2 hours ago, DavidVincent said:

It is strange US wants to break the deal but at the same time Boeing signed a very juicy contract with Iran...

Are you aware that the incoming administration is not in total agreement with the current one?

2 hours ago, DavidVincent said:

It is strange US wants to break the deal but at the same time Boeing signed a very juicy contract with Iran...

Strange that it is private citizen Trump and not the US government that wants to break the deal that has led to US business opportuniies like the Boeing sale that secures highly-paid American employment. Wasn't Trump for new deals that increase American employment and benefits American companies?

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

They are nowadays militarily involved in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and to a lesser extent, Yemen. Not invasions per se, but not exactly keeping to their own borders.

 

You could have said the same about the USA but delete Lebanon and add Afghanistan and Libya to that list. Also not exactly keeping to their own borders. If you really wanted to add to the USA list there are many more countries on that list.

 

The same goes for my country, the UK.

 

The problem is not the invasions etc by the military but the monumental stupidity of the politicians who get involved in the first place and then want the military to pull their nuts out of the fire.

 

Afghanistan is the prime example. It has been fought over by the UK, USA, USSR, India and almost anybody else who was stupid enough to invade it over the centuries. In the end they all pulled out and what did they gain? Absolutely nothing. Not even enough memories to stop them going back in again. Ask the UK about that one. If the Afghans haven't destroyed them there are British graveyards all over the country who fought and died, not for their country, but for stupid pigheaded politicians who never listen to the voices of experience.

 

I would love to see a law enforced in every country in the world that says that if politicians declare a war the must be in the front line of every attack armed only with speeches that they have written. That would stop an invasion quickly as the opposition would give up through total boredom without a shot being fired. OTOH we could be lucky and all the politicians could be wiped out in the first 2 minutes.

On 12/12/2016 at 0:21 PM, rabas said:

The Middle East is already completely unstable. The Russians are now in, after the West had worked hard to keep them out for 60 years. (remember Aswan dam?). Iran has always been the only  powerful country in the region  with aspirations  of controlling the region, hence their long history of state sponsored terrorism. If you want some insight to the Middle East, look at a map of Iran. Who are they now 100% surrounded by.  US allies, friends, and US Navy.

 

 

Talk about pot and kettle. When it comes to state-sponsored terrorism the US leaves Iran standing. Remember the Shah of Persia, whose bloody reign of terror gave rise to the radical movement which propelled the Ayatollahs into power?  What act of state-sponsored terrorism put him into power - and who was behind it? Better do some digging before swallowing and regurgitating US propaganda.

54 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Talk about pot and kettle. When it comes to state-sponsored terrorism the US leaves Iran standing. Remember the Shah of Persia, whose bloody reign of terror gave rise to the radical movement which propelled the Ayatollahs into power?  What act of state-sponsored terrorism put him into power - and who was behind it? Better do some digging before swallowing and regurgitating US propaganda.

So Sorry, I swallow no ones propaganda. But do you know the primary reason the US supported the Shah?

On 12/12/2016 at 0:21 PM, rabas said:

The Middle East is already completely unstable. The Russians are now in, after the West had worked hard to keep them out for 60 years. (remember Aswan dam?). Iran has always been the only  powerful country in the region  with aspirations  of controlling the region, hence their long history of state sponsored terrorism. If you want some insight to the Middle East, look at a map of Iran. Who are they now 100% surrounded by.  US allies, friends, and US Navy.

 

 

Talk about pot and kettle. When it comes to state-sponsored terrorism the US leaves Iran standing. Remember the Shah of Persia, whose bloody reign of terror gave rise to the radical movement which propelled the Ayatollahs into power?  What act of state-sponsored terrorism put him into power - and who was behind it? Better do some digging before swallowing and regurgitating US propaganda.

 

3 hours ago, rabas said:

So Sorry, I swallow no ones propaganda. But do you know the primary reason the US supported the Shah?

 

Of course -"national security". It's the great catch-all used to justify every dirty trick the US pulls in pursuit of global hegemony. 

