International News
See other International News Articles
Title: British navy to Iran: Back the hell off
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morr ... itish-navy-iran-back-hell-off/
Published: Jul 11, 2019
Author: Ed Morissey
Post Date: 2019-07-11 12:09:36 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 15496
Comments: 89
Do the Iranians want a war? They nearly got one overnight, not with the US but with the United Kingdom. The British navy aimed its guns on several Iranian ships attempting to block passage through the Strait of Hormuz of a British oil tanker, which caused the smaller ships to retreat: A British navy ship, the HMS Montrose, “was forced to position herself between the Iranian vessels and [the tanker] British Heritage and issue verbal warnings to the Iranian vessels, which then turned away,” the British government said in a statement. “We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region,” the statement said. Last month, the Iranians shot down a US drone operating in international airspace, which nearly prompted a military strike in retaliation. The Iranians have now apparently either shifted their focus or broadened it, also in retaliation. The UK seized a Panamanian oil tanker carrying Iranian crude off the coast of Gibraltar, accusing Tehran of violating EU sanctions by selling oil to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. Iran called it “an act of piracy” and threatened “consequences” for the seizure. This seems to be the UK’s reminder that even consequences have further consequences. For the moment, anyway, the Iranians got the message. However, they clearly want to start a fight in the Strait of Hormuz with someone, even though it’s becoming clearer that the US and the UK are willing to shoot back now after the attacks on other shipping in the Hormuz area. Iran may not have much choice. Their economy is collapsing again under the weight of US sanctions, and their population is growing restive. The Trump administration announced yesterday that more sanctions are coming now that Iran has openly admitted breaking past the restrictions on uranium enrichment: The United States called an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on Wednesday in response to the Iranian moves, while a senior French envoy was in Tehran exploring ways to reopen negotiations on compliance with the deal. Iran called this “warfare“: Iran’s representative to international organizations in Vienna, Kazem Gharib Abadi, told a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency Wednesday U.S. actions were “neither legitimate nor legal” and should not be accepted by the international community. He says that the “costly” consequences of American sanctions mean “they should be seen as weapons of warfare.” Iran had better be careful before they find out what warfare actually would look like against the US and UK. They’ve been testing Western responses in the Hormuz area for some time, and the British navy gave the Iranians something to think about. If the mullahs are getting nervous about the misery of their population, then they should rethink their nuclear and ballistic missile programs as well as their support for Iranian proxy terror networks in the region. Poster Comment: When the British allies on the British protectorate of Gibralter stopped the Iranian tanker illegally bound for Syria last week, Iran's leader vowed revenge on Britain, suggesting that Iran would seize a British tanker in retaliation. Britain did lawfully interdict a contraband oil shipment destined for Syria contrary to international agreements. Well, Iran tried to seize a Brit tanker and Britain made it clear they aren't going to be victims of Iranian piracy in the Strait of Hormuz. They sent Iran a message. I think they should have punctuated it with sinking one or more of the three Iranian ships to make their point to Iran even clearer. But that will be the next step if Iran tries something like this again.
Three Iranian vessels attempted to stop a British tanker traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, Britain said Thursday, in the latest escalation between Iran and Western powers in recent weeks. The United States on Wednesday accused Iran of “nuclear extortion” and threatened further sanctions against Tehran, which has begun stockpiling and enriching uranium beyond the limits set in the 2015 accord that President Trump has abandoned. Iran says it’s prepared to return to “full implementation” of its landmark 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, but only when matched by the full compliance of “all participants.” …
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)
The real hypocrisy here, as I see it, is that the EU/UK/US have already declared war on Iran via crippling sanction and now seizing an Iranian tanker. Seizing the foreign property of another country is called piracy when it's done by a non-state entity, and war when it's done by a state entity. What is the hell is Iran supposed to do? There is no deal in place. Trump, who wrote a book called "The Art of the Deal" is clearly not attempting to create a new deal to replace the one he pulled out of. Iran is obviously technologically advanced enough to make nuclear material and nuclear bombs but no one wants to talk to them about it. At the same time, Iran is supposed to respect sanctions imposed by a bunch of foreign countries on Syria but the EU is NOT supposed to respect sanctions that Iran might want to impose on the UK. This is lawlessness upon the part of the EU. Iran is not provoking. They are being provoked. War has been declared upon Iran. It's just not a hot war yet. The west is simply making life miserable for Iran enough to compel them into firing the first shot. The only way out of this for Iran is for them to create a nuclear weapon. Once they do that, then the US/UK/EU will be forced to actually negotiate, and/or realize that continuing to sanction a new nuclear power is more dangerous than not. Pakistan has nukes, but they aren't getting sanctioned. And Iran will have nukes eventually. There's no stopping that.
The UK, Britain or England. It is always the same. They drag us into a war the populace does not want, for reasons not clear and we send our best and brightest to die. It is time to bring our troops home from nearly everywhere. We have over how many bases in foreign countries? 100? Think of the money we could use to rebuild America, put up a proper wall, high speed rail coast to coast in more than one place. Maybe we could lower spending by TRILLIONS?
THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
Iran is supposed to renounce nuclear weapons, make peace with Israel and stop givi g givi giving financial support to terrorist militias. Those are the terms for peace. We, in turn, will lift all sanctions. Iran will never be permitted to develop nuclear weapons, not ever. We will l launch airstrikes on their facilities before they get there.
We, in turn, will lift all sanctions. Iran will never be permitted to develop nuclear weapons, not ever. We will l launch airstrikes on their facilities before they get there. I believe they have already stated they are not interested in nuke weapons. How much peace Israel is interested in is questionable, and certainly Israel is an aggressive country itself. How much support they give to "terrorist militias" is also questionable as it seems Israel is the primary intelligence agency making the claim. No, I think it's unlikely the Iranians will ever be treated as an equal country. Sanctions won't be lifted without an agreement, and there is no interest from the west in any agreement. We dictate to Iran, "no nukes" and expect them to obey. But it's doubtful that anyone will ever believe Iran has abandoned them no matter what they do or don't do. I for one don't trust Israel as far as I could throw it, and Israel has nukes enough to keep Iran in line. The hardliners greatly desire to control what Iran does and see that as the only solution. It won't work. Iran cannot be invaded as unlike Iraq, there is no border country that is likely to permit itself to be a staging area. Without that, an Omaha Beach style sea invasion is required. I do not believe Iran attacked the tankers, but on the drone, it's a toss up as to whether it violated Iran airspace. Iran may have wanted to prove its air defense capabilities by shooting down an aircraft that was 11 miles high and if so, it was an adequate demonstration. A weak point for the US is the ability to stomach casualties, and a manned air strike into Iran may prove a political disaster if crews are killed or captured. The fact is the USA has abused and exploited Iran starting in 1953. Iranians have a patriotic right to be pissed at the USA. But the vast majority of Americans are oblivious to that, having knowledge of US Iranian relations that only date back to 1979. If there is a war, I for one will not be cheering for American forces. Count me out.
So, you are on Iran's side. Okay. I don't think anyone cares if Iran imposes sanctions on the UK. Including the UK. The only sanctions that really mean anything are U.S. sanctions. Because we can force all other trading partners to follow our lead. Or we will impose sanctions on them as well. So, for instance, Germany got mad at our ambassador, Grenell, for telling them to be prepared for a renewal of sanctions. And France and some German pols plotted ways to evade the new sanctions with an assist from the traitor John F'n Kerry. Grenell made the Germans very mad with this, about six months ago. And now? They are toeing the line, exactly as they were told to do. Merkel can turn her vagina inside out in rage but she can't do anything about it. The U.S. alone controls the entire international sanctions regime. Of course, if other countries don't like it, they are free to start their own international economic system. Ask the Russians how well that worked for the old Soviet regime. We strangled the USSR following this same exact containment strategy. Pakistan is different. First and foremost, they are not a rabid enemy of America for the last 40 years. If Iran creates a nuke, we'll increase the sanctions to the point where everyone in Iran just starves. And they are in the midst of a major drought already, due to the insanely bad water management policy of the regime. One of their nicest inland lakes has virtually dried up, much like that huge inland lake did in the old Soviet Union, also due to grossly inept water management policy. And that has ruined much of Iran's irrigation which came from this lake, much as happened to the idiotic Soviet policy that destroyed the fourth largest inland sea in the world, the Aral Sea. A first-order environmental disaster, entirely the fault of ignorant Soviet water policy and ineffective dam/canal design and construction. Trump: Hold muh beer... Go ahead and cheer for Iranian nukes to teach those dirty Brits and us fucking Yanks a thing or two. I'll bet on the Anglosphere to prevail even if the Persians end up being forced to eat their own children to avoid starving. Trump may well prevail with both Iran and the Norks where all our previous presidents have failed. But you go ahead and cheer for the most rabid America-haters on the planet if that's what you prefer. We'll see how it turns out.
