tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post2177426033981500974..comments2024-03-28T14:14:11.551-06:00Comments on Unabashedly American: The Destructiveness of Identity PoliticsDarrell Michaelshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comBlogger104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-53355807148464267842018-01-22T14:10:59.392-07:002018-01-22T14:10:59.392-07:00"Oh, and by the way I don't think their m..."Oh, and by the way I don't think their messiah is any approximation of Christ, so he really isn't my messiah, sir."<br /><br />First off, I truly apologize T.Paine. I was imprecise in my wording. I in no way meant to say your messiah was their messiah. That'd be incredibly insulting and insensitive of me. I inelegantly tried to point out that the Islamic belief of the return of the 12th Imam would usher in the return of Jesus. I'm not going to get into a theological argument or discussion. The last time I came across this 12th Imam thing, I read up about it and learned they also believe Jesus (I forget his Arabic name) would be coming to join the party. <br /><br />"Fine, lets do so. Let's start with demanding the access to military sites for inspections just like the IAEA claims they have. When Iran reneges, then what do you propose we do, sir?"<br /><br />I think we have? If the IAEA doesn't act on that, that doesn't, therefore, mean Iran is hiding anything. It means the IAEA doesn't have compelling reason to do so. The agreement was for the IAEA to be the impartial judge of whether Iran adheres to the agreement. It is within everyone's best interest that Iran stick to the agreement. Let's just have faith in the process and not spend time entertaining conspiracy theories or End of Days scenerios.<br /><br />"When Ahmadinejad was still president of Iran, he constantly spoke of wiping Israel off the face of the globe. When evil people tell you their intentions, one is foolish if they don't take them at their word, my friend."<br /><br />Ahmadinejad is no longer President. Israel remains stronger than ever. Words are words. Ahmadinejad, like every politician in the entirety of history, said things that played to his base. I'm not dismissing what Iranian officials say/said, I'm just saying we can't take everything literally. How awful would it have been if Iran took John McCain literally when he sang Bomb, Bomb Iran and launched a first strike in the name of self defense?TB3https://www.blogger.com/profile/18261016141806763895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-55279562771096956222018-01-22T14:08:23.594-07:002018-01-22T14:08:23.594-07:00Mr. Paine is correct about Iran helping their fell...Mr. Paine is correct about Iran helping their fellow Shias in Iraq. They were the ones welcomed by most Iraqis. We anti-war protesters knew this allegiance with Iran would happen. Bush shares the blame for those American deaths, as well as the deaths of thousands of other Americans and Iraqis. Sorry, but the guy who started the war doesn’t get off the hook for consequences like ISIS and Iranian involvement.<br /><br />As I noted, Sunni jihadists like ISIS and al-Qaeda, not Iranian backed terrorists, commit most acts of terrorism.<br /><br />There was no outrage from conservatives when Reagan supported Saddam’s war on Iran, and the gassing of thousands of Iranians. This major detail is omitted from Mr. Paine’s assessment of US wrongdoings against Iran. Also missing from his analysis is Iran’s diplomatic and economic engagement with the rest of the world would reduces the possibility or war. But then again, many on the Right want just such a war.<br /><br />“When evil people tell you their intention”. See Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. and PNAC.<br /><br />The Obama Administration’s softened actions against Hezbollah’s drug trafficking was just as politically motivated and wrong-headed as Reagan’s people supporting the Contra/cocaine/arms debacle. <br /><br />Anyone serious about ending drug smuggling and the cartels’ power knows that decriminalizing possession, and treating drug addiction as a medical rather than criminal problem, would accomplish more than any other measure. American Puritanism is its own worst enemy, and best ally for Hezbollah and other cartels. It rewards the worst actors, and costs money and lives, to wage their damn war on drugs. <br /><br /><i>“When Ahmadinejad was still president of Iran, he constantly spoke of wiping Israel off the face of the globe.”</i><br /><br />Well, he spoke, and he didn’t do it. And now he’s gone. <br /><br />And as I noted concerning “When evil people tell you their intentions”, American “Axis of Evil” rhetoric was even MORE belligerent than Ahmadinejad’s bluster. The neo-cons openly advised war with Iran and actually invaded Iraq. Even the Mullahs know attacking Israel would end their cozy dictatorship. There are already protests against them. Attacking Iran would only solidify their power. <br /><br />But guess which country likes to shoot first and ask questions later. <br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-61655504413866992062018-01-22T13:28:42.290-07:002018-01-22T13:28:42.290-07:00"I also do not care that they truly believe t..."I also do not care that they truly believe that their Messiah is coming back to unite the world under Islam. How is this markedly different than your belief in what's going to happen in Revelation?" ~ TB3<br /><br />The difference is that the Iranian mullahs believe that they must cause the end times to come into being by destroying Israel. They must murder and destroy for their messiah to come. The fact that they are surreptitiously doing so, in my estimation, right now by continuing to develop their nuclear weapons program will give them both motive and means. Mainstream Christianity is not looking to destroy others in order for Christ to come again. Oh, and by the way I don't think their messiah is any approximation of Christ, so he really isn't my messiah, sir.