• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Has Brilliantly Cornered Himself

snakestretcher said:
So what that it's a democracy; that doesn't magically transform it into a Utopian paradise. Big deal. Nobody is attacking Israel except for the Palestinans, legitimately exercising their legal right to resist a 'belligerent occupier' (a legal term). By the way Lebanon (invaded by Israel and repelled), is a parliamentary democratic republic.
Click to expand...

I never said a word about a utopian paradise. Also, Palestine was never a nation. It had no borders, no capital, no president. Israel is occupying land carved out for it largely by Britain.
 
veritas1 said:
The Iranians can only be judged by their rhetoric and their actions. They spew bellicosity and fund terrorism. I have to assume that is what they want to do until they demonstrate otherwise.
Click to expand...

What a nation might WANT to do is not necessarily what a nation WILL do (or even what it is CAPABLE of doing).

veritas1 said:
Like I said, Iran doesn't have to do much, just stop trying to build nuclear weapons. How is that an impossible demand?
Click to expand...

Since there is no evidence that the Iranians ARE trying to build nuclear weapons, and since the Iranians say that they are NOT trying to build nuclear weapons, and since you say that "The Iranians can only be judged by their rhetoric and their actions.", why then do you not accept that the Iranians are not trying to build nuclear weapons?


veritas1 said:
Saudi Arabia is a separate matter and the only reason we are tied them now, or ever were, is to make sure world oil supplies and prices remain stable.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that the US government would give a damn how unstable the WORLD oil prices were as long as the AMERICAN oil prices stayed low? Do you really believe that the US government would give a damn how stable the WORLD oil prices were if the AMERICAN oil prices stayed high?


veritas1 said:
Iran could take over Saudi Arabia in a week were they so inclined.
Click to expand...

And the fact that they aren't making anything that looks even slightly like doing that establishes - what?


veritas1 said:
Saddam used to be the buffer but he's gone.
Click to expand...

Yep, removed by the government of the United States of America.
 
veritas1 said:
That leaves us now.
Click to expand...

Since the American government created the situation, why is the American government complaining about paying the cost of dealing with it?

Or do you believe that the other countries of the world should be subject to taxation (to support American goals) without representation in the American government?


veritas1 said:
I have no problem turning the screws on Saudia Arabia in order to stop their terrorist activities.
Click to expand...

You may not, but the US government and the American oil companies most certainly do. Guess who is going to get to make the decision on whether or not the US should be "turning the screws on Saudi Arabia?


veritas1 said:
All we need to do is threaten to withdraw our protection.
Click to expand...

Which would be followed immediately by an offer from Russia or China to extend their protection - wouldn't it? And the Saudis, needing the protection of a major power in order to prevent the Iranians from (as you said) "tak(ing) over Saudi Arabia in a week", would absolutely reject such an offer immediately - wouldn't they?


veritas1 said:
If there are no unannounced inspections, what is the point of the deal?
Click to expand...

Would the US government agree to "unannounced inspections" as a part of any treaty/deal?


veritas1 said:
The idea was to stop them from building nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

And the Iranians have done that.


veritas1 said:
The deal doesn't accomplish that so it serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

Since the JCPOA did do that, your statement puzzles me.


veritas1 said:
The sanctions are decidedly more effective.
Click to expand...

On doing what?


veritas1 said:
That is why Iran is so upset. Now they are seeing policy that works rather than just the feel good deal which did nothing.
Click to expand...

Actually what they are seeing is policy that is pure vindictiveness. I'd get upset about such a policy, wouldn't you?

veritas1 said:
Again, all Iran has to do is give up their nuclear ambitions.
Click to expand...

Which it has already done.


veritas1 said:
If we take off the sanctions, what incentive do they have?
Click to expand...

If the US retains the right to impose sanctions just because its government thinks that the Iranians might possibly be theoretically thinking about the potential feasibility of doing something that they aren't doing, what incentive to the Iranians have to enter into any deal with the US?


veritas1 said:
It seems you prefer leaving the reckoning to Israel rather than trying to squeeze them now.
Click to expand...