Britain interdicted an Iranian tanker that was illegally attempting to deliver oil to Bashar Assad. The U.N. has authorized such interdictions as part of their policy. Iran, furiously, threatened to grab a British tanker. The Brits defended their tankers and made the Iranians look silly. And the U.S. wasn't involved either time. Nor did it cost the Brits anything since they already have their naval presence in the Straits of Hormuz and at Gibraltar. The Iranian regime is near collapse. There will be no war with UK/US. And Iran will have no nukes and no missiles to threaten US/EU/Israel/Saudis. I want the mullahs of Iran driven from power and put on trial.
Fine. Why not? I refuse to go with the "might makes right" line of thinking which it seems from your post is what you subscribe to. So France and Germany have been whipped into line by a tyrannical and dominating USA! That's how we spread democracy, right? That's what makes us the beacon of freedom, setting an example of how the world should be! I refuse to be a cheerleader for the USA just because I was born there. Me, I prefer morality and justice, and the US treatment of Iran over the last 65 years has been quite unjust. We have exploited that country for their oil. Pakistan doesn't have quite so much, which is probably the catalyst defining the only meaningful difference in relations. And I would trust Iran with nuke weapons before I'd trust Israel which has this final Samson option where they nuke all their enemies in the event they are ever invaded and defeated as a country. Iran has something to lose, and always will have something to lose. Israel is more dangerous in that regard. I will never understand any brand of conservatism that embraces tyranny as you have so aptly described.
I do not believe it is true that the shipment was "illegal". That's the rub. The sanctions are not UN based. Russia has veto power in the UN and would not have ever gone along with it. They appear to be, at best, EU and US based, neither of which Iran or Syria are a legal party to and in which they have no representation. Given that framework, this is much more akin to a dozen city thugs telling a few residents in a community that they can't visit with one another. Or if you prefer, a majority of voters voting away the rights of the minority. Or 3 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. Take your pick. The seizure of Iran's tanker (or its crude, at least, as it seems the tanker was Panamanian) is what was illegal, no matter what the EU or US might say otherwise.
You mean, before last week when they announced they were exceeding the level of enrichment allowed under JCPOA? If you enrich plutonium past 18% purity, your only objective is to produce modern nuclear weapons. And Iran is exceeding the limit now, by their own admission. That means only one thing. They are trying to use this threat to get the EUroweenies to pressure the US into returning to the terms of the JCPOA. And that will not happen. And now, because of Iran's admission to illegal enrichment, the EUroweenies can no longer pretend that Iran is in compliance in any way with JCPOA and therefore the EU will have no way to oppose the US/UK sanctions regime against Iran. Or to try to plot ways to evade the sanctions with John F'n Kerry and other anti-American elements. BTW, we are now increasing the already murderous level of sanctions we have imposed against Iran in direct retribution for their admission to illegal enrichment. So new and even more crippling sanctions will come very soon against Iran. Iran was responsible for the mines. And for shooting down the drone in international airspace. Something not mentioned widely is that that happened to be one of the original prototypes of that drone model, one which wasn't armed but was loaded to the gills with sensors. It was considered to be a technology demonstrator unit, a first-of-breed kind of thing. And it is a very large drone craft. But it is outmoded and was scheduled to be scrapped and parked in a desert boneyard later this year. Many defense analysts have speculated that we flew that drone deliberately in international airspace right on the edge of Iran's airspace (possibly taking advantage of the fact that we could prove the drone was outside Iran's airspace even if their second-rate radars said otherwise), just to see if we could get Iran to shoot it down. You may recall how FDR and even LBJ wanted always to make the enemy shoot at American ships first. It's very effective at making the American public mad as hell if you attack ships of the American navy. Defense analysts have stated that getting Iran to make the mistake of shooting down our drone would serve two purposes: 1) Iran can be proven to be an aggressor against aircraft in international airspace as well as well as a direct menace to oil shipping that is vital to the EU/China/Japan/Asia and 2) a drone like the one that was shot down has full high-speed electronic links to our intel satellites and could easily have provided America with a full electronic road map of the entire Iranian air defense network, information that could be shared, if Trump chose to, with Iran's main enemies: the Saudis (with all those shiny American jets we sold them) and the Israelis. And don't forget about that other main radar we have pointed directly at Iran in Israel's desert; it is said that you can't throw a soccer ball in the air in downtown Tehran without that radar seeing it. That radar unit happens to be in Israel for some years now but it is operated by American troops. Go ahead and cheer for Iran getting nukes.
Okay. So you think of the US and the UK and the EU as thugs. And Iran are the Good Guys. I don't care if Russia or anyone else supplies Assad with oil. But not Iran. I don't want to see a Shi'a crescent across Syria/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan with a supporting worldwide terror network, backed by Iranian mullahs and their nuclear weapons.
"Allowed" you say? Is this the same JCPOA that Trump pulled the US out of? There is no deal, TC. None. Deals are two-way streets. You can't make an agreement with someone, and then break the deal while expecting the other person to stick to its terms. You cannot rule out the motivation of Saudi Arabia or Israel to have been responsible for the tanker damage when increasing hostilities with Iran play directly into their interests. Do you really think Iran would have sabataged the Japanese tanker while a Japan envoy was making a historic visit to Iran? At some point, you really need to be open to the possibility that they were framed. Very possible. Or maybe it actually did violate Iranian airspace for the exact same reason. Look TC, I don't trust the US military when it says stuff about Iran any more than I trust the FBI when it says stuff about Trump. Why (some) Trump supporters are only critical of corrupt motivations within the Fed gov when it's about Trump but fully trusting when it's about anyone else is a real mystery. The Deep State is real. Fake News is real, and not just when its about Trump. I am. You, in turn, can cheer for tyranny.
I'd like to see Israel reigned in. The country that attacked the USS Liberty to goad the US into the 67 war, and very possibly had advance knowledge of 911 but said nothing -- why would they when the political response to it was so very much in their favor?
So...to punish the US for allowing the CIA to depose the moderate Mossadegh regime in 1953 at the behest of BP who didn't want to see their oil wells in Iran nationalized after the Brits invested so much to develop them, you want to reward the mullahs and their theocracy with nukes some forty years after the mullahs deposed the Shah? Pahlevi was a crap strongarm dictator, supported by America, after the 1953 coup. Not so different from Marcos in the Philippines or Saddam in Iraq or, well, lots of other petty tyrants who ruled with U.S. support, more or less. Many of these were countries that were newly independent, new to democracy. And they were client states of a superpower, much as the world was divided up during the Cold War years. During the Cold War, we found it is difficult to establish durable functioning democracies in the Third World. The Soviets found instilling communism in the Third World no more rewarding. These were the primary duelling white men's burdens of civilization in the second half of the twentieth century. And both were dealing with newly independent countries with a new colonial elite that had formed new national governments after WW II and the final collapse of the European colonial empires across the Mideast and Asia and Africa. However, there was certainly a rivalry between the US and USSR for influence over many of these young countries. Iran was one of those countries at the heart of Cold War geopolitics. India is a similar country, emerged as a new democracy post-WW 2 as a former Brit colony. So maybe we should look a little more at the entire era and not pretend that history began in 1953 with the CIA-organized coup to oust Mossadegh as PM and install Pahlevi as the new Shah of Iran. You are right, of course, that the Shah was a terrible mistake for both Britain and America, even without the further problem of his succession by the mullahs of Iran. A lot of these countries, like Iraq or Iran or India or Pakistan etc., were former British colonies. America was the only real Western power as the British empire collapsed after WW II. Their borders were drawn up on maps as military and administrative districts by generals and diplomats in the Foreign Ministry in London. They were not really nations in the sense that Europe had historical nations like the Brits and the French. And even the Germans and Italians, coming late to their own modern nationhood. Not so long ago, Germany and Italy were regions, not unified nations. It's no coincidence that it was Italy and Germany who succumbed to fascism; they were Europe's newest nations. And that should give us some perspective on the new democracies after WW II that were former Brit colonies that became new countries. And how the US and USSR, as Cold War rivals, competed for influence in all these countries. Of course, we can chew the fat historically in a lot of ways. In the end, it still comes down to whether we would rather see a nuclear-armed Iran squaring off against a nuclear Saudi Arabia along with a nuclear Israel. I oppose any further nuclearization of the Mideast, regardless of the region's rather brief history. If Iran gets nukes, there will be no stopping the Saudis from doing the same. And the Turks would probably try for nukes too. Iranian nukes would likely lead directly to Saudi nukes and possibly Turkish nukes. The world really does not need more nuclear weapons.
