America - The Official Thread

[Hun200kmh]

Syria, the playground of the local, regional and world bullies ... mankind's pit.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So what your saying is they support terror becuase they attacked an Israeli military base that was on Syrian territory, the same Syria they are allied with?

I'm amazed at how the media has fooled everyone into taking sides with the US/Saudi/Israeli Proxy war with Iran.

Iran has more reason then any country on earth to be pissed at America, from forced regime change to backing every foe Iran has in any war since 1979 including a non successful invasion from Iraq(which the US backed) and the latest snubbing from Trump for literally no reason other then to keep backwards war hungry republicans like McCain happy, you really wonder who is the good guy here.

Errr...no. They have supported terror in the region for decades.

- The last I remember the 911 hijackers Saudi

- The last I remember it was wealthy Saudi and Qataris bankrolling, ISIS, Al Qeada, Taliban to name a few of the sunni terrorist running amok across the globe

We don't need stats to know who's doing what cause we see it in the news and everyday and ones doing it are always connected to SA, Qatar or the UAE in someway


Anyhow Trump not only foolishy undermine Americas credibility, he just ensured that Democrats retake the Congress and his one-term presidency.

There's more than one bad guy in the region.

 

[mustafur]

Errr...no. They have supported terror in the region for decades.
There's more than one bad guy in the region.

So I guess your just giving the standard default answers here without clarification?

 

[Johnnypenso]

So I guess your just giving the standard default answers here without clarification?

What clarification is needed that isn't already common knowledge among this crowd? If any is needed I'm sure you can provide it.

 

[mustafur]

What clarification is needed that isn't already common knowledge among this crowd? If any is needed I'm sure you can provide it.

Sure, but I wanted to see what your view on what Iran has specifically done that makes them ''The largest state sponsor of terror'', and how it's remotely comparable to that of the US ally Saudi Arabia.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Sure, but I wanted to see what your view on what Iran has specifically done that makes them ''The largest state sponsor of terror'', and how it's remotely comparable to that of the US ally Saudi Arabia.

I'm not comparing the two, that's someone else's cross to bear. If you want to compare them to figure out which one is the saint and which the sinner or whatever the case may be, feel free to do so. Or just copy and paste the hundreds of prior posts on the subject from this forum.

 

[huskeR32]

I didn't get that from Fox.

Okay. Then insert wherever you did get it from into my statement.

They shouldn't have gotten it back.

Why not? Did you go and read about the US-Iran Tribunal that I mentioned?

-----

I'm not comparing the two

You did, though:

Then again, they are the largest state sponsor of terror in the world going on 30 years.

You not only compared the two, you compared Iran to all other countries, and decided they came out on top in this particular measure. I'd say @mustafur asking you to corroborate it is fair play.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Okay. Then insert wherever you did get it from into my statement.



Why not? Did you go and read about the US-Iran Tribunal that I mentioned?

-----



You did, though:



You not only compared the two, you compared Iran to all other countries, and decided they came out on top in this particular measure. I'd say @mustafur asking you to corroborate it is fair play.

https://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm

 

[huskeR32]

https://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm

So, Iran is one of four countries currently on the list, which is not ranked in any way that I can discern, and it hasn't been on that list the longest (that distinction appears to belong to Syria). So how are you arriving at the claim they are the "largest?"

 

[Biggles]

I'm not comparing the two, that's someone else's cross to bear. If you want to compare them to figure out which one is the saint and which the sinner or whatever the case may be, feel free to do so. Or just copy and paste the hundreds of prior posts on the subject from this forum.

I'm not aware of any posts on this forum that meaningfully back up the claim that Iran is "the largest state sponsor of terror". Iran was bullied & manipulated throughout the 20th century by Britain & the US. Their reaction to that has been understandable. They have also attempted to protect & promote the interests of Shias in the Middle East against the larger, hostile Sunni faction. Also understandable. Iran's hostility to Israel is also understandable although, it would seem to me, counterproductive to producing any kind of realistic settlement of the Palestinian question.

A major factor dictating US policy in the region is the situation of Israel. As I see it Israel has concluded that the prospects for an peaceful solution to the Palestinian question are minimal, so the best strategy is to pursue an aggressive defensive posture with regard to its Arab neighbors & Iran, & make sure it keeps Israel's interests at the heart of American politics.

 

[ryzno]

Okay. Then insert wherever you did get it from into my statement.