In short, your position is that the US government has the right to rule the world. Did you know that that position is not shared by very many people outside of the United States of America?

veritas1 said:
If Israel feels threatened, there WILL be a war. That you can count on.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and it will be a war that Israel starts. Whether Israel will continue to exist as a nation that is NOT almost universally regarded as a pariah state for its actions in nuking Iran on the basis of "Well, we were afraid that the Iranians were thinking of possibly attacking us so we had to kill 30 or so million people in order to effectuate 'The Final Solution to the Iranian Problem'." has yet to be seen.
 
snakestretcher said:
Prove they don't. Tehran alone; 13 active synagogues, 5 Jewish schools, 2 Jewish kindergartens, one Jewish hospital.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be simpler if you just provided your links?

"Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - ... doesn't actually make much progress.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
What a nation might WANT to do is not necessarily what a nation WILL do (or even what it is CAPABLE of doing).



Since there is no evidence that the Iranians ARE trying to build nuclear weapons, and since the Iranians say that they are NOT trying to build nuclear weapons, and since you say that "The Iranians can only be judged by their rhetoric and their actions.", why then do you not accept that the Iranians are not trying to build nuclear weapons?




Do you really believe that the US government would give a damn how unstable the WORLD oil prices were as long as the AMERICAN oil prices stayed low? Do you really believe that the US government would give a damn how stable the WORLD oil prices were if the AMERICAN oil prices stayed high?




And the fact that they aren't making anything that looks even slightly like doing that establishes - what?




Yep, removed by the government of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

1. If Iran insists that it isn't pursuing nuclear weapons, then they should have no problem with a full inspection of all their facilities, stockpiles, etc.

2. US oil prices cannot be separated from world oil prices. And, yes, the US would care a lot if gas were suddenly $6-7 per gallon.

3. Of course Iran isn't making any moves toward Saudi Arabia because the US is protecting them. Without that, the Saudis would be easy pickings for Iran.

4. Yes, Saddam was removed and that was a cataclysmic error as many people were saying at the time and most have realized afterward. Taking out Khaddafi in Libya was similarly stupid.
 
cabse5 said:
Which court was on the verge of forcing the US to return the money to Iran?
Click to expand...

The International Court of Justice in a court case to which the US government had attourned. The International Court of Justice has, under American law, jurisdiction to hear such cases.

Please do not confuse the ICJ with the ICC because while the US government is not a party to the ICC agreement the United States of America IS a party to the UN Charter which established the ICJ (partly because the US government demanded that one be set up).
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Since the American government created the situation, why is the American government complaining about paying the cost of dealing with it?

Or do you believe that the other countries of the world should be subject to taxation (to support American goals) without representation in the American government?




You may not, but the US government and the American oil companies most certainly do. Guess who is going to get to make the decision on whether or not the US should be "turning the screws on Saudi Arabia?




Which would be followed immediately by an offer from Russia or China to extend their protection - wouldn't it? And the Saudis, needing the protection of a major power in order to prevent the Iranians from (as you said) "tak(ing) over Saudi Arabia in a week", would absolutely reject such an offer immediately - wouldn't they?




Would the US government agree to "unannounced inspections" as a part of any treaty/deal?




And the Iranians have done that.




Since the JCPOA did do that, your statement puzzles me.




On doing what?




Actually what they are seeing is policy that is pure vindictiveness. I'd get upset about such a policy, wouldn't you?



Which it has already done.




If the US retains the right to impose sanctions just because its government thinks that the Iranians might possibly be theoretically thinking about the potential feasibility of doing something that they aren't doing, what incentive to the Iranians have to enter into any deal with the US?




In short, your position is that the US government has the right to rule the world. Did you know that that position is not shared by very many people outside of the United States of America?



Indeed, and it will be a war that Israel starts. Whether Israel will continue to exist as a nation that is NOT almost universally regarded as a pariah state for its actions in nuking Iran on the basis of "Well, we were afraid that the Iranians were thinking of possibly attacking us so we had to kill 30 or so million people in order to effectuate 'The Final Solution to the Iranian Problem'." has yet to be seen.
Click to expand...

You seem very sure that the Iranians are not pursuing nuclear weapons. I'm wondering who your inside source is and whether you shouldn't alert the US government. I'm guessing they've given up sponsoring terrorism, too.

