The US was actually one of the most outspoken nations when it came to condemning the murder of Kashoggi.
Really? Trump said he believed MBS that it was an "accident", the Khashoggi murder by the evil regime of Saudi Arabia should have been met with extreme crippling sanctions, instead we got crickets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
Also the US does not want war with Iran. They want to isolate the Iranians economically and politically. However, war would be an absolute nightmare. Not only would the war itself be on Vietnam levels of involvement, but Iran would spread the conflict all over the region to all of the US's allies.
War with Iran just isn't happening. If it did happen, it would have the potential to exceed the Vietnam war, making it the largest US war since WWII. On top of that Iran is a Russian ally, and Russia simply won't allow anyone to engage the Iranians directly on a large scale.
By US I was specific that is with the Whitehouse under Bolton and Trump. Do you think they care one iota about the consequences? Not at all.
To this day they have not condemned the Saudis one bit. Kushner is still saying they don't know who did it. Stupid.
The Senate, which has a Republican majority, and the CIA have both blamed the Saudis. Kushner said he's waiting for investigations to complete before making a policy decision.
The US was actually one of the most outspoken nations when it came to condemning the murder of Kashoggi.
Also the US does not want war with Iran. They want to isolate the Iranians economically and politically. However, war would be an absolute nightmare. Not only would the war itself be on Vietnam levels of involvement, but Iran would spread the conflict all over the region to all of the US's allies.
War with Iran just isn't happening. If it did happen, it would have the potential to exceed the Vietnam war, making it the largest US war since WWII. On top of that Iran is a Russian ally, and Russia simply won't allow anyone to engage the Iranians directly on a large scale.
When you say US, you are not including their president are you?
The U.S. military late Thursday released blurry, black-and-white video footage that it claimed—without any underlying analysis or further details—showed an Iranian patrol boat removing an unexploded limpet mine from the Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous, one of the oil tankers damaged in attacks in the Gulf of Oman.
Quote:
Yutaka Katada—the owner of the Kokuka Courageous—contradicted the Trump administration's account during a press conference on Friday.
"Our crew said that the ship was attacked by a flying object," Katada said. "I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship."
Independent critics were quick to call for extreme skepticism in the face of U.S. government claims, given the quality of the "evidence" and the warmongering track records of those presenting it.
Quote:
The Hill's version, similar to the error made by the Post, reported that the video was taken before the explosion—a detail likely to leave readers much more suspicious of Iran's involvement than if one of its vessels had approached the ship in the wake of the incident:
Quote:
Though no single headline could be construed as explicit pro-Pentagon propaganda on its own, the uncritical nature of the coverage and ensuing echo chamber effect—or what is sometimes referred to as "propaganda reinforcement"—is one of the ways that the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies are empowered to turn a flimsy claim into a pervasive and widely-accepted fact.
Quote:
In a blog post on Friday, historian and Middle East expert Juan Cole wrote that the Trump administration's narrative that Iranians were removing an unexploded mine from the damaged oil tanker "doesn't make any sense at all" and said the video footage released by the U.S. "needs to be carefully analyzed" before any conclusions are drawn.
"[Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo alleged that only the Iranians had the expertise to deploy these mines," Cole wrote. "We heard this crock for 8.5 years in Iraq—all shaped charges had to be Iran-backed, even those of al-Qaeda, because Iraqis didn't have the expertise.... Sure. Had to be Iran, helping those hyper-Sunni al-Qaeda. Very likely story."
Is it all bluster? Will Trump go all the way with his threats and pressures – but ultimately pull out, just short of war? That seems to be the general consensus today; but Team Trump’s view of Iran seems based in so many misconceptions, layered on other misconceptions, and on intelligence that amounts to no more than Mossad’s assessment of Iranian future intentions.
The consensus on ‘no conflict’ unfortunately, may turn out to have been overly sanguine. This is not because Trump consciously desires war, but because the hawks surrounding him, particularly Bolton, are painting him into a corner – from which he must either back down, or double down, if Iran does not first capitulate.
And here is the point: the main Trump misconception may be that he does believe that Iran wants, and ultimately, ‘will seek a deal’. Really?
It is quite difficult to imagine what President Rouhani’s response could be, if asked by the Iranian National Security Council: if you (i.e. Rouhani) were to enter talks with US, what precisely would you talk about; what would you say? The Trump Administration’s position is that Iran will not ‘be allowed’ to enrich uranium at all – which is to say that Iran would be precluded – contrary to the provisions of the NPT – from having nuclear generated electricity, as it has sought since the time of the Shah. (To suggest that the West would supply Iran with just enough uranium to work its reactors, but no more, is absurd. Iran would never place its industrial base in jeopardy, to some whimsical western decision to punish Iran for some one, or other, misdemeanor).
Quote:
Why then, is Trump heading down this ‘dead-end’ road that might trip him into an unwanted, and politically costly, conflict of some sort? Well, possibly because Trump has been ‘fed’ some nonsense ‘intelligence’ that Iran is on the cusp of an economic and political implosion – which is about to sweep away the Iranian Revolution into the dustbin of history. This is ‘the line’ currently being purveyed by Netanyahu and Mossad, and by others inside the US (based on the usual, suspect exile stories). Trump might conclude from such assessments that war is not a risk, since the imminent collapse of Iran would make acting out any military threats redundant. He can afford, in short, just to wait out the collapse. If you detect a whiff of Iraq in the run-up to 2003 about all this (i.e. the input of Curveball and Chalabi), you would be right, in more ways than one – it is more than just the part played by embittered exiles in framing the prospect for war.
I saw an interview the other day, with I think Adam Schiff, and he had a line like, "John Bolton has never met a diplomatic solution he liked, and thinks bombings are the only solution for times like these"
I really can't help but think this whole fiasco is provoked by Trump and his delusional leadership style of trying to bully everyone.
NK, China, Mexico, Iran etc etc, pretty much everyone but Russia.
Israeli sources citing UN officials believe the US is planning to unilaterally bomb Iran in retaliation for US accusations of the tanker attacks (now officially refuted by Japan and the Japanese tanker company) with 1000 troops being sent now to the Middle East. Israel is apparently supporting the US accusations and plans.
Funny thing, Trump is demanding that Iran comply with the Iran nuclear deal, which he pulled out of, that everyone including UN nuclear watchdog IAEA, MI6 and the CIA say Iran was already in compliance for, to stop the attack. Hm...
Trump is going to start his war to drum up his support numbers.
Quote:
UN sources believe that the United States is planning to carry out a “tactical assault on Iran” in response to the attack on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, which it blamed Tehran for without providing credible evidence.
Diplomatic sources based at the UN’s New York headquarters told the Hebrew-language Israeli newspaper Maariv that they are assessing US plans to carry out the assault.
The officials claimed that the Trump administration has been holding non-stop discussions involving senior military commanders and advisers to President Donald Trump since Friday, the Jerusalem Post reported.
It's not Irans fault, it is totally Obamas fault for giving them $150,000,000.00 dollars unloaded from planes on pallets.
But seriously, Trump pulled out of the Iran deal, and put their economy under stress, after they had not broken any of their side of the deal, Trump is bullying them and they are starting to fight back.
Ok, still defending Iran I see, fingers crossed Trump doesn't come out in favor of oxygen for everyone's sake.
Sure US pulled out of the Iran deal, but Iran and China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, Germany, and rest of EU were still in the deal, which they've violated anyways.
Ok, still defending Iran I see, fingers crossed Trump doesn't come out in favor of oxygen for everyone's sake.
Sure US pulled out of the Iran deal, but Iran and China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, Germany, and rest of EU were still in the deal, which they've violated anyways.
I'm not exactly defending Iran, but I am putting most if not all of the blame for the current situation on Trump and his band of war mongers.
I'm not going to defend Iran, but I am also not going to eat a #### sandwich from the Trump Administration just because they put it in front of my face. I'd need more info than a dot on a Google Map to convince me the drone was not in Iranian airspace.
Ok, still defending Iran I see, fingers crossed Trump doesn't come out in favor of oxygen for everyone's sake.
There is proof that Iran shot down the drone. Is there proof they attacked the tankers? Are you willing to start a war that would likely kill thousands over a drone?
Quote:
Sure US pulled out of the Iran deal, but Iran and China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, Germany, and rest of EU were still in the deal, which they've violated anyways.
This is disingenuous at best. The US put new sanctions on Iran after they pulled out of the deal. They want Iran to bend the knee. The deal means nothing without the US and you know it (or you should).
Bolton and many other neo-cons have been itching for a war with Iran for years. They've been intentionally provoking Iran through sanctions, support for Saudi Arabia in the Yemen disaster and spying. I'm not saying Iran didn't attack the freighters, but I am saying it's not worth going to war on the word of a bunch of proven liars like Bolton.
The interesting development to me is with Trump saying that the drone downing may have been an accident on Iran's part. Is he trying to build a casino in Tehran?
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
