1. Taking hostages and threatening them is a terrorist act not to mention all the other terrorism Iran has sponsored worldwide. 2. The West was right to back Saddam as Iran was infinitely worse, Saddam didn't run around yelling "Death to America" all the time. No one wanted Saddam to use NBC but you weren't going to abandon him over it,. 3. Yes, the Saudis backed anti-Assad forces in Syria just as they backed the Mujahadeen against the Sovs in Afghanistan, what's wrong with that?
1) no it wasn't IMO - it was a violation of international law - but it matters not - because even if I granted you that it is a 0.5 on a scale of 1 to 10 2) You have provided no evidence that Iran was worse - never mind "infinitely worse" get a grip.. and the "Death to America " excuse is as pathetic as it gets... pure koolaid. Last - nothing justified use of Sarin Gas on his own people and Iran - nothing Iran did was that bad - Its called a war crime for a reason. The Embassy example - the only one you cited of all these horrible things Iran supposedly did that made them "infinitely worse" - was infinitely less of an atrocity. Your argument is horrible so far - perhaps you can come up with something that will meet 1/4 of your "infinitely worse" claim - but you have yet to do so. 3) the Mujahadeen has nothing to do with the issue - sans the fact that the guy we were supporting went on to found Al Qaeda - your trying to deflect because you are having trouble dealing with the hard core reality that Obama armed a radical Islamist Jihadist proxy army - led by - Al Qaeda and driven by the same ideology as Al Qaeda .. the 911 terrorist group. ... and that crime was far worse than anything Iran has ever done in modern history. That you would try and claim that El Saud was not involved shows that you are simply not aware of the basics with respect to the war in Syria. One more time - The US - led a "Global Effort" to arm, support, and supply a radical Islamist Proxy Army. Would you like a list of some of the nations involved ? What did the people of Syria do to deserve this ?
1. Taking the embassy hostage was the thin end of the wedge, look at all the other terrorism Iran has got up to 2. Yes it was, Death to America is reality for the Iranian regime, Saddam was a vile dictator but not a religious zealot. 3. Yes it is, back the devil you know, I mean we backed Stalin for the greater good. 4. No one backed Saddam's vile war crime but you still couldn't abandon him over it, 5. The people of Syria deserve to be rid of Assad, unfortunately Obama chickened out.
1) what terrorism ? you have yet to mention anything significant from that time. 2) laughable apology for atrocity 3) another tired platitude - backed up by an absurd analogy to WW2 - as if Iran was a threat to the world like Hitler - if this is not grasping at the most absurd straws - I don't know what is. 4) We were supporting him while prior to - during - and after he committed war crimes... a far greater crime than anything Iran had done. 5) your comments are such complete nonsense it is hard to know where to begin - You have no clue what the Syrian People wanted and have no right to speak for them .. and Obama did not "Chicken out" - you have no clue what you are talking about on both fronts. What the people of Syria did not want - is a radical Islamist Proxy army to destroy and enslave the nation - at least not the moderates. When the Syrian army liberated the towns under the control of Al Qaeda/ISIS - the people were elated. You are living in some fantasy nonsense world that does not exist - albeit this has been fed to you by the Establishment propaganda machine so I understand. What part of "Obama Led the global effort to arm this terrorist army" - did you not understand the first 2 times ? What exactly are you suggesting that Obama should have done ?
The US makes a business of military aggression and the overthrow of legitimate government. https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-in...ast-85-countries-worldwide-since-1945/5601481
1. Iran sponsors terrorism all over the world, this was just the beginning 2. No apology necessary, realpolitik 3. Sure is, a bunch of terrorism sponsoring religious fanatics developing WMD 4. We sure did for the same reasons 5. Obama chickened out, when Assad used his chemical artist he said that was the red line but then didn't do anything. After that the opportunity to tackle Assad was lost.