If we withdrew our protection from SA and Iran invaded them, oil prices would skyrocket. Seems to me the oil companies would be happy about that, at least in the short term. BTW, why would Russia and China, who are allies of Iran, decide to become protectors of Iran's enemy?

Israel will not have to use nuclear weapons to neutralize Iran's nuclear facilities anymore than they had to use them to take out Iraq's.

Lastly, I don't want the US to rule the world nor are we capable of it. What we can do is try to keep the lid on some of its more unstable types like the N. Koreans and Iranians. What I find amusing is seeing the same people carping from the sidelines who would coming running to hide under US skirts if they really faced mortal danger.
 
veritas1 said:
Israel is the only democracy in the region. They are 8 million people surrounded by 260 million hostile Arabs who would like to see them gone. That is why Israel has nuclear weapons. I wouldn't be giving the Saudis anything.
Click to expand...

Actually Israel is "permitted" nuclear weapons because Israel is NOT a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and for no other reason. Israel could be an absolute monarchy that ruled through an extreme fundamentalist theocracy that worshipped Baal and conducted the historically traditional child sacrifices that was surrounded by 100,000,000,000,000 extremely friendly Jews who simply didn't care what the Israelis were doing and, because it was NOT a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it would STILL be "permitted" nuclear weapons.

The reason that Israel HAS nuclear weapons is because the US government says (unofficially, of course) that it is OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons. If the US government imposed the same sanctions on Israel over the Israelis' "reported secret research and production of nuclear weapons" as it has imposed on the Iranians over the Iranians "reported secret research and production of nuclear weapons" then Israel would be bankrupt within months.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
The International Court of Justice in a court case to which the US government had attourned. The International Court of Justice has, under American law, jurisdiction to hear such cases.

Please do not confuse the ICJ with the ICC because while the US government is not a party to the ICC agreement the United States of America IS a party to the UN Charter which established the ICJ (partly because the US government demanded that one be set up).
Click to expand...

We had no obligation to return it no matter what some Kangaroo Court said. I'm surprised (not really) to see the left championing the returning of $1.5 billion dollars to a sponsor of terrorism just because Obama was glad to do it.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Actually Israel is "permitted" nuclear weapons because Israel is NOT a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and for no other reason. Israel could be an absolute monarchy that ruled through an extreme fundamentalist theocracy that worshipped Baal and conducted the historically traditional child sacrifices that was surrounded by 100,000,000,000,000 extremely friendly Jews who simply didn't care what the Israelis were doing and, because it was NOT a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it would STILL be "permitted" nuclear weapons.

The reason that Israel HAS nuclear weapons is because the US government says (unofficially, of course) that it is OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons. If the US government imposed the same sanctions on Israel over the Israelis' "reported secret research and production of nuclear weapons" as it has imposed on the Iranians over the Iranians "reported secret research and production of nuclear weapons" then Israel would be bankrupt within months.
Click to expand...

None of that changes what I said. We are committed to the continuation of Israel as a nation.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From Slate

Trump Has Brilliantly Cornered Himself Where He’s Now Demanding Iran Abide by a Deal He Already Reneged On
​

The Trump administration announced Monday it is sending an additional 1,000 American troops to the Middle East after it accused Iran of orchestrating attacks on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman last week. The Defense Department said the troops would be deployed for “defensive purposes” and, NPR reports, would primarily consist of intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance, or ISR, as well as force protection and engineers. The increase in troop levels is part of a more general, though still modest buildup that began last month after another series of attacks on ships in the region that the U.S. similarly suspects is Iran’s doing.

...

The move comes as Iran has threatened to disregard uranium restrictions outlined in the 2015 nuclear deal that aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions in return for sanctions relief. After years of deriding the nuclear deal as “the worst deal in history,” President DonaldTrump withdrew the U.S. from what’s formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and reinstated sanctions on Iran. The Trump administration, already suffering from a serious credibility deficit with allies, is now in the awkward position of demanding that Tehran comply with an agreement the American president has not only derided but pulled out of! “Administration officials found themselves Monday grappling with whether to press the remaining parties to the deal, including Britain, France and Germany, to demand that Iran stay in compliance,” the Associated Press reports. “They must also consider if such a stance would essentially concede that the restrictions imposed during the Obama administration, while short of ideal, are better than none.”

