Impeachment question for experts


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

I can't answer in too much detail because the internet is so slow and limited here, but Iran gave several concessions including allowing nuclear inspections, reducing stockpiles of nuclear materials, centrifuges, facilities for heavy water, etc.

This was better than what we have now.

That's NOT a concession.  That was required to AVOID sanctions by the UN resolutions.  Nothing has changed in Ayatollah behavior from Bush Sr. to Obama and now to Trump.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Really?  You think Yemen and Syria becoming a dumpster fire is BETTER?

I was speaking of US Iran relations.  They are worse under Trump.  Why do you think they are better?

Also, Iran cant be blamed for the mess is Syria and was only one factor in the mess in Yeman.  We (yes, including Obama) had more to do with the mess in Syria than Iran did.

My biggest concern with Syria was ISIS, which is also an enemy to Iran.  Iran backed and still backs Assad (also the enemy of ISIS).  So did/does Russia.  Let it be their problem.  Assad hasn't done anything to the US.

We have no true allies in Syria and no business there.  I believe we agree on this.

I already gave Trump credit and approve of his handling of Syria (and North Korea).

I do not approve of his handling of Iran.

Remember this?  This is directly from Trump's own Twitter feed.

It seems like Trump is doing the same thing that you have criticized Obama and Bush doing.

Screenshot_20200104-082706_Chrome.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

I was speaking of US Iran relations.  They are worse under Trump.  Why do you think they are better?

Also, Iran cant be blamed for the mess is Syria and was only one factor in the mess in Yeman.  We (yes, including Obama) had more to do with the mess in Syria than Iran did.

My biggest concern with Syria was ISIS, which is also an enemy to Iran.  Iran backed and still backs Assad (also the enemy of ISIS).  So did/does Russia.  Let it be their problem.  Assad hasn't done anything to the US.

We have no true allies in Syria and no business there.  I believe we agree on this.

I already gave Trump credit and approve of his handling of Syria (and North Korea).

I do not approve of his handling of Iran.

Remember this?  This is directly from Trump's own Twitter feed.

It seems like Trump is doing the same thing that you have criticized Obama and Bush doing.

Screenshot_20200104-082706_Chrome.jpg

 

I never stated US-Iran relations is better under Trump.  It's too early to determine that.  I vehemently disagree with your claim that US-Iran relations is better under Obama.

And you seem to be uninformed with Iran's involvement in Syria.  Just because we disagree with US involvement in Syria doesn't change the fact that the US is involved in Syria.

And I didn't even mention all the other terror attacks Iran made in the region including international humiliation of US hostages.

Trump's press conference today had very interesting points:

- He mentioned he ordered the strike on Soleimani.  He stated the reason - orchestrating the attack on the embassy.  Clear and concise.

- He mentioned the strike is to END a war, not to start one.  This is a statement that the US position is that Iran started the war already and the US is on defense - national defense is solely the purview of the President.  This is to address the efforts of Pelosi and Kerry to contradict Trump in their communications in the region.

- He mentioned the power of the US military and US intelligence and that they already have all targets identified if Iran persists on continuing the war.

- He then expressed respect and honor to the Iranian people.  He also mentioned he has no desire to do anything to force a regime change.  This addresses questions about Iranian protesters asking the US to interfere especially after Soleimani killed thousands of them.  Trump made it clear that the strike on Soleimani was purely for his actions against Americans even as he acknoeledges its benefits to the people of Iran.

- He then reminded everybody, especially the Iranian Supreme Leader, that the US will not hesitate to take out monsters that threaten American lives and made special mention of Al-Baghdadi who is an enemy of Iran that the US eliminated.

All within a 4-minute speech.

The ball is in Iran's court.  Will they de-escalate?  I highly doubt it.  A war increases the chance that Trump will not be re-elected in November.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Remember this?  This is directly from Trump's own Twitter feed.

It seems like Trump is doing the same thing that you have criticized Obama and Bush doing.

Screenshot_20200104-082706_Chrome.jpg

By the way, this tweet just went against your claim that US-Iran relations was better under Obama.

And, this tweet has zero relevance to today because - Trump did not attack Iran due to failed negotiations - Iran attacked the US instead of negotiating.