<br /><br />"We can actually stick to an agreement for more than two years, give them a chance to fulfill it, and then we can stop the pointless antagonism." ~ TB3<br /><br />Fine, lets do so. Let's start with demanding the access to military sites for inspections just like the IAEA claims they have. When Iran reneges, then what do you propose we do, sir?<br /><br />Finally, I acknowledge that it is probably harsh to call our allies "supposed friends", and I further understand that they have to put their national interests first; however, when people cynically do something for economic gain instead of holding a terroristic regime accountable, that is not acting in friendship to us or the nations that will eventually be impacted by this choice of greed. Now don't misunderstand me; I have nothing against capitalism and buying and selling a nation's goods and services, but not with such a regime with sinister designs. When Ahmadinejad was still president of Iran, he constantly spoke of wiping Israel off the face of the globe. When evil people tell you their intentions, one is foolish if they don't take them at their word, my friend. Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-6003077958703874122018-01-22T11:43:19.448-07:002018-01-22T11:43:19.448-07:00James, we have indeed been at war in some form wit...James, we have indeed been at war in some form with Iran for many decades now. We absolutely have messed around in their affairs. The USS Vincennes shooting down their airliner was a horrible mistake, despite the fact that the airliner refused to acknowledge attempts at communication from the ship. The United States did take some measure of responsibility for that though and even paid $60 million to the families of the passengers. <br /><br />All off that said, the Iranians have hardly been innocent, especially in recent decades. They have trained, supplied and even directly assisted Shia terrorists with their Republican Guard Qods force that have killed U.S. military members in the region. They have funded, supplied, and trained terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, particularly around Israel with Hezbollah and Hamas. They have propped up the dictator Bashar Assad in Syria. And now, even though the "objective" liberal media have been nearly silent on this story since Politico broke it a few weeks ago, they are running drugs through our southern border to fund their nefarious activities.<br /><br />As for North and South Korea manning a unified team at the Olympics, I am greatly heartened by this and hope it is a start at some sort of mutual understanding, if not reconciliation. At least it is a step back from the nuclear brink.Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-78127766709991106422018-01-22T11:11:22.839-07:002018-01-22T11:11:22.839-07:00Dave,
I don't want to believe that it's a...Dave,<br /><br />I don't want to believe that it's a mentality. What I like to believe is that certain people just don't put enough thought into things. I am not saying this negatively or as an attack. It's difficult to get a broad view of a subject because often times you just don't know what you don't know. When things get repeated ad nauseum from trusted sources of information, a person's blinders naturally narrow. You think you see everything, because that's everything that's being spoken about. I do recognize, though, that discussions of nuance or shades of grey are hard and don't fit on hats or bumper stickers. You have to appeal to reason and common sense to break through the easy reality of bumper sticker politics.<br /><br />In the above exchange, I fail to see the rationale and common sense in denying a group of people safe and sustainable energy because they have access to oil and that they may make bombs to bring about the onset of the end times.TB3https://www.blogger.com/profile/18261016141806763895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-92160536388378359742018-01-22T10:19:48.247-07:002018-01-22T10:19:48.247-07:00TB3,
"With us or against us nonsense" re...TB3,<br />"With us or against us nonsense" reflects the Right's black and white world mentality. It's all they understand. Nuance and ambiguity are uncomfortable concepts for them, just as compromise is always bad. They are very much like whiny children. Look at Trump and his Party. They will shut down the government rather than give a break to those who came here as children. This isn't conservatism anymore. It is white nationalism.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-49420647458560681742018-01-22T10:02:19.545-07:002018-01-22T10:02:19.545-07:00"Sir, I truly mean this with all respect, but..."Sir, I truly mean this with all respect, but you are thinking with a western mindset here and not like that of a ruling Shiia' mullah with absolute power governing the nation of Iran. They truly believe in their faith that tells them of the coming of their 12th imam once again - their Mahdi or messiah - to unite all of the world under the banner of Islam and the rule by Sharia law."<br /><br />I believe I think the way I think because I am not a ruling Shia Mullah. Neither are you. Neither is a Lt. Colonel who spent most of his career in Iraq, not Iran. I am presented with information and I form an opinion. I also do not care that they truly believe that their Messiah is coming back to unite the world under Islam. How is this markedly different than your belief in what's going to happen in Revelation? Same Abrahamic God, afterall. But this is all distraction and excuse anyways. They can't have nuclear power because you're scared they will try to bring about their Messiah's (And yours at the same time by the way) return despite the return of said Messiah has nothing to do with nuclear power.