Iranian Situation... - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

User avatar
By Hindsite
#15014300
anasawad wrote:It's the US going rouge now, not Iran.

It is is the Trump of God that is doing right, not Iran.
Praise the Lord.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15014306
noemon wrote:UK says it will not join US against Iran.

Russia says drone was downed inside Iranian borders.

Iran says White House afflicted with mental retardation.


Since (Ed MILLIBAND ?) introduced a Bill before parliament to restrict executive powers or Royal Perogative, to declare war on another state, a prime minister must now consult parliament for it's prior approval before doing so.
Only the Monarch can declare war(on the advice of the government through parliament)unlike before, as was the case, which is why there is now a reluctance to decide otherwise & it would now be an illegal act to thwart parliament if such an attempt was made.

In the U.S.A, the President derives that power through the Congress, which can declare war & which then conveys the direction of that war through the President, by nomination as, Commander-in-Chief.

On the second point, I was initially sceptical of the American claims, based on the poor quality of the image of that Iranian craft alongside one of the damaged tankers, but subsequent released footage showed much improved images.

My brain tells me that perhaps those first images were intentionally released like that, images can be edited & the effects of that can be disguised through releasing a poor quality set of images.
I reflected on that & give benefit of the doubt that the latter images are genuine originals.


The last point you made is applicable to both sides really, but the reality of the drone, along with the shipping damage is real enough.

The Russian explanation is plausible, because the Iranians have damaged material from the drone on display, whereas, had the drone been downed in international waters, the Americans would, more likely than not, have recovered components of it already.

Having naval experience many decades ago, I know that navies, in particular America, have diving capacity on their vessels, so, some recovery by the Americans would have almost certainly have taken place, were it downed outside of Iranian waters.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15014309
anasawad wrote:@Nonsense
It's a well-known fact. You can bother reading those reports you're trying to allude to. Though I'm sure you'd have to find your two brain cells first to be able to do that.

And which international community concerns? It's the US going rouge now, not Iran.



I don't know about America, but,with all of that 'rouge' that you are applying to myself, I am glowing an incandescent white :lol: :lol:

From Iran's actions, I think most people would agree that it is Iran that has gone rogue state on the others & not America.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15014310
Beren wrote:The Trump of God as he really is, exclusively for @Hindsite. I wonder if it's God pulling his strings indeed.

I wouldn't doubt it. :lol:
#15014313
@Nonsense
Typo on a rush.

Really? Iran is going rogue? Why is the US the one becoming more and more isolated then?
I mean, You have a conflict with Iran, and a few dozen other countries, and now your relations are going south with China, Russia, your NATO allies, Europe, and even the UK.
Furthermore, it is the US breaking international law and going against the international community. It is the US that broke the deal, not Iran.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15014326
anasawad wrote:@Nonsense
Typo on a rush.

Really? Iran is going rogue? Why is the US the one becoming more and more isolated then?
I mean, You have a conflict with Iran, and a few dozen other countries, and now your relations are going south with China, Russia, your NATO allies, Europe, and even the UK.
Furthermore, it is the US breaking international law and going against the international community. It is the US that broke the deal, not Iran.


I accept that TRUMP(America) broke the international agreement, which is a poor show IMHO.

IRAN is a 'roguish' state, because of it's 'alleged' criminal acts against tankers, or other vessels in contravention of the U.N Convention of the Law of the Sea, as applicable & which do not constitute a 'right-of-transit -passage'.
Equally, the U.S drone was possibly acting in contravention of that convention, because it applies, to land, sea & air.
There are strict rules forbidding making threats, or the use of force against any coastal state during the transit or passage of a foreign asset, in particular, the case of the drone, a military asset.

It was a military asset, because they are funded by the Pentagon, so America is itself flouting international law within the definitions of that convention,it's justification would be that it has intelligence that the state of Iran has involved itself in the planning or execution of terrorist acts against vessels under innocent transit or passage & was acting in self-defence.

