Iran publicly hangs man on homosexuality charges (middle east, enemies, revolution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
there was no need to give IRan money. And we should have never "released their money" because of their record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertbrianbush
There are geopolitical issues involved with killing a major general that weren't present with the killing of bin Laden. Which we all supported by the way, and which occured during e Obama administration. So how are we terrorists sympathisers because oppose this. There is such a thing as weighing consequences. If we struggled with Iraq, Afghanistan, North Vietnam, how are we going to go in and occupy Iran?
And Obama did not give them wars if American cash because he sympathised with them. My God, do people on the far right actually believe that? If you can believe things like that about half of the people in the country that is frightening. What happened us we negotiated an agreement to forestall Jeans nuclear weapons program, the only good option for doing that is diplomacy, which requires quid pro qou...that us how it works. The military options are not good because they require boots on the ground and fighting a huge guerilla war...the kind of war we always lose...as has every other great power that has tried to occupy another populous and nationalistic nation in recent histiry. So we released their money...it was never ours...back to tgem. Most if the world was fine, and is still fine with this agreement, andUran was in compliance. But for some reason Trump had to read it it up and try to shut down their whole economy. My gut feeling is that a major rationale behind this was the same as it was when we....yes, we... overthrew their democracy in democracy in 1953...to gain access to billions of dollars if Iranian oil for our oil companies, which would require Regine change. You know some really big political donors have to salivating over that ...there is huge money to be made.
They are not defending that country. They are defending the innocents that our country is murdering in cold blood that has nothing to do with protecting our borders.
But only if a republican is in office. When a democrat is in the White House and doing the same thing or like Obama doing worse, they don't say a thing. Cowardly hypocrites.
They are not defending that country. They are defending the innocents that our country is murdering in cold blood that has nothing to do with protecting our borders.
But only if a republican is in office. When a democrat is in the White House and doing the same thing or like Obama doing worse, they don't say a thing. Cowardly hypocrites.
Even if Carter did anything, he gave into their demands. And it took him two years to do anything.
At least Reagan had balls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Yet, here you are waving it.
What did Reagan do?
He didn't have to do anything, since the deal was already negotiated by Warren Christopher and agreed upon as a part of the Algeirs Accord. They were going to be released no matter who won the elections.
^ Can you imagine if it was Trump that sent a plane load of cash to Iran? The Left and Democrats would have an absolute fit of outrage. They’d impeach him again!
And the right would be defending it, telling us how it was Iran's money, Trump was playing 43-D chess, #OrangeManBad, etc.
Even more pointless than pointing out one side's hypocrisy - when both sides are full of hypocrites - is making up a hypothetical to do so.
Nobody I know thinks this way. Straw man argument.
So you're saying Islamic "culture" is backwards, barbaric and deserves to be condemned for its actions and emulation of a horrible human being? We agree on something here.
He didn't have to do anything, since the deal was already negotiated by Warren Christopher and agreed upon as a part of the Algeirs Accord. They were going to be released no matter who won the elections.
President with balls? Carter was a former naval officer. He did attempt a very daring military rescue...it failed...which can happen. And a full on invasion is a very difficult if not impossible option. Carter also avoided any responses that would have gotten our hostages executed. And there is a lot of evidence from both US and high ranking Iranian sources that the Reagan administration struck a deal with the Iranians to prolong the crisis until after the election so that Carter would not get credit for getting them out and get an Electoral boost that would put him over the top.
My feeling is that had the rescue mission been victorious or had the hostages been released before the election Reagan would by now just been considered an obscure footnote in American political history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