<br /><br />Re: Your second paragraph of your last reply:<br /><br />Then what's the point? The deal's not going to collapse. Just like with the Paris Accords, we'd just segrate ourselves from the rest of the international community. We take our ball and go home. Which isn't really a problem for them when they all brought their own balls to the game anyway. We put our own sanctions back on Iran, for what purpose? For an approving nod from Israel? We're going to tell China they can't do business with us? Europe? What would compel our International Peers to return to sanctions? <br /><br />OR<br /><br />We can actually stick to an agreement for more than two years, give them a chance to fulfill it, and then we can stop the pointless antagonism. If what we were doing before worked, we would never be at the point where we're "worried" about Iran getting nuclear weapons. <br /><br />On a side note: I take issue with you saying 'our supposed friends' in relation to the other countries involved in this agreement. They all have their own domestic issues and their own people to consider when making this agreement. Because we can't make a convincing argument for them to go along with us, doesn't make them any less amicable towards us. That's the same divisive rationale we made in the lead up to the Iraq War. We couldn't convince the UN to let us invade Iraq so suddenly their awful and corrupt and we should stop funding them. With us or against us nonsense.TB3https://www.blogger.com/profile/18261016141806763895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-30120265537668102662018-01-20T09:28:03.507-07:002018-01-20T09:28:03.507-07:00Now society has a big divide among identity politi...Now society has a big divide among identity politics like it says in the picture, there are a lot of times that we are now divided by groups.Bojinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14999799752181429282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-49489603858337187052018-01-19T14:53:05.735-07:002018-01-19T14:53:05.735-07:00Dave, I am really liking your new debating style, ...Dave, I am really liking your new debating style, less anger with a cool factual delivery. <br /><br />We have been at war with Iran since 1953 and for most of those years they have been innocent victims. Between the Sha and the Iraq war more than a million of them. I believe the plane the Navy shot down had 230 people on it to add to the total.<br /><br />I would like to see the U.S. take away the 7 billion yearly we give to Egypt and Israel and give it to Iran to make up for all the misery we caused them. That would change the whole Middle East faster than sanctions any day! The U.S. is a one trick pony, threats, sanctions and wholesale killing is all we do.<br /><br />North and South Korea sat down without the U.S. present and will compete under one flag at the Olympics and are actually talking about Reunification. If that happens we would have to pull 30,000 troops out of Korea and that would piss off the MIC for sure. <br /><br /> woodenmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03161511512931615910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-34247797469887504242018-01-19T13:06:23.891-07:002018-01-19T13:06:23.891-07:00Wait a minute. Obama the Marxist was for a deal th...Wait a minute. Obama the Marxist was for a deal that greedy capitalists love?<br /><br />Now I'm confused again.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-61773601291542146312018-01-19T13:03:39.576-07:002018-01-19T13:03:39.576-07:00I understand Mr. Paine’s dedication and devotion t...I understand Mr. Paine’s dedication and devotion to Israel. His emotional bond with the Israeli far Right may cloud this rational perspective:<br /><br />James Fallows points out this reality based assessment in the Atlantic:<br /><br /><i>“But the strategic logic of the concern is more puzzling. No one doubts (although no officials can publicly say) that Israel has a large nuclear-retaliatory force, including on submarines. Thus any leader in Iran knows that an attack on Israel would with 100-percent certainty mean devastation for Iran as well . So to think that Iran might actually try to “wipe Israel off the map” requires assuming either that its leadership is literally suicidal, or that, like the Nazis in Germany, Iranian leaders are so bent on destruction that nothing other than brute force can hold them back.<br /><br />The problem with the suicidal martyr-state assumption is that never in its 36-plus years in office has the Iranian leadership taken a move that rashly jeopardized its own well-being or hold on power. Iran’s leadership has been theocratic but not psychopathic. A serious problem for the United States, Israel, and others: yes. A Reich-like monster-state: no. Under its Islamic leaders, Iran has been at war once—a war that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq started when it invaded Iran in 1980. So the “existential” argument would be stronger were there any evidence of Iran’s leaders ever taking suicidal risks.”</i><br /><br />https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/israel-opposition-iran-deal/401129/<br /><br /><br />The distinction is “theocratic but not psychopathic”. There is no evidence Iran’s leaders are suicidal. On the other hand, the US instilled a brutal dictator in Iran, carelessly shot down an Iranian airliner, and aided Saddam in his chemical weapons warfare and killing of uncounted thousands of Iranians. <br /><br />THAT is what psychopathic looks like. Of course this is just my humble opinion. I’m old-fashioned in thinking the number of dead human beings count, for some reason.<br /><br />While some capitalists may have “a vested financial motivation to ensure this deal remains in place”, the inspectors, the UN, the signatories, and the world have a greater vested interest in preventing Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Why is this point ignored? <br /><br />I don’t expect Mr. Paine to acknowledge such facts, but they must be asserted nonetheless. I also don’t expect an explanation of why ending the agreement with Iran would do more to limit their nuclear programs, nor do I expect an explanation of why another war would be better for reducing terrorism and stabilizing the Middle East. Bush’s war in Iraq spawned ISIS. Just imagine what fresh hell Trump’s war with Iran would spawn. Iraq is Iran’s friend now, so we’d get a twofer. Iraq War 3 and Iran War 1 are bound to make America safe AND great, amirite?