Very true, of course. But that's not the question. The question is, can Iran be strong armed into not making them, or will strong arming them inspire and encourage them into making them. We have to accept that as tech progresses, it will only get easier for countries to build them. That's the reality. We also have to accept that the US cannot completely control what Iran and other countries do in terms of pursuing nuke weapons. Too many Americans do think that we can and failure to accept our limitations will only make things worse. I'm posting on Fox News again, and it's very common on the Iran articles to see people practically cheering for war over there. A lot of Fox viewers there think we can rule the world while at the same time being the envy of the world for our "freedom and democracy". We really do need to accept that the world is not a melodramatic place where everyone is either a good hero or an evil villain. We have to accept that political motivations will encourage both allies and adversaries to do both good and evil things. Israel will do evil sometimes. And Iran will do good sometimes. Which is why I can easily believe Israel attacked the tankers to inflame tensions. On the drone, it's a toss up to me to believe Iran vs the US on whether the drone actually entered Iran airspace. Iran may have lied and shot it down to both demonstrate their AA abilities and to get the damn spy plane away. That it cost $120 million is a bonus and could discourage it's replacement from at least coming that close again. The US may have violated Iran airspace or tricked Iran into thinking it had for the express purpose of getting Iran to shoot it down to inflame tensions. Anyway, that's just to show I don't always believe one country and disbelieve another. I look for motives. I see no motive for Iran on the tanker attacks. I do see it for Israel and Saudi Arabia. It's a complex world and treating it as a melodramatic play is naive.
I've seen the allegations, pretty thin on evidence. Anyway, I don't think Israel poses the kind of direct threat to anyone in the region that a country like Iran does, situated as it is next to the Gulf of Hormuz where so much oil traffic passes. And Iran does operate an extensive terror network across the region. Every country in the region is afraid of them. Syria's Assad would like to get rid of the Iranians and the Russians also don't like the rise of Iran as a dominant regional power. And Israel isn't the cause of the Iranian nuke program anyway. Iran dawdled along for decades after Israel got nukes before Iran started their own nuke program, probably following their observance of the North Korean nuclear program. The Norks and the Iranian mullahs are allies. It's clear that the Iranians had a lot of help in their missile and nuclear program from the Kim regime in North Korea. We need a containment policy across the Mideast and Asia. Especially with Iran and North Korea.
Iran has been a hazard to free passage in the past. I probably don't have to remind you of their capture of American sailors and a capture of some British sailors a few years back? They made propaganda films of them as captives, kept them a few days and released them. Iran is not a naval Good Guy here. They're a bad regime and they issue hostile statements about how they could mine the Straits or interdict shipping, all contrary to international law and treaty that governs the waterway. The US Navy and the British navy are present in the Straits just to keep Iran from doing things like blocking ships.
You mean the ones that drifted into Iranian territorial waters after one of the boats had an engine failure? I would call that a case of Iran doing exactly what the US Coast Guard would do if it happened in US waters. They did nothing wrong in that case.
Perhaps you mean advance 911 knowledge. On the USS Liberty, they absolutely did attack it, and if you listen to some interviews of the survivors....
I would call that a case of Iran doing exactly what the US Coast Guard would do if it happened in US waters. Parading captives is distasteful, akin to making propaganda films of POWs under duress. You may recall that Iran doesn't flinch from holding hostages, including U.S. embassy staff and making propaganda films? That violates the Geneva conventions. At least, I think it does. We don't parade military captives for the cameras, probably haven't since at least the Vietnam era. Our Pentagon doesn't want such displays. Iran is an ugly little regime in many ways. Their civil society is fairly strict in Muslim observance but not as much as Saudi Arabia is.
I accept that the Liberty should be remembered. But should we, for instance, continue to obsess over the capture of the Pueblo by North Korea, with the capture and torturous confinement of over 80 American sailors. Trying to see policy toward Israel or North Korea as being defined by the Liberty or the Pueblo naval incidents of the 1960's is perhaps not the most constructive way to conduct foreign policy. As much as those things will ever be resolved, they have been resolved. They are officially closed matters. Our relations with North Korea and Israel can't be focused on naval incidents from 50 years ago.
Gee, wonder why that is... I'm sure there are more than a few Iranians that think the same about your filthy-dirty, corrupt, lying, blood-thirsty regime of war criminals too. Iran didn't overthrow the elected government in the US in 1953 though. And Americans weren't even told about that CIA coup until the 1990's, which means they never ever even debated the actual cause for the hostage holding in the first place. Here's an idea- DON'T GO TO IRAN. That nation is none of your business. And try to get your nation to stop committing war crimes.
I think this is too difficult for Tooconservative to comprehend. Make it simpler.
We had no legal deal with Iran. Obama the fake President never ratified it. Also since you still talk about the Liberty which was clearly an accident Lets talk about the hostage taking which was on purpose Iran deserves to be destroyed for that alone The government not all the people. Just the people who support their evil muslim piece of shit terrorist illegitimate government.
Muslims are all liars. The Koran teaches them to lie. You are gullible if you believe a Muslim who is trained to lie to you.
We should have supported a coupe in Iran in 1953. We invested in their oil industry and they stole it by nationalizing it. They are lucky we did't invade them.
The way you talk it sounds like you are an Iraian. You seem to have a deep unnatural hatred of Israel. The good guys in the middle east. Who could destroy Iran if they wanted to. But they don't because they genuinely want peace unlike the Muslim pieces of shit in Iran who are commanded by their cult book to kill pillage and rape. A sick religion that muslim gutter religion is. The koran would be more useful beint turned into toilet paper to wipe peoples ass with. Much more useful.
It does sound as though some posters here would, in the event of hostilities with Iran, immediately take Iran's side. One has to wonder, given all that we know about how Iran's terror network has operated for decades, just what would it take for the mullah-coddlers to turn on Iran. You suppose they'd finally be on America's side if Iran nuked an American city? Or started a serious pandemic among the homeless hordes in L.A. or S.F. or Seattle? Or would they continue to support the Iranian mullahs and their theocracy?
This is what you are dreaming about? Bad boy.
As I've pointed out to others elsewhere on this: It doesn't matter. If you are claiming no deal ever existed, then it's impossible for Iran to have violated this deal. In which case, what's the basis of complaining that Iran enriching nuke material to any level? If there never was any deal then Iran STILL hasn't broken it. It was clearly an attack by Israel that Israel claimed was an accident... If you want to talk about the hostages, fine. But don't talk about them in a vacuum. It needs to be discussed in the context of all the US has done there.
You are gullible if you believe a Muslim who is trained to lie to you. Do you believe the FBI? James Clapper? Gulf of Tonkin? Saddam had WMD's?
I knew a few Muslims. They were much more trustworthy than you Mr Stone!
