America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,707 comments
  • 1,594,473 views
Apparently the US hasn't withdrawn such a statement: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."
US national security policy is to support the Sunni side of the Islamic internal conflict with the Shia. We dance on their graves once they've destroyed each other, so don't worry overmuch. One Machiavellian's terrorist is another Machiavellian's freedom fighter. We want to make postmodernism work for us, FTW. :cool:
 
Apparently the US hasn't withdrawn such a statement: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."
B-b-but the Iranians were bullied so it's perfectly understandable:lol:.

#sarcasm
 
So the US wants to put Sanctions on European companies that do business in Iran, companies such as Peugeot would be heavily effected.
 
Last edited:
So the US wants to put Sanctions on European companies that do business in Iran, companies such as Peugeot would be heavily effected.
Airbus, oil companies, arms merchants and manufacturers are in our crosshairs for sanctions. Sanctions are our new weapon for keeping the world in line.
 
Now would be a good time for Europe to put their foot down.
It would be a step in the right direction, even if lame, halting and tardy. You need to understand that the US is currently enforcing a unilateral, unipolar globalist foreign policy. The US - far from being isolationist - is attempting to impose its views universally on all other countries, friend or foe, ally or enemy, and back them up with sanctions of one kind or another to achieve the desired ends. This is Trumpism, and important constituencies within the military, corporate, political, and press leadership, even common citizenry, are gung-ho with it.
 
It would be a step in the right direction, even if lame, halting and tardy. You need to understand that the US is currently enforcing a unilateral, unipolar globalist foreign policy. The US - far from being isolationist - is attempting to impose its views universally on all other countries, friend or foe, ally or enemy, and back them up with sanctions of one kind or another to achieve the desired ends. This is Trumpism, and important constituencies within the military, corporate, political, and press leadership, even common citizenry, are gung-ho with it.

This. Exactly this!
The entire world is hating on the US due to your president undermining souvereinity of democraticly elected governments. Even from it's allies.
Eu doesn't want to break the Iran deal? Well money talks we put sanctions one eu companies so eu elected officials will need to follow.

*removed as this part was in violation with the aup*
 
Last edited:
This. Exactly this!
The entire world is hating on the US due to your president undermining souvereinity of democraticly elected governments. Even from it's allies.
Eu doesn't want to break the Iran deal? Well money talks we put sanctions one eu companies so eu elected officials will need to follow.

I am still really pissed due to this and wish Trump only one thing, him falling from the stairs and having to resign his presidency.
Wishing massive injury or death upon someone you don't like isn't cool dude.
 
So the US wants to put Sanctions on European companies that do business in Iran, companies such as Peugeot would be heavily effected.
Depending on the company in question, there could be justification for doing so. The similar situation that came to a head last month that is probably going to drive ZTE out of business entirely predates Trump even being elected.
 
Depending on the company in question, there could be justification for doing so. The similar situation that came to a head last month that is probably going to drive ZTE out of business entirely predates Trump even being elected.

Depending on the situation it could. But then again why is it justified this time? Why even is it justified to pull out of the treaty slap on sanctiobs and implicitly suggest that those sanctions would hit countries that want to have their word mean something and want to uphold the deal. What is the justification?
 
Depending on the situation it could. But then again why is it justified this time? Why even is it justified to pull out of the treaty slap on sanctiobs and implicitly suggest that those sanctions would hit countries that want to have their word mean something and want to uphold the deal. What is the justification?
You're rambling so much between questions that I don't know what you're actually asking. "This time" what? The hypothetical sanctions Trump's administration may impose on European companies which may or may not be justified for actions those companies may or may not be actually doing and may or may not be related to the Iran nuclear deal in the first place? We won't know any of that until "this time" actually occurs.

Or the actual sanctions placed on ZTE for selling US-developed telecomms equipment to Iran, internally having plans and dialogs for the best way to cover it up and trying to get around fulfilling the terms of their settlement with the US government later on? There was almost a full year left in the presidency of Nobel Peace Prize-winning, beloved-by-all-in-Europe Barry O when ZTE's initial punishment was handed down by the US Commerce Department. It was so early in the presidential election that JEB! had only recently dropped out of the Republican primaries; let alone Trump defeating Hilary.
 
The city of Seattle passed the largest head tax in US history yesterday, they will now be taxing jobs. Starbucks and Amazon lead the charge against the head tax this morning and came out swinging against it. Grab some popcorn, things are about to get interesting. Progressive elitist-run mega-corporations are now battling the even further-left socialist progressives in Seattle City Council. Meanwhile, the issue of homeless people overrunning Seattle, the opioid epidemic and the affordable housing crisis will not be solved. What a joke this all is.
 
Last edited:
The city of Seattle passed the largest head tax in US history yesterday, they will now be taxing jobs. Starbucks and Amazon lead the charge against the head tax this morning and came out swinging against it. Grab some popcorn, things are about to get interesting. Progressive elitist-run mega-corporations are now battling the even further-left socialist progressives in Seattle City Council. Meanwhile, the issue of homeless people overrunning Seattle, the opioid epidemic and the affordable housing crisis will not be solved. What a joke this all is.
It is hard to imagine that Starbucks and Amazon are right of anything. Left-wing ideals often end where the pocketbook begins.
 
It is hard to imagine that Starbucks and Amazon are right of anything. Left-wing ideals often end where the pocketbook begins.

Left wing ideals are tax more and throw money at the problem, in this case is homelessness and affordable housing, it never works either and usually makes the problem worse. I think the population of homeless people and drug addicts are going to explode in the next 5 years, heck, it's already exploding right now. Companies will flee for that reason alone, worker safety, property theft, people defecating everywhere and so on, it creates health hazards and outbreaks.

I think we will see Safeway and Albertsons (both grocery store chains) leave Seattle first. They operate on a 1% margin already and there is very little meat for the Socialists to pick from those bones, they are in the lower threshold for the 600 Seattle companies that fall under the new head tax and companies like them will be hurt the most. Amazon will relocate new jobs elsewhere and plan to move more out of Seattle, the rest will follow suit.

The one sticking point in all of this is that the Seattle Area has the largest talent pool in the world for Tech workers, that is why tech companies move here. Google and Facebook also have large campuses here that draw from that talent pool. So rather than fleeing the state entirely, I could see tech companies relocating to the East side instead, Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah and so on. I wonder if in ten years Bellevue overtakes Seattle in both population and tax revenue, it could happen.
 
Left wing ideals are tax more and throw money at the problem, in this case is homelessness and affordable housing, it never works either and usually makes the problem worse. I think the population of homeless people and drug addicts are going to explode in the next 5 years, heck, it's already exploding right now. Companies will flee for that reason alone, worker safety, property theft, people defecating everywhere and so on, it creates health hazards and outbreaks.

I think we will see Safeway and Albertsons (both grocery store chains) leave Seattle first. They operate on a 1% margin already and there is very little meat for the Socialists to pick from those bones, they are in the lower threshold for the 600 Seattle companies that fall under the new head tax and companies like them will be hurt the most. Amazon will relocate new jobs elsewhere and plan to move more out of Seattle, the rest will follow suit.

The one sticking point in all of this is that the Seattle Area has the largest talent pool in the world for Tech workers, that is why tech companies move here. Google and Facebook also have large campuses here that draw from that talent pool. So rather than fleeing the state entirely, I could see tech companies relocating to the East side instead, Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah and so on. I wonder if in ten years Bellevue overtakes Seattle in both population and tax revenue, it could happen.
Having these Tech Giants and other large corporations that pay well located in your town has got to be a double-edged sword. They bring a lot of spending power with them which obviously boosts the local economy but at the other end of the scale surely has to drive housing prices up to a significant degree exacerbating the problem of affordable housing and homelessness.
 
Having these Tech Giants and other large corporations that pay well located in your town has got to be a double-edged sword. They bring a lot of spending power with them which obviously boosts the local economy but at the other end of the scale surely has to drive housing prices up to a significant degree exacerbating the problem of affordable housing and homelessness.

Indeed it does, it's a huge problem right now, not just for Seattle but also other West coast cities that have a large tech company presence, San Francisco (Santa Clara), LA. The real estate markets in those places are through the roof, even during the recession, Seattle was almost recession proof. But if those jobs go away, I guess they'll just ruin markets in other places wherever they land. I hope all of these cities bidding the 2nd Amazon headquarters are wary of that.
 
You're rambling so much between questions that I don't know what you're actually asking. "This time" what? The hypothetical sanctions Trump's administration may impose on European companies which may or may not be justified for actions those companies may or may not be actually doing and may or may not be related to the Iran nuclear deal in the first place? We won't know any of that until "this time" actually occurs.

Or the actual sanctions placed on ZTE for selling US-developed telecomms equipment to Iran, internally having plans and dialogs for the best way to cover it up and trying to get around fulfilling the terms of their settlement with the US government later on? There was almost a full year left in the presidency of Nobel Peace Prize-winning, beloved-by-all-in-Europe Barry O when ZTE's initial punishment was handed down by the US Commerce Department. It was so early in the presidential election that JEB! had only recently dropped out of the Republican primaries; let alone Trump defeating Hilary.

I'm a bit pissed so I can agree my rants are incoherrent. But yeah I can't see the justification for breaking up a treaty...

It really hurts US credibility in making new treaties. Also I/we don't know whar sanctions but he implied punishing eu companies who still do bussiness with Iran. At that point Trump is acting like the NATO's sole dictator. Either we follow his lead or we get bullied into his path...

I don't see any justification for the above.
 
I'm a bit pissed so I can agree my rants are incoherrent. But yeah I can't see the justification for breaking up a treaty...
That's fine, but not relevant to anything I've said or even necessarily what mustafar said.
 
Last edited:
But yeah I can't see the justification for breaking up a treaty...

It really hurts US credibility in making new treaties. Also I/we don't know whar sanctions but he implied punishing eu companies who still do bussiness with Iran. At that point Trump is acting like the NATO's sole dictator. Either we follow his lead or we get bullied into his path...
You're wrong in that the Iran agreement was a US treaty. It's not. It was never ratified by congress, as would a treaty. It was merely a deal made by one president which was quite legal to be scuppered by a succeeding president.

But you're right about the rest, as the US has violated numerous treaties it has formally ratified, and not just a few, but dozens. As always and ever, might makes right and the ends justify the means.
 
The Iran Nuclear deal is not a treaty, I know an ABC analyst mistakenly called it one but they were wrong. The deal was approved by Congress, but it had opposition from both sides of the Aisle, even Chuck Schumer wouldn't sign off on it. The deal itself was not signed by Iran and it is not legally binding. In my opinion, many Congressional Democrats were right not to support it, but a cash payment from the US was made anyway which is estimated at 1.7 Billion, the rest of the money is tied up in foreign and central banks which the US does not control. If Europe wants to give the Iranian regime that money (they don't, despite what they put out in the media), then there is nothing stopping them other than the shell game that's being played here. I hope that clears up some the misconceptions in this thread that come off as rather uneducated. Some quick links to remedy that:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nald-trump-iran-150-billion-and-18-billion-c/

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/us/politics/schumer-says-he-will-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal.html

In my opinion it would be extremely irresponsible to give the Iranian regime the rest of the money when we are fighting an active proxy war with them in Syria, in which they are actively supporting a dictator who uses chemical weapons against his own people. They also want Israel wiped off the map, and they are one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the middle east, which has already been mentioned here. If people want to support the side of an Anti-semitic fanatical dictatorship that would (based on previous statements) love nothing more than to commit wide-scale genocide against a whole group of people, the go right ahead with that, but you are on the wrong side of history.
 
1.7 billion dollars they payed the us for fighter jet's the US never supplied while you kept the money.

'Gave' money right....

That's fine, but not relevant to anything I've said or even necessarily what mustafar said.

I didn't respond to the ZTE thing because they are known legit sanctions. I'm just not happy with the way Trump is acring as if the rest needs to kiss americas feet. That we should follow what he believes to be correct legislation. The implicit threats coming from the administration to his allies (us) if we do not follow his plan. Remember when we were told to vote in favour of the US moving it's ambassy to Jeruzalem if not we'd be noted on a 'list'. He does this all the time and by doing so he effectively saying **** off guys america is in charge do as I say. Well **** off trump you want to be isolationist be an isolationist and don't tell us how to behave.
 
You're wrong in that the Iran agreement was a US treaty. It's not. It was never ratified by congress, as would a treaty. It was merely a deal made by one president which was quite legal to be scuppered by a succeeding president.

Absolutely legal, but possibly not a particularly bright move considering the potential ramifications and the stances of the US allies. But Trump is an egotistical isolationist, so it's not to be expected that he should consider anyone else's thoughts about a proposed set of actions.
 
Absolutely legal, but possibly not a particularly bright move considering the potential ramifications and the stances of the US allies. But Trump is an egotistical isolationist, so it's not to be expected that he should consider anyone else's thoughts about a proposed set of actions.
Right you are about everything - except Trump is certainly no isolationist. He is a unilateralist and a globalist, and he wants the US to dominate the globe. Prepare to bend over and roll your pants down.
 
From the pages of Antiwar.com, the simple truth from Ron Paul.
Trump’s Plan for Iran: Put Terrorists in Charge
by Ron Paul Posted on May 17, 2018


Back in the 2008 presidential race, I explained to then-candidate Rudy Giuliani the concept of “blowback.” Years of US meddling and military occupation of parts of the Middle East motivated a group of terrorists to carry out attacks against the United States on 9/11. They didn’t do it because we are so rich and so free, as the neocons would have us believe. They came over here because we had been killing Muslims “over there” for decades.

How do we know this? Well, they told us. Osama bin Laden made it clear why al-Qaeda sought to attack the US. They didn’t like the US taking sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict and they didn’t like US troops on their holy land.

Why believe a terrorist, some responded. As I explained to Giuliani ten years ago, the concept of “blowback” is well-known in the US intelligence community and particularly by the CIA.

Unfortunately, it is clear that Giuliani never really understood what I was trying to tell him. Like the rest of the neocons, he either doesn’t get it or doesn’t want to get it. In a recent speech to the MeK – a violent Islamist-Marxist cult that spent two decades on the US terror watch list – Giuliani promised that the Trump Administration had made “regime change” a priority for Iran. He even told the members of that organization – an organization that has killed dozens of Americans – that Trump would put them in charge of Iran!

Giuliani shares with numerous other neocons like John Bolton a strong relationship with this group. In fact, both Giuliani and Bolton have been on the payroll of the MeK and have received tens of thousands of dollars to speak to their followers. This is another example of how foreign lobbies and special interest groups maintain an iron grip on our foreign policy.

Does anyone really think Iran will be better off if Trump puts a bunch of “former” terrorists in charge of the country? How did that work in Libya?

It’s easy to dismiss the bombastic Giuliani as he speaks to his financial benefactors in the MeK. Unfortunately, however, Giuliani’s claims were confirmed late last week, when the Washington Free Beacon published a three-page policy paper being circulated among National Security Council officials containing plans to spark regime change in Iran.

The paper suggests that the US focus on Iran’s many ethnic minority groups to spark unrest and an eventual overthrow of the government. This is virtually the same road map that the US has followed in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and so on. The results have been unmitigated disaster after disaster.

Unleashing terrorists on Iran to overthrow its government is not only illegal and immoral: it’s also incredibly stupid. We know from 9/11 that blowback is real, even if Giuliani and the neocons refuse to understand it. Iran does not threaten the United States. Unlike Washington’s Arab allies in the region, Iran actually holds reasonably democratic elections and has a Western-oriented, educated, and very young population.

Why not open up to Iran with massive amounts of trade and other contacts? Does anyone (except for the neocons) really believe it is better to unleash terrorists on a population than to engage them in trade and travel? We need to worry about blowback from President Trump’s fully-neoconized Middle East policy! That’s the real threat!

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.
 
Stefan Halper, 73, the FBI spy in the Trump campaign, also spied for the CIA in the 1980 presidential campaign.
stefanhalper-1526737932.png

Photo: YouTube

https://theintercept.com/2018/05/19...-operation-in-the-1980-presidential-election/
 
Back