<br /><br />It seems to boil down to “Obama was for it, therefore it is bad”. For Obama is an “arrogant buffoon”. Mattis is also for the agreement, but this fact will continue to be dismissed as well. How is Mattis wrong? Never mind. <br /><br />Obama haters, Trump, Bibi, some colonel, and Mr. Paine believe they know better. Thus their hate, fears and opinions must guide our international agreements. <br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-48515222863454750832018-01-19T11:23:30.166-07:002018-01-19T11:23:30.166-07:00"Yes. With Satan and the UK, Germany, France,..."Yes. With Satan and the UK, Germany, France, Russia, and China. I still do not see why they wouldn't want normalized relations." ~ TB3<br /><br />Sir, I truly mean this with all respect, but you are thinking with a western mindset here and not like that of a ruling Shiia' mullah with absolute power governing the nation of Iran. They truly believe in their faith that tells them of the coming of their 12th imam once again - their Mahdi or messiah - to unite all of the world under the banner of Islam and the rule by Sharia law. To usher in the coming of their Mahdi, they must destroy Israel. These are the same people that are willing to send people to "martyr" themselves as homicide bombers. Their interest in the JCPOA is not about being a member of the world's peaceful nations. It is a means to an end. It is about having those crippling sanctions removed so that they can continue to overtly and covertly build the necessary tools to destroy the Jewish nation and usher in the end of time with the Muslim messiah. And it doesn't matter if you or I don't believe this to be true. The fact is that they do, sir. "Normalized relations" to the Iranian mullahs running the theocratic state of Iran is only a means to an end to further the conquest of Shiia' Islam via the return of their 12th imam and the subjugation or destruction of all those that will not convert accordingly.<br /><br />"Why is this an 'of course', TP? For what reason would they have 'great interest' in maintaining the status quo? There is no fact regarding Iran's complaince except the fact that they are in compliance. We can't prove they aren't. The IAEA, the group tasked with determining compliance, says they are at 1/3 the maximum allowed stockpile level. They're not even flirting with the limit they agreed to." ~ TB3<br /><br />They aren't "flirting with the limit they agreed to" as far as the inspectors know, because they haven't accessed all military sites. The U.N. wants to maintain the agreement for multiple reasons. Altruistically, some members may even believe this is a credible way to maintain peace and prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power for the time being. Cynically and frankly, more realistically, it is about money and greed. Iran wants to buy European, Russian, and Chinese goods and services, which they could not do under the previous sanctions. If the deal were to collapse, and the U.S. restore its own sanctions on Iran, it is possible the our supposed friends might be compelled to either trade with the United States or with Iran. As such, the U.N. security council (Other than America of course) has a vested financial motivation to ensure this deal remains in place and that sanctions are not restored on Iran. Many experts, and I agree with them, think this means that inspectors will not push for inspections of military locations and may turn blind eyes to "minor infractions" of the deal in order to keep Iran "in compliance" and thus not allow the United States to renege on the agreement.Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-48390101884159153612018-01-19T11:23:19.923-07:002018-01-19T11:23:19.923-07:00TB3, don't make the mistake of equating the li...TB3, don't make the mistake of equating the lies and exaggerated promises that an American politician says to get elected with what the Iranian mullahs say. Their's is the very definition of a theocracy, and they rule their nation accordingly. I provide this link and excerpt from noted Middle East expert, CNN military analyst, and retired intelligence officer Lt Col Rick Francona.<br /><br />http://francona.blogspot.com/2018/01/is-there-fix-to-flawed-iran-nuclear-deal.html<br /><br />"According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the accord calls for inspections of any suspect facility, but the United Nations' watchdog organization has not asked for access. Their reason? Iran will say no and possibly give the United States a reason to withdraw...<br /><br />Of the three issues - inspections, sunset clauses, and ballistic missiles - I think the only one that has a chance of success is expanded inspections, the 'anytime, anywhere' mantra promised by President Barack Obama and Secretary Kerry (that was the first thing Kerry capitulated on). Without the ability to inspect all of Iran's suspect facilities, it is impossible for the IAEA to accurately certify that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA. Put me in the category of those who believe that Iran maintains a nuclear weapons research and development program. As long as their military facilities remain off limits, we cannot rely on the JCPOA." ~ Col. Francona<br /><br />Next, you are probably correct about my adjectives regarding the U.N. not helping my argument. They are simply redundant, and any reasonable person already realizes the truth of the corruption and incompetence of this platform for third world dictators and anti-Israel regimes.<br /> <br />"Per the agreement, yes, the U.N will push to inspect facilities when they have determined there is a need to." ~ TB3<br /><br />See Colonel Francona's estimation and my concurring opinion on this matter above.<br /><br />Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-32063801192550334022018-01-19T08:24:24.578-07:002018-01-19T08:24:24.578-07:00"That said, it doesn't change the fact th..."That said, it doesn't change the fact that Iran has stated that inspectors will NOT be able to access military locations for inspections."<br /><br />And the United States has stated it is going to build a wall along our Southern Border and make our neighbor to the south pay for it. Saying something doesn't make it so. Iran says they Military bases off off-limits, but the IAEA hasn't reported being denied access and claims that they have access to all sites.