You are one of those people who would cheer if Iran attacked America or Israel. But you would whine if Iran attacked the EUroweenies who have steadfastly caved in to Iran's demands and been only too happy to provide them with dual-use technology for their missile/nuke programs. So the EU can help Iran build nukes and missiles to harm her allies. Like America. We really need to disband NATO. It's entirely useless if not counterproductive.
A lot of people are. With 85 million, Iran is fully 20% of the size of the USA. Do you not hate Iran? Do you not hate muslims? And how is it that a country of 7.5 million was able to obtain nukes before a country of 85 million? Because they exploited the US into giving them away. What ever happened to the virtues of "non-proliferation" if we give nukes to a tiny country like that? Iran is much more civilized than you think, and probably on the more westernized compared to the rest of the countries in the region. I'm convinced Israel doesn't want peace at any fair price. If they had peace with the Palestinians, they wouldn't be able to create more illegal settlements.
Do we know that? Or is that just long standing fake news coming from Israeli intelligence? That claim has been out there a while. But can you state a single terror act carried out by the Iranian gov? I can name one carried out by Israel, when they assassinated an Iranian nuke scientist. Remember that one which involved forging an Ireland passport to effect the deed? I'm sure they'll be given a waiver for that terror act because it was a *nuke* scientist they murdered. But it was terror. Hypothetical. If Israel nuked an American city, would that sway pro-Israel Americans? That does actually invoke a memory of a radioactive hotspot being allegedly ID'd in the the Israeli embassy or similar in the USA. But I'd turn on Iran more strongly if they did engage in hostilities WITHOUT having economic war declared upon them first. War has been declared already. By the US.
I think they got the nukes from the French, earlier.
I think it is more likely that Cuba will try to conquer USA, as it is closer ;) Think about.
During the Cuban missile crisis, Castro was frothing at the mouth, screaming for the Soviets to launch WW III on America from Cuba. NYTimes, 2012: Twenty years ago, we spent four days in Havana discussing the missile crisis with Mr. Castro, former Soviet officials and American decision makers from the Kennedy administration, including the former defense secretary Robert S. McNamara. Mr. Castro’s interest had been piqued by the declassification and release of Soviet and American documents in 1991 and 1992, which both surprised and angered him. These included long-suppressed passages from memoirs, released 20 years after Khrushchev’s death, in which he wrote that Mr. Castro had become irrational and possibly suicidal and that the crisis had to end before Cuba ignited a nuclear war. In addition, declassified letters between Khrushchev and Kennedy revealed the extent to which Washington and Moscow cut Cuba out of negotiations, refused to consider Cuban demands and eventually resolved the crisis in spite of Mr. Castro’s objections. So to truly understand how the world came close to Armageddon, one must look not to Washington and Moscow but to Havana. ... There are many parallels between communist Cuba in 1962 and our current bad actors, Iran and North Korea, in 2019. These are not countries that should ever have nuclear weapons.
Another that comes to mind is their assassination of the Canadian arms builder Gerald Ball. They killed him to stop his work on one or more supercannons capable of hitting Israel from Iraq. Iran is the worst state sponsor of terrorism. Everyone around the world considers this to be the case. They act in bad faith constantly, issue radical statements, organize assassinations and bombings around the world, even in places that don't matter, just to intimidate everyone else. Israel has no comparable terror network or history of mad dog attacks. Iran has earned its bad reputation and nothing they've done in the last decade has improved their standing as a state sponsor of terror and as a warmonger and regional troublemaker.
You forgot other "second Hitlers", Milosevic, Kadaffi, Saddam, the endless list. Each made from the same cookie cutter, created in Hollywood long time ago (I recommend Wag the Dog movie). Every brainwashed zombie, that cannot even show a respective country on the map, "knows" well, how wicked their leader is. No knowledge, no understanding, only Pavlovian conditional reflexes. "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
I never saw any of them as a "Hitler". Not even Saddam. But I knew more than most people about how our government funded Saddam's military buildup covertly via BCCI, if you recall that chapter of the Iraq-Iran war (which we certainly joined Saddam by providing a manned barge platform and continuous AWACS coverage of the region and served as the air controllers and intel source for Iraq's air force. Our navy was also quite nearby to keep the Iranian navy in check. The mullahs and the Norks are very much in the Hitler mold. The Norks even have a racial purity and supremacy political doctrine. They are profoundly racist as a regime and consider themselves genetically superior to the South Koreans who they are duty-bound to conquer by the sacred principles of Lenin and Stalin. And Iran has their Twelver apocalyptic, their version of Armageddon. It's akin to how evangelicals and Protestants considered that re-establishing Israel in the modern era fit into Bible prophecies about the Christian apocalypse. It's one of the main reasons why Israel gets so much support in Christian circles that go in for apocalyptic Left Behind stuff. Iran has that same sort of thing but they are much more serious about it, including all the senior leadership. They consider that it may be necessary to sacrifice various nations and even themselves to establish the final Twelver Caliphate, the end of history for Muslims. This would be comparable to the thousand-year reign of Christ following the Second Coming, for instance. Both North Korea and Iran are extremist totalitarian regimes that regularly break agreements and foment terrorism. Kim killed his own brother overseas with nerve gas. And Iran's list of crimes as a state sponsor of terrorism is endless. And not just against Israel. Far from it. A country like Nazi Germany shouldn't have nuclear weapons. And Iran and North Korea are both too much like Nazi Germany in the worst ways.
Pure unadulterated bullshit.
There is no such thing as illegal settlements. Palestinians are illegal aliens in israel.
Vox: Juche, the state ideology that makes North Koreans revere Kim Jong Un, explained
Due to a biblical claim going back thousands of years. Yes. And THAT attitude is why there won't be peace. Never mind that it's highly doubtful that even a single present day Israeli can even trace his lineage back that far. Like I said.... it can be tempting to simplistically think present day Israelis and ancient Israelies are related by blood. The reality may closer reflect the fact that before 100 years ago, a sizeable percentage of people generally didn't move more than 20 miles from their place of birth. Go back to times of antiquity, and you'll find people intermarry into neighboring cultures. Which is why the irony of this whole mid-east situation may be that the Palestinians may have, in spite of their current Islamic faith, more blood of ancient Israel in them than present day Israelis do, who are, I understand, mostly of Eurasian descent. And if THAT is true, then you would be cheering for the persecutors of God's chosen people.
From what I know from people that lived under Hitler and what I've read and heard about life in N. Korea and Iran, there's a lot in your comparison that bears credible consideration. But when I read "Texas Court Orders Father to Raise His Son As A Transsexual" I wonder how a liberal democracy like the one we've been taught to honor from the day we learned to tie our shoes has so suddenly and inexplicably turned to shit.
You are gullible if you believe a Muslim who is trained to lie to you. You seem to have become even more unhinged than was noticeable 2 years ago, which is a remarkable achievement.
The Koran says to lie to non muslims. Do you have your head up your ass jwpegler, or are you just not paying attentiona? Of course Clapper is a liar too and maybe the other video you posted has a liar in it too.
You must be a Muslim then.
The American Left does have a genuine totalitarian streak, right down the middle of its yellow back.
You must a leftist then. You have a clear totalitarian streak, with Orwellian urge to lie.
You're a self-hating Pole.
Try harder.
You must be a dumb polack liar. If you think i'm a muslim liar you shouldn't post here anymore. You don't add anything anyway.
Dumb or not, you are dumber.
You can't tell the difference between a man and a woman. You vote for mass murderers. If you want to go to hell don't ask for forgiveness.
Your pedophile Bill Clinton appointed that thing. You know the Bill Clinton
fag lover you voted for.
And you are channeling her. Why?
Uh. You posted her bullshit you dumb pole.
Why? What Wahhabi Republicans do, Jihad against infidel Christians.
