iran

[walrus]

Ten to twenty years from now Iran will be America's main ally in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf kingdoms are going to crumble away with the demise of OPEC power and turn into failed jihadi nutcase states like Syria/Iraq/Libya.

Israel, who need permanent enemies in the region to justify their refusal to make any peace deals while they continue their slow motion ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians/eventually southern Lebanon


Israel wants a 'permanent stand-off' with Iran, says British Foreign Secretary - UK Politics - UK - The Independent *

will switch from claiming Iran is the world centre of terrorism to yelling about ISIS or whatever ISIS splinters into/various states of parts of states near them run by jihadi nutcases.

I already said this long before we made the first move which was the recent nuclear deal. Also please note this deal is between Iran and six major powers and five of those powers are fine with it, it creates zero political controversy in those countries. It's only controversial in America becase a. Israel have a very powerful lobby there and b. any international deal like this is always trashed by the right wing and likened to Chamberlain at Munich. See attached photo.

*The British conservative party is normally in lockstep with the American right over Israel, sometimes a step ahead. The occasional outbreal of truth like the article above represents just how pissed off even the right are with the way Israel is going. I've never seen a statement like that from the UK/US right since the early nineties and Jim Baker peace be upon him.Attachment 3643

You sound like Obama.

This agreement is entirely controversial in every other major country.

It's only controversial in America due to a. a gigantic Israel lobby and b. the propensity for a large number of Americans to wet the bed over anything they perceive as a threat, no matter how ridiculous. And you have a bunch of politicians willing to pander to and encourage the bedwetters, particularly when there's an election coming up.

No, it's controversial in America as the 100 and more pages of the deal have been released make the people wonder why the deal was made. Too many outs for Iran especially when compared to all of the nuke deals the US has signed with Russia. Obama initially started with anywhere, anytime inspections, have you seen what we ended up with. Bibi speaking to congress was actually controversial here for a large amount of the populace.

[Kirkland Laing]

[walrus]

Ok, I can see the discussion has evolved

[El Kabong]

Why would this be controversial? I mean Iran has been engaged in these activities (funding terrorism/terrorist groups) for decades so why would the US helping Iran free up more money to fund those "activities we don't like" be "controversial"?

It's not like MORE money would allow Iran to give MORE to the terrorists trying to kill and maim Americans and our Allies....but don't they deserve it?

[walrus]

Why would this be controversial? I mean Iran has been engaged in these activities (funding terrorism/terrorist groups) for decades so why would the US helping Iran free up more money to fund those "activities we don't like" be "controversial"?

It's not like MORE money would allow Iran to give MORE to the terrorists trying to kill and maim Americans and our Allies....but don't they deserve it?

No no, @El Kabong, didn't you hear Kirk said in a decade or so Iran will be our best ally in the Middle East, even though the theocracy didn't consider themselves part of the middle east but a Persian caliphate. @El Kabong, when are you going to realize that you are an idiot and the graphs of Kirkland can not be argued with. Iran will magically join the world community and drop all hostile actions they can now create clean reliable nuclear energy which is all they ever wanted. They just want to clean the environment. Just like Clinton's deal with North Korea, they are now the best of allies, we might as well just pack up over there, I'm sure China wouldn't try anything funny.

[Gandalf]

Under international law Iran was free to make whatever nuclear energy it wanted anyway. Most countries do just that. The only problem with Iran is that the US colony in the Middle East, Israel wants any excuse to bomb them whence all the crazy propaganda about nukes. The US has nukes, Israel has illegal nukes, the UK has nukes, but Iran wants nuclear power and that is tantamount to nukes? There is no rational discussion of the issue. It's crazy land. 'Oh, but dem Muslims, dey can't have dem nukes. They's crazy, ya know!'. Sure, they are. They invade all their neighbors and non neighbors, right? The arrogance of putting sanctions on Iran was just astounding and the hubris coming out of Washington shockingly bad.

[Kirkland Laing]

Why would this be controversial? I mean Iran has been engaged in these activities (funding terrorism/terrorist groups) for decades so why would the US helping Iran free up more money to fund those "activities we don't like" be "controversial"?

It's not like MORE money would allow Iran to give MORE to the terrorists trying to kill and maim Americans and our Allies....but don't they deserve it?