Why not? Did you go and read about the US-Iran Tribunal that I mentioned?

-----



You did, though:



You not only compared the two, you compared Iran to all other countries, and decided they came out on top in this particular measure. I'd say @mustafur asking you to corroborate it is fair play.

Read my other post...

 

[huskeR32]

Read my other post...

I can only assume you're referring to this post? If so, it says nothing at all about why you think Iran shouldn't have had their own money returned to them.

 

[ryzno]

I can only assume you're referring to this post? If so, it says nothing at all about why you think Iran shouldn't have had their own money returned to them.

I don't have a link for that. It's simply my opinion. I think they will do like NK and misappropriate it.

 

[Biggles]

I don't have a link for that. It's simply my opinion. I think they will do like NK and misappropriate it.

I don't think Iran is anything like North Korea, politically, socially, economically or culturally. There is no equivalent figure to Kim Jong-Un & his family's dynastic dictatorship.

 

[huskeR32]

It's simply my opinion.

I understand that. I asked why you hold that opinion. Why shouldn't Iran have their own money returned to them? Especially when it's money that we agreed we'd pay back decades ago?

I think they will do like NK and misappropriate it.

So what? It. Is. Their. Money.

Your answers show no indication that you've actually bothered to educate yourself on the situation, so here's a brief synopsis: Iran gave us $400 million for some fighter jets. Before we delivered the jets, the Iran Hostage Crisis happened. Needless to say, we never delivered what they had already paid for. The Algiers Accords that ended the crisis established the US-Iran Claims Tribunal to settle many outstanding financial concerns between the two countries, and both countries agreed to be bound by the tribunal's decisions.

On the question of the $400 million, Iran was asking the tribunal for $10 billion to cover the original payment and interest. Hoping to avoid such a large penalty, the US sought a settlement of the matter outside of the tribunal. The two countries eventually agreed to a sum of $1.7 billion ($400 million, plus $1.3 billion in interest). This move potentially saved the US $8.3 billion.

So, you think that we should walk away from a very favorable agreement, not to mention break an international treaty, because a bunch of worked-up American citizens, who can't be bothered to know the full story in the first place, think that Iran might spend the money on something they don't like?

 

[TexRex]

So, you think that we should walk away from a very favorable agreement, not to mention break an international treaty, because a bunch of worked-up American citizens, who can't be bothered to know the full story in the first place, think that Iran might spend the money on something they don't like?

It should be fairly apparent that that is not an actual Trump tweet, however he did tweet about it:



Fun fact: It was investigated by Congress.

 

[Imari]

So, you think that we should walk away from a very favorable agreement, not to mention break an international treaty, because a bunch of worked-up American citizens, who can't be bothered to know the full story in the first place, think that Iran might spend the money on something they don't like?

Lol, imagine the US reaction if Iran attempted to spend that money on fighter jets now.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So, Iran is one of four countries currently on the list, which is not ranked in any way that I can discern, and it hasn't been on that list the longest (that distinction appears to belong to Syria). So how are you arriving at the claim they are the "largest?"

I withdraw that statement and will just say they are high on the list.

 

[TexRex]

I withdraw that statement and will just say they are high on the list.

Let's see here...

It is! It would be higher still if Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) was displayed merely as "North Korea."

Get it? Because the only apparent order to that list is alphabetical, and I comes before N.

 

[Obelisk]

Let's see here...



It is! It would be higher still if Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) was displayed merely as "North Korea."

Get it? Because the only apparent order to that list is alphabetical, and I comes before N.

They would also be high on the list if they were listed chronologically, oldest to newest entries.

 

[Joey D]

I like how the State Department conveniently leaves off Saudi Arabia from their list. Given that, I'm not sure I can really trust its judgement on the matter.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Well if Russia wanted to drive a wedge between the US and the EU, they sure seem to have it now, whether or not this was orchestrated or not. I admit it would be quite a stretch to say Russia could have been behind the US decision to pull out from the Iran deal, but the ends would have certainly justified the means if they had been.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well if Russia wanted to drive a wedge between the US and the EU, they sure seem to have it now, whether or not this was orchestrated or not. I admit it would be quite a stretch to say Russia could have been behind the US decision to pull out from the Iran deal, but the ends would have certainly justified the means if they had been.

What does Russia have to do with it? I'm confused...

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

What does Russia have to do with it? I'm confused...

I'm just putting my tinfoil hat on and speculating Putin has been suggesting to trump that he needs to pull out of the Iran deal foreseeing that it would create a large division between the US & EU. Not very likely, but quasi-plausible. Putin is a schemer. I fully admit this is tenuous at best.

 

[Joey D]

I'm just putting my tinfoil hat on and speculating Putin has been suggesting to trump that he needs to pull out of the Iran deal foreseeing that it would create a large division between the US & EU. Not very likely, but quasi-plausible. Putin is a schemer. I fully admit this is tenuous at best.

While that's some House of Cards level stuff, it does seem more plausible than not.

 

[Biggles]

I'm just putting my tinfoil hat on and speculating Putin has been suggesting to trump that he needs to pull out of the Iran deal foreseeing that it would create a large division between the US & EU. Not very likely, but quasi-plausible. Putin is a schemer. I fully admit this is tenuous at best.

Iran supports Assad (for various reasons). Russia supports Assad (for various reasons). It's hard to see why Putin would work against Iran's interests. However, I could see Putin wanting to split up the unity of purpose of the various NATO countries. Trump would be the perfect vehicle to achieve this. I highly doubt Putin is "suggesting" anything to Trump though ... more like trying to manipulate to his own advantage Trump's sophomoric response to complex international issues .

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Iran supports Assad (for various reasons). Russia supports Assad (for various reasons). It's hard to see why Putin would work against Iran's interests. However, I could see Putin wanting to split up the unity of purpose of the various NATO countries. Trump would be the perfect vehicle to achieve this. I highly doubt Putin is "suggesting" anything to Trump though ... more like trying to manipulate to his own advantage Trump's sophomoric response to complex international issues .

I know a lot of Iranians (I am not myself, but my gf of several years is) and all of them are basically under the assumption that Russia is using them while it's useful but will discard them when convenient/necessary. There isn't some great fundamental alliance or ethos shared between the nations. It's my belief that Iran is a convenient ally to Russia for: Connection to Persian gulf through Iran & Caspian sea to Russian ports (the Soviets capitalized on this during WW2 to funnel supplies around Nazi blockades, and Russia itself initiated the development and construction of the trans-Iranian railroad), an ideological wedge between the US & EU, and an opportunity to gain the controlling hand over the middle east, which goes back to the first point. Notice how they are kind of trying to be friends with everyone (in the middle east) at the moment, while the US has clearly picked sides and Europe is kind of playing hands off.

I agree with the second part of your post entirely. Putin wants what's best for The Soviet Union Russia, and that currently means doing whatever possible to weaken the EU/US alliance, and that started with helping to get DT elected.

 

[Imari]

I like how the State Department conveniently leaves off Saudi Arabia from their list. Given that, I'm not sure I can really trust its judgement on the matter.

The Saudis buy an awful lot of US military hardware, amongst other things. I read that list as a setup for potential future military actions or declaring war on those countries. It's pre-justification. As we saw with Iraq, it only really matters that you can make a reasonable sounding case for military action, and "state sponsored terrorism" still pushes people's buttons even 17 years after 9/11.

I'm just putting my tinfoil hat on and speculating Putin has been suggesting to trump that he needs to pull out of the Iran deal foreseeing that it would create a large division between the US & EU. Not very likely, but quasi-plausible. Putin is a schemer. I fully admit this is tenuous at best.

As long as NATO still has the US in it, it's basically unbeatable. Breaking the US out of NATO means that something like a Russia/NATO or Russia/China alliance could actually become the largest military power.

As I see it, Putin and Russia are doing their best to help Trump/the US dethrone themselves as leaders of the western world. The US is starting to take positions that other western nations simply can't or won't back them on.

 

[Johnnypenso]

H.J.Ansari Zarif’s senior advisor: “If Europeans stop trading with Iran and don’t put pressure on US then we will reveal which western politicians and how much money they had received during nuclear negotiations to make #IranDeal happen.” That would be interesting.

Interesting indeed.

Spoiler: Spoiler

Could be fake. I have no idea who these people are.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I withdraw that statement and will just say they are high on the list.

Apparently the US hasn't withdrawn such a statement:

https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/rpt/280402.htm
(published April)

"Additionally, Iran remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and has intensified conflicts and undermined U.S. national security interests in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, while continuing to support attacks against Israel."