U.S. toughens stance on Iran, lists sweeping demands

[dexterm]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I "misinterpret" you?! Other than a a couple of reference to the Syrian Civil War, the OP does not mention war. Your posts (and granted, some other posters) seem to revolve around the word. Your even spin other posters' words as implying "war" even when no such thing was said - https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1039314-us-toughens-stance-on iran-lists-sweeping-demands/?tab=comments#comment-13007852

 

Disregarding your own "nitpicking" and "pedantry" - the claim that the US was "threatening to go to war" is not factual, but an interpretation. IMO, a misinterpretation. There is no direct threat to "go to war". I doubt that you (as most of us) got much insight as to what goes on in Trump's mind. So asserting what he "knows", or that he's got something resembling a coherent, well laid long term plan is mostly hot air.

 

Since Trump took office, there were various instances which posters announced to be heading toward "war" - North Korea, China, Russia, Syria, Iran - did I miss any? Never mind, the point being that nothing came out of it. IMO, that's down to (a) Trump being a bully - more keen on projecting power than actually getting it on, and (b) Trump treating international relations as high stakes poker/business deals. Both would apply to how he deals with foreign policy crises (and possibly domestic ones as well).

 

That you pretend to "know" how things will unfold, or how Trump expects them to unfold is all very well, but again, not necessarily correct. I doubt your take on Iranian considerations, interests and politics is particularly astute or even well informed. A wee bit more complex then presented.

 

And by the way, Macron's full comment was:

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-decision-on-iran-deal-vital-for-middle-east-a-1206293.html

 

I said "threatening to go to war" not a declaration of war...you're splitting hairs again for the sake of obfuscation.

You still haven't explained what Pompeo meant by his threat  "crush Iranian operatives"

Edited May 23, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, dexterm said:

You still haven't explained what Pompeo meant by "crush Iranian operatives"

 

Ignoring the fact that, as usual, you avoid replying to points raised, while bringing up some faux claims, I think I did, on previous post.

 

But since you feel the need to play obtuse - "operatives", IMO,  would be more indicative of Iranians involved in arms transfers, financial efforts to bypass sanctions, and terrorism. While you may pointlessly argue the definition of the latter, the first two are rather obvious.

[dexterm]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Ignoring the fact that, as usual, you avoid replying to points raised, while bringing up some faux claims, I think I did, on previous post.

 

But since you feel the need to play obtuse - "operatives", IMO,  would be more indicative of Iranians involved in arms transfers, financial efforts to bypass sanctions, and terrorism. While you may pointlessly argue the definition of the latter, the first two are rather obvious.

That's rather a remarkable demonstration of mind reading Pompeo's intentions, and a neat cherry picked list, notwithstanding the fact that you regard Hezbollah and Iran as terrorists.

 

No need to obfuscate much longer, Trump is bound to blurt out what he intends to do to Iran.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, dexterm said:

That's rather a remarkable demonstration of mind reading Pompeo's intentions, and a neat cherry picked list, notwithstanding the fact that you regard Hezbollah and Iran as terrorists.

 

No need to obfuscate much longer, Trump is bound to blurt out what he intends to do to Iran.

 

That's a rather lame deflection and a host of plain lies. Notably, still no meaningful comments on anything.

 

There was no "mind reading", but an interpretation. And I am not the one presenting interpretation as fact - a common feature of your posts. My reading is also based on being aware of how such statements are usually worded. 

 

There was no "cherry picked list", other than in your mind.

 

I did not regard Iran as "terrorist" - that it is involved, or suspected of being involved in terrorist actions, is a fact. That there is Iranian state sponsored terrorism is a fact. It doesn't make the whole country "terrorist", and there was not such implication.

 

As to Hezbollah - repeatedly trying to spin things won't change facts: Hezbollah (or parts of it) are widely considered designated as terrorist. Here's the list again: Australia, Canada. the EU, the US, France, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, UK, US, the Arab League and the GCC.

 

So once more you have nothing whatsoever of substance to add - other than deflections, nonsense and lies.