Can you imagine that map with a fragmenting Iran as well!! Chaos.

 

I am weary about Trump's comments on this. Hopefully just fades like most else. The decision has has been long cast and has International approval, although in fairness Trump has consistently repudiated it. Last thing needed are actions to destabilise Iran although covert activities have long tried to inspire internal dissidence to the Iranian regime.  

 

US presidents also have a disturbing pattern of beginning their terms with military action somewhere. A south pacific Island make a nice change althogh soem are still radioactive. Fiji could be good. 

22 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Oh  David   and you  think  that  the Middle East  and  the eastern  countries are  all   angels!  Really?   Are  a lot  of  the  refugees  these days  from all   the western  countries? Do  you think  that India  is  a great  non  corrupt country  innocently  building  coal  fired power plants, polluting the air  the way  they  do.  How about  countries  like

some  in  South America  that are  so  corrupt that  even though  they  had  it good with producing oil  when prices were  high  but  now are  almost  bankrupt now.   I know this has nothing to do with the greed  of the USA or  other western countries  that  you  apparently  hate, but,, really?  Makes  me  wonder  is this  your  real  name?

I am not the one clearly pointing the fingers at a whole community because they are Muslims. It seems to just changing a couple of things and keeping the tone of your message do not make you so happy...I just tried to show you that it is a bit easy to boo the middle east and Muslims while Western countries make billions of dollars from those wars....

By the way I do not want to say you have a lack of culture,but most of the people  know where my name come from...cause I saw them!

Edited December 14, 20169 yr by DavidVincent
cause I can

 

21 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Are you aware that the incoming administration is not in total agreement with the current one?

Yes I am, but it seems the ones who voted for the maintain of Iran's restrictions have been here for a while already...and are Republicans...However as someone said before : it seems they do not care it could brings money and work to USA

 
They are nowadays militarily involved in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and to a lesser extent, Yemen. Not invasions per se, but not exactly keeping to their own borders.

So difficult to call it a real war on terror ?


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

It is strange US wants to break the deal but at the same time Boeing signed a very juicy contract with Iran...

France signed another 17 billion juicy contract with Iran to sell 80 Airbus passenger aiplanes...

Curious to see the French government sign again an economic embargo against a commercial partner.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

2 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

France signed another 17 billion juicy contract with Iran to sell 80 Airbus passenger aiplanes...

Curious to see the French government sign again an economic embargo against a commercial partner.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Well I find it also quite ironic as well, if you want me to say this, if the main topic was France and not USA/Israel I would have been the first to react and show how stupid this situation is

On 12/12/2016 at 0:21 PM, rabas said:

The Middle East is already completely unstable. The Russians are now in, after the West had worked hard to keep them out for 60 years. (remember Aswan dam?). Iran has always been the only  powerful country in the region  with aspirations  of controlling the region, hence their long history of state sponsored terrorism. If you want some insight to the Middle East, look at a map of Iran. Who are they now 100% surrounded by.  US allies, friends, and US Navy.

 

 

They don't hold a candle to Saudi Arabia as for state sponsored terrorism. I remember very few major terrorist attacks by Iran. Most all of the big terrorist groups today are funded at least in part by our great friends the Saudi's.

On 12/13/2016 at 11:13 AM, Srikcir said:

So what?

Iran military assistance in Iraq and Syria in fighting and expelling ISIL - same presence as the US, UK, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Jordon, etc.

Iran is not present in Yemen except in the form of military supply backing Shia rebels fighting Sunnis backed by Saudi Arabia.

 

On 12/13/2016 at 0:04 PM, billd766 said:

 

You could have said the same about the USA but delete Lebanon and add Afghanistan and Libya to that list. Also not exactly keeping to their own borders. If you really wanted to add to the USA list there are many more countries on that list.

 

The same goes for my country, the UK.

 

The problem is not the invasions etc by the military but the monumental stupidity of the politicians who get involved in the first place and then want the military to pull their nuts out of the fire.

