Exclusive: Trump to weigh more aggressive U.S. strategy on Iran - sources

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Iran continues to fund the terror going on in Yemen.  Along with a variety of other terrorist organizations involved in conflicts in the region.  Syria being a big one.

 

Perhaps without Iran's support, the war in Yemen would be over?

The terror? What terror is Iran funding in Yemen? Are you calling the Houthis terrorists now?

[Naam]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Iran continues to fund the terror going on in Yemen.  Along with a variety of other terrorist organizations involved in conflicts in the region.  Syria being a big one.

 

Perhaps without Iran's support, the war in Yemen would be over?

Iran funds Saudi airstrikes?

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The terror? What terror is Iran funding in Yemen? Are you calling the Houthis terrorists now?

Just like you call the opposition in Syria terrorists.  Same same.  Right? LOL

 

1 minute ago, Naam said:

Iran funds Saudi airstrikes?

Saudi Arabia is supporting the official government, along with many other governments in the Middle East and the US.  Only Iran is supporting the opposition.  Sunni vs. <deleted>, again.  It's a mess.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-iran-houthis/exclusive-iran-steps-up-support-for-houthis-in-yemens-war-sources-idUSKBN16S22R

 

Quote

 

Exclusive: Iran steps up support for Houthis in Yemen's war - sources

Iran is sending advanced weapons and military advisers to Yemen’s rebel Houthi movement, stepping up support for its Shi‘ite ally in a civil war whose outcome could sway the balance of power in the Middle East, regional and Western sources say.

 

Iran’s enemy Saudi Arabia is leading a Sunni Arab coalition fighting the Houthis in the impoverished state on the tip of the Arabian peninsula - part of the same regional power struggle that is fuelling the war in Syria.

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

23 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Just like you call the opposition in Syria terrorists.  Same same.  Right? LOL

 

Saudi Arabia is supporting the official government, along with many other governments in the Middle East and the US.  Only Iran is supporting the opposition.  Sunni vs. <deleted>, again.  It's a mess.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-iran-houthis/exclusive-iran-steps-up-support-for-houthis-in-yemens-war-sources-idUSKBN16S22R

 

 

 

First off, nice shot at deflection. But no, I don't call the opposition to Assad terrorists. I call the most formidable opposition to him Islamists. But even if I did, that would somehow justify you purposely misrepresenting the facts about the Houthis? (And by way, there's a smaller word that means the same thing as "purposely misrepresenting the facts.")

The official government was overthrown in a civil war. Iran recognized the victors. And it's the Saudis who are engaging in massive and murderous terror attacks on civilians.  It got so bad that the US partially withdrew support for the effort which led to the big freeze between Obama and the Saudis.

U.S. Support for Saudi Strikes in Yemen Raises War Crime Concerns

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/15/u-s-support-for-saudi-strikes-in-yemen-raises-war-crime-concerns/

.And it still is that bad. Not only that, but as you clearly aren't aware there's a huge cholera epidemic now in Yemen. And who is responsible for that?

Researchers Blame Saudi-Led Coalition for 'Worst Cholera Outbreak in the World' in Yemen

https://www.voanews.com/a/researchers-blame-saudi-led-coalition-worst-cholera-outbreak-in-world-yemen/3992205.html

 

. And the article you link to was dated March 2017.

"Sources with knowledge of the military movements, who declined to be identified, said that in recent months Iran has taken a greater role in the two-year-old conflict by stepping up arms supplies and other support. This mirrors the strategy it has used to support its Lebanese ally Hezbollah in Syria.

And even now Iranian support for the Houthis is a tiny fraction of what the Saudis and others are expending on this war effort."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-iran-houthis/exclusive-iran-steps-up-support-for-houthis-in-yemens-war-sources-idUSKBN16S22R

The Saudi intervention began 2 years before that. 

 

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

First off, nice shot at deflection. But no, I don't call the opposition to Assad terrorists. I call the most formidable opposition to him Islamists. But even if I did, that would somehow justify you purposely misrepresenting the facts about the Houthis? (And by way, there's a smaller word that means the same thing as "purposely misrepresenting the facts.")