No no, @El Kabong , didn't you hear Kirk said in a decade or so Iran will be our best ally in the Middle East, even though the theocracy didn't consider themselves part of the middle east but a Persian caliphate. @El Kabong , when are you going to realize that you are an idiot and the graphs of Kirkland can not be argued with. Iran will magically join the world community and drop all hostile actions they can now create clean reliable nuclear energy which is all they ever wanted. They just want to clean the environment. Just like Clinton's deal with North Korea, they are now the best of allies, we might as well just pack up over there, I'm sure China wouldn't try anything funny.

Iran can't really help being part of the Middle East, geography and everything. They don't consider themselves part of the Arab world because they're not Arabs, they're Aryans.

And they really have been after nuclear power for a long time now.





And you need tounderstand the economics of countries invading other countries. It's incredibly expensive. China's economy is under massive pressure at the minute and they couldn't afford an occupation of an incredibly poor country where they'd have to basically feed however many millions of North Koreans there are. China's worst nightmare is the North Korean regime collapsing because they'd have to deal with millions of refugees. China give them millions in aid every year to keep the fucking regime together because the alternative is a disastrous situation for China.

It takes a special type of talent to wet the bed over ridiculous scenarios like that.

[Kirkland Laing]

Ok, I can see the discussion has evolved

OK, yeah, childish.

So let's look at this instead.

[i]A majority of Americans support recommitting U.S. troops to Iraq to fight the Islamic terrorist group known as Islamic State or ISIS, although many want the deployment for just for a short period, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll has found.

Asked about the prospect of U.S. troops going back into Iraq, 60% favored sending troops to fight ISIS. That total included 28% who wanted troops in for “as long as it takes to get the job done” while 32% said they should be deployed for a short period to allow the Iraqi Army to take over.
Another 38%, however, said they did not favor sending any troops at all. That anti-interventionist sentiment was overwhelmingly Democratic: 52% of Democrats and only 19% of Republicans opposed sending any troops into Iraq.
By contrast, 80% of Republicans favored long- or short-term deployment, compared with 47% of Democrats.
In keeping with that partisan split, the poll found that support for using combat troops to fight ISIS is a political plus for Republicans seeking their party’s presidential nomination and a minus for Democrats. Asked how supporting the troop deployment against ISIS would affect their feelings about a candidate, 80% of GOP primary voters said they would be more favorable; Among Democratic primary voters, that position would make 35% feel more favorable and 47% feel less favorable.




Support for Sending Troops to Fight ISIS Splits by Party — WSJ/NBC Poll - Washington Wire - WSJ




A few thousand beardy nutters chopping the heads of slightly less nutty nutters halfway round the world from America is enough to scare Americans so badly that they're prepared to send troops into Iraq to keep them safe five minutes after the troops they originally sent to Iraq to keep them safe have just come back, having failed to keep them safe but having created the situation that led to the creation of ISIS.


There is some kind of panic switch in their heads that makes them forget the events of the last few years and just send the troops right back in to do a job that they clearly cannot possibly do. Anybody that says yes in one of these surveys they should give directions to the nearest army recruitment centre to them and tell them to sign up and go and fight ISIS themselves. Seriously, spending trillions of dollars to send thousand sof guys to their deaths, tens of thousands with bits blown off them and all so they can referee wars that have been going on since the seventh century.


I'm not saying this is limited to America. Britain got bullshitted that Saddam had WMDs that could be fired at Britain within 45 minutes of Saddam decising to do so and it moved the public opinion needle a fair bit. But you need to accept that you're fed a lot of bullshit as Americans and a lot of it is designed to scare you for political purposes. Witness the GOP contenders claiming one of the biggest threats to America is radical Islam and we need to get tougher with ISIS. It's all just bullshit mate.

[El Kabong]

Iran can't really help being part of the Middle East, geography and everything. They don't consider themselves part of the Arab world because they're not Arabs, they're Aryans.

And they really have been after nuclear power for a long time now.





And you need tounderstand the economics of countries invading other countries. It's incredibly expensive. China's economy is under massive pressure at the minute and they couldn't afford an occupation of an incredibly poor country where they'd have to basically feed however many millions of North Koreans there are. China's worst nightmare is the North Korean regime collapsing because they'd have to deal with millions of refugees. China give them millions in aid every year to keep the fucking regime together because the alternative is a disastrous situation for China.

It takes a special type of talent to wet the bed over ridiculous scenarios like that.

Yes, nuclear "power"

[Kirkland Laing]

Yes, nuclear "power"

Yes, nuclear power.

Also, too.


Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.
Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...fd2_story.html

[El Kabong]

Yes, nuclear "power"

Yes, nuclear power.

Also, too.


Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.
Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...fd2_story.html

K, good luck