COMMENT:-

OK, you don't like "Slate" and I'm not particularly keen on "Slate" either, but the interesting question here is "Has Mr. Trump actually put himself in the position where he is demanding that Iran comply with 'The Deal' that he, himself, ridicules and refuses to comply with?".

That is an interesting question, isn't it?
​
Click to expand...

One very easy and cushy reply is the one Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama used
frequently in Obama's first 2 years as POTUS ... :
" Elections Have Consequences ! "
Trump won in 2016 and that in itself puts to rest this notion of him cornering himself.
It'd be like topping Mark Spitz 7 Gold Medals in one Olympics { '72 Summer Olympics in Munich }
Oh ... I guess it was topped.Michael Phelps got 8 in the 2008 Bejing Games.
So Mark the Shark is merely leftovers.Just another swimming schlub.
I get how this stuff works now.
 
veritas1 said:
1. If Iran insists that it isn't pursuing nuclear weapons, then they should have no problem with a full inspection of all their facilities, stockpiles, etc.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that isn't what the US government is demanding. What the US government is demanding is that the Iranians allow "inspectors" (and we all know that the American inspectors in Iraq contained a very large contingent of CIA agents) to inspect ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, at ANY TIME without providing any reason whatsoever for doing so.

veritas1 said:
2. US oil prices cannot be separated from world oil prices.
Click to expand...

Certainly they can. The US has a guaranteed supply of oil at BELOW world market price through the provisions of both NAFTA and NAFTA 2.0.

veritas1 said:
And, yes, the US would care a lot if gas were suddenly $6-7 per gallon.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and in that case whether the world oil prices were stable or unstable would be of absolutely no concern. Not only that, but if the US could buy oil at $25/bbl in unlimited quantities, then the US government would be equally unconcerned about whether the world oil prices were stable or unstable or if the world oil price was $500/bbl.

veritas1 said:
3. Of course Iran isn't making any moves toward Saudi Arabia because the US is protecting them. Without that, the Saudis would be easy pickings for Iran.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and since the US government had removed the only other countervailing force in the area (Saddam's Iraq), isn't it just a bit childish for the US government to be complaining that it is having to pay the cost of cleaning up the milk that it spilled?

veritas1 said:
4. Yes, Saddam was removed and that was a cataclysmic error as many people were saying at the time and most have realized afterward. Taking out Khaddafi in Libya was similarly stupid.
Click to expand...

So it looks like the box score there is "DEMS 0 - 1 - 0 / REPS 0 - 1 - 0" doesn't it. Or, looking at it another way, the box score is "US 0 - 2 - 0". (The US/Afghan game is not over yet but it looks like the box score at the end of that game is likely to be "US 0 - 3 - 0" [or, at best, "US 0 - 2 - 1"]. The appropriate "DEMS / REPS" box score can't be determined until we find out which team gets to play the last innings against the "Afghans".)
 
veritas1 said:
You seem very sure that the Iranians are not pursuing nuclear weapons. I'm wondering who your inside source is and whether you shouldn't alert the US government. I'm guessing they've given up sponsoring terrorism, too.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes. And they've always been kidding about the "big satan"/"little satan" stuff too.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Unfortunately that isn't what the US government is demanding. What the US government is demanding is that the Iranians allow "inspectors" (and we all know that the American inspectors in Iraq contained a very large contingent of CIA agents) to inspect ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, at ANY TIME without providing any reason whatsoever for doing so.



Certainly they can. The US has a guaranteed supply of oil at BELOW world market price through the provisions of both NAFTA and NAFTA 2.0.



Indeed, and in that case whether the world oil prices were stable or unstable would be of absolutely no concern. Not only that, but if the US could buy oil at $25/bbl in unlimited quantities, then the US government would be equally unconcerned about whether the world oil prices were stable or unstable or if the world oil price was $500/bbl.



Indeed, and since the US government had removed the only other countervailing force in the area (Saddam's Iraq), isn't it just a bit childish for the US government to be complaining that it is having to pay the cost of cleaning up the milk that it spilled?