So the people restored their own rule of law like in Iran. The US did nothing to make that happen. You claimed it does. The Tudeh party won NO SEATS. So there was no alignment with a party that has outvoted to have no voice. That's when the American installed fascist was kicked out. It says over and over in my source that it was about political prisoners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Imperial_State_of_Iran So it was all about thieving natural resources of Iran and Iran being a sovereign state not being subjected as a colony. Thanks. Not seeing anything that the Taliban declined GWB. My source stands that GWB declined the Taliban. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10031044/no-more-homeless-veterans-campaign/ The Government’s latest homelessness data reveals that over the past year just 1,780 homeless veterans were identified by local council housing staff, out of 246,290 cases of homelessness recorded in the same period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeless_veterans_in_the_United_States In April 2019, the U.S. had a homelessness population of over 630,000 with 67,000 being veterans of the armed forces. It's less than 1% in the UK vs 11% in the US. How about you go open your eyes. lol
1) No they don't - quit making statements with no back up. It matters not because you are projecting the future on to the past. But - if you want to compare notes - the US has sponsored way more terrorism than Iran from then till now. Perhaps one should take log out own eye before picking spec out of brothers. I am not greatly religious but - the Golden Rule is important. Iran I know of the Palestinians and the Houthi's. Neither of which I would consider terrorist groups - as both represent an "expanding" of a rational definition of terrorism to "freedom fighters" - albeit in a conflict where "good sides" are few and far between. You need to give what your definition of terrorism is .. and so should I because there is clearly a disconnect. Rotten Ronnie - Supported Suharto - who annexed East Timor and committed mass genocide over a decade. Supported fascist death squad dictators in El Salvador and Guatemala - Trained these groups in "Terror Tactics" at the "School of the Americas". Like Obama's allies in Syria - Al Qaeda/ISIS - these were just as bad. Dragging children over barbed wire in front of their parents "till the flesh hung from their bones" Lets not forget supporting Saddam while and after using chemical weapons - Reagan threatened Veto of the "Prevention of Genocide act" - the act which was prompted by this war crime. - that is just for starters w/r to the deeds of one president - and that is what he was doing in the time period being referred to - the Iran/Iraq war. We supported a nation making war on them with Chemical weapons. There are rules in international law with respect to proportionality. Civilized nations adhere to these rules. No one was killed in the Hostage crisis - The above is hardly a proportional response. In any case - what is clear here is that Iran has been our enemy for awhile - for this reason or that. The US is way more of a terrorist sponsoring Nation than Iran... As is our good buddy El Saud. The Houthi's are the "good side" in that battle. We are again on the side of Al Qaeda Yemen. Shia Islam is not the ideology of the head choppers - The Radical "Islamist" . These are groups fueled by the Saudi brand of Salafi/Wahaabi Sunni doctrine. It is Saudi Arabia that has been exporting this doctrine all over the world for Decades - not Iran. Taliban, Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, ISIS, Islamic Front, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, the wing nuts extremists in Pakistan and India - and many examples of real terrorist acts done by these groups in India. The "Stan's of the Soviet union .. Chechnya should ring a bell. ALL - are adherents to the Saudi Inspired Ideology - and Saudi Arabia has been supporting and in some cases arming these groups. This article below will begin your path to knowledge with respect to the war in Syria. Virginia Senator Thanks Syrian President Bashar Al Assad for Saving the Lives of Christians Open Letter of U.S. Senator Richard H. Black to President Bashar al-Assad Acknowledges US Support to Terrorists https://www.globalresearch.ca/virgi...ad-for-saving-the-lives-of-christians/5384338 “My personal thanks to the Syrian Arab Army and Air Force for protecting all patriotic Syrians, including religious minorities, raped, tortured, kidnapped and beheaded at the hands of the foreign jihadists”… I cannot explain how Americans, who suffered so grievously at the hands of al-Qaeda, were tricked into supporting the jihadists. But I do know that many U.S. officials disagree with equipping and training the terrorists who penetrate your borders from the Kingdom of Jordan and through Turkey. Senator Richard H. Black of Virginia, 13th District That was our Proxy Army - for over 5 years. It was never proven that Assad even crossed that Red line - but - even if that was the case - the response would not had the impact similar to Trumps response ... but here is the real problem with your comment. 5. Obama chickened out, when Assad used his chemical artist he said that was the red line but then didn't do anything. After that the opportunity to tackle Assad was lost What did he chicken out of ? - "Raising the Black Flag the Radical Islamists" the new "Islamic State" over Syria ? We had been arming these radicals long before this fictitious crossing Obama's "red line" in any case so it is irrelevant. - ..( the line that Reagan Crossed - as did Israel - as did the US in the war in Iraq) What does Obama Chickening out on some small strike on Assad (when there is a massive war going on and we would be helping the Islamist Jihadists who have set up a Caliphate - taken control over most of the cities in Syria - Totalitarian Strict Sharia Nightmare - '' Dark Age Style" ... right back to medievil times - posted all over the internet.) have to do with the fact that we armed these group with tens of thousands of tons of sophisticated military equipment - prior to that time ? And quit buying into State Department Propaganda as if it is the word of God.
