite militias in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and elsewhere.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

The Saudis want to weaken Iran at any cost.  The official religion of Saudi Arabia is Wahhabi Islam, which considers Shiites to be apostates and treats them as third class citizens.  One of the first acts committed by the Wahhabists after taking power was to blow up Shiite tombs of Imams buried in Arabia.

The problem is most of the oil rich areas in Saudi Arabia are in regions where the Shiites are a majority.  The Saudi royal family is terrified of these people becoming a fifth column for Iran.  Iran has the only army that has beaten back the Israelis, and that success in Lebanon has made them heroes among many Shiites suffocating under Sunni rule.  This has led the Saudis to do what was once considered inconceivable - they have formed a tacit alliance with Israel.  The Saudis and Israel combined their lobbying muscle to end the JCPOA because any wealth Iran gains can be used to finance Shiite militias in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and elsewhere.

 

But Saudi Arabia aren’t exactly our allies either, no?  They did murder a Wapo correspondent then cover it up.  The whole 9/11 highjacker thing as well.

 

This whole thing stinks to high hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

But Saudi Arabia aren’t exactly our allies either, no?  They did murder a Wapo correspondent then cover it up.  The whole 9/11 highjacker thing as well.

 

This whole thing stinks to high hell.

What's a little assasination and terrorism amongst allies?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

But Saudi Arabia aren’t exactly our allies either, no?  They did murder a Wapo correspondent then cover it up.  The whole 9/11 highjacker thing as well.

 

This whole thing stinks to high hell.

Since when aren’t the Saudis our allies? We are helping them fund a war/genocide against Yemen.

 

They shouldn’t be, but the US government is in bed with them.

Edited by BenningRoadSkin
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

But Saudi Arabia aren’t exactly our allies either, no?  They did murder a Wapo correspondent then cover it up.  The whole 9/11 highjacker thing as well.

 

This whole thing stinks to high hell.

 

 

They spend a buttload of money at Trump hotels and they loan money to Jared Kushner. That makes them a White House ally. Let's not forget how this country is run now.

Edited by Chachie
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

But Saudi Arabia aren’t exactly our allies either, no?  They did murder a Wapo correspondent then cover it up.  The whole 9/11 highjacker thing as well.

 

This whole thing stinks to high hell.

The difference between the Saudis and the Iranians is the Saudis know how to play the American political system. They skirt lobbying regulations by hiring former and potentially future government leaders into "think tanks." The names of people on Saudi payrolls reads like a who's who of the Bush and Clinton administrations, and now they are constantly sending in diplomatic crowds to stay at Trump's hotel. We have had decades of friendship with the Saudi royal family, and as such, we failed to recognize how insidious Saudi financed madrasas were radicalizing the Muslim world. The royal family are mostly a bunch of international playboys, but to silence dissent they have handed over religious matters and instruction to the ulama.

 

After the Iranian Revolution, when Khomeini called for the overthrow of other monarchies, the Saudis countered by ramping up promotion of their intolerant brand of Islam - if Khomeini is a heretic, his attacks on the House of Saud would carry no weight.

 

The abject failure of Nasser's pan-Arab nationalism left a void that the Saudis filled with religious fundamentalism. The Saudis hired all the disciples of Said Qutb who had been thrown out of Egypt to teach in Saudi Arabia, and to write the textbooks that they would export to the rest of the world.

 

To give you an idea of how much the dynamics have changed - in the sixties when Yemen's Shiite royal family was facing a rebellion by Nasser inspired (and largely Sunni) nationalists, the Saudis financed the Shiite monarchy because they viewed Nasserism as the primary threat to their power. Now they are almost indiscriminately bombing the Shiite to promote Sunni dominance.

Edited by Riggo-toni
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • visionary changed the title to US and Iran Relations (News and Discussion)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...