What is relevant to today is Obama's speech during a Counterterrorism symposium in 2013 where he defended his use of drone strikes that caused civilian casualties by stating that the US should not fail to respond to terrorist attacks against American citizens even against the weight of civilian casualties to prevent even bigger civilian casualties.  I had the impression that Trump will drastically reduce drone strikes as part of his reluctance to war.  It hasn't happened yet.  But then, the wars have been waged before he stepped into office and he has spent all of his Presidency deligitimized by Congress which makes de-escalation doubly difficult when your enemies are just waiting for you to get removed from office by your own government.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And you seem to be uninformed with Iran's involvement in Syria.  

Not at all.  I know Iran is heavily involved in Syria.  What I mean is that Iran didn't start the war in Syria.  We did more to start the Syrian War than Iran did, regardless if they are involved now.

Iran backs Assad and Assad is against ISIS.  Assad hasn't done anything to the US.  Assad is a brutal dictator  but a secular one, which is better than ISIS.

If Iran wants to fight ISIS in Syria, I'd say let them.  Russia too.  Better them than us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

But then, the wars have been waged before he stepped into office 

With the exception of Libya, the same thing could be said about Obama.

What's the difference between his drone strikes and Trump's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I never stated US-Iran relations is better under Trump.  It's too early to determine that.  I vehemently disagree with your claim that US-Iran relations is better under Obama.

More than drone strikes, my main criticism against Trump's handling of Iran is the complete blow up of the JCPOA.  

Things have indeed escalated since the US left the JCPOA.  If Trump could have negotiated a better deal than the JCPOA; fine than do that.  But to just blow it up and say that there will be no negotiations was foolish.  Most people it seems that were against it didnt really even know what it contained.  It seems that Trump and the Republicans wanted to do away with it just because Obama helped negotiate it (just like the Democrats try to undermine everything Trump does). If the Republicans could do better, then do so.  The way Trump handled the leaving the JCPOA was not productive and escalated things.

Exept for Netanyahu, all of our allies and leaders (as well as many others) universally praised the JCPOA.  If it wasn't the best deal, then it should of been renegotiated and not handled in the way it was.

PS, it isn't just US Iranian relations that have gotten worse under Trump, but the relationship with most of our allies as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

We’ll see where this goes.

Yea, I guess so.  I'm in an Islamic country right now and have been anxiously trying to get some news.  Right now all the news stations/articles are in Arabic except for periodic updates from Al Jazeera.  I don't have enough bandwidth to read online news.  I can barely read and post here, at least sometimes.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I don't have much time to respond.  I just want to address this.

Look up RSII coalition (4+1 with the +1 being Hezbollahs of Lebanon - as opposed to the government of Lebanon) that was formed against ISIL.  Soleimani drove that bus.  China has no involvement with it.  Chinese military are not allied unless it directly benefits China.

Russia and Iran have been allied since the Savafids of the Persian Empire due to their common geographic interests.

 

China and Iran alliance goes back to the Silk Road.  But, China has a very different tradition - they don't do anything that is not directly to their benefit.  Iran buys military arsenal from China as China is considered in opposition to the West.  China happily provides it for them through North Korea.

I have some experience in doing business with the Chinese.   If you are a fan of Star Trek - the Chinese are the Ferengi.   I have some experience with Muslims - enough to know that in the Muslim world that Iran is on the outside but want very much to be the dominate player.  There is a lot of tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia - because Mecca is in Saudi Arabia and the Saudi's control the Hajj.  Also Saudi is Sunni and Iran is Shia.

Your references are interesting but the coalitions are based on common enemies and are not economic or of friends.  Though the coalition was formed against ISIL they have has as much invested in attacking all Sunni in the region.  It would seem to me that the biggest problem that Iran has with the USA is our coalition with Saudi Arabia.  It seems to me that China intends to do business as long as there is money to be made.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not sure “good relations” is the be-all, end-all here.  Britain and Germany enjoyed excellent relations after the Munich Pact was finalized—but eventually the roof fell in, because the simple facts were that Hitler was a bad guy and the Nazis were a bunch of bloodthirsty degenerates.

I don’t know if that’s true of the Iranians.  I do know that we’ve been hearing about these fantastical “moderate Iranians” for twenty years now; but nothing’s really changed—Iran is officially still dreaming of killing Americans pushing all the the Jews into the sea.  And whatever our other differences are—IF the Trump administration and the Pentagon are telling us the truth (yes, big “IF” there), then Iran just orchestrated an attack against an American embassy on Iraqi soil.  I’m sorry, but regardless of what your disputes have been—embassy attacks are by their nature an an act of war.  