There are , as always, two sides to the story, despite America's history as the global 'policeman', the acts 'alleged' against Iran, along with the evidence of material or admission by Iran, deem them to be the rogue state, because, at the end of the day, Iran cannot justify it's 'alleged' actions in international law.

In law though, two 'wrong's' do not a 'right' make.
#15014329
I think that the country that has sent its military to patrol the borders of another country is the belligerent or rogue state.
#15014341
WSJ wrote:
Trump Bucked National-Security Aides on Proposed Iran Attack

‘These people want to push us into a war... It’s so disgusting,’ president told confidant

Image
President Trump says he wants a certain amount of division within his team of advisers as he makes a decision.

WASHINGTON—President Trump bucked most of his top national-security advisers by abandoning retaliatory strikes in Iran on Thursday. In private conversations Friday, Mr. Trump reveled in his judgment, certain about his decision to call off the attacks while speaking of his administration as if removed from the center of it. “These people want to push us into a war, and it’s so disgusting,” Mr. Trump told one confidant about his own inner circle of advisers. “We don’t need any more wars.”

In these conversations, Mr. Trump bemoaned the costs of a drone shot down by Iran—about $130 million before research and development—but told people the dollar figure would resonate less with U.S. voters than the potential casualties. The president has said estimates provided to him showed as many as 150 people could have been killed. He noted to confidants that each one of those Iranians had families, which would mean that hundreds more would be affected. “I don’t want to kill 150 Iranians,” he told reporters on Saturday, adding that he has Iranian friends back home in New York. “I don’t want to kill 150 of anything or anybody, unless it’s absolutely necessary.”

On Saturday, Mr. Trump backed a new course of action: another round of sanctions on Tehran to be formally announced on Monday, though he didn’t offer any additional detail. The administration’s current package of sanctions against Iran has pushed the country’s economy into a multiyear contraction and increased tensions in the region. But the measures have yet to persuade Tehran to open negotiations with Mr. Trump, who is seeking an agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

While many of Mr. Trump’s top advisers backed a more aggressive set of strike options, Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, struck a more wary note, which had an outsize influence on the president. Mr. Trump himself Saturday publicly described the conflict within his own team that remained a sore spot for some involved. He praised Gen. Dunford for counseling caution, while singling out his past disagreements with his hawkish national-security adviserJohn Bolton, who was the driving force behind the proposed strikes. Mr. Trump described Gen. Dunford, who officials said has developed a personal rapport with the president, as a “terrific man and a terrific general.” He raised Mr. Bolton’s support for the Iraq war during President George W. Bush’s administration, saying it was a big mistake. “John Bolton is doing a good job, but he takes generally a tough posture,” Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House. “The only one that matters is me.”

The president is known for seeking a range of opinions, and he did that again amid rising tensions with Iran, even reaching out to Fox News host Tucker Carlson, according to people familiar with those conversations. Mr. Carlson has opposed military intervention in Iran on his prime-time television show. Mr. Trump said he wants a certain amount of division within his team as he makes a decision, and suggested he was proud about how that reflected on him. “Everybody was saying I’m a warmonger, and now they’re saying I’m a dove,” Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House. “And I’m neither, if you want to know the truth. I’m a man with common sense.”

But members of Mr. Trump’s team weren’t as pleased with the president about the internal schism, which appeared to strain the fragile alliance within this group at yet another period of transition, according to administration officials. It was unclear whether the division within the team—which includes Mr. Trump’s third national-security adviser, second secretary of state and third official in charge of the Defense Department—would heal or continue to fester.

As an illustration of the behind-the-scenes squabbling Saturday, one administration official said the Pentagon thwarted agreed-upon plans in Iran by using backchannels to provide Mr. Trump with inaccurate estimates of casualties. This official said a Pentagon attorney sent the estimate to the White House Counsel’s Office, which gave it to the president. But another administration official dismissed the accusations as sour grapes. One official said the number of 150 casualties was generated at the White House, not the Pentagon, which routinely uses a “collateral damage assessment” of its own with any significant military operation. But the military’s range of options didn’t include a number that high, two officials said. Spokesmen for the White House and Pentagon declined to comment.