 

Afghanistan is the prime example. It has been fought over by the UK, USA, USSR, India and almost anybody else who was stupid enough to invade it over the centuries. In the end they all pulled out and what did they gain? Absolutely nothing. Not even enough memories to stop them going back in again. Ask the UK about that one. If the Afghans haven't destroyed them there are British graveyards all over the country who fought and died, not for their country, but for stupid pigheaded politicians who never listen to the voices of experience.

 

I would love to see a law enforced in every country in the world that says that if politicians declare a war the must be in the front line of every attack armed only with speeches that they have written. That would stop an invasion quickly as the opposition would give up through total boredom without a shot being fired. OTOH we could be lucky and all the politicians could be wiped out in the first 2 minutes.

 

You both protest too much. My post want not a comment pitting US foreign policy and military interventions vs. Iran's. It wasn't even a defense of US actions. I was simply pointing out that contrary to popular assertions, present day Iran is not quite the innocent and peace-loving country some claim.

 

With regard to the first post - Iran is not present in any of these places for altruistic reasons, but to protect and promote its own regional interests. Whether it does so through direct military intervention, providing military supplies, carrying out or supporting terrorist actions - is not of the essence. Notably, it was somehow important enough to edit out the reference to Lebanon, which appeared in my original post.

7 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

So difficult to call it a real war on terror ?


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

Iran is not involved because of any "war on terror". It is there to protect its regional interests. It's long standing involvement in Lebanon is nothing to do with "war on terror". Try harder.

25 minutes ago, Grubster said:

They don't hold a candle to Saudi Arabia as for state sponsored terrorism. I remember very few major terrorist attacks by Iran. Most all of the big terrorist groups today are funded at least in part by our great friends the Saudi's.

 

Iran and state-sponsored terrorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

 

Maybe this would ring a bell:

 

Thai court hands Iranian life sentence over botched bombing

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-iran-bomb-idUSBRE97L06Z20130822

Edited December 14, 20169 yr by Morch

7 minutes ago, Grubster said:

They don't hold a candle to Saudi Arabia as for state sponsored terrorism. I remember very few major terrorist attacks by Iran. Most all of the big terrorist groups today are funded at least in part by our great friends the Saudi's.

 

You may be right about global terrorism. 

 

I think much of Iran state sponsored terrorism relates to regions like Lebanon, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Territories, Yemen now, against Israel, etc. A lot of Saudi terrorism money may come from private hands, but can  be supported, ignored by the government.

 

My point was about Middle East stability. Iran is a big rather powerful country, fairly well educated and capable of advanced technology. They are not an Arab state and  have a strong culture that goes way back.

 

They are the only country strong enough  to seriously destabilize the ME and global oil supplies, and therefore are the ground zero of Western containment policies.

36 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

You may be right about global terrorism. 

 

I think much of Iran state sponsored terrorism relates to regions like Lebanon, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Territories, Yemen now, against Israel, etc. A lot of Saudi terrorism money may come from private hands, but can  be supported, ignored by the government.

 

My point was about Middle East stability. Iran is a big rather powerful country, fairly well educated and capable of advanced technology. They are not an Arab state and  have a strong culture that goes way back.

 

They are the only country strong enough  to seriously destabilize the ME and global oil supplies, and therefore are the ground zero of Western containment policies.

They may be strong enough, but why would they want to?

44 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Iran and state-sponsored terrorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

 

Maybe this would ring a bell:

 

Thai court hands Iranian life sentence over botched bombing

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-iran-bomb-idUSBRE97L06Z20130822

The thing is, you can always find instances of this kind of thing. The question is how significant is it and how much of a threat does it pose? It's just a tiny patch compared to the threat posed by Sunni fanatics supported by the various arab gulf states.

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The thing is, you can always find instances of this kind of thing. The question is how significant is it and how much of a threat does it pose? It's just a tiny patch compared to the threat posed by Sunni fanatics supported by the various arab gulf states.

 

Another one who protests too much. I wasn't saying anything about the relative prowess and impact of Iranian state sponsored terrorism nor comparing it to other other countries engaging in similar activities.