I don’t know if retaliation is the smart thing to do; but from a morality standpoint, it seems quite justifiable.  Iran’s attacks so far may have been too incompetent to rack up a body count—but they are certainly playing for keeps, and for whatever reason (maybe related to the pallets of cash the previous administration sent them?) they don’t (or didn’t) think that we are.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2020 at 3:02 PM, Traveler said:

I have some experience in doing business with the Chinese.   If you are a fan of Star Trek - the Chinese are the Ferengi.   I have some experience with Muslims - enough to know that in the Muslim world that Iran is on the outside but want very much to be the dominate player.  There is a lot of tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia - because Mecca is in Saudi Arabia and the Saudi's control the Hajj.  Also Saudi is Sunni and Iran is Shia.

Your references are interesting but the coalitions are based on common enemies and are not economic or of friends.  Though the coalition was formed against ISIL they have has as much invested in attacking all Sunni in the region.  It would seem to me that the biggest problem that Iran has with the USA is our coalition with Saudi Arabia.  It seems to me that China intends to do business as long as there is money to be made.

 

The Traveler

Ever since the Ayatollahs took over Iran, everything they do is about religious zealotry - not economic nor friendships.  And this is the reason they're resistant to being a "normal world citizen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2020 at 6:34 AM, Scott said:

Not at all.  I know Iran is heavily involved in Syria.  What I mean is that Iran didn't start the war in Syria.  We did more to start the Syrian War than Iran did, regardless if they are involved now.

Iran backs Assad and Assad is against ISIS.  Assad hasn't done anything to the US.  Assad is a brutal dictator  but a secular one, which is better than ISIS.

Iran and Syria go waaaay before the Syrian civil war and waaay before ISIS, all the way to the rise of the Supreme Leader in Iran in 1979.  Secular Syria is a strategic ally to Iran in their quest to strengthen the Hezbollahs in Lebanon and elsewhere in the area which is why Iran props up the Assads.  

 

Quote

If Iran wants to fight ISIS in Syria, I'd say let them.  Russia too.  Better them than us.

Too late for that, my man.  The USA has been playing kingmaker in that region for over half a century.  You can't just quit the dope like a drug addict especially with a President that just got impeached by his Congress.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2020 at 7:10 AM, Scott said:

More than drone strikes, my main criticism against Trump's handling of Iran is the complete blow up of the JCPOA.  

Things have indeed escalated since the US left the JCPOA.  If Trump could have negotiated a better deal than the JCPOA; fine than do that.  But to just blow it up and say that there will be no negotiations was foolish.  Most people it seems that were against it didnt really even know what it contained.  It seems that Trump and the Republicans wanted to do away with it just because Obama helped negotiate it (just like the Democrats try to undermine everything Trump does). If the Republicans could do better, then do so.  The way Trump handled the leaving the JCPOA was not productive and escalated things.

JCPOA was stupid.  JCPOA is a corporatist money grab - like Boeing wanting to sell planes to Iran to get a slice of their $150B - and had nothing to do with getting Iran to be a responsible world citizen (same situation with Cuba).  It has not stopped Iran's involvement and design of acts of terrorism in the region - it has worsened.  It has not stopped Iran's development of military arsenal including nuclear weapons - it has worsened.  Like I said - saying it is better under Obama is like a wife saying it is better because she was able to give the beer to her husband fast enough so she didn't get whipped.

Trump pulled out of JCPOA specifically because of this.  There was NOTHING the USA was getting out of it besides corporations making money while Iran had no problem ignoring their agreements in the deal.  Trump pulling out of the JCPOA brought the negotiation cards back in the hands of the USA to be dealt in the multitude of fights against Iran especially the one in Syria and Yemen as well as the trade war with the EU and China.

 

On 1/4/2020 at 7:10 AM, Scott said:

Exept for Netanyahu, all of our allies and leaders (as well as many others) universally praised the JCPOA.  If it wasn't the best deal, then it should of been renegotiated and not handled in the way it was. 

Of course they praised the JCPOA.  They were getting a slice of Iran's unfrozen assets.