The official government was overthrown in a civil war. Iran recognized the victors. And it's the Saudis who are engaging in massive and murderous terror attacks on civilians.  It got so bad that the US partially withdrew support for the effort which led to the big freeze between Obama and the Saudis.

U.S. Support for Saudi Strikes in Yemen Raises War Crime Concerns

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/15/u-s-support-for-saudi-strikes-in-yemen-raises-war-crime-concerns/

.And it still is that bad. Not only that, but as you clearly aren't aware there's a huge cholera epidemic now in Yemen. And who is responsible for that?

Researchers Blame Saudi-Led Coalition for 'Worst Cholera Outbreak in the World' in Yemen

https://www.voanews.com/a/researchers-blame-saudi-led-coalition-worst-cholera-outbreak-in-world-yemen/3992205.html

 

. And the article you link to was dated March 2017.

"Sources with knowledge of the military movements, who declined to be identified, said that in recent months Iran has taken a greater role in the two-year-old conflict by stepping up arms supplies and other support. This mirrors the strategy it has used to support its Lebanese ally Hezbollah in Syria.

And even now Iranian support for the Houthis is a tiny fraction of what the Saudis and others are expending on this war effort."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-iran-houthis/exclusive-iran-steps-up-support-for-houthis-in-yemens-war-sources-idUSKBN16S22R

The Saudi intervention began 2 years before that. 

 

Deflection?  I learned that trick from you. LOL

 

100% agree the Saudis are causing problems in Yemen.  As is Iran.  Takes 2 to tango.  Perhaps both should bow out?

 

So if the Houthis overthrew the official government, you are saying it's not OK for the to try and take it back?  Hmm....

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Deflection?  I learned that trick from you. LOL

 

100% agree the Saudis are causing problems in Yemen.  As is Iran.  Takes 2 to tango.  Perhaps both should bow out?

 

So if the Houthis overthrew the official government, you are saying it's not OK for the to try and take it back?  Hmm....

So you justify lying by blaming it somehow on me.  You're a class act.

By all responsible accounts, Iran was minimally, if at all involved in the Houthi rebellion. And if both sides were to withdraw, the Houthis would emerge triumphant. And your attempt to make Saudi and Iran equally culpable flies hugely in the face of facts.

What's more it isn't a case of it takes 2 to tango. There is also the UAE and a few others arab states, and oh yes, the US and the UK which are still supplying materiel and other assistance.

Edited September 14, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[stevenl]

13 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Cool. Now let's advance to comprehension - where does the OP relate "suppression" of Iran?

Only somebody with a strong bias towards Israel or Saudi Arabia will not see that.

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So you justify lying by blaming it somehow on me.  You're a class act.

By all responsible accounts, Iran was minimally, if at all involved in the Houthi rebellion. And if both sides were to withdraw, the Houthis would emerge triumphant. And your attempt to make Saudi and Iran equally culpable flies hugely in the face of facts.

What's more it isn't a case of it takes 2 to tango. There is also the UAE and a few others arab states, and oh yes, the US and the UK which are still supplying materiel and other assistance.

Along with support of the Arab League of Nations.  Iran is more than minimally involved.  But not as much as Saudi Arabia for sure. 

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Along with support of the Arab League of Nations.  Iran is more than minimally involved.  But not as much as Saudi Arabia for sure. 

More than minimally involved now, but not back then.

[Naam]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Saudi Arabia is supporting the official government, along with many other governments in the Middle East and the US. 

who cares what country and its minions consider a government "official"? are the governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Emirates official ones elected by its citizens? what about Syria's government? or the one in Egypt? what happened to the official governments in Libya, Algeria, Egypt and Ukraine? who helped to overthrow them? 

[Naam]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

100% agree the Saudis are causing problems in Yemen.  As is Iran.  Takes 2 to tango.  Perhaps both should bow out?

yes!

