Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace

[BoSoxGal]

Which Iranians do you mean Darren?

The ones who followed a dictator Shah installed by the United States to protect oil interests from nationalization, or the ones who followed the duly elected leader who wanted to nationalize Iran’s oil interests for the benefit of the people of Iran and got removed by US-backed forces who installed the Shah (not a warm and fuzzy leader, by the way, which is why the people rose up and backed the Ayatollah’s regime)?

All the fucking around we’ve done in Iran, is it any wonder so many of them loathe and fear us?

The treaty negotiated under the Obama administration was the right path; since Trump tore that up the people are suffering - the real people, women and children suffering without basic medicines and other life’s necessities - and now we are assassinating Iranian officials without cover of our own national laws or of international law and this is supposed to be a good thing?

I wonder if the USA can ever recover from the damage done by Trump. His regime has revealed that we are actually just whiskers away from savagery; shining dung heap on a hill, maybe.

[Econoline]

• One less terrorist in the world?
  
  Sure, that's a good thing.
  
  I don't think anyone is arguing that.
  
  But here's the thing: if killing that one terrorist precipitates a war that ends up killing hundreds of thousands more than that terrorist ever could, well, then you're doing his work for him and YOU have become the monster.

(credit: Jim Wright)

[RayThom]

Speaking of the Shah. During the Vietnam war an old friend was an Army captain, and pilot/instructor of both jet planes and helicopters. After Nam he was transferred to Iran as a chopper instructor for the Shah's Air Force. The move also made him some kind of CIA operative but to this day he has no explanation of his duties while in service to the Shah.

On the day, and almost to the hour, the Shah left Iran to fly to Egypt (and eventually to the US) a squadron of US Army helicopters took off from Niavaran Palace after performing some "surgical housecleaning" ordered by the Shah and his handlers -- all cargo being classified. It was all loaded onto a C141 transport and flown to Lakenheath AFB in Great Britain. Where it all went after that -- nobody knows anything.

Some months later my friend retired from the military, returned stateside, and within days he purchased a lakeside house, a new car, a plane, and a load of expensive toys. To this day he hasn't worked a visible job, yet at age 73 still travels globally, leaving with very little notice to anyone who knows him.

Yes, the Shah was clearly not "a warm and fuzzy leader" but merely a puppet played by US puppet-masters who used him for obvious political and personal gain. Or so it seems to me.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I'm not going ever to defend Suleiman who appears to have been an effective turd. But let's face it, the US has done far more damage to Iran over the years than Iran has ever inflicted on the US. The US and UK backed the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953 and the subsequent installation of Shah Reza. The Shah's secret police were everywhere and I knew Iranian students who were fearful that they were being watched. (Of course I have no independent knowledge that they were correct.) When the Shah was overthrown by the return of Khomeini he fled to Mexico with billions of Iranian cash. It was his need for medical care and his treatment in the US (against Carter's instincts) which led to the 1978 takeover of the Tehran embassy and the hostage crisis. The Iranians wanted the Shah returned for trial and with it their missing money. They probably would have put him up against a wall somewhere but it was probably no more than he deserved. If you look at the list of Shahs going back to Cyrus the Great, Xerxes and Darius, a very large portion of them died violently so it seems to go with the job.

[BoSoxGal]

And not the least of the damage from our fuckery in Iran was Carter’s second term - we could’ve had an energy conservation-minded, solar panel-promoting scientist president for 4 more years instead of the twat who promoted gluttony and rampant consumerism/energy waste, propelling us well and truly into the climate change crisis we face today. Not to mention the twisted inhumane economic policy of trickle down a/k/a piss on the working classes.

[Darren]

Which Iranians do you mean Darren?

The ones who followed a dictator Shah installed by the United States to protect oil interests from nationalization, or the ones who followed the duly elected leader who wanted to nationalize Iran’s oil interests for the benefit of the people of Iran and got removed by US-backed forces who installed the Shah (not a warm and fuzzy leader, by the way, which is why the people rose up and backed the Ayatollah’s regime)?

All the fucking around we’ve done in Iran, is it any wonder so many of them loathe and fear us?

The treaty negotiated under the Obama administration was the right path; since Trump tore that up the people are suffering - the real people, women and children suffering without basic medicines and other life’s necessities - and now we are assassinating Iranian officials without cover of our own national laws or of international law and this is supposed to be a good thing?

Given the major inspection issues, I disagree that the treaty was the right path. What was Iran hiding?

I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt and accept that he wasn't able to use America's current energy independence to stop Iran's support of terrorism. We don't need Middle Eastern oil and the world has accommodated the sanctions on Iran's oil exports. We no longer need to accept Iranian sponsored terrorism.

Soleimani wasn't back in Iraq for a vacation.

