USA out of Iran deal

[dmancornell]

If you want to include US proxies, why do you choose to ignore Iran's state sponsored terrorism? Or do you just lump all the terrorism stuff into 1 so the count remains low?

If you want to go down that route, the US government has sponsored plenty of terrorism by proxy in the ME. US ally Saudi Arabia has been spreading Wahhabist terror for decades, most recently in Yemen. The US is currently supporting a variety of jihadist terrorist groups in their attempt to depose Assad in Syria. US backed dictators in Egypt and Iraq (including Saddam) have terrorized their respective countries and neighbors.

 

[dmancornell]

I'm sure they still have flights to the middle east if the U.S. that appalling.

Heh. Is this guilt by association? By parity of argument, is it our fault that anti-gun laws are passed? Don't think so.

 

[easy rider]

Heh. Is this guilt by association? By parity of argument, is it our fault that anti-gun laws are passed? Don't think so.

Not at all, I just find that you seem to favor Iran over the U.S. in your commentaries.

 

[dmancornell]

Not at all, I just find that you seem to favor Iran over the U.S. in your commentaries.

Maybe because the US government is demonstrably the aggressor in the ME in recent history. As Samuel Johnson said, blind patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

 

[easy rider]

I may be a patriot, but I'm not blind. I don't agree with all the U.S. government has done, and I'm sure there will be more, but one of those was the "Iran deal".

 

[dmancornell]

I may be a patriot, but I'm not blind. I don't agree with all the U.S. government has done, and I'm sure there will be more, but one of those was the "Iran deal".

What exactly do you find objectionable with this agreement?

 

[easy rider]

Iran hates America and Americans, to me that was aiding and abetting.

 

[dmancornell]

Iran hates America and Americans, to me that was aiding and abetting.

Gee, that might have something to do with the fact that the US government has been meddling in Iranian affairs since the 50's, to the point where a reactionary theocracy managed to seize power. Then the US government reacted with military threats, economic sanctions, launching a bloody 10 year proxy war against them, and the occasional passenger plane shoot-down.

Besides, enough Saudis hated America and Americans to blow up the WTC, but all the American presidents still line-dance with those SOB's.

 

[easy rider]

Gee, that might have something to do with the fact that the US government has been meddling in Iranian affairs since the 50's, to the point where a reactionary theocracy managed to seize power. Then the US government reacted with military threats, economic sanctions, launching a bloody 10 year war proxy war against them, and the occasional passenger plane shoot-down.

Besides, enough Saudis hated America and Americans to blow up the WTC, but all the American presidents still line-dance with those SOB's.

So then, what's your plan? Keep giving them money and hope none of that comes back to bite us in the ass? Like I said, I don't agree with all that the U.S. gov't has done, but I feel better knowing that we aren't giving more of our tax dollars to Obama's plan.

 

[dmancornell]

So then, what's your plan? Keep giving them money and hope none of that comes back to bite us in the ass? Like I said, I don't agree with all that the U.S. gov't has done, but I feel better knowing that we aren't giving more of our tax dollars to Obama's plan.

The framework does not give Iran a cent. The agreement lifts economic sanctions in return for UN inspections to ensure nuclear research is for power generation and civil use.

Also, Iran literally cannot bite the US in the ass even if it tried.

 

[BRD@66]

What would a Russian hacker's work look like if it were applied to a small, Texas, gun enthusiasts website?

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Well we're doing an absolutely awful job at that. Also, the only entity in the world right now with the capability to blow up the world is the US government. Is anyone surprised that Iran would seek means of protection from the US government when they have been subject to three decades of threats and sanctions?

Simple question on the comparative aggression of two governments: how many wars have the US government started in the Middle East in the last century, and how many wars have the Iranians started? The score is even more lopsided when one includes the wars started by US proxies in the region.

No needs to fear the US, we are not the aggressors in this world any more than a cop is who chases does an armed robber.

The ME has been at war with each other and the world for all of known history, I think they got our record beat by a mile.

Your posts speak of far left warped thinking based upon a total lack of understanding of the world stage.

 

[gaines67]

No needs to fear the US, we are not the aggressors in this world any more than a cop is who chases does an armed robber.

The ME has been at war with each other and the world for all of known history, I think they got our record beat by a mile.

Your posts speak of far left warped thinking based upon a total lack of understanding of the world stage.

To me, his posts speak of deeply conservative thinking about the necessity of US intervention in the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pronstar]

The framework does not give Iran a cent.

That’s because the appeasement cash - $1.7 billion - had already been airlifted to them, dropped from a C130 on pallets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[AustinN4]

That’s because the appeasement cash - $1.7 billion - had already been airlifted to them, dropped from a C130 on pallets.

Sure wish somebody would do that for me. I would promise never to attack them.

 

[dmancornell]

No needs to fear the US, we are not the aggressors in this world any more than a cop is who chases does an armed robber.

The ME has been at war with each other and the world for all of known history, I think they got our record beat by a mile.

Your posts speak of far left warped thinking based upon a total lack of understanding of the world stage.

Tell that to the Iraqi and Yemeni people... the ones who are still alive anyways. If you're going to cite "all of known history", the Europeans have been at each other's throats for far longer than the Arabs and Persians, but I don't see the US launching preemptive invasions into France and Germany, even though two progressive-leftist presidents managed to drag the US into two European wars in the last century.

Historical factoid: global military intervention was a progressive/leftist tradition in the US that was co-opted by right wing politicians only when they realized war was a highly lucrative business for the political class. So much for far left thinking.

 

[dmancornell]

That’s because the appeasement cash - $1.7 billion - had already been airlifted to them, dropped from a C130 on pallets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Sure wish somebody would do that for me. I would promise never to attack them.

That was for money owed on military equipment that was paid for but never delivered when the Iranian theocrats took over. Regardless of how you feel about the theocracy, commercial contracts should be honored.

How exactly would Iran attack the US even if they wanted to?

 

[Ole Cowboy]

To me, his posts speak of deeply conservative thinking about the necessity of US intervention in the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you are saying that the cop that chases down the robber is intervening in his right to rob?

No, not really I don't think you are saying that...or I hope not

Here is the problem folks:

Some must be the cop on the beat for without it you have a vacuum and all vacuum get filled. There is no such thing as Peace among peoples. Cops neglect S side Chicago and as a result it a war zone.

When you view this on a global paradigm then in order to maintain some semblance of peace then you need a cop on the beat. So lets go with a non-intervention strategy and see where that path leads? A vacuum is created and who fills it?

Iran in the ME

Russia in Europe

China in Asia

S/Latin America: Split with China/Russia

Africa: China/Russia

And the final domino, the US: China/Russia with China take W of the Mississippi River and Russia taking the rest.

If you watch China and see their actions then I clearly see a country building toward a global role by force. But The lessons of Hitler/Japan and WWII were not lost. No one country can rule the Globe, but 2 can and possibly even 3, but each has to pose a global threat and right now there is only 1, the US. Neither China/Russia have the resources to do it and Russia will be happy as a #2 player with all of Europe and some pieces of the pie across the globe and the E half of the US.

Europe is making a grave mistake today not backing us on the Iran nuke deal. In fact as a watcher of Europe I see it inching closer and closer to Russia, till one day Russia steps in and takes it and can do so and barely fire a shot.

For further reading: https://www.fluentin3months.com/mandarin-chinese-is-easy/

 

[Ole Cowboy]

That was for money owed on military equipment that was paid for but never delivered when the Iranian theocrats took over. Regardless of how you feel about the theocracy, commercial contracts should be honored.

How exactly would Iran attack the US even if they wanted to?

Spin don't cut here:

"That dispute involved an Iranian claim regarding money advanced by the government of the Shah for military equipment that Washington did not deliver after the 1979 revolution. Now, the president asserted, we were returning Iran’s “own funds,” including “appropriate interest,” but “much less than the amount Iran sought.” The savings, he said, came potentially to “billions”—a figure quantified by his press secretary as “up to $6 billion or $7 billion” in a “very good deal for taxpayers.” In other words, now that the larger issues had been resolved, the U.S. was simply issuing a long-delayed refund to Iran, and in the process saving Americans a significant amount of money.

The president’s statement, however, omitted a great deal of relevant information. The president was returning $400 million in Iran’s “Foreign Military Sales” (FMS) account with the Pentagon, plus $1.3 billion in interest, but he failed to mention that in 1981, when Iran filed its claim before the Claims Tribunal at The Hague, the U.S. had responded with a counterclaim for $817 million for Iran’s violations of its obligations under the FMS program. In 2016, with both the claim and the counterclaim still pending, it was possible that Iran owed billions of dollars to the U.S., not the reverse."

https://mosaicmagazine.com/observat...-of-obamas-ransom-payment-to-iran-gets-worse/

 

[dmancornell]

the U.S. had responded with a counterclaim for $817 million for Iran’s violations of its obligations under the FMS program. In 2016, with both the claim and the counterclaim still pending, it was possible that Iran owed billions of dollars to the U.S., not the reverse.

And what that article failed to mention is that the reverse claim was made by US defense companies who already cooked their books with those future sales and filed grievance because the lost sales ruined their well-laid plans. No equipment was delivered for those pending contracts, the claim is that they were owed money on contracts never satisfied.