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, Naam said:

who cares what country and its minions consider a government "official"? are the governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Emirates official ones elected by its citizens? what about Syria's government? or the one in Egypt? what happened to the official governments in Libya, Algeria, Egypt and Ukraine? who helped to overthrow them? 

Many care.  They are the official governments.  Just like in Russia.  And Cuba.   Ukraine?  Didn't Russia help to overthrow one of the previous governments?  That former PM is hiding out there now. LOL

[Naam]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

Didn't Russia help to overthrow one of the previous governments?  That former PM is hiding out there now.

nice twist of what actually happened.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

Only somebody with a strong bias towards Israel or Saudi Arabia will not see that.

 

Only someone who can't make a point will resort to deflections.

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Only someone who can't make a point will resort to deflections.

Since I did not deflect but only pointed out what the OP really was saying that does not bode well for you.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Since I did not deflect but only pointed out what the OP really was saying that does not bode well for you.

 

You failed to point out where exactly the OP said anything about "suppressing" Iran. That you imagine that's what it "really" says, is not quite the same thing - and it would require more than a one liner to support the claim.

[stevenl]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You failed to point out where exactly the OP said anything about "suppressing" Iran. That you imagine that's what it "really" says, is not quite the same thing - and it would require more than a one liner to support the claim.

[puck2]

It seems the very serious, complicated extraordinary cruel Yemen conflict now is the main subject of this thread. However it is:

Trump to weigh more aggressive U.S. strategy on Iran - sources (from Reuters).

 

This makes someone think: Why? Isn't there already enough fire, putting oil into the fire if you listen to Trump?!

 

One general problem, you never can rely on Trump what he said today and you never can trust him having a common sense. Why?

 

1. He has an intention to destroy all positive achievements of Obama (pure and childish envy)

   Among this the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Just to now there isn't any sign that Iran violated this pact.

2. Different from Obama Trump rushed out to Saudi A.,  just after taking office. To receive a „friendly“ (money) welcome pleasing his ego-maniacal character. SA is all but a democratic or an acceptable state, with an ultra orthodox Sunni religion and structure. Once it was important for the USA for oil. Now not because of cracking (in the US). At that time, crimes (9/11), violating human rights never was an obstacle for good relations to this pariah state – until Obama (went frosty).

3. There are dissents in the government and military to a „more aggressive U.S. Strategy on Iran“. -->OP

   - Most of his national security aides favor remaining in the pact.

   - A former U.S. official said Hezbollah and Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias in Iraq have been "very helpful" in recapturing vast swaths of the caliphate that Islamic State declared in Syria and Iran in 2014. This is in strong contrast to the repeated allegation Iran would support the IS in general.

4. Missing intelligence and competence doesn't allow Trump and his minions to think that nearly all conflicts and wars in the ME have and have had a religious and/or tribe/clan backgrounds, too. The last horrible example: Yemen.

5. 

6. Clan and democratic policy is like axe and wood. To understand this would help to solve a lot of problems in the ME and Arabic Mediterranean area. Trump's primitive plans would destabilize these areas again and more than before.

7. Fulfilling Trumps Iran idea would bring more and new conflicts, wars and war crimes than there are now – refugees, rapes, destroyed landscapes etc.

8. Supporting delivery of weapons to SA is like supporting warmongers. You see the results in Yemen with the horrible human fatalities. It doesn't seem to worry them. Them – that are GB - 3 billion, USA – 1 bn, and Germany among others.

9. SA tries to establish a countervailing force against Iran, pretending religious reasons, cementing an old struggle between Sunnis and Shiites. The Christians in Europe needed many hundred years to solve the religious wars. The Muslims are not yet at the point of debating or negotiating.

10. Iran has an inhuman religious influence on the government, SA too. So why support only one corrupt power?

The .list goes on.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by puck2

[puck2]

May I correct 10)

 

Extreme religion has an inhuman influence on the government in Iran. in SA, too. So, why condemn only one corrupt power (Iran) and support the other one (SA)?