 

As you mentioned, quite a bit of Iranian state sponsored terrorism is directed at Israel. Considering the OP, Iranian state sponsored terrorism is, perhaps, somewhat more relevant than others. There is a rather wide spread opinion that conflicts involving Israel tend to contribute to general ME disability. The often accompanying view is that this results in increased levels of global security threats.

33 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Another one who protests too much. I wasn't saying anything about the relative prowess and impact of Iranian state sponsored terrorism nor comparing it to other other countries engaging in similar activities.

 

As you mentioned, quite a bit of Iranian state sponsored terrorism is directed at Israel. Considering the OP, Iranian state sponsored terrorism is, perhaps, somewhat more relevant than others. There is a rather wide spread opinion that conflicts involving Israel tend to contribute to general ME disability. The often accompanying view is that this results in increased levels of global security threats.

A lot of these examples of terrorism are somewhat suspect. For instance, Iran strongly supports Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been labeled a terrorist organization. But it's really mostly an army. An army which has put a stop to Israeli soldiers traipsing into Lebanon at the slightest provocation.

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Iran and state-sponsored terrorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

 

Maybe this would ring a bell:

 

Thai court hands Iranian life sentence over botched bombing

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-iran-bomb-idUSBRE97L06Z20130822

This is nothing compared to the Saudi sunni terrorism.  BBs to basketballs.

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

A lot of these examples of terrorism are somewhat suspect. For instance, Iran strongly supports Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been labeled a terrorist organization. But it's really mostly an army. An army which has put a stop to Israeli soldiers traipsing into Lebanon at the slightest provocation.

 

Right-o. Forgot who I was replying to there.

No, Hezbollah is not an official army, but an unsanctioned militia - and it doesn't always act in the best interests of Lebanon. Considering that your last sentence seems to acknowledge that there are provocations (even if, per script, they are presented as minimal), the whole argument seems a bit off.

 

As for "somewhat suspect", state sponsored terrorism usually differs from terrorism carried out by organizations and individuals, as it does not often advertise. The whole point being able to deny the connection. This, plus way better support makes it harder to track down.

36 minutes ago, Grubster said:

This is nothing compared to the Saudi sunni terrorism.  BBs to basketballs.

 

Which wasn't the point. The topic is about Iran.

Off-topic post and reply removed.  

19 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Which wasn't the point. The topic is about Iran.

No the topic is about Israel throwing a fit about the agreement with Iran and whether Trump will kill the deal with them or not, and my point is that it is a hypocrisy because we are such good friends with the Saudi Arabians who are the biggest terrorists in the region. If you don't think my point is relevant to bad for you.

On 12/12/2016 at 8:57 AM, ilostmypassword said:

Really? For the past 1000 years. Your lack of knowledge of history is laughable.  Iran alone has existed as a nation for about 2500 years. Unstable indeed!

 

Iran itself was forcibly converted from Sunni to Shiá only a few hundred years ago.

That itself is a big part of the swirling cesspool right now.

Oh, and there are limits to what Trump can do because the rest of the P5+1 are already in there doing business.

 

And is he really going to put the mockers on a $17 Billion Boeing deal? Surely that is supporting/creating a fair few jobs?

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

No the topic is about Israel throwing a fit about the agreement with Iran and whether Trump will kill the deal with them or not, and my point is that it is a hypocrisy because we are such good friends with the Saudi Arabians who are the biggest terrorists in the region. If you don't think my point is relevant to bad for you.

 

Actually, if Trump wouldn't have brought it up, then Netanyahu would have, at most, go on grumbling about without no one caring. And as pointed out, it's not "Israel" throwing a fit, but rather Netanyahu. Hypocrisy? A bit late in the game to come up with that one, international relations is be and large hypocritical and interest-driven.

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Actually, if Trump wouldn't have brought it up, then Netanyahu would have, at most, go on grumbling about without no one caring. And as pointed out, it's not "Israel" throwing a fit, but rather Netanyahu. Hypocrisy? A bit late in the game to come up with that one, international relations is be and large hypocritical and interest-driven.

Never to late to bring up a Hypocrisy. Saying it is is a hypocrisy.