And the answer is: of course they can be. They're not supermen. If they're willing to sacrifice their futures and live in the dirt for four generations, in order to assert the dream of having nuclear weapons (because the reality is we will bomb their facilities if they ever get close), then let them become another North Korea - backwards, falling behind the world, suffering terribly, isolated. My bet is that the second or third generation will get tired of eating dirt and give up on the dream, the way the third generation of Communists did. The Communists did because we RESISTED them, fought them everywhere, at every turn, overthrew every government they tried to infiltrate, and contained them and fought them, until they finally ran out of money and the new generations lost hope, then their government collapsed and with it, all but four of the Communist countries ceased to exist and turned into potential friends and allies. Most did ally with us. That is EXACTLY what you do the Muslim fanatics in Iran. No, you will NEVER be permitted to develop atomic weapons. And given your size, and your lack of resources, you never have any hope of standing up to the US and the whole West and, the rest of the Middle East too. You will be isolated, you will not be permitted to sell your oil in quantities that even let you support your own people right. You will fall further and further behind, and the US will be there, wrapping you in iron, and grinding all hope of any future out of all of your children for generations to come, until you yield. And, since you're stubborn, fanatic jihadi fucks, you will NEVER yield, so your children will be ground into the dirt, And if they're stubborn Islamist fucks like you, THEY will live in poverty and despair. Eventually, your grandchildren or great grandchildren will renounce you and your beliefs and give up the point and join the civilized world, just like the Soviet Bloc did. That took us 75 years. And we weren't as relatively strong or relatively rich when we did that. We have FOREVER> We ALREADY rule the world, for all practical purposes. Our lives are advancing and getting better. But we are willing to make you live in a prison outhouse and keep you there, until you give up the point. That's the way it's going to be. We have forever. Their suffering doesn't even cross our radar screen, so we can just keep at it. In the end, we're too strong, they're too weak, and nobody but they want the nukes. They will never get them, and eventually they will surrender the point. All we have to do is just stand on them until we do. So we will. Count on it. Worked against the USSR. Will work against Iran. We've done that to North Korea for a long time, and Kim will make a deal with Trump on account of that. We're much better at this than you give us credit for.
A no nukes deal means that the Iranians have to submit to inspections to be sure that it remains true.
And if and when they get nukes? Do the sanctions then end or do we give them an incentive to use the nukes by continuing to torment the country? NK made nukes, and Iran is far more capable country in that regard tha NK is. Seems to me if non-proliferation was the goal, then Israel should not have been given nukes. That was most certainly a grave error. I don't think they even want nukes, but these sanctions are giving them that incentive to make them.
Israel is not relevant to the issue. Iran is a permanent, declared enemy and, unlike North Korea, which has a superpower protector that limits our ability to directly strike them to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, Iran has no such protector, so we CAN physically prevent them from doing so and destroy whatever they do develop. And we will. If the Iranians have decided that they are going to destroy the future of their people by engaging in a headlong, permanent fight with the United States and our worldwide allies, over their supposed "right" to obtain nuclear weapons, then so be it: they will in fact destroy the future of their people, by charging into guns too strong for them to face and getting shot down doing it. One of the reasons that it's so important to break Iran in this matter is because so many people, like you, see in Iran the hope of holding up the fist of rebellion against the American world order. It is very important, therefore, that the Iranian example of resistance is utterly crushed, so that hope dies in hearts all over the world, and the rebellious at heart realize that rebellion against the status quo comes at a fearsome price, that it comes without victory at the end, and that it's ultimately not worth it. Unfortunately for the Iranians two and three generations from now, the stubborn decisions of their grandparents to shake their fist in the face of the American world order will result in those children and grandchildren living backwards and constrained lives compared to what they might have lived, all of that sacrifice for the arrogant pipe dream of obtaining nuclear weapons (which still will not have happened by that time). By the fourth generation they'll be truly sick of it and give up. It would be best for all if they gave up before starting it, but there always have to be examples in this world. Iran has stepped up to provide one. We should thank them for that, I suppose.
I can't tell if you are in favor of the US empire or are just stating that's the way it is. Yes Iran is the underdog. But they are not alone. The US has only 5-6% of the world population, and an Achilles heel of enormous debt. In fact, much of the ME policy is no doubt to defend not the US directly, but the dollar itself. I for one don't consider Iran a military threat even with nuke weapons. Is Pakistan at threat? They have nukes and they are Islamic. I'm not confident the US will retain its empire status perpetually. Nor am I confident the US can prevent Iran from developing them any more than they prevented the much poorer NK from obtaining them. Iran is a large country fully 20% of the size of the US in population, and they have a lot to lose in any nuke contest, especially with Israel having nukes pointed at them. There is no danger in Iran having nukes. That's my assessment at least.
He is confident.
They are both a threat. Ir Iran makes Nukes we should wipe them off the map. You are sounding like an Iranian again.
Then why not wipe Pakistan off the map? Nukes are a reality, and Iran WILL have them if they so choose. If we could not keep NK from making them, we will not prevent Iran from making them. If they want them. Our only choice, as imperfect as it is, is to establish good relations with them and remove as much motive as we can from them from making that choice. Massive sanctions creates a motive for them to make them, as once Iran becomes a viable nuclear armed country, antagonizing them with severe and permanent sanctions will encourage their use.
Iran just seized British tanker Stena Impero. Confirmed by Iran and others.
Something tell me Iran wants the UK to release the tanker they took at Gibraltar. Call it a hunch.
I'm sure you're cheering them on. I don't think this will work out for the Iranians the way they're hoping. But you go ahead and hug yourself in glee, certain that the noble Iranians will teach those dirty Americans a thing or two and give those Brits their comeuppance.
This tanker is British, not American.
The US does not have an empire. We have a global security system of allies, th that is mutually beneficial among all of the allies, because it establishes a zo zone of free trade and - relative - personal freedom (not perfect - Saudi ain't fr free, free, but there is freedom of mov fr free, free, but there is freedom of movement anyway). free, free, but there is fr freedom of movement anyway). Th fr freedom of movement anyway). There is no historical precedent for the Pax Americana; it is on a much, much grander scale grander scale than any p grander scale grander scale than any previous "empire". Eff gran grander scale than any previous "emp previous "empire". Effe previous "emp previous "empire". Effectively, the Pax Americana COMB COMBINES the US with the old British, old British, French, D old British, old British, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Swed Swedish, Danish, Austro Hungarian, Ot Hungarian, Ottoman, J Hungarian, Ot Hungarian, Ottoman, Japanese and German Empires. We did did not conquer all of them. But all them. But all have d them. But all them. But all have did did not conquer all of them. But all have a common interest in t interest in the com interest in t interest in the common peac peace and keeping the oceans open everywhere to free trade. free trade. free trade. free trade. Nothing remotely like this every existed in history. The British Empire was th the militar the military riv the militar the military rival of the other Empires. The Pax Romana only extended to the bo borders of borders of Rome borders of borders of Rome, and was not really very peaceful. The Pax Americana is global, and is so beneficial to everybody that even countries countries that countries countries that have rival economic interests and who compete quite strongly on the econo the economic the econo the economic front, have US basing and cooperate with the US security network, because t because that because t because that worldwide peace, which never existed before on such a grand scale, is good f is good for is good f is good for nearly everybody. That doesn't make us an empire, though. We don't RULE England, Germany, France, Japan, Japan, etc Japan, Japan, etc. We compete with them. We merely vouchsafe the connon defense and are the are the l are the are the linchpin of th defense and are the linchpin of the world security system. system. system. system. It's something defense and are the linchpin of the world security system. It's something new under the sun. The countries that choose to remain outside of of the of of the of the world security of the of the world security system (North Korea, Cub Cuba, Cub Cuba, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Red China, China, Burma, Vietna China, China, Bur Burma, Vietnam and Russia) do not propose some alternative system of freedo fre freedom. They are, freedo freedom. They are, rather, oppressive states hellbent on on on on upsetting the world order, order, as though t order, order, as though they wer we wer were merely resisting the United States and seeking to replac replace the US wi rep r rep replac replace the US with themselves, like any other old empire. But that's the difference: Russia and China seek to emulate the old Brit B British/French/German/Russian/Japanese empires, with a home country and cowed s sate satellites.