“As senior military adviser to the president, Gen. Dunford did provide his military advice on Iran,” said Col. Pat Ryder, a spokesman for Gen. Dunford. “However, I have nothing further to provide in regards to President Trump’s comments. As a matter of policy, we do not discuss deliberations.” Mr. Trump, for his part, acknowledged that the estimate came from attorneys, but ultimately was delivered to him by a general. Asked whether it was Gen. Dunford, the Pentagon’s top military officer, President Trump declined to say directly, responding: “I had a long talk with Dunford. He’s a great gentleman.”

The attack on a U.S. drone was just the latest in a series of provocative actions from Tehran and prompted a national-security team meeting Thursday morning—a breakfast in the White House—at Mr. Bolton’s request. The breakfast is a weekly meeting for Mr. Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan. On Thursday, it also included Gen. Dunford, who officials said has emerged as an influential voice inside the Pentagon, and Mark Esper, whom Mr. Trump has said he will nominate to replace Mr. Shanahan atop the Defense Department.

A response to Iran dominated the discussion and, according to many officials, a unanimous agreement was reached to recommend military action. That recommendation included strikes against a few Iranian targets, according to a person familiar with the planning. But Gen. Dunford, who canceled a trip to Afghanistan scheduled for Saturday as tensions with Iran escalated, rarely provides such specific advice, and didn’t at the Thursday breakfast, according to many officials familiar with the planning. Gen. Dunford typically offers a straight analysis of each option, making clear the costs without weighting one option over the other, these people said.

Military officials have long said they don’t seek a conflict with Iran. They were concerned about casualties and about ensuring any strike option was proportional, but they also worried about an Iranian response. The U.S. military’s presence in the region has been reduced over the years and no one wanted to stumble into a conflict with the military operating with reduced capabilities, a number of officials said.

Mr. Pompeo was supportive of strikes at the breakfast, but also more understanding of the reluctance that others perceived coming from the Defense Department, administration and White House officials. Vice President Mike Pence supported the strikes in a national-security meeting later that morning, then supported the president’s decision to halt them, according to these officials. At that national-security meeting, the recommended option was presented to the president, officials said. Casualties were discussed and the president agreed to the plan, one official said. “The president acknowledged there may be casualties. Full stop,” the official said. On Saturday, Mr. Trump said his team had brought him “a great plan,” but added that the casualty estimate was imprecise. He made clear that no final approval would be given until later. “They gave me very odd numbers,” Mr. Trump said about his national-security team. “I wanted an accurate count.” That estimate came later on Thursday: 150 potential casualties, or about 40 to 50 at each strike, Mr. Trump explained on Saturday.

But one administration official disputed that estimate, saying it was a worst-case scenario for a strike that happened in the middle of the day. The strikes were planned for the middle of the night, when there would have been a few casualties at each location, the official said. That still may have been too many for Mr. Trump. “Anything is a lot when you shoot down an unmanned” drone, the president said Saturday, when asked about the casualty estimates.

User avatar
By noemon
#15014343
How Donald Trump created one hell of a mess with Iran wrote:
The shooting down of a US military drone by Iran on Thursday emphasizes that the conflict between the United States and Iran is deepening.

It's a crisis that President Donald Trump predictably provoked by pulling out of the Iranian nuclear deal just over a year ago -- with no real Plan B beyond imposing ever-tougher sanctions on the Iranian regime.
But the story gets more complicated, because in the last few weeks, Trump has sent mixed messages regarding his true intentions. Last week, he said he wanted to talk to the Iranians (which they have rejected). Yet, in contrast, in May, Trump tweeted that a war with Iran would be "the official end of Iran." And after the US drone was shot down on Thursday, he tweeted, "Iran made a very big mistake!"
On Thursday, Trump approved strikes against Iranian targets such as some missile batteries and radars. He then abruptly called off the strikes.
This begs the question: Does anyone have a clue what Trump's endgame is in Iran -- including the President himself?