 

On 1/4/2020 at 7:10 AM, Scott said:

PS, it isn't just US Iranian relations that have gotten worse under Trump, but the relationship with most of our allies as well.

If you haven't noticed, the globalist cucks all over Europe are getting toppled left and right.  These globalists are what you are referring to as "having gotten worse under Trump".  Their relationships with their own citizens have been getting worse.  Globalism is dying.  Nationalism is rising.  This is the new paradigm - UK, Italy, France, etc. etc. are waking up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Ever since the Ayatollahs took over Iran, everything they do is about religious zealotry - not economic nor friendships.  And this is the reason they're resistant to being a "normal world citizen".

Exactly - which is why I do not understand their making of deals with infidels.  I can understanding their distrust of western civilization - even the understanding that western culture is in bed with Satanic worship through compound interest - But I do not understand covenants with infidels and how they rectify such with their own.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Exactly - which is why I do not understand their making of deals with infidels.  I can understanding their distrust of western civilization - even the understanding that western culture is in bed with Satanic worship through compound interest - But I do not understand covenants with infidels and how they rectify such with their own.

 

The Traveler

Because the reason for the coalition is to fight their religious enemies.  The Ayatollahs is not going to stop fighting Sunni just because they have to get their armaments from China/Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Too late for that, my man.  The USA has been playing kingmaker in that region for over half a century.  You can't just quit the dope like a drug addict especially with a President that just got impeached by his Congress.

So why did you have a problem with it when Obama did it and not Trump?

Also, I disagree that we can't start to pull out.  It's time.  Enough is enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

JCPOA was stupid. 

I disagree.  It is better than what we have now.  Most people against JCPOA didn't even read it.  I assume that you have, but there were lots of good things in there.

As far as Iran's nuclear arsenal goes, it worsened after the pull out of JCPOA.  Other than war,  Iran has no incentive to slow its nuclear program.

Quote

Trump pulling out of the JCPOA brought the negotiation cards back in the hands of the USA

What negotiations?   There haven't been any negotiations since the pull out.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

So why did you have a problem with it when Obama did it and not Trump?

Also, I disagree that we can't start to pull out.  It's time.  Enough is enough.

Uhm... I don't remember ever stating I have a problem with troops pulling out of Iraq except for the fact that Obama took pride in his Arab Spring with his support of the Muslim Brotherhood especially in the rise of Morsi, then deposed Gaddafi, and then tried to depose Assad... it makes his pulling forces out of Iraq suspect as to his real intent.  It seems like Obama deliberately tried to wipe the region clean of opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood.  But that's just my musings on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

If you haven't noticed, the globalist cucks all over Europe are getting toppled left and right.  These globalists are what you are referring to as "having gotten worse under Trump". 

It's not only with leaders, but with the general population.  Almost none of the general polulation likes Trump.  I haven't met even one yet and that includes travels to the UK, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Saba, Sint Maarten, Saint Marten, St Eustatius, and Morocco, all of which I have visited since last year.  I'll be in Spain the day after tomorrow.  

It isn't just among world leaders.  In all these countries, I haven't met even one person who has said something positive about Trump.  Not even one.  Rest assured though, I have heard plenty of negative.  Of course the disapproval is towards are president and not all Americans.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Scott said:

I disagree.  It is better than what we have now.  Most people against JCPOA didn't even read it.  I assume that you have, but there were lots of good things in there.

Having JCPOA that is not honored by Iran is not "Better" than no JCPOA regardless of how charming Rouhani seems like.  Rouhani has ZERO power.

 

8 minutes ago, Scott said:

As far as Iran's nuclear arsenal goes, it worsened after the pull out of JCPOA.  Other than war,  Iran has no incentive to slow its nuclear program.

It never stopped, so it couldn't have "worsened".

 

8 minutes ago, Scott said:

What negotiations?   There haven't been any negotiations since the pull out.

Because Iran refused to sit on the table.  The negotiations consisted of - "you do this, we'll do that" promises that Iran continues to ignore like it always has since the 70's.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It seems like Obama deliberately tried to wipe the region clean of opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood.  But that's just my musings on the matter.

I doubt Obama did this to benefit the Muslim Brotherhood.  Why would he do that?

As a side note, the Arab Spring was positive for some places, such as Tunisia, but few want to remember that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share