|
Post by Tired in CV on Nov 28, 2013 4:45:32 GMT -5
Not true! It is the reasons they don't agree with this accord that matters. Obama wants to do something, he thinks is good, to take the focus off his failed Obamacare. Unfortunately, this accord is bad for the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and much of the world. Obama has secretly supported Iran all along and condemned Bush for the sanctions. He was just waiting for the right opportunity to reverse them. If this was good for the U.S., Obama would NEVER have agreed to it!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 12, 2014 23:34:34 GMT -5
online.wsj.com/articles/islamist-rebels-vow-to-march-on-iraqs-capital-1402562192?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories"Iraq's government girded to protect the capital from advancing insurgents, as Iranian security officials said their forces had joined the battle on Baghdad's side and the U.S. weighed military assistance, including airstrikes. Iraq edged closer to all-out sectarian conflict as Kurdish forces took control of a provincial capital in the oil-rich north on Thursday and Sunni militants threatened to march on two cities revered by Shiite Muslims and the capital." Ya couldn't make this up: Iran and the US joining together to save the government in Baghdad. Does this mean we still might attack Iran, or is that off? By extension, does this mean Iran and Isreal are now allies? LOL!!!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 28, 2014 22:05:53 GMT -5
Wasn't Iran going to get the bomb any minute now according to Bibi? And America could never "allow" that to happen? Oh well, maybe Iran will come back to the top of the list of bad guys again after we finish off IS, Putin, and China...
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 2, 2015 15:53:27 GMT -5
The excitement mounts for Bibi's "Speech That Will Live in History Forever", as Hannity called it. Whether it will actually be memorable remains to be seen, but you can be sure the right wing media will proclaim it as the greatest ever. Grab your popcorn.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 10, 2015 15:42:02 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/us/politics/republican-moves-imperil-democratic-cooperation-on-iran.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0"WASHINGTON — The open letter that 47 Senate Republicans sent to Iran’s leadership on Monday warning about making a nuclear agreement with President Obama is forcing Democrats to choose between confronting Tehran and rallying around Mr. Obama as he searches for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff. Democrats say that as concerned as they are about an emerging deal with Iran, Republicans’ extraordinary moves to undermine Mr. Obama’s efforts to reach an agreement are weakening their resolve to cross party lines and challenge their own president."
Just when I'm getting bored something comes along to perk me up: Right after Bibi's paranoid rant before Congress, GOP Senators are meddling into negotiations between Iran and the US because we're not being belligerent enough, I suppose, further undermining bipartisanship in foreign policy. Fine with me, so-called "bipartisanship" had added the veneer of legitimacy to most of the foreign policy disasters of the last 70 years, from Korea to Iraq. The silver lining is perhaps that the Israel-can-do-no-wrong Democratic Senators are having to chose between supporting their President or continuing to pander to Israel with the GOP.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 2, 2015 19:11:59 GMT -5
So the US and Iran have come to a "tentative" deal on nukes. I have not studied any details, but if Boner, Rubio, and Netanyahu hate it, it must be good.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 3, 2015 19:49:29 GMT -5
www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21638915-better-alternativesand-long-way-good-deal"The declaration that emerged on April 2nd, after marathon negotiations between Iran and six world powers in Lausanne, was surprisingly comprehensive. Iran will curb its programme and open it to inspection in exchange for a gradual lifting of sanctions. Speaking at the White House, President Barack Obama called it a good deal that will make the United States, its allies and the world safer. However, the details remain to be thrashed out by the end of June. The president warned that this process could still fail— and hardliners in both Tehran and Washington will do their damnedest to see that it does. Failure would be a grave loss. This agreement offers the best chance of containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. And it also offers the faint promise of leading the Middle East away from the violence that has been engulfing it." SO speaks the European financial establishment. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Boehner! First you have to get your lips out of Bibi's ass, of course.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 3, 2015 23:48:28 GMT -5
www.wsj.com/articles/reuel-marc-gerecht-and-mark-dubowitz-irans-negotiating-triumph-over-obama-and-america-1428099801"President Obama believes that the nuclear “framework” concluded Friday in Switzerland is a historic achievement. Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, says he believes the same. Those two positions are incompatible. Mr. Zarif is also a loyal servant of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who believes that the West, in particular the U.S., and Iran are locked in a “collision of evil and evil ways on one side and the path of . . . religious obedience and devotion on the other,” as he said in July 2014. The supreme leader says the Islamic Republic has a divine calling to lead Muslims away from the West and its cultural sedition. The Obama administration has never adequately explained why Mr. Zarif’s relentlessly ideological boss would sell out a three-decade effort to develop nuclear weapons." While "The Economist" gives Obama's agreement the thumbs up, Murdoch's Wall Street Journal does not. Of course, conservatives don't know the meaning of the words "diplomacy" or "compromise". They do know the meaning of the term "war profits", though.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 6, 2015 20:54:25 GMT -5