The Iranian regime, which is now concerned about its own survival, is responding by resuming its nuclear enrichment program and taking actions across the Middle East, designed to put pressure on the Trump administration.
The enemy always gets a vote in any conflict and the Iranian deep state -- the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its elite Quds Force -- as well as Iranian proxies around the Middle East are fighting back in multiple ways that are below the threshold where the United States must respond, but enough to signal their anger with the Trump-imposed sanctions.

A week ago, according to US Central Command, Iranian forces attacked two oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz between Oman and Iran (Iran denies responsibility). This is significant given that a third of the world's seaborne oil transits the strait.

Also this month, Houthi rebels in Yemen -- armed with Iranian missiles -- launched attacks at an airport in Saudi Arabia, wounding 26 and sending a clear message that Iran can turn the heat up on the Trump administration's close ally, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
The Iranian regime also understands that Trump is quite sensitive to the price of oil, which tends to spike whenever tensions rise in the Middle East.
And oil prices jumped on Thursday to over $64 a barrel after the Iranians shot down the US drone.

Killing the Iran deal

After Trump pulled out of the Iran deal in 2018, the US imposed new sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy, which now exports less than half of the oil it did before the new round of sanctions.

On the campaign trail, Trump had repeatedly denounced the Iranian nuclear agreement as "the worst deal ever."
Critics of the deal -- Trump included -- pointed out that the 2015 agreement hadn't constrained the Iranians from intervening around the Middle East from Syria to Yemen, nor had it stopped their aggressive ballistic missile program. Also "sunset" provisions in the deal meant that Iran could theoretically resume certain aspects of their nuclear weapons program a decade after signing the agreement.
Meanwhile, the Iranian regime had benefited when the United States and the other parties to the nuclear deal -- Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia -- had lifted their crippling sanctions.

Certainly, these critiques were all true, but supporters of the deal pointed to the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency repeatedly certified that Iran was sticking to the agreement -- and it wasn't developing nuclear weapons.

The agreement further prevented the Iranians from enriching weapons-grade uranium until 2030. And the United States' European allies that were also signatories to the Iran deal supported keeping the deal in place.

Indeed, supporters of the deal pointed out that if Trump were ever to strike a deal with North Korea about its nuclear weapons program, he would be lucky to get something that looked like the Iran deal. And, bottom line, a regionally aggressive Iran without nuclear weapons was a much better outcome than a regionally aggressive Iran armed with nuclear weapons.

On October 3, 2017, then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iran was adhering to the agreement. When independent Sen, Angus King of Maine asked Mattis whether he believed the deal was in US national security interests he replied, "Yes, senator, I do."

Assuming that Hillary Clinton would likely win the 2016 presidential election, the then-Republican-controlled Congress had passed a measure that the President needed to certify to Congress every 90 days that the Iranians were in compliance with the agreement.
This measure meant that every three months Trump had to sign off on a deal that he hated and that would invariably lead to tensions between the President and key members of his national security team, such as Mattis, who thought that exiting the deal didn't make much sense since the Iranians were in compliance with the terms of the agreement.

Enter John Bolton

John Bolton, an advocate for regime change in Iran, took over as national security adviser in early April 2018. Since personnel is often policy, it was hardly surprising that with Bolton now in place Trump announced on May 8, 2018 that he was pulling out of the Iran nuclear agreement.

As Bolton stood off to the side behind him, Trump gave a press conference at the White House saying, "The fact is that this was a horrible one-sided deal that should never, ever been made."

Trump seemed to take particular pleasure in killing deals negotiated by President Barack Obama's administration -- whether it was the Iran nuclear agreement, the Paris climate accord or the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that was designed to contain China -- even if he didn't propose viable alternatives in their place.