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, puck2 said:

May I correct 10)

 

Extreme religion has an inhuman influence on the government in Iran. in SA, too. So, why condemn only one corrupt power (Iran) and support the other one (SA)?

One is working towards nuclear weapons, the other isn't??

[RawboneFunksta]

Trump does not want war . . . he even worked to make a better understanding with Russia. Now if Hillary had won we'd be invading someone already . . . 

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, RawboneFunksta said:

Trump does not want war . . . he even worked to make a better understanding with Russia. Now if Hillary had won we'd be invading someone already . . . 

He worked with Russia during the elections, but not now.  That relationship has turned very sour. LOL.

[puck2]

On 15.9.2017 at 1:42 PM, puck2 said:

May I correct 10)

 

Extreme religion has an inhuman influence on the government in Iran. in SA, too. So, why condemn only one corrupt power (Iran) and support the other one (SA)?

 

23 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

One is working towards nuclear weapons, the other isn't??

 

Please, show us some facts, not unverified stories.

 

From

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework

 

<----->On 14 July 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between Iran and the P5+1 and EU, a comprehensive agreement based on the April 2015 framework, was announced.[...] Just before the final deadline on 18 April 2017, the Trump administration certified that Iran had continued to comply with the framework agreement.<---->

 

A typical mentally ill Trump (google: Zoe Logren) confirmed that Iran complied with the international agreement. Next moment he „weighs more aggressive U.S. Strategy on Iran. But he doesn't mind the inhumane, aggressive actions of his dear Saudi Arabian friends in Yemen.

[Naam]

On 9/15/2017 at 3:18 PM, craigt3365 said:

On 9/15/2017 at 1:42 PM, puck2 said:

Extreme religion has an inhuman influence on the government in Iran. in SA, too. So, why condemn only one corrupt power (Iran) and support the other one (SA)?

One is working towards nuclear weapons, the other isn't??

what's wrong with a country having nuclear weapons Craig? to the best of my knowledge the U.S. and Russia have each more than 3,000 - the British Empire has, La Grande Nation has, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea have. why not Iran? is the reason because Iran used them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki or because the Mullah generals Alireza MacArthur and Mahmoud bin Westmoreland wanted to use them in Korea and Viet Nam?

 

[craigt3365]

14 hours ago, Naam said:

what's wrong with a country having nuclear weapons Craig? to the best of my knowledge the U.S. and Russia have each more than 3,000 - the British Empire has, La Grande Nation has, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea have. why not Iran? is the reason because Iran used them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki or because the Mullah generals Alireza MacArthur and Mahmoud bin Westmoreland wanted to use them in Korea and Viet Nam?

 

What's wrong?  Nothing until they give them to other countries.  Which has happened already and if left unchecked, guaranteed will happen again.  Nuclear proliferation is not a good thing.  I'm sure you'd not be happy if a dirty bomb went off in your home town.

 

I'll not comment on the rest.

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

What's wrong?  Nothing until they give them to other countries.  Which has happened already and if left unchecked, guaranteed will happen again.  Nuclear proliferation is not a good thing.  I'm sure you'd not be happy if a dirty bomb went off in your home town.

 

I'll not comment on the rest.

I agree with you, it would be excellent if we could get rid of them altogether. But is it up to the US to decide who gets them?

[puck2]

On 15.9.2017 at 3:22 PM, RawboneFunksta said:

Trump does not want war . . . he even worked to make a better understanding with Russia. Now if Hillary had won we'd be invading someone already . . . 

In dead earnest, do you believe that she would destroy what Obama has cemented .

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I agree with you, it would be excellent if we could get rid of them altogether. But is it up to the US to decide who gets them?

I believe the UN is in charge of that.  Not the US.

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I believe the UN is in charge of that.  Not the US.

Then the US should change its behaviour (or behavior in this case).

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Then the US should change its behaviour (or behavior in this case).

Ummm...15 nations in the UNSC voted for sanctions on NK.  Dozens of others vocally supported it.  Should they all change their behavior? LOL

Edited September 17, 2017 by craigt3365