From Reuters:

"In mid-October, Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani met with his Iraqi Shi’ite militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River, looking across at the U.S. embassy complex in Baghdad. The Revolutionary Guards commander instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful Pro-Iran militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran, two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters.

The strategy session, which has not been previously reported, came as mass protests against Iran’s growing influence in Iraq were gaining momentum, putting the Islamic Republic in an unwelcome spotlight. Soleimani’s plans to attack U.S. forces aimed to provoke a military response that would redirect that rising anger toward the United States, according to the sources briefed on the gathering, Iraqi Shi’ite politicians, and government officials close to Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/inside-th ... 93872.html

[ex-khobar Andy]

Well done Darren for leaving it to the end of your post before you cited the Epoch Times. That was smart of you because I probably wouldn't have bothered to read it if you had put it in the first line.

Can I remind you that the greatest act of terrorism against the US came from 19 men, all Sunnis and mostly (17/19 IIRC) Saudis? The Iranians are not into sponsoring Sunnis. Of course the bone saw wielding tower destroying ISIS backing Al Qaeda sponsoring Saudis are Trump's best buddies now.

Iranian/Shia 'terrorism' is what under another set of eyes might be called freedom fighting. They regard the US invasion of Iraq - their next door neighbor, as it happens, as being just a precursor to what might happen to them. The US has form in this regard so they might be right.

Before you think that I condone the killing of American forces, nothing I say here comes close to that. Equally, I do not condone the assassination of a thug who, in my view, is less of a 'clear and present danger' to the US than many others. Including Trump himself. The US is an idea, not a collection of buildings or acreage or even people. Trump is a disaster to that idea.

[BoSoxGal]

How exactly should Iranians feel about America and the threat she poses them?

[Darren]

Well done Darren for leaving it to the end of your post before you cited the Epoch Times. That was smart of you because I probably wouldn't have bothered to read it if you had put it in the first line.

Can I remind you that the greatest act of terrorism against the US came from 19 men, all Sunnis and mostly (17/19 IIRC) Saudis? The Iranians are not into sponsoring Sunnis. Of course the bone saw wielding tower destroying ISIS backing Al Qaeda sponsoring Saudis are Trump's best buddies now.

Iranian/Shia 'terrorism' is what under another set of eyes might be called freedom fighting. They regard the US invasion of Iraq - their next door neighbor, as it happens, as being just a precursor to what might happen to them. The US has form in this regard so they might be right.

Before you think that I condone the killing of American forces, nothing I say here comes close to that. Equally, I do not condone the assassination of a thug who, in my view, is less of a 'clear and present danger' to the US than many others. Including Trump himself. The US is an idea, not a collection of buildings or acreage or even people. Trump is a disaster to that idea.

We've been slaves to the Saudis since 1973 when they made the unmistakable point they controlled our economy via oil. I suspect the Saudis have wagged the US dog to do their bidding much more than we know. Wiping out a general running amok because he has a cheap ass good luck ring from his sky daddy representative is a logical albeit unexpected move.

Meanwhile crippling sanctions continue while prognosticators piss themselves over a land war in Iran. Why would we do that when we could easily eliminate Iran's refinery capability and oil shipping facilities? I wonder if Israel set up an Iron Dome/David's Sling defense system to protect Saudi facilities.

How long do you think the mullahs will remain in power if they have zip oil revenue? Our energy independence is an incomparable strategic weapon.

[Scooter]

[Econoline]

[ex-khobar Andy]

Rand Paul, being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN.

Basically, he sees Bolton's fingerprints all over the Suleimani assassination; it will lead to more violence against Americans - if he had some plan in the works they are not going to say, well, let's not do that then - and you'd have to be 'brain-dead' (Paul's words) to think that this action will bring Iran to the negotiating table.

Normally if I found myself agreeing with Rand Paul (the junior Senator from my state - sorry about that) on anything I'd assume that I had gone brain-dead.

Someone please reassure me.

[Guinevere]

I haven’t listened to or read the interview yet, but a good friend of mine who is a conservative Democrat, and despises Trump as well as Rand Paul, posted that interview this morning with similar comments as you. Blind pig/acorn?

[RayThom]

Rand Paul on FUX News:

[Big RR]

Blind pigs? Perhaps. But then he has been a voice, oftent the only voice, against the ME incursions and presidents acting unilaterally in committing troops for many years. Indeed, as I recall, he proposed a bill to revoke the Congressional authorizations for force previously grated after Sep 11 (but, of course, the Senate tabled it).

[wesw]

....

[Econoline]

????

[Crackpot]

!!!!

[RayThom]

....

I'm guessing this is wes' idea of an extended ellipsis.

No doubt indicating to us he's wrestling with a confused and unfinished thought.

Once it becomes semi-lucid to him he's sure to place it in an unrelated thread to surprise us all.

[Big RR]

Either that or it's part of a transcript.