So it looks like the box score there is "DEMS 0 - 1 - 0 / REPS 0 - 1 - 0" doesn't it. Or, looking at it another way, the box score is "US 0 - 2 - 0". (The US/Afghan game is not over yet but it looks like the box score at the end of that game is likely to be "US 0 - 3 - 0" [or, at best, "US 0 - 2 - 1"]. The appropriate "DEMS / REPS" box score can't be determined until we find out which team gets to play the last innings against the "Afghans".)
Click to expand...

If Iran isn't pursuing nukes, they should have no problem with full, unhindered inspections of all their facilities. Short of that, I guess they'll have to live with the sanctions.

Hey, that's great news on oil, if true. So, I guess we can dispense with all the chicken littleism on this forum regarding oil prices should the Strait of Hormuz be closed by Iran.

We screwed up on Iraq and we have to deal with the situation as it is. In Afghanistan, we've about completed screwing up because we've made it a nation building exercise in a place which is basically tribal. Taking out the Taliban and their camps was legitimate in the wake of 911. The rest is just a waste. Iraq was an ill conceived disaster from the start.
 
veritas1 said:
You seem very sure that the Iranians are not pursuing nuclear weapons. I'm wondering who your inside source is and whether you shouldn't alert the US government.
Click to expand...

I rely on the US, UK, German, French, and other official government intelligence agencies. I do NOT rely on either the statements from the US Executive Branch or from the Israeli government or Israeli intelligence agencies.

veritas1 said:
I'm guessing they've given up sponsoring terrorism, too.
Click to expand...

Depending on what you mean by "sponsoring terrorism", my answer would vary. The Iranians have no history of supporting al-Qa'eda, the Taliban, or ISISISISILDAESHWHATEVER, but do have a history of supporting groups who are using terrorist tactics in order to achieve what would be seen as "legitimate political aims" if the groups were supportive of the US government. I doubt that that has changed much.

On the other hand, the odds that America's "Best Buddies In The War On Terror" (being Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) have, naturally never even given a passing thought to supporting any organization that could even remotely be considered similar to "terrorists". Right?

veritas1 said:
If we withdrew our protection from SA and Iran invaded them, oil prices would skyrocket. Seems to me the oil companies would be happy about that, at least in the short term.
Click to expand...

The oil companies WOULD be happy, until they suddenly realized that they were going to have to buy new supplies of oil to replace the oil that they had in stock when the prices went sky high AND that the "AranArabians" has absolutely no interest in complying with "treasonous contracts signed by the corrupt former government".

veritas1 said:
BTW, why would Russia and China, who are allies of Iran, decide to become protectors of Iran's enemy?
Click to expand...

Three reasons:

  1. to ensure stability in the Middle East;
  2. to reduce America's supply of oil; and
  3. to tick off the US government;

spring instantly to mind.

veritas1 said:
Israel will not have to use nuclear weapons to neutralize Iran's nuclear facilities anymore than they had to use them to take out Iraq's.
Click to expand...

Would you like to bet that there would NOT be a large nuclear explosion if the Israelis conducted a seriously intended raid on the Iranian nuclear facilities? I wouldn't. Proving that the blast was set off by the Iranians rather than the result of an Israeli nuclear strike would be REALLY difficult (and would likely require that the Israelis provide 100% access to the totality of their nuclear weapons design, production, storage, and transport records [which the Israelis would refuse to do]).

An accidental explosion, or even an attack that had the same result as dropping a "dirty bomb" would have the same effect on the world's regard for Israel as a deliberate nuclear strike and a deliberate nuclear strike would provide a much more certain outcome as far as the Israelis were concerned.

veritas1 said:
Lastly, I don't want the US to rule the world nor are we capable of it. What we can do is try to keep the lid on some of its more unstable types like the N. Koreans and Iranians.
Click to expand...

If that was what the US governments were doing, then very few people would be having any difficulties with it. Unfortunately, since WWII the US government has a much "better" record at suppressing indigenous populations when they desired independence and foisting crass, venal, corrupt, and murderous thugs and dictators on countries so that American business interests could make the maximum profits without regard to the needs or interests of the general population of those countries than it has of "fostering and advancing freedom and democracy". Please note that I am specifically saying "US governments" and NOT SAYING "Americans".

veritas1 said:
What I find amusing is seeing the same people carping from the sidelines who would coming running to hide under US skirts if they really faced mortal danger.
Click to expand...