I'm happy because however this Iran deal comes out, I win! If Obama wins, the right people will have heartburn. If Obama loses, and the Republicon neanderthals and their Israeli allies win, it could be bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran, and war is fun!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 9, 2015 14:45:50 GMT -5
www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/08/398345234/tom-cotton-military-action-against-iran-would-only-take-several-days"Sen. Tom Cotton accused President Obama of holding up a "false choice" between his framework deal on Iran's nuclear program and war. He also seemed to diminish what military action against Iran would entail. "Even if military action were required," the freshman Arkansas Republican senator said on a radio show Tuesday hosted by the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins. In the comments first picked up by BuzzFeed, Cotton also said: "the president is trying to make you think it would be 150,000 heavy mechanized troops on the ground in the Middle East again as we saw in Iraq. That's simply not the case." "It would be something more along the lines of what President Clinton did in December 1998 during Operation Desert Fox. Several days of air and naval bombing against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction facilities for exactly the same kind of behavior. For interfering with weapons inspectors and for disobeying Security Council resolutions. All we're asking is that the president simply be as tough in the protection of America's national security interest as Bill Clinton was." Some 37-year-old blowhard Gen X'er from some rotten red state is going to try to tell me what would or would not happen if we bombed Iran? Why? Because he went to Harvard? He knows where he can shove it.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Apr 13, 2015 10:09:26 GMT -5
There is no deal to cut with Iran unless it is cutting your own throat.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Dec 19, 2017 12:35:25 GMT -5
Now that Trump has defeated ISIS, what next? No doubt in Iran they are celebrating. But with the new US-Israel-Saudi Arabia alliance, Iran may be in for a fight.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jan 3, 2018 4:06:41 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/opinion/iran-protests-inequality.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region"Unlike during the first decades of the post-revolutionary Iran, the rich now heedlessly flaunt their wealth. Until the mid-2000s, the gentlemen’s agreement among the embezzlers held that they keep a modest appearance at home and launder their money in Dubai and Toronto. In the most famous case, Mahmoud Reza Khavari, the former managing director of Bank Melli, made off with hundreds of millions of dollars and became a real estate mogul in Toronto. That generation cared about appearances and never dropped the veneer of fealty to the ideals of the 1979 revolution. Their millennial offspring, on the other hand, hardly care. Wealthy young Iranians act like a new aristocratic class unaware of the sources of their wealth. They brazenly drive Porsches and Maseratis through the streets of Tehran before the eyes of the poor and post about their wealth on Instagram. The photos travel across apps and social media and enrage the hardworking people in other cities. Iranians see pictures of the family members of the authorities drinking and hanging out on beaches around the world, while their daughters are arrested over a fallen head scarf and their sons are jailed for buying alcohol. The double standard has cultivated an enormous public humiliation." Now THIS is funny.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Feb 18, 2018 13:27:19 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/opinion/nikki-haley-united-nations-iran.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region"Last week, the United Nations published a report with news a lot of people don’t want to hear. A panel of experts found that Iran is violating a United Nations weapons embargo — specifically, that missiles fired by Yemen’s Houthi rebels into Saudi Arabia last year were made in Iran. The mullahs in Iran don’t want to hear this news, because it proves Iran is violating its international agreement. Die-hard defenders of the Iran nuclear deal don’t want to hear it because it proves, once again, that the Iranian regime can’t be trusted. And some members of the United Nations don’t want to hear it because it is further proof that Iran is defying Security Council resolutions, and the pressure will be on the U.N. to do something about it." Here, sadly in the NYT, right wing witch (with my apologies to witches) Nikki Haley trying to generate a pretext for tearing up the Iran agreement, which Israel hates. And rather poorly written and lurid too, compared to, say, Condoleszza Rice.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jul 25, 2018 1:39:08 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/world/middleeast/trump-threatens-iran-twitter.htmlDonald J. Trump ✔ @realdonaldtrump To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS! 8:24 PM - Jul 22, 2018 Yep, the Tweeter-in-Chief used all caps to threaten Iran. Like my 97-year-old mother-in-law does. But I kind of wish Trump would put his money where his tweets are. I'd love to see the unintended consequences of a war on Iran.
|
|