The best thread in a long time, may you succeed. I pull my hat!!!! However, we are talking US America, my hopes have long been dashed....... Sorry, Cats
1. Iran became a tyranny far worse than what had preceded it. Latin America became a democracy, Panama because the US toppled Noreiga. 2. What does Tudeh need seats for when it wants to establish a tyranny? 3. So they bring back the Ayatollah and install an even WORSE regime? 4. Yes, it was to stop the USSR controlling Iran's oil and cutting off everyone else's. 5. Of course they did, they refused to hand them over and stalled, read it again. 6. So amazingly Britain and the US and every other country in the world have homeless veterans? This isn't a uniquely American problem? How about you go open your eyes and address your hypocrisy?
1. Yes they do, Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorist groups in the world, did you not read my link? What violence within a free and democratic society has the US every sponsored? 2. Yes, the US backed a friendly dictator against communists and Islamic fundamentalism, same old story. Plus backed death squads to defeat the communists in Latin America. Surely Venezuela and the like wholly justify this? 3. The US didn't back Iraq over the hostage crisis, it backed them because Iran was out to conquer the Islamic world. The Saudis are our friends and a bulwark against Iran, far from perfect but undoubtedly the good guys. You cannot blame the Saudi nation for the actions of its' individual citizens. 4. Assad's use of chemical weapons was the perfect motivation to intervene militarily in Syria and topple him, Obama chickened out and the rest is history. You have to quit buying into anti-American propaganda as if it were the word of god and think for yourself.
Iran is not even close to the biggest sponsor of terror in the world -Your links were from WIKI - and open forum where I anyone can write anything. Not that this matters - as you have not cited anything from your links that even remotely compares to the comprehensive list I gave you. You are in denial. Yes - it is true the Propaganda Narrative to justify terrorism was "The Commie's are coming" which was completely bogus. You keep reciting these nonsense Propaganda narratives drunk from trough of History - rather than learn for yourself what happened. That is even more laughable than the Radical Islamist's claiming atrocity war crimes and terrorism is justified on the basis of "The Infidels are coming" although the Radical Islamist's have a far better claim - as in the Infidels were actually coming in the case of the numerous Muslim nations we attacked. How can you not see how pathetic your argument is ? The Saudi's are second only to USA as the #1 State Sponsors of terrorism in the world - and I have proved that fact with examples while you have come up with almost nothing. Why do you persist in this nonsense ? more denial. Assad had not been accused of using chemical weapons prior a few years into the year and the first charges turned out to be lies - lies that were called out even in the right wing MSM - as in Fox. Regardless - since there not even the accusation of use during the first years of the war - how can this be used as justification for arming a radical Islamist Jihadist proxy army. This loopy doopy fallacious gibberish on steroids
Can't see rat tag American gun-loving "freedom fighters" holding out against B52's, F35's, heavy artillery, cruise missiles, napalm and nukes. If they were to "free" say Dallas, how would they feed themselves? What happens when the water fails? What would happen if the army simply nuked the city? I just can't see light arms, on their own, having much effect at all.