<br /><br />"the corrupt and impotent U.N. will not push to inspect at those facilities short of having actionable "intelligence"."<br /><br />1) You should probably dispense with the adjectives and just call it the U.N., the adjectives do not help your argument.<br /><br />2) Per the agreement, yes, the U.N will push to inspect facilities when they have determined there is a need to.<br /><br />"Do you think they feel obliged to honor a deal with Satan, as they see it?"<br /><br />Yes. With Satan and the UK, Germany, France, Russia, and China. I still do not see why they wouldn't want normalized relations.<br /><br />"I respectfully disagree. By insisting on nuclear "power" instead of oil for their nation's energy, they invited crippling sanctions from the world and decimated their economy, while becoming an international pariah on the world stage."<br /><br />Right. And this deal was to remove the quotes around the word "power" and "energy" and to no longer be a pariah. Other countries use Nuclear for energy and power, despite having other means of energy production. *cough* America *cough*<br /><br />"As for the IAEA, of course they are going to fudge the lines and not declare Iran out of compliance with this asinine agreement unless the violation is so devastatingly blatant. They too have great interest in maintaining the status quo. It does nothing to negate the fact that Iran is already out of compliance with their ballistic missile program as per the agreement, sir."<br /><br />Why is this an "of course", TP? For what reason would they have "great interest" in maintaining the status quo? There is no fact regarding Iran's complaince except the fact that they are in compliance. We can't prove they aren't. The IAEA, the group tasked with determining compliance, says they are at 1/3 the maximum allowed stockpile level. They're not even flirting with the limit they agreed to. Dig your heels in, TP. That and your own truth are the only things supplying support to your argument.TB3https://www.blogger.com/profile/18261016141806763895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-73870577714833935562018-01-19T00:10:33.012-07:002018-01-19T00:10:33.012-07:00As for the IAEA, of course they are going to fudge...<i> As for the IAEA, of course they are going to fudge the lines and not declare Iran out of compliance ...the fact that Iran is already out of compliance with their ballistic missile program as per the agreement, sir.</i><br /><br />As an expert on the IAEA, and one certain that Saddam was in cahoots with al_Qaeda and had NUKULAR aluminum tubes, and as an expert on the agreement and terms of the Iran agreement, please, cite your source for this information.<br /><br />Once again opinion is stated as fact.<br /><br /><br />Some boring facts:<br /><br /><br />FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity<br />SUBJECT: Is Iran the “World’s Leading Sponsor of Terrorism?”<br /><br /><i>We are concerned by recent strident and stark public statements from key members of your Administration that paint Iran in very alarmist terms. The average American, without the benefit of history, could easily be persuaded that Iran poses an imminent threat and that there is no alternative for us but military conflict.<br /><br />...One of the recurring big bipartisan lies being pushed on the public with the enthusiastic help of a largely pliant media is that Iran is the prime sponsor of terrorism in the world today.<br />In the recent presentation of your administration’s National Security Strategy for 2018, the point is made that:<br /><br />“Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, has taken advantage of instability to expand its influence through partners and proxies, weapon proliferation, and funding. . . . Iran continues to perpetuate the cycle of violence in the region, causing grievous harm to civilian populations.”<br /><br /><br />...Thirteen of the 14 Muslim Groups identified by the U.S. intelligence community as actively hostile to the US are Sunni, not Shia, and are not supported by Iran:<br /><br />– ISIS (Sunni)<br />– The Al-Nusra Front (Sunni)<br />– Al-Qa’ida Central (Sunni)<br />– Al-Qa’ida in Magheb (Sunni)<br />– Al-Qa’ida in Arabian Peninsula (Sunni)<br />– Boku Haram (Sunni)<br />– Al-Shabbab (Sunni)<br />– Khorassan Group (Sunni)<br />– Society of the Muslim Brothers (Sunni)<br />– Sayyaf Group in the Philippines (Sunni)<br />– Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan (Sunni)<br />– Lashgar i Taiba (Sunni)<br />– Jemaa Islamiya (Sunni)<br />– Houthis (Shia)<br /><br />The last major terrorist attack causing casualties that is linked to Iran was the July 2012 bombing of a bus with Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. That departure from Iran’s more recent policy on terrorism was retaliation for what Iran perceived to be Israel’s role in assassinating five Iranian scientists involved with Iran’s Nuclear program, between January 2010 and January 2012 (the dates and names of those attacked are appended).<br /><br />One can easily imagine the outrage and lust for revenge that would sweep the U.S., if Americans believed a foreign country sent operatives into the United States who in turn murdered engineers and scientists working on sensitive U.S. defense projects. </i><br /><br />Why would you suppose General Mattis supports the deal?<br /><br />Perhaps his sources aren't as accurate as your unmentioned secret source.<br /><br />"The sky is green because liberals say it's blue". I suppose this is the extent of the reasoning.<br /><br />This get tiring. <br /><br />Beliefs trump fact. Dogma trumps reason. Con-servatism trumps reality. "Honest Don" Trump is making America great.<br /><br />We get it already.