I strongly disagree. By any objective measure, the USA is an empire. Our military is more costly than the next 15-20 countries combined. You can hear it on TV where the US is claiming the right not just to defend our military and allies in the ME region but also our "interests". We do rule our "allies". you can see it in the case of Iranian sanctions where Europe wanted to continue the Iranian deal but the US has dictated "no". You can see in in the UK seizing the Iranian tanker at the urging of the USA. You can see it when, for example, was it Spain that detained and searched a jet transporting the president of Bolivia because they suspected Snowden was aboard, in a breach of diplomatic protocol. These countries do what the USA tells them to. Free trade? How free is it when the US Dollar is the world reserve currency? The US uses its vast military to enforce the petro dollar. We have troops all over the globe. Yes, the USA is an empire, by any objective measure.
When did Iran become #1? It was Khomenei, Saddam Hussein, Assad, Khaddafi and OBL. Things really do change. Iran was on the brink of attempting a citizen led coup of the Mullahs under Bush and Obama. R and D....but they didn't want the boogey man taken down. You see they have their purposes. They can be rolled out when a war is wanted. Read the papers for decades and they told the story of how evil Assads regime was. Ayatollah Khomenei was allowed to return to Iran after Carter and the CFR decided it was time for tyranny of the Shah to be replaced by the tyranny of the mullahs. This is ALL a CIA/MI6/Mossad novel. Britain and Israel pull American strings, we send in the boys to die, and the American taxpayers to authorize another $1T+ a year in borrowing from the private corporations who fuel wars with their "EVIL DEBT SYSTEM" called the world banking system. Get back to me when they attack America like the hordes of immigrants, migrants and wetbacks are doing from around the globe. Now THAT is a reason to use some of the Trillions spent on Defense.
THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
Reconquista Republican Trump wants Bill of Love amnesty, cheap Dream Student workers/voters.
You are a very cynical guy. Not really. He was the Alawite president of a Syria whose constitution required that that job be held by an Alawite. Different cabinet jobs were assigned to particular minority groups as part of the constitutional order. Assad was no more brutal than he had to be to keep order. Alawites, Christians, Shi'a, Druze lived peacefully among a Sunni majority. It was a Ba'athist government (commie Muslim in ideology and language, less so in practice). And Assad was never considered as brutal as Saddam was, his Ba'athist comrade dictator to the east.
If we're an empire, we are completely unlike the Empires of the past. We have no overseas territories to speak of. Instead, we base our navies, air forces and armies in allied lands. Can you imagine the British being granted basing rights in the French Empire, or vice versa, in the Age of Empires? Didn't happen. When an ally no longer wishes to have our forces based there and tells us to leave, we do. The French did it in the 1960s, and the Filipinos did it after Marcos. What empire does that? Our allies are just that - allies - not vassals. There's no empire in history anything like this. The United States is based in more countries, and has a wider scope of allied countries, than any nation in history. If the US is an empire, it is well over twice the size of the British Empire - the entirety of the Americas except Cuba is in it, Australia, New Zealand - all of Oceania is in it. All of Europe except for Russia, Belarus and Serbia is in it or seeking to associate with it. The Persian Gulf is in it, except for Iran. Most of Africa is in it. It's easier to name the countries NOT in the American security sphere - "Empire" if you will: Cuba. Russia. Belarus. Serbia. Ukraine. The "Stans" (except for Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are American-occupied or nominmal allies). Syria. Iran. Sudan. Yemen. Somalia. Zimbabwe. Congo (Zaire...and even then...), India, China, Burma, Laos, Vietnam (and they're coming into it because of Chinese aggression), and North Korea. The entire rest of the world is allied and part of the system. Thst's just not an empire. The French parts of Africa are all very much focused on France, not the US, but they're still part of the US security system, and they still have US troops operating in them for various reasons. Pakistan doesn't like us much at all, but we still have passage through there, and still operate forces from there. If we're an Empire, we're certainly not in the mold of the British, French, Russian, Soviet, Mongol or Roman Empires. We're something else. Which is why the word "Empire" doesn't really work. We're a world security system, not an empire, not really.
I can't speak exactly for the nature of historic empires in comparison, but it the end result is the same. World control. Previously it was done with military presense. In todays world, it's done economically. How else could it be that the US is able to put severe pressure on what Iran can and cannot do from almost the opposite side of the planet? An empire controls the world. What does the US do? The US is an empire. Though it won't unwind as gracefully as the British empire did.
Please elaborate. Empire or Imperium originally meant an International Community - system of alliances dominated by one country. That is why Judea had a king - Herod.
But see, that's just it. No historical empire ever controlled the world, or even close. America largely does. They were all limited because they were ethno-national states expanding for the specific benefit of a mother ship ethnicity. And while some empires were stronger than others (in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the British Empire was strongest, followed by the French, with the others trailing behind them), the British certainly did not rule the world: they ruled their empire, could place some pressure on their rivals, but had very little power in Europe at all. The US, by contrast, does not RULE Europe, but it does have supreme military command over all of Europe west of Russia and Belarus. Nothing like that ever existed in history. Similarly in the East, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Sealand - these are sovereign countries, but they are all part of the American-commanded security system, and operate jointly, and the Americans operate in all of them. The historical British Empire had no relationships like that. They outright RULED Australia and New Sealand, with imperial authority and oversight. Nobody who wasn't under their military control voluntarily put the British in command of anything. Britain had no relationship with any country the way that the US has an integrated military command structure with every country in Europe. It's simply unprecedented, and it's not an "empire" anything like anything that came before. The Americans do not RULE Britain, nor govern it in any way. And yet there are American bases and forces there, and in Europe in peacetime and in war, the Americans command the British, French, German and everybody else's armed forces within NATO. Control of military operations WITHOUT legislative, economic or political control. It has never happened before on a structured permanent basis. That's not how empires worked. America is the global head of security, and in a hard power sense, effectively DOES rule most of the world (and contains the parts it doesn't rule). But that's it. In economic affairs, America competes with all of the other nations, and doesn't always win either.
Imperium was what was under the rule of the Imperator, the Supreme Commander. Herod of Jerusalem was nothing like, say, Elisabeth of the UK. Both were monarchs within a military imperium of sorts, but the similarities end there. Judaea and Samaria, and the rest of the Levant, were all outright CONQUERED by the Romans in war. They were no friendly allies. They were conquered provinces to whom the Romans assigned locals as rulers - to keep the peace and collect the tax tribute to be paid to Rome. The United Kingdom is a true sovereign country. The Queen is not appointed by the Americans, nor does Britain pay any tribute to the USA. There is a regional alliance, NATO, to which the British contribute the forces they choose to contribute (set by treaty) and place them under American supreme command. The Romans CALLED what they did with Israel "Imperium". Nobody living in the real world of international politics and military relations calls America the Supreme Commander of Great Britain. It's a silly pretense for intellectuals to debate on the Internet , not something that bears any relationship to reality. Truth is, America is not an Empire. It is the most powerful state in the world, and militarily the most effective force since World War II, and as such most of the world wants to be part of the US-led security system, because it makes THEM more secure. The US, in turn, expects certain concessions, mostly basing rights and some financial support for the effort. Countries help in other ways, such as diplomatic contributions. With Rome there was simply nothing like the "first among equals" relationship that America has with its allies. Rome WAS an Empire with REAL imperium. America is not an empire, and the only imperium it has is military, under treaty structures, with each member nation deciding what to place under American command, temporarily, in fulfillment of treaty obligations.
So the USA is not an empire even though it rules the world. We aren't going to see eye to eye on this. Control means power. Just because it's a power that is facilitated largely via economics instead of direct military might doesn't change things. Not to me, an least.
We DON'T control the world any more than the New York Police CONTROL New York City. We're the head of security, that's all.
No. If that were true, the US would not be able to put crippling sanctions on Iran that are actually effective. But the US can because the US has a lot of *control* over other countries. Not Iran but on the many countries that would buy Iranian oil. Economic power has replaced military power as the tool of empires.