Agreed, in much the same way that they did in 1812, 1813, 1814, 1846, 1847, 1848, 1894, 1914, 1915, 1916, part of 1917, 1939, 1940, and most of 1941.
 
veritas1 said:
We had no obligation to return it no matter what some Kangaroo Court said. I'm surprised (not really) to see the left championing the returning of $1.5 billion dollars to a sponsor of terrorism just because Obama was glad to do it.
Click to expand...

The International Court of Justice was established under the UN Charter and the UN Charter was ratified by the United States of America. Since the US government insisted that there by an International Court of Justice, and since the existence (and jurisdiction) of the International Court of Justice is a part of the laws of the United States of America, it is somewhat difficult to reconcile your "Kangaroo Court" with either intelligence or rationality.

Possibly you were guilty of "Posting While Impaired" which, fortunately, is NOT a felony under the laws of the United States of America else the US would go broke covering the costs of incarcerating around 50% of its population.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Wouldn't it be simpler if you just provided your links?

"Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - "Is too." - "Is not." - ... doesn't actually make much progress.
Click to expand...

I already did. They were dismissed as 'propaganda'.
 
veritas1 said:
None of that changes what I said. We are committed to the continuation of Israel as a nation.
Click to expand...

And that commitment is REGARDLESS of whether or not Israel has nuclear weapons and thus, irrelevant to why Israel is "permitted" to have nuclear weapons and also irrelevant to the fact that Israel HAS nuclear weapons.
 
veritas1 said:
If Iran isn't pursuing nukes, they should have no problem with full, unhindered inspections of all their facilities.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately what the US government is demanding is full access on a no notice basis to ANYTHING that the US government claims it thinks might possibly be a potential source of something that could conceivably be considered remotely relevant to nuclear weapons REGARDLESS of the fact that there is no evidence to support that position and regardless of whether there is any logical link between nuclear weapons and the site that the US government wants to inspect.

veritas1 said:
Short of that, I guess they'll have to live with the sanctions.
Click to expand...

I agree, the Iranians might well have to continue to live with the AMERICAN sanctions. That, however, does not mean that the Iranians would necessarily have to continue to live with sanctions from the rest of the world or that the rest of the world would necessarily have to continue to comply with the demands from the US government that the other governments of the world do what the US government tells them to do.

At some point, if enough other governments decide that they are going to tell the US government to go and pound sand over "alleged Iranian nuclear weapons research and production for which there is absolutely no evidence", then the US sanctions on Iran would become irrelevant. AND, if the US government then decided to sanction the rest of the world for not doing what the US government told it to do, the likely outcome would be that the US government would become irrelevant to the rest of the world.

veritas1 said:
Hey, that's great news on oil, if true. So, I guess we can dispense with all the chicken littleism on this forum regarding oil prices should the Strait of Hormuz be closed by Iran.
Click to expand...

Actually reading for content might have prevented that clanger.

veritas1 said:
We screwed up on Iraq and we have to deal with the situation as it is.
Click to expand...

Then stop whinging about the price tag.

veritas1 said:
In Afghanistan, we've about completed screwing up because we've made it a nation building exercise in a place which is basically tribal.
Click to expand...

NOVEMBER SIERRA SIERRA

veritas1 said:
Taking out the Taliban and their camps was legitimate in the wake of 911.
Click to expand...

The Taliban had nothing whatsoever to do with the WTC/Pentagon mass murders. Not only that but the Taliban and al-Qa'eda are not the same thing.

veritas1 said:
The rest is just a waste.
Click to expand...

Oh hell no. Why lots of Americans made lots of money out of it so it couldn't have been all that bad (except for the statistically insignificant number of Americans who came home disabled [or in body bags]).

veritas1 said:
Iraq was an ill conceived disaster from the start.
Click to expand...

How DARE you utter such treasonous statements. Now if it had been Obama who had invaded Iraq, contrary to international law, and committed war crimes when doing so, then 39.5(+/-3.5)% of all Americans would agree with you completely. As it is, the incursion into Iraq in order to sequester the vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had and was supplying to international terrorists in order to soften Israel up for an invasion and conquest (and the subsequent "Holocaust II" in which every Jew in Israel was gassed, cremated, and had their ashes buried in pits while their possessions (including gold teeth and eyeglasses] were funnelled into the state treasury) was 100% legal because there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States of America which says that the US government is not allowed to do things like that.