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-14303096819084245242018-01-15T10:52:20.150-07:002018-01-15T10:52:20.150-07:00TB3, I quoted that section back to you so that you...TB3, I quoted that section back to you so that you would know that I read and understood it. That said, it doesn't change the fact that Iran has stated that inspectors will NOT be able to access military locations for inspections. Further, as I told James, the corrupt and impotent U.N. will not push to inspect at those facilities short of having actionable "intelligence". This means, as Iran well knows, that covert R&D can continue unabated behind military fences. Surely you don't believe the mullahs are trustworthy when they still call us the "Great Satan". Do you think they feel obliged to honor a deal with Satan, as they see it?<br /><br />As for your assessment of Iran not wanting to use its oil instead of selling it, I respectfully disagree. By insisting on nuclear "power" instead of oil for their nation's energy, they invited crippling sanctions from the world and decimated their economy, while becoming an international pariah on the world stage. Surely that is far too high of a price to pay for developing nuclear "energy" when they already have an abundant source available. Indeed, by insisting on moving forward with their nuclear "energy" program, they have greatly harmed their economy far more than they would have by simply using some of their own oil for energy generation. <br /><br />As for the IAEA, of course they are going to fudge the lines and not declare Iran out of compliance with this asinine agreement unless the violation is so devastatingly blatant. They too have great interest in maintaining the status quo. It does nothing to negate the fact that Iran is already out of compliance with their ballistic missile program as per the agreement, sir.Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-21305852298178008012018-01-15T10:31:38.206-07:002018-01-15T10:31:38.206-07:00Woodenman, I absolutely agree that America's r...Woodenman, I absolutely agree that America's record with regime change typically creates at least as many problems as we solve in recent decades. That said, with Iran being the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, I don't see much downside to reapplying sanctions, supporting morally and perhaps with limited means covertly the uprising against the regime, and then just letting the Iranian people themselves decide how to govern themselves. I have seen from multiple accounts how the Iranian people are encouraged by Trump's public support and desiring more than just his supportive words.. I don't think we should become involved militarily at all, unless we or our vital national interests are attacked by the mullahs in power. <br /><br />I think we could learn to live with the fact that North Korea is a nuclear power IF they weren't lobbing missiles over the sea of Japan and belligerently threatening South Korea, Japan, and even our territory of Guam. If they would leave themselves to their own devices, the world would sadly let them abuse and persecute their own citizens. When they do otherwise, then it becomes a national security issue. <br /><br />And yes, I realize that Trump's juvenile rhetoric has only escalated the problem, but the fact remains, these are issues we have dealt with over several past administrations. It has gotten and only will get worse, unless we find a viable solution short of nuclear war.<br /><br />As for Iran, they have already violated the agreement with their ballistic missile testing and R&D, thus nullifying the agreement. Further, it is incredibly likely that prohibited nuclear research and development continues in some of their military locations that they claim are off-limits to U.N. inspections, despite the impotent U.N.'s claims to the contrary. Regardless, the U.N. will not push for inspections of those locations and thus upset the current status quo. Iran knows this and thus will continue their plans accordingly. <br /><br />Lastly, Iran's revolutionary guard Qods force has been directly responsible for supplying, training, and funding terrorist factions in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and everywhere around Israel. Why we have not declared the truth of the matter that their involvement in such operations is an act of war against the U.S. due to the killing of U.S. servicemen directly tied to their actions is completely beyond me. Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-15978555861314487182018-01-12T07:13:46.541-07:002018-01-12T07:13:46.541-07:00You're arguing without fact and just with how ...You're arguing without fact and just with how you feel about Iran.<br /><br />"Further, why was this not ABSOLUTELY clear between Iran and all parties that every place was open to inspections from the get to?"<br /><br />In the quoted section you quoted back at me, the IAEA said:<br /><br />"The IAEA director, Yukiya Amano, told the Associated Press that the agency has access to all locations 'without making distinctions between military and civilian locations'."<br /><br />Of course Tehran is going to be insistent to not allow military inspections. These are words meant to show that they are defending their sovereignty.<br /><br />"This nation is floating on oil, and yet they want a nuclear program... for power generation?"<br /><br />Have you actually thought about this question, T.Paine? Oil is easy to store, stockpile and sell on the open market all across the planet. If you have an abundance of a sellable commodity and you have alternatives for power that don't involve oil, wouldn't you want to sell the oil to maximize the money you import? The more money they bring into their coffers in trade is less money they have to tax out of their own populace. This talking point has never made any sense to me. The United States of America is awash in Natural Gas and Oil right now. The US is exporting a record amount of oil for the same reason. We've got energy production alternatives, so we can sell this stuff on the open market.<br /><br />"Last, now that sanctions were lifted with the deal and Russia, China, and the EU all have trade with Iran once again, do you think they will be looking very hard to find reason to nullify this agreement and thus hamstring themselves?"<br /><br />I do not even know why you ask this question. Why is the United States looking very hard to nullify this agreement that Iran, as far as the IAEA is concerned, has been compliant?<br /><br />"When looking at objective facts, history, and simple logic, the contortions people go through to justify this "agreement" as a good deal that keeps the peace and prevents Iran from eventually obtaining nukes is absolutely without merit in my humble opinion, sir."<br /><br />You're not demonstrating your point with objective fact, history or logic. T.Paine. You're right. This all opinion. <br /><br />TB3https://www.blogger.com/profile/18261016141806763895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-51575690306227702782018-01-12T06:39:16.899-07:002018-01-12T06:39:16.899-07:00"what has Iran done directly to be called a t..."what has Iran done directly to be called a terrorist country?" <br /><br /><br />"Relationships with terrorist and militant groups are integral to Iran’s foreign policy. The clerical regime in Tehran sponsors a range of organizations in the Middle East and maintains the capacity to conduct international terrorism outside the region. Iran’s terrorism and destabilization efforts are primarily a threat to U.S. interests and allies in the Middle East: Tehran’s activities worsen civil wars and contribute to the destabilization of the region. Iran does not appear to be actively targeting the U.S. homeland with terrorism, but its capacity remains latent. Tehran uses its ability to strike U.S. assets outside war zones to deter the United States and as a contingency should the United States attack Iran."<br />Iran’s Support for Terrorist Groups<br />By Daniel Byman<br /><br />Iran remains top terror sponsor as global attacks decline<br />By Nicole Gaouette, CNN<br /><br />"The U.S. State Department considers Iran the world’s "most active state sponsor of terrorism." U.S. officials say Iran provides funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups--most notably in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon--posing a security concern to the international community. Iran’s declarations that it has successfully enriched uranium and developed new missile technology have heightened alarm in the United States and other countries that the Islamic Republic might transfer weapons of mass destruction to militants or armed groups. Iran’s leaders, who deny allegations they support terrorism (DerSpiegel), assert their rights under an international treaty to pursue nuclear power and insist their efforts are for peaceful purposes. But the international community remains unconvinced, imposing a growing list of sanctions against Tehran. Financial pressure has been applied by the UN Security Council, the European Union, international financial bodies, and a number of individual countries, including the United States."<br />www.cfr.org<br />Majormajorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05475952962470772705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-90738384744344445002018-01-11T20:57:11.819-07:002018-01-11T20:57:11.819-07:00The U.S. record with regime change has not been st...The U.S. record with regime change has not been stellar, Iraq,Syria, Libya, Ukraine,and Iran all black marks against the U.S. I think we have lost the moral authority to dictate how a foreign sovereign country operates. Iran in particular has experienced the full malice of the U.S. since 1953. <br /><br />The actions of the U.S. caused Iran to be the country it is today and it will no longer totally bend to our will. Sooner or later we will have to accept North Korea as a nuclear power and eventually the same goes for Iran.<br /><br /> "Scrapping this agreement, reinstating sanctions based on Iran's violations already, and supporting the popular uprising is the best way to topple this terrorist regime, sir".<br /><br />We will be they only ones breaking a signed agreement so our sanctions will not work when all the other countries will support Iran. We will not succeed with all stick and no carrot so Trump woulds be smart to leave every thing as it is. <br /><br />I know Hezbollah is labeled a terrorist group that is supported by Iran but what has Iran done directly to be called a terrorist country? <br /><br />Israel will be disscused in another comment.<br /><br /><br />woodenmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03161511512931615910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-24157887007183128562018-01-11T18:10:17.360-07:002018-01-11T18:10:17.360-07:00"The purpose of Trump to decertify the nuclea..."The purpose of Trump to decertify the nuclear agreement is to satisfy Israel so hostilities can break out and both of us can destroy Iran... If we attack Iran the effects will be catastrophic." ~ Woodenman<br /><br />Truly? Why would Israel have that much leverage on us going to war against Iran, short of an attack or imminent attack by Iran on them or our national interests? I can think of no upside for us deciding to do so, short of our own or Israel's imminent security. There is no upside for us entering another war, especially with Iran. It very well could be catastrophic for all parties involved. <br /><br />I truly think that if we decertify, reimpose sanctions, and publicly support the uprising there, we can topple the regime without ever needing to go to war. Indeed, I think we were close before and then President Obama infused billions of dollars back into their economy and removed sanctions thereby breathing life back into a corrupt and evil regime whose days were already numbered.Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-44043532796310325772018-01-11T18:02:07.189-07:002018-01-11T18:02:07.189-07:00TB3, I respectfully disagree, sir. From your refe...TB3, I respectfully disagree, sir. From your referenced article:<br /><br />"Tehran has been adamant in its insistence it will not allow military inspections. The government spokesman Mohammad Bagher Nobakht this week dismissed the campaign for military inspections as 'a dream'. Haley responded in a statement by saying: if 'inspections of Iranian military sites are ‘merely a dream’, then Iranian compliance ... is also a dream.' The IAEA director, Yukiya Amano, told the Associated Press that the agency has access to all locations 'without making distinctions between military and civilian locations'. There is a mechanism in the JCPOA for the IAEA to request access to sensitive sites and even to compel such access with the approval of five of the eight signatories to the agreement, who are represented on a joint commission. AEA officials have said they will inspect Iranian military sites if there is credible information that there is suspicious activity under way there, but they are reluctant to conduct a 'fishing expedition' without clear intelligence."<br /><br />So in other words, inspectors aren't going to request access to military sites , which the government said they cannot access regardless, unless they have "clear intelligence". Do you suppose the world's leading state sponsor of terror might hide some of their R&D in just such locations accordingly, sir? Further, why was this not ABSOLUTELY clear between Iran and all parties that every place was open to inspections from the get to? This nation is floating on oil, and yet they want a nuclear program... for power generation? Does that seem to strain the bonds of credibility to become an international pariah in the past for the sake of energy? <br /><br />Last, now that sanctions were lifted with the deal and Russia, China, and the EU all have trade with Iran once again, do you think they will be looking very hard to find reason to nullify this agreement and thus hamstring themselves? <br /><br />When looking at objective facts, history, and simple logic, the contortions people go through to justify this "agreement" as a good deal that keeps the peace and prevents Iran from eventually obtaining nukes is absolutely without merit in my humble opinion, sir.Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-42403026197455813582018-01-11T16:20:24.226-07:002018-01-11T16:20:24.226-07:00James, do you really think that Iran is not alread...James, do you really think that Iran is not already going as full bore as possible to build nuclear weapons right this minute, my friend? Do you not think that with renewed U.S. sanctions and continued vigorous public support for the popular uprising going on in this theocratic terrorist "republic" that we don't have our best opportunity to date to overthrow this brutal regime via its own people? (and without going to war!)<br /><br />Their nuclear program from the start is perfectly sized for weapons development and much too modest for meaningful energy generation - coupled with their relentless research and development of medium and long range ballistic missiles, which is already in violation of the agreement from a technical aspect, I don't see how any knowledgeable person could be duped by their dissembling. (As a point of interest, I was originally trained in the Navy as nuclear engineer and reactor operator, so I have some knowledge of that which I speak here.) <br /><br />As Majormajor intimated, President Obama did an end-run around congress by not submitting this as a treaty subject to their ratification, but rather as a legacy-building "agreement" for him. In doing so, he ignored our allies in the region, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, who warned that this would potentially lead to a regional arms race to counterbalance Iran's hegemonic ascendancy. Further, Obama ignored the terrorist history of Iran since their revolution, including proxy and Qods force attacks on Americans and our allies. And as per Politico last week, Obama ignored his own DEA and indeed obstructed them in stopping Hezbollah from running drugs into America to fund their nefarious activities. All of this was done with disregard to our national security and for the aggrandizement of his own ego, which may only be surpassed by President Trump's. <br /><br />http://francona.blogspot.com/2016/03/irans-ballistic-missile-program-more.html<br /><br />Scrapping this agreement, reinstating sanctions based on Iran's violations already, and supporting the popular uprising is the best way to topple this terrorist regime, sir.Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-478171749874096112018-01-11T13:25:57.199-07:002018-01-11T13:25:57.199-07:00Dave was simply pointing out what HE thinks Conser...Dave was simply pointing out what HE thinks Conservatives do.<br /><br />Majormajorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05475952962470772705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-28215314776116228822018-01-11T13:19:05.772-07:002018-01-11T13:19:05.772-07:00James,
Treaty's have to be approved by ....?
...James,<br /><br />Treaty's have to be approved by ....?<br /><br />Agreements are just that, they can be changed by the next President or an act of Congress.<br /><br />Obama should have made the agreement a treaty.<br /><br />"The purpose of Trump to decertify the nuclear agreement is to satisfy Israel so hostilities can break out and both of us can destroy Iran. Israel has too much influence on the US. When India and Pakistan became nuclear powers nobody said a word about it because Israel did not care."<br /><br />1. Satisfy Israel so a war can break out? Me thinks you're drinking the leftist kool-aid.<br /><br />2. "When India and Pakistan became nuclear powers nobody said a word about it because Israel did not care."<br />Wrong!<br /><br /> A. Trump was not President<br /> B. Not speaking doesn't make it right<br /> C. But someone did speak out.<br /><br />INDIA SETS 3 NUCLEAR BLASTS, DEFYING A WORLDWIDE BAN; TESTS BRING A SHARP OUTCRY NYT MAY 12, 1998 <br /><br />U.S. imposes sanctions on India - May 13, 1998 Under President Clinton<br /><br />"Two Middle Eastern powers, Israel and Iran, have been quick to voice concern about the possible proliferation of nuclear arms in the wake of Pakistan's nuclear tests on Thursday. The problem, it was said, was not the fact that Pakistan was a Muslim country, but the fear that the nuclear tests "might encourage Baghdad and Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons". BBC<br /><br /><br />What proof do have of that the agreement has worked?Majormajorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05475952962470772705noreply@blogger.com