And, happy coincidence, we're the number one economic AND military power. So really, for the holdouts like Iran, it is far better to just submit and change. Hold out and insist that you can continue war against Israel (1000 miles away from you) and support terrror where you want, and you will be ground into the dust. Nations are not equal. Iran you are not equal. You are an inferior nation with a barbaric religion, and you have declared war on us. Your fate will be that of the Apache - impoverished and on an Indian Reservation forever - unless you get smart, submit and change. If you do that, Americans have showm themselves to be very magnanimous. Japan and Germany round out the top three Western countries BECAUSE the US nutured them and built them up. We extend a hand to our enemies who submit and cease being our enemy. But you show no intention of submitting to anything. You're asserting an absurd equality you don't have, cannot gain, and that will not be respected. No, you don't have the right to kill Israelis. You don't have the power to do it. Yes, we DO have the right to oppress you, destroy your economy, and kill you if you use armed force against us, because we have the power to do it, and might makes right. The strong (that's us) do what they can, and the weak (that's you) suffer what they must. It's UNFAIR you whine. Fuck you. You stone women to death for adultery and hang gays. You're a bunch of barbarian savages, and we're treating you EXACTLY the way you deserve to be treated. And unless Allah himself comes to your rescue (and he won't, because he doesn't EXIST), then we are going to sit on top of you and grind your faces into the dirt until you submit, and there is no power on earth that can save you. So, you WILL submit and change your religion, or you will live in poverty and collapsed circumstances for generations, until your grandchildren or great-grandchildren decide they are tired of waiting for Allah to help you, and get rid of him and rejoin civilization. It'd be great, for you, if you submitted now, and it would save us some money. But if you don't, that's ok, because crushing you increases our relative power in the world, and gives our defense contractors great profits. It's no sweat for us to keep on harrowing you for eternity (remember, we ARE your Great Satan, just as you said, and you can't beat the Devil). That's the way it is. Unfair? Waaaaaa. Nobody fucking cares. You're unfari barbarians yourself. You have no right to call upon justice - you are unjust. You have no right to expect mercy - you give none. You're Nazi Germany, and we're the Allies, inexorably destroying you. In the end, you will replace your government and change to join us. The only question is: how many of you have to die in squalor before you give up. We are NEVER going to give up, and you're just not costly enough a burden for us to torture, for us to give up torturing you. Capische? It is very important that the world see that resisting America and taking us on is futile. That is why Cuba will find no prosperity until the Castros are gone, and there will be no prosperity in North Korea until Kim makes a deal. It's the way it is. It isn't going to change. Iran is doomed unless it changes. Best scenario: Putin and Trump make a deal, and you answer to Putin - and him telling you to stop supporting terrorists and stop building nuclear weapons. That way you can avoid having to bend the knee directly to us. Putin, likewise, keeps Syria in check. And the Palestinians? They will eventually be completely driven from the land, and where they live will all be Israel. So, Muslim world, time for you to start figuring out where they will come to live within your territories. The US and the West will, of course, be very generous with the money once that happens. But continue the fight? Then become the Apache and die in a dusty hole.
It's really hard to read your whole missive there, Vic. It reeks of supremacy and domination, and is really hard to rectify what you say here with the previous insistence that the US does not control the world. It's flat out contradictory. Israel will subjegate all of Palestine. I guess ethnic cleansing and genocide is okay, as long as it's done by an "ally" like Israel. Holocaust is okay as long as it's Jews who are doing it, I guess. Yes the US has a bigger military budget than the next 20 countries combined, most of whom are considered allies, and the list includes Russia which has an economy on par with Italy. The reason the USA can afford this military is because the US dollar is the world reserve currency AND the US has run up a massive $23 trillion dollar national debt AND the significant and continuing trade deficit which is only possible because of the reserve currency status. Essentially, the USA has a monopoly on counterfeiting the world currency, and the US trade deficit exists much for the same reason why counterfeiters don't need to hold a real job. Iran obviously has its defects. Islam even more. But your complaints about Islam are shallow when you pretty much declare that Israel can do what Islam advocates: Erradication of non-believers. I thought you were a self-professing Christian, though with a supposed deeper understanding of scripture. I guess your version possesses some Islamic-like attributes? I don't know. I actually almost posted further about your offhanded reference to Iran as "the enemy". That's the one where I replied that the US and Iran are not at war. What that shows is the characterization of Iran as "enemy" is exactly how you errently perceive them, even though there is no war. You're not alone. So many Americans errently do also and the problem with that is with that mindset, no diplomatic solution is possible. War is here. War is now. And war it will forever be until Iran is wiped off the face of the earth or forced to accept its inferior status with an American blade at their throat. Because Iranians are all evil just like orcs from some fantasy movie. And American is the beacon of morality and justice, and is blessed by God. Yes, we are superior because God is on our side. Honestly, you speak as an arrogant supremacist.
Yep. Let's throw off the mask. I hate the enemy. Hate them. And I want to see them dead. We cannot lose a war against them, and they're hellbent on war - seizing tankers, shooting down drones, supporting terrorism, declaring us the Great Satan - all of that shit. Let's give them the war they so badly want. And continue that war until they are broken and cease to exist as an organized fighting force. Persia delenda est. So be it.
You are deluded. Some people think the world is flat. Others suffer from extreme paranoia. The ability of the human mind to believe things that are not true is the 3rd most powerful force in the universe. Black holes are #1, with supernovas barely taking second place.
#2. To: Tooconservative (#0)
#3. To: Pinguinite (#1)
What is the hell is Iran supposed to do?
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
Iran is supposed to renounce nuclear weapons, make peace with Israel and stop givi g givi giving financial support to terrorist militias. Those are the terms for peace.
#5. To: Pinguinite (#1)
The real hypocrisy here, as I see it, is that the EU/UK/US have already declared war on Iran via crippling sanction and now seizing an Iranian tanker. Seizing the foreign property of another country is called piracy when it's done by a non-state entity, and war when it's done by a state entity.
At the same time, Iran is supposed to respect sanctions imposed by a bunch of foreign countries on Syria but the EU is NOT supposed to respect sanctions that Iran might want to impose on the UK.
The only way out of this for Iran is for them to create a nuclear weapon. Once they do that, then the US/UK/EU will be forced to actually negotiate, and/or realize that continuing to sanction a new nuclear power is more dangerous than not. Pakistan has nukes, but they aren't getting sanctioned.
And Iran will have nukes eventually. There's no stopping that.
#6. To: jeremiad (#2)
The UK, Britain or England. It is always the same. They drag us into a war the populace does not want, for reasons not clear and we send our best and brightest to die.
#7. To: Tooconservative (#5)
So, you are on Iran's side. Okay.
#8. To: Tooconservative (#6)
Britain interdicted an Iranian tanker that was illegally attempting to deliver oil to Bashar Assad. The U.N. has authorized such interdictions as part of their policy.
#9. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#4)
I believe they have already stated they are not interested in nuke weapons.
I do not believe Iran attacked the tankers, but on the drone, it's a toss up as to whether it violated Iran airspace. Iran may have wanted to prove its air defense capabilities by shooting down an aircraft that was 11 miles high and if so, it was an adequate demonstration.
If there is a war, I for one will not be cheering for American forces. Count me out.
#10. To: Pinguinite (#8)
They appear to be, at best, EU and US based, neither of which Iran or Syria are a legal party to and in which they have no representation. Given that framework, this is much more akin to a dozen city thugs telling a few residents in a community that they can't visit with one another.
#11. To: Tooconservative (#9)
You mean, before last week when they announced they were exceeding the level of enrichment allowed under JCPOA?
Iran was responsible for the mines.
Many defense analysts have speculated that we flew that drone deliberately in international airspace right on the edge of Iran's airspace (possibly taking advantage of the fact that we could prove the drone was outside Iran's airspace even if their second-rate radars said otherwise), just to see if we could get Iran to shoot it down.
Go ahead and cheer for Iran getting nukes.
#12. To: Tooconservative (#10)
I don't want to see a Shi'a crescent across Syria/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan with a supporting worldwide terror network, backed by Iranian mullahs and their nuclear weapons.
#13. To: Pinguinite (#7)
I refuse to be a cheerleader for the USA just because I was born there. Me, I prefer morality and justice, and the US treatment of Iran over the last 65 years has been quite unjust. We have exploited that country for their oil.
#14. To: Tooconservative (#13)
The world really does not need more nuclear weapons.
#15. To: Pinguinite (#12)
The country that attacked the USS Liberty to goad the US into the 67 war, and very possibly had advance knowledge of 911
#16. To: Pinguinite (#14)
Anyway, that's just to show I don't always believe one country and disbelieve another. I look for motives. I see no motive for Iran on the tanker attacks. I do see it for Israel and Saudi Arabia. It's a complex world and treating it as a melodramatic play is naive.
#17. To: Tooconservative (#16)
I probably don't have to remind you of their capture of American sailors
#18. To: Tooconservative (#15)
I've seen the allegations, pretty thin on evidence.
#19. To: Pinguinite (#17)
You mean the ones that drifted into Iranian territorial waters after one of the boats had an engine failure?
#20. To: Pinguinite (#18)
On the USS Liberty, they absolutely did attack it, and if you listen to some interviews of the survivors....
#21. To: Tooconservative (#19)
We don't parade military captives for the cameras, probably haven't since at least the Vietnam era. Our Pentagon doesn't want such displays.
Iran is an ugly little regime in many ways.
#22. To: Pinguinite (#11)
Deals are two-way streets. You can't make an agreement with someone, and then break the deal while expecting the other person to stick to its terms.
#23. To: Pinguinite (#11)
You can't make an agreement with someone, and then break the deal
#24. To: Pinguinite (#4)
I believe they have already stated they are not interested in nuke weapons.
#25. To: Pinguinite (#4)
The fact is the USA has abused and exploited Iran starting in 1953.
#26. To: Pinguinite (#14)
Israel will do evil sometimes. And Iran will do good sometimes. Which is why I can easily believe Israel attacked the tankers to inflame tensions.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#26)
(Edited)
#28. To: Tooconservative (#27)
You suppose they'd finally be on America's side if Iran nuked an American city? Or started a serious pandemic among the homeless hordes in L.A. or S.F. or Seattle? Or
#29. To: A K A Stone (#23)
We had no legal deal with Iran. Obama the fake President never ratified it.
Also since you still talk about the Liberty which was clearly an accident
Lets talk about the hostage taking which was on purpose Iran deserves to be destroyed for that alone The government not all the people. Just the people who support their evil muslim piece of shit terrorist illegitimate government.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#24)
Muslims are all liars. The Koran teaches them to lie.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#24)
You are gullible if you believe a Muslim who is trained to lie to you.
#32. To: A Pole (#28)
#33. To: A K A Stone (#26)
The way you talk it sounds like you are an Iraian.
You seem to have a deep unnatural hatred of Israel.
Who could destroy Iran if they wanted to.
Israel exploits the USA. I know you and other Christians favor Israel, but it's not because of what they've done. It's because of a religious belief that they are Biblical prophesy fulfilled. The irony is that the Palestinains and other actual semites in the area probably have more blood of ancient Israel in them than present day Israelis.
But they don't because they genuinely want peace unlike the Muslim pieces of shit in Iran who are commanded by their cult book to kill pillage and rape. A sick religion that muslim gutter religion is.
#34. To: Tooconservative (#27)
One has to wonder, given all that we know about how Iran's terror network has operated for decades,
You suppose they'd finally be on America's side if Iran nuked an American city?
#35. To: Pinguinite (#33)
Because they exploited the US into giving them away
#36. To: Tooconservative (#32)
(Edited)
You are one of those people who would cheer if Iran attacked America or Israel.
#37. To: A Pole (#36)
think it is more likely that Cuba will try to conquer USA, as it is closer ;) Think about.
...
#38. To: Pinguinite (#34)
That claim has been out there a while. But can you state a single terror act carried out by the Iranian gov? I can name one carried out by Israel, when they assassinated an Iranian nuke scientist. Remember that one which involved forging an Ireland passport to effect the deed? I'm sure they'll be given a waiver for that terror act because it was a *nuke* scientist they murdered. But it was terror.
#39. To: Tooconservative (#37)
(Edited)
There are many parallels between communist Cuba in 1962 and our current bad actors, Iran and North Korea, in 2019
#40. To: A Pole (#39)
You forgot other "second Hitlers", Milosevic, Kadaffi, Saddam, the endless list.
#41. To: Tooconservative (#40)
The Norks even have a racial purity and supremacy political doctrine. They are profoundly racist as a regime and consider themselves genetically superior to the South Koreans
#42. To: Pinguinite (#33)
#43. To: A Pole (#41)
#44. To: A K A Stone (#42)
There is no such thing as illegal settlements. Palestinians are illegal aliens in israel.
#45. To: Tooconservative (#40)
The mullahs and the Norks are very much in the Hitler mold.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#24)
Muslims are all liars. The Koran teaches them to lie.
#47. To: Operation 40 (#46)
#48. To: A K A Stone (#47)
The Koran says to lie to non muslims.
#49. To: randge (#45)
But when I read "Texas Court Orders Father to Raise His Son As A Transsexual" I wonder how a liberal democracy like the one we've been taught to honor from the day we learned to tie our shoes has so suddenly and inexplicably turned to shit.
#50. To: Tooconservative (#49)
The American Left does have a genuine totalitarian streak, right down the middle of its yellow back.
#51. To: A Pole (#50)
#52. To: Tooconservative (#51)
(Edited)
You're a self-hating Pole.
#53. To: A Pole (#48)
#54. To: A K A Stone (#53)
You must be a dumb polack liar.
#55. To: A Pole (#54)
#56. To: A K A Stone (#55)
(Edited)
You vote for mass murderers.
#57. To: A Pole (#56)
#58. To: A K A Stone (#57)
#59. To: A Pole (#58)
#60. To: A Pole, A K A Cheney, neo-bushbot Trumpkins, Wahhabi mooselimb Republicans, *Arab Spring Jihad* (#58)
Ron Paul - Lake Jackson Texas Values
#61. To: Pinguinite (#14)
The question is, can Iran be strong armed into not making them,
#62. To: Pinguinite (#4)
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#62)
A no nukes deal means that the Iranians have to submit to inspections to be sure that it remains true.
#64. To: Pinguinite (#63)
#65. To: Vicomte13 (#64)
#66. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#65)
I'm not confident the US will retain its empire status perpetually.
#67. To: Pinguinite (#65)
I for one don't consider Iran a military threat even with nuke weapons. Is Pakistan at threat?
#68. To: A K A Stone (#67)
#69. To: Tooconservative (#0)
British navy to Iran: Back the hell off
#70. To: A Pole (#69)
#71. To: A Pole (#69)
Iran just seized British tanker Stena Impero. Confirmed by Iran and others.
#72. To: Tooconservative (#71)
the noble Iranians will teach those dirty Americans a thing
#73. To: Pinguinite (#65)
(Edited)
#74. To: Vicomte13 (#73)
#75. To: Tooconservative (#38)
(Edited)
#76. To: jeremiad, *Border Invasion* (#75)
attack America like the hordes of immigrants, migrants and wetbacks
Ron Paul - Lake Jackson Texas Values
#77. To: jeremiad (#75)
When did Iran become #1? It was Khomenei, Saddam Hussein, Assad, Khaddafi and OBL. Things really do change. Iran was on the brink of attempting a citizen led coup of the Mullahs under Bush and Obama. R and D....but they didn't want the boogey man taken down. You see they have their purposes. They can be rolled out when a war is wanted.
Read the papers for decades and they told the story of how evil Assads regime was.
#78. To: Pinguinite (#74)
(Edited)
#79. To: Vicomte13 (#78)
#80. To: Vicomte13 (#78)
(Edited)
We're something else. Which is why the word "Empire" doesn't really work.
#81. To: Pinguinite (#79)
#82. To: A Pole (#80)
#83. To: Vicomte13 (#81)
But see, that's just it. No historical empire ever controlled the world, or even close. America largely does.
#84. To: Pinguinite (#83)
#85. To: Vicomte13 (#84)
We DON'T control the world any more than the New York Police CONTROL New York City. We're the head of security, that's all.
#86. To: Pinguinite (#85)
#87. To: Vicomte13 (#86)
#88. To: Pinguinite (#87)
Honestly, you speak as an arrogant supremacist.
#89. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
We cannot lose a war against them, and they're hellbent on war - seizing tankers, shooting down drones, supporting terrorism, declaring us the Great Satan
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]