[The legal opinion in the last paragraph above, has been provided by the law firm of Wieselwort, du Plicité, Poco-Escrupuloso, Flerd, and Corrotto LLP, was paid for and has been officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), ""Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus ", and “The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I rely on the US, UK, German, French, and other official government intelligence agencies. I do NOT rely on either the statements from the US Executive Branch or from the Israeli government or Israeli intelligence agencies.



Depending on what you mean by "sponsoring terrorism", my answer would vary. The Iranians have no history of supporting al-Qa'eda, the Taliban, or ISISISISILDAESHWHATEVER, but do have a history of supporting groups who are using terrorist tactics in order to achieve what would be seen as "legitimate political aims" if the groups were supportive of the US government. I doubt that that has changed much.

On the other hand, the odds that America's "Best Buddies In The War On Terror" (being Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) have, naturally never even given a passing thought to supporting any organization that could even remotely be considered similar to "terrorists". Right?



The oil companies WOULD be happy, until they suddenly realized that they were going to have to buy new supplies of oil to replace the oil that they had in stock when the prices went sky high AND that the "AranArabians" has absolutely no interest in complying with "treasonous contracts signed by the corrupt former government".



Three reasons:

  1. to ensure stability in the Middle East;
  2. to reduce America's supply of oil; and
  3. to tick off the US government;

spring instantly to mind.



Would you like to bet that there would NOT be a large nuclear explosion if the Israelis conducted a seriously intended raid on the Iranian nuclear facilities? I wouldn't. Proving that the blast was set off by the Iranians rather than the result of an Israeli nuclear strike would be REALLY difficult (and would likely require that the Israelis provide 100% access to the totality of their nuclear weapons design, production, storage, and transport records [which the Israelis would refuse to do]).

An accidental explosion, or even an attack that had the same result as dropping a "dirty bomb" would have the same effect on the world's regard for Israel as a deliberate nuclear strike and a deliberate nuclear strike would provide a much more certain outcome as far as the Israelis were concerned.



If that was what the US governments were doing, then very few people would be having any difficulties with it. Unfortunately, since WWII the US government has a much "better" record at suppressing indigenous populations when they desired independence and foisting crass, venal, corrupt, and murderous thugs and dictators on countries so that American business interests could make the maximum profits without regard to the needs or interests of the general population of those countries than it has of "fostering and advancing freedom and democracy". Please note that I am specifically saying "US governments" and NOT SAYING "Americans".



Agreed, in much the same way that they did in 1812, 1813, 1814, 1846, 1847, 1848, 1894, 1914, 1915, 1916, part of 1917, 1939, 1940, and most of 1941.
Click to expand...

1. Nice to know that the US, UK, German and French intelligence agencies trust you with their information.

2. By sponsoring terrorism I mean financing Hamas and Hezbollah among other things. I also don't think we should be giving a dime to Pakistan or the Saudis for that matter.

3. There would be no need for the Russians and Chinese to protect the Saudis to reduce our supply of oil since the Iranians taking it over would effectively accomplish the same thing. Their only interest would be in possibly keeping oil prices stable.

4. You just told me the US could buy unlimited supplies of oil at $25/bbl. Now, you say that we'd have to buy it at the new inflated prices. Which is it?

5. I doubt the Israelis taking out the Iran facilities would result in any large nuclear explosion anymore than it did in Iraq. However, in order to preclude that possibility, we should hope that Iran sees the light and allows inspections.

6. Has the US engaged in misguided foreign policies in the past? Of course. Will they do it in the future? Most assuredly. That is one of the problems with having a permanent establishment class in Washington that stays there no matter which party is in charge.

7. I won't deal with each of those examples but will say that, without the US in WWII, this is what would have happened: The Japanese would have had hegemony in the Far East and South Pacific and the Soviets would have had hegemony in Europe. Do you think the Soviets were going to stop at Berlin with no US Army there? Who was going to stop them if they decided to go all the way to Paris?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom