iran situation
- Thread starter Rdcldad
- Start date
thread on sanctioning kleptocrat khameni and his 200B personal empire stolen from the iranian people
in 2013 otard recinded sanctions a company that ran 95B of empire
trump smoking this dude out
without a shot fired
but wait
orange man soooooo bad
he melts my snowflake
and makes me go rrrrrreeeeeeeeee
in 2013 otard recinded sanctions a company that ran 95B of empire
trump smoking this dude out
without a shot fired
but wait
orange man soooooo bad
he melts my snowflake
and makes me go rrrrrreeeeeeeeee
That’s a very interesting article. Unfortunately my attention span is way too short to allow me to have read the whole thing. One thing I would caution you about. The Hudson Institute, under whose moniker the article is written, is a NeoConservative think tank deeply in bed with Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. Both men, in particular Bolton, want to go to war with Iran so badly they can taste it.
The part in the article that blames Iran for the pipeline subterfuge has been shown to be false. Many people believe it was a crude attempt by the NeoCons in Trump’s administration (read: John Bolton) to trap Trump into going to war.
The part in which he condemns the Europeans for fearing that Trump is an “agent of chaos” is misleading although true. They do fear (and resent) Trump’s bullying and spend half their time trying to figure out just what their American ally is up to. While the author implies the misunderstanding/concern over the chaos is because of European timidity, it might be a good idea if Trump took a step back, took a deep breath and reflected on how his domineering attitude toward America’s greatest allies might be a danger.
I would recommend that as long as Bolton and his wing man, Pompeo, are calling the shots you should read any article like this with a great degree of skepticism. Recently when the planes had taken to the air to retaliate against the American drone being shot down Bolton must have been so excited he was going to get his war he had an erection. Thank God Trump came to his senses before it was too late. But have no doubt Bolton will do whatever it takes to drag Trump into war with Iran. As long as he’s part of Trump’s team we will be in danger. Articles from NeoCon organizations like the Hudson Institute should be understood to be “spin” by people who want war. I’m not saying the author is lying. I’m saying he’s writing with the intention of persuading you everything about Iran is evil and we need to go to war with them.
The part in the article that blames Iran for the pipeline subterfuge has been shown to be false. Many people believe it was a crude attempt by the NeoCons in Trump’s administration (read: John Bolton) to trap Trump into going to war.
The part in which he condemns the Europeans for fearing that Trump is an “agent of chaos” is misleading although true. They do fear (and resent) Trump’s bullying and spend half their time trying to figure out just what their American ally is up to. While the author implies the misunderstanding/concern over the chaos is because of European timidity, it might be a good idea if Trump took a step back, took a deep breath and reflected on how his domineering attitude toward America’s greatest allies might be a danger.
I would recommend that as long as Bolton and his wing man, Pompeo, are calling the shots you should read any article like this with a great degree of skepticism. Recently when the planes had taken to the air to retaliate against the American drone being shot down Bolton must have been so excited he was going to get his war he had an erection. Thank God Trump came to his senses before it was too late. But have no doubt Bolton will do whatever it takes to drag Trump into war with Iran. As long as he’s part of Trump’s team we will be in danger. Articles from NeoCon organizations like the Hudson Institute should be understood to be “spin” by people who want war. I’m not saying the author is lying. I’m saying he’s writing with the intention of persuading you everything about Iran is evil and we need to go to war with them.
I thought the same thing coming from the person that links to articles the length of a PhD thesis.
Iran doing bad. We (along with our allies) sanction them. They agree to start doing not bad. We settle a valid claim dating back almost 40 years in The Hague with them for $1.7 billion. They wanted $10 billion. They release hostages. We sign a deal. We lift sanctions. All proceeds normally. The long game seems to be to outlive the mullocracy and see the more progressive elements of Iran overtake the hawks. This positive movement takes air from the sails of the hawks on both sides. All the while this is going on Israel is lashing out. Iran has been 6 months away from developing a nuclear bomb since 1997 according to Bibi [insert picture of Bibi and the cartoon bomb here]. DJT uses all of this as red meat to the rubes. Smash cut to a new President. DJT goes on about how bad a deal this was. Our allies believe that Iran is doing what it is supposed to do in accordance with the deal. We cancel the deal anyway and rattle sabers about war [insert fire/fury tweets from small hands]. We continue to goad Iran by flying drones in their air space and threatening them via presidential twitter. Some element there attacks a Japanese freighter. We threaten wholesale military action over it. [insert Trump's tweets about Obama distracting the US for election purposes by saber rattling with Iran]. Iranians make us look foolish.
Bolton and Pompeo want a war so bad they can taste it. We have people serving in Afghanistan who have parent's at the age that they could have served in Afghanistan. Our hawkish behavior in the middle east helped stir up the whole refugee crisis that is slowly shifting europe to authoritarian leaders. Not Bin Laden's Plan A, but not a blad Plan B from his point of view.
Bolton and Pompeo want a war so bad they can taste it. We have people serving in Afghanistan who have parent's at the age that they could have served in Afghanistan. Our hawkish behavior in the middle east helped stir up the whole refugee crisis that is slowly shifting europe to authoritarian leaders. Not Bin Laden's Plan A, but not a blad Plan B from his point of view.
$400,000,000 in 1979 is $1.3 billion now based on inflation. I applied a 1.38% amortization and come to just under $1.8 billion.
Explain how allowing Iran to continue research and development of IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges made any sense in a nuclear deal that was supposed to prevent Iran from continuing to develop a path to weapons grade material.
i guess i’ll start by asking if you have a
united states passport
we can go from there
I'm not a nuclear physicist. What I know is that the IAEA has consistently validated that Iran has stayed in compliance with the details.
I do. How is that relevant to any of this? The IAEA is responsible for this not some dude from Cherokee County.
From the news: The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off, a senior administration official said. Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down, the official said.
The same “Senior official” has been leading you people around by the nose for over 2 1/2 years.
He managed to spit between ever longer licks of the boot.
Why dither over this? Even if it were "metaphorical", Trump himself says that he called off an operation. That's really all that matters.
Well ma’am we have a poster here who dithered his pants over it by calling our president a pussy for blinking at the last second because he was scared. See this particular poster is a real nasty sort and he always and I mean always falls for what this mysterious senior official tells the New York Times. You should have seen him fall for the Russia collusion joke. I was scolding him like the dog that messes on the floor for the 100th time before you intervened.
if it's what you say i love it especially later in the summer! ,,,, No, it was about adoptions......
You mean collusion like that?
You mean collusion like that?
I agree with Mueller. He said he could not charge a sitting President. He said if there were not evidence of obstruction then his report would clearly say that. His report was silent on he innocence of the President.
He found no collusion. Gtfo and come back when you are studied up.
To quote the great Sheriff Buford T. Justice: Do the letters FO mean anything to you?
This confuses me. Aren’t they saying the people who advocate for open borders are the same people wanting a war with Iran? That’s news to me. I was unaware that Neocons, arguably the most nationalist segment of our political body, advocates for open borders. What am I getting wrong?
I felt free to stop reading the article about 2/3 of the way. Please feel equally free to stop reading anything I write at any point you desire. Or don’t read it at all! I’ll never know.
Just point us in the direction of any neocon over the last forty years that has given serious effort to stop illegals. The head of border patrol who met with Marco Rubio during the last administration said when he read the gang of 8 legislation that it looked like it was written by the lobbyists who benefit from illegal exploitation. Rubio listened to nothing that he said.
Bill Kristol postulated not long ago that "lazy white Americans" should be replaced by Mexicans.
You don't need to be a nuclear physicist to educate yourself on the provisions of the Iran deal.
What I read is that they were out of compliance twice on the amount of heavy water but that they quickly got themselves into compliance after learning of it and it was a moot point as the reactor that would have benefited from the heavy water was filled with concrete in 2016. Nothing that I read from the IAEA referenced centrifuges.
There's an entire section in the Iran deal that covers centrifuges.
They're not mentioned by the IAEA as violations. That's the source of my confusion.
Because a nuclear deal based on actual use of centrifuges is easier to monitor and enforce than one based on R&D
Thank you helper.
From the first link that the google machine provided to me: "VIENNA (AP) — The U.N. atomic watchdog said Friday that Iran continues to stay within the limitations set by the 2015 nuclear deal with major powers..."
Similar threads