Secular wars tend to be more prevalent and crueler than religious wars. Witness the 20th Century's death toll of about quarter of a billion people through secular causes.
1. No, come on, Iran is a terrorist sponsor, everyone in the world agrees; https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-support-for-terrorism-under-the-jcpoa https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/irans-support-for-terrorism-in-the-middle-east/ http://qb5cc3pam3y2ad0tm1zxuhho-wpe...ent/uploads/Iranian-Support-For-Terrorism.pdf 2. The Commies WERE coming, surely you can see that? Pathetic denial if you can't. The West was fine with an independent Iran, if just feared a communist one. 3. Individual Saudis sponsor terrorist groups, the Saudi government sponsor rebels against despotic regimes it objects to. 4. Assad used chemical weapons, no one doubts that, the Saudis sponsored the most successful rebels against him. If we can back the USSR in WW2....?
1) You open with the "Everyone Agrees" - appeal to popularity fallacy -followed by posting some links - without bothering to cite from those links. This is not an argument for anything 2) "Commies were Coming" - There was no Communist threat to the US Homeland of any significance in the 80s. "Infidels are Coming" - There were definitely infidels invading numerous Muslim lands. Congratulations - you just made an argument in support for terrorism by the US - which is 10 x weaker than the argument for Terrorism by Al Qaeda. 3) What part "The Saudi Gov't Armed and Supported a terrorist proxy army" in Syria - is not getting through your head ? I gave you evidence for this previously - did you want more - what is it. If you disagree with the above claim - then say so and I will prove that claim - but, quit ignoring the claim - and repeating the same nonsense - as if the claim were false. 4) The Chemical weapons issue happened after the fact so it is irrelevant. What the "projecting the future into the past" fallacy do you not understand ? Then when I did discuss the chemical weapons issue - all you did was repeat your premise over and over - as if repetition of premise proved your claim true. You need to get an argument. An argument has 2 parts. First - Statement of Claim .. Second - rational or proof showing that claim is true. Repeating a claim over and over is not proof of claim.
I doesn't really matter what you can or cannot see. Recent history proves that you're wrong. The US military could not defeat determined insurgencies in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Clearly, then, superior technology does not guarantee victory. Because technology is only one variable among many to consider when assessing the military capabilities of a particular force.
True, but for your "insurgency" to work you really need borders to cross and external support. Maybe a hard right gun loving insurgency can get support from Canada or Mexico - and then China or Russia could supply them indirectly. Recall, the US destroyed the Viet Cong, and Afghanistan is supported by Pakistan, Iran and even Russia.
True. Maybe. Sadaam said he tipped his chemicals out in the desert "somewhere" but could not verify this. The Russians and Americans were correct to err on the side of caution. Only the silly, and very naïve, would take a lying dictator at his word. nb Americ supported Iraq in the Iran Iraq war. It did not support the gassing of the Kurds. Only the Western Left showed no concern for these hapless people.
Sorry, the West and Russia DID doubt Sadaam's claim he no longer had a weapons program. And they KNEW he already had WMD's because he was happily using them.
You are speaking gibberish - making stuff up as you go along because you don't know the facts. Reagan supported Saddam prior to, during, and after the chemical attacks. When the "Prevention of Genocide Act" passed the house with huge bipartisan support - Reagan threatened veto and it died in the Senate. When Daddy Bush came into office - support for Saddam increased. Your claim with respect to the left is abject nonsense.
1. Nice try at the sidestep but try again. 2. They didn't have to attack the US homeland, not when they could take over countries piece by piece. 3. Not a terrorist group if they're fighting to get rid of Assad and install a more liberal regime. 4. The chemical weapons happened and gave Obama the grounds for intervention, sad he chickened out.
Let me clarify that, everyone suspected he had a working programme but he didn't, just the remnants from his 90s stockpile.