After pulling out of the Iran deal, the Trump administration imposed tough new sanctions on Iran, while the Europeans stuck to the deal.
Trump's Iran strategy didn't seem like much of an alternative plan -- beyond trying to destroy the Iranian economy in order to foment protests against the regime, potentially leading to regime change, long a goal of Bolton's.
Sign up for our new newsletter.

As a result of the rising tensions in the Middle East since May, the Trump administration has dispatched an aircraft carrier group to the region and deployed a total of 2,500 more troops to the Middle East.

The US doesn't have much leverage over the Europeans when it comes to Iran, since they continue to support the Iran deal. And Trump himself is also quite unpopular in these countries, so if the conflict with Iran deepens, don't expect much help from them.
#15014344


Nonsense wrote:From Iran's actions, I think most people would agree that it is Iran that has gone rogue state on the others & not America.


I think you'd be wrong as it is clear that it was a U.S. drone in Iranian airspace which the Iranians shot down in retaliation for it being in their airspace. You're also wrong since the U.S. is basically isolated on its intentions for war on Iran.

noemon wrote:Iran says White House afflicted with mental retardation.




:)
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15014372
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think that the country that has sent its military to patrol the borders of another country is the belligerent or rogue state.

You think wrong. First Iran has been using its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its proxy terrorist groups in the Middle East to intimidate and terrorize the region. The United States sent two war ships to the area because of intelligence indications of heightened Iranian readiness to conduct offensive operations against U.S. forces and our interests and to deter Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz, which is an important international trade route.

Even before the large American Drone was shot down over the Strait of Hormuz another small American drone was shot at and missed and Iran had already damaged six oil tankers in the region by explosives. The US has yet to attack any of Iran's assets, so the shooting down of the unmanned drone was not provoked, even if the drone had moved over the water claimed by Iran.

Trump calls on foreign countries to protect their own oil tankers

The president, who has long expressed opposition to America's role as the world's police, tweeted that China and Japan are among the countries that get most of its oil via shipping through "the Straight" and called on them to protect their own vessels.


"So why are we protecting the shipping lanes for other countries (many years) for zero compensation. All of these countries should be protecting their own ships on what has always been a dangerous journey," Trump tweeted.

"We don’t even need to be there in that the U.S. has just become (by far) the largest producer of Energy anywhere in the world!" Trump continued. "The U.S. request for Iran is very simple — No Nuclear Weapons and No Further Sponsoring of Terror!"

Trump's tweet came as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with leaders in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to discuss how to counteract Iran's actions in the region.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... il-tankers
#15014378
Hindsite wrote:For all practical purposes, the USA supplement their prescription drug prices too.

Yes, that's something that really needs to change. Trump has made some changes, but it needs to go further.

Torus34 wrote:Reading through the last few posts, the discussion, such as it is, seems to have strayed from the Iranian situation.

Indeed. The idea that Trump supporters want war with Iran (they don't) because they are racist (they aren't) is absurd and frankly not worth debating.

Torus34 wrote:The United States of America has withdrawn from the multinational treaty which provided it with a level of control over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

That is worth debating. It may have provided the illusion of control, perhaps. However, we've had agreements like that with North Korea. They just developed nukes anyway. So will Iran.

Torus34 wrote:The remaining signatories have made little concerted effort one way or the other.

This is why multilateral agreements are effectively meaningless. They only seem to matter if the US is a signatory. Germany and France would be happy to enable Iran achieve its nuclear ambitions for the opportunity to sell into Iranian markets. Iraq was a similar story as Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein were long time friends.

Torus34 wrote:The Congress of the United States of America, with its constitutional power to declare war upon other nations, appears focussed on the 2020 elections.

Yes. There will not be a war with Iran. Toughened sanctions. Maybe a retaliatory strike at some point. There will be no war with Iran though.

noemon wrote:I am talking about the Trump supporters that are calling for war with Iran.

Like who? You haven't named anybody. How are we to determine if they are racist when you won't even name them?

noemon wrote:No dear, Trump has ceded foreign territory to another nation regardless if it is American or not and has declared that as far as the US and its legal system is concerned the houses, churches and properties belonging to a certain Christian and Muslim group of people are now part of a hostile nation that seeks to ethnic-cleanse them against their own safety, wishes and aspirations. Trump has decided to hand over land & properties from one group of people to another and uniquely in history has decided to do that for absolutely nothing in return.

The US doesn't control the territory. We cannot cede territory we do not control. The terms 'cession' and 'cede' have a legal meaning.

noemon wrote:That is indeed unprecedented and along with the unilateral withdrawal from the Iran deal, it has totally discredited the US in the international stage and that is why Turkey and Iran are so emboldened but also why US allies find it difficult to fall behind the US like they used to.

There is nothing unprecedented about a country withdrawing from an international agreement. It was Obama's deal. It was not a treaty. It was not ratified by the Senate. It did not have widespread support in the United States.

noemon wrote:Would you or would not criticise Hillary if she made unilateral moves against foreign nations without the support of any the US's allies and for absolutely nothing in return!

It depends on the circumstance. I think the US has the right to act unilaterally in its own interest. If I thought it was in the US interest, and Hillary acted unilaterally, I don't think I would disagree. For example, people criticized Bill Clinton for using air power against Serbia, and suggested he was a war criminal. I was fine with him being impeached. However, if a foreign nation tried to arrest and try him as a war criminal, I would certainly be in favor of using military force against that nation to effect the release of President Clinton or conduct whatever reprisals deemed appropriate.

Deutschmania wrote:It's the United States who backed Saddam Hussein's Iraq against Iran .

Iraq is responsible for its own actions. The US had a far superior air force to Iraq and Iran; although, Iran had F-14s and F-4s. The US at the time had F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, F-111s, F-117s, B-1s, B-2s, and B-52, not to mention E3 (Boeing 707s with AWACS), KC-135s, ship and sub launched cruise missiles, etc. If the US was backing Saddam militarily, Iran would have gotten its ass kicked in. The US was happy to see Iraq, a former Soviet client with recent purchases of French military hardware, weaken the rogue regime in Iran. The Iraqis even shot a French-made Exocet missile into the USS Stark from a French-made Mirage F1 fighter. That's not exactly a friendly thing to do.

Nonsense wrote:I maybe wrong here, but isn't the President, 'judge, jury & executioner' in the American system, that can declare war on another state by virtue of a dual role of also being the, 'Commander-in-Chief'?

Declaring war is no longer done, since everyone purports to operate under the UN. Congress has the power to declare war and grant letters of marque and reprisal.

Nonsense wrote:In the U.S.A, the President derives that power through the Congress, which can declare war & which then conveys the direction of that war through the President, by nomination as, Commander-in-Chief.

The president IS commander in chief. He's not nominated by Congress. Congress makes a political decision to declare war, which it hasn't done since WWII. Congress also appropriates funding.

anasawad wrote:Furthermore, it is the US breaking international law and going against the international community. It is the US that broke the deal, not Iran.

It's just an agreement. It isn't international law. To have the force and effect of law in the United States it would have to have been a treaty ratified by the Senate.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15014381
blackjack21 wrote:There is nothing unprecedented about a country withdrawing from an international agreement. It was Obama's deal. It was not a treaty. It was not ratified by the Senate. It did not have widespread support in the United States.

It's just an agreement. It isn't international law. To have the force and effect of law in the United States it would have to have been a treaty ratified by the Senate.

Yes. I thought about mentioning this myself, but forgot after reading other posts.
Praise the Lord.
User avatar
By noemon
#15014399
blackjack21 wrote:Indeed. The idea that Trump supporters want war with Iran (they don't) because they are racist (they aren't) is absurd and frankly not worth debating.


You are trying to muddle what is being said. Trump supporters who want war with Iran make it obvious that they voted for him because they are racist and not because he made an anti-war message as opposed to Hillary. Why do they make that obvious? because Trump run on 2 major platforms, a racist platform and an anti-war platform. Once you take out the anti-war platform all that is left is the racist platform.

Like who? You haven't named anybody. How are we to determine if they are racist when you won't even name them?
The US doesn't control the territory. We cannot cede territory we do not control. The terms 'cession' and 'cede' have a legal meaning.
There is nothing unprecedented about a country withdrawing from an international agreement. It was Obama's deal. It was not a treaty. It was not ratified by the Senate. It did not have widespread support in the United States.


The terms effectively and essentially also have meaning. Your pretensions are cute but they are not arguments that have any effect on my arguments. There are also Trump supporters in here who claim not to want war with Iran but are still racist because they argue for racism.

As I said earlier it's good that you have your priorities straight:

noemon wrote:It's good that you have your priorities straight mate, recognising the theft of Christian land & properties in Jerusalem as valid...totally a non-issue, shrug it off like you just don't care, warmongering against Iran with the possibility of throwing the entire world into war, sure no problem...telling people not to promote Nazi culture and talking points with a slap on the wrist...a total outrage!!


It depends on the circumstance. I think the US has the right to act unilaterally in its own interest. If I thought it was in the US interest, and Hillary acted unilaterally, I don't think I would disagree. For example, people criticized Bill Clinton for using air power against Serbia, and suggested he was a war criminal. I was fine with him being impeached. However, if a foreign nation tried to arrest and try him as a war criminal, I would certainly be in favor of using military force against that nation to effect the release of President Clinton or conduct whatever reprisals deemed appropriate.


So you disagreed with Clinton acting "unilaterally" against Serbia and were fine with him being impeached meaning I take it you were against his "unilateral" moves -even though they were not even unilateral but enjoyed the support of several European countries like Germany and the UK- but you support Trump's totally unilateral moves against Iran and Palestine that have discredited the US and for absolutely nothing in return. Sure I got it. And the only way you would support a democrat [former] President would not be for their own foreign policy actions but only if foreign states tried to arrest a US [former] President. Right... :roll:
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15014412
skinster wrote:What about when the U.S. shot down an Iranian plane (flight 655) that didn't hypothetically kill "39 people" but in fact resulted in the murder of 290 civilians,


The pilot of flight 655 played a role in that, as he was not monitoring civilian air traffic and, if he was, he didn't respond to the numerous attempts made by the Vincennes to contact the airliner. Furthermore, the pilot failed to heed warnings from the Vincennes to alter course, and they were advised they would be fired upon. The Vincennes was also engaged with five Iranian Boghammer boats which had attacked our forces, so it was hardly outside the realm of possibility that Iran would've employed air assets against a ship as formidable as the Vincennes.

Will Rogers, the Captain of the Vincennes, acted appropriately given all the information he had at the time (and, thanks to the pilot of 655, didn't have).

Also, it's widely believed that the attempt o the life of the wife of Will Rogers in San Diego was the work of Iranian-backed attackers...

something the U.S. refused to even apologise for.


Nor should we have apologized. The CO of the Vincennes acted appropriately. Had the pilot of 655 done the same, 290 people wouldn't have been killed.

And, while there was no formal apology, The US did pay almost $62 million in restitution to the families...

History is your frand.


Perhaps if you were more well versed in what actually transpired and why, you wouldn't look so foolish...
#15014464
Vincennes was obviously an idiot or a liar.

Even I can tell the difference between an F-14 and a civilian plane.

And there is no reason to be shooting down Iranian planes in Iranian airspace. Vincennes could have, and should have, backed away.
#15014485
This mentality is from the 2000s. Whenever I hear about invading Iran I think of Bush's Axis of Evil speeches and all the other nonsense that Neo-Con regime of mad dogs told the world back then.

Now out of nowhere you have these dinosaurs like Bolton who want to invade another country and in doing so potentially cause WWIII.

If Trump is resisting these idiots then good on him.

Those who shout loudest for war are the ones who never have to fight in them.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13

Palestinian armed groups in Gaza do have a histor[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong???[…]

Sure, but they are too stupid to understand, Trum[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

This is the issue. It is not changing. https://y[…]