Hamas is getting ground down in Gaza with little to show for it. I guess we have seen street demonstrations by jokers….”river to the sea” and all that. It seems inevitable that Hezbollah’s employer in Tehran will require it to take a more active and more muscular role in the conflict.
Israel under attack from Hamas
- Thread starter JamieDimonsBalls
- Start date
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
If you live in an alternate reality sure.
Arguing that Obama/Biden's position on Iran is the same as it always was is a completely fabricated worldview. We have backed the Saudi/Egypt axis and Israel for decades. Obama took a different approach to all of that (from my POV based on his "Progressive worldview) and Biden started down that same path until the Middle East blew up in his face.
Last edited:
you're POV is uninformed. looking at ME through the lens of American politics is silly and not very helpful. The US hasn't stopped supporting Israel for a moment though our politicians say contradictory things that are meant for internal consumption. Our relationship with SA has become a bit more dicey, as it should since they work against us so often, but remains intact. We're still selling them billions in arms to fight their own never ending war on terrorism. little has changed other than US citizens having a new president to bitch about every 4 to 8 years.
I am curious as to what "on the ropes" means. I have asked before, has a government ever fallen due to sanctions? Can you name the times?
North Korea is under tremendous sanctions. At one time it was the industrial heart of Korea, the South was the agrarian Korea. Below is a picture from space at night. North Korea can't even light up its cities. Yet I see no evidence they are conceding a single thing to the rest of the world. Iran has religious fervor, they will gladly forgo the latest TVs if that is what it takes to export their crazed ideology. My guess, I haven't seen stats, the vast majority of people killed in the October attack were killed by AK47s and grenades. Neither requires very much cost at all. My guess is you yourself could have funded that part of the attack. Probably even the motorized gliders as well. I'm not arguing against sanctions, but they have to be part of an overall plan that quite probably includes negotiation or military action.
We have had sanctions on North Korea, Venezuela, Iraq, Cuba, Syria, and now Russia. Serbia's economy went from $24 billion in 1990 to $8.6 billion in 2000 because of NATO sanctions, yet it was war that changed the situation on the ground. I wish sanctions worked, I had been a huge proponent. But once we try them a dozen times to no success it becomes obvious they are a weak tool. Countries that want to be part of the global community might be responsive. Pariahs don't care, and seem to have an opposite effect. They bolster the leadership by making them seem tough by standing up to the evil US/NATO/UN. Nothing allows a dictator a better internal excuse for failure than blaming outside forces.
We might as well sanction enemies, at least then we are sending them America dollars to do what we don't like. But we can't fool ourselves, withholding American dollars isn't going to change governments nor is it going to change actions. I look forward to your list of nations that have significantly altered they behavior to sanctions to prove that wrong.
Last edited:
For people like you mentioning Iran, Biden, and terror, in the same sentence is always partisan because there is no way Biden looks competent and good. Yeah, I’m a strong Biden critic in general. But as far as Iran, terror, and the Middle East is concerned, the Biden/ Obama approach is especially disgraceful. I backed up my view with undisputed facts, historical events, and argument. All you and goat can manage is screaming “Partisan!” Go waste time elsewhere.
disgraceful? again, Obama pulled the trigger on STUXNET. You argue that Iran funds terrorism with US dollars while the same could be said for our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Respectfully, all of your "facts" can be disputed. Drawing a line from Obama/ Biden to 10/7 is like drawing a line from Bush W. to 9/11. why? oh ya, this board, your political identity, yada yada.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Speaking of STUXNET, I read a work if fiction on how that worm made its way into a computer system that is not connected in any way to tge outside world. Interesting stuff.
Of course my facts can be disputed. ((And I appreciate your efforts in that regard). That is why I keep saying causation cannot be established with certainty. But certain facts are undisputed such as the billions of dollars Iran accumulated under the Obama/Biden policies of economic leniency, and Iran financing uncivilized Jew hate/terror throughout the Middle East. I think the case for Obama Biden policies being a probable proximate cause is a good one.
As for 9/11 I don’t think you’re entirely wrong, but your point is not strong. The Bin Laden family is very wealthy in their own right. Our economic dealings with SA is not well connected to 9/11.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Trump's Iran Failures Left Biden With No Choice But to Make a Deal
Senator Chris Murphy explains why former President Trump's failures on Iran's nuclear program have left President Biden with little choice
This article does a great job of explaining the Trump fiasco with Iran.
“Sanctions“ is a current word to the same effect as boycotts, embargo’s and punishing tariffs we and others have used for centuries. Some have been pretty effective. For example, Trump leraged the threat of tariffs against Mexico to secure Mexican cooperation with the remain in Mexico policy. Even Biden bragged about withholding US aid to Ukraine if Ukraine continued investigating Burisma. That is a form of sanction.I am curious as to what "on the ropes" means. I have asked before, has a government ever fallen due to sanctions? Can you name the times?
North Korea is under tremendous sanctions. At one time it was the industrial heart of Korea, the South was the agrarian Korea. Below is a picture from space at night. North Korea can't even light up its cities. Yet I see no evidence they are conceding a single thing to the rest of the world. Iran has religious fervor, they will gladly forgo the latest TVs if that is what it takes to export their crazed ideology. My guess, I haven't seen stats, the vast majority of people killed in the October attack were killed by AK47s and grenades. Neither requires very much cost at all. My guess is you yourself could have funded that part of the attack. Probably even the motorized gliders as well. I'm not arguing against sanctions, but they have to be part of an overall plan that quite probably includes negotiation or military action.
We have had sanctions on North Korea, Venezuela, Iraq, Cuba, Syria, and now Russia. Serbia's economy went from $24 billion in 1990 to $8.6 billion in 2000 because of NATO sanctions, yet it was war that changed the situation on the ground. I wish sanctions worked, I had been a huge proponent. But once we try them a dozen times to no success it becomes obvious they are a weak tool. Countries that want to be part of the global community might be responsive. Pariahs don't care, and seem to have an opposite effect. They bolster the leadership by making them seem tough by standing up to the evil US/NATO/UN. Nothing allows a dictator a better internal excuse for failure than blaming outside forces.
We might as well sanction enemies, at least then we are sending them America dollars to do what we don't like. But we can't fool ourselves, withholding American dollars isn't going to change governments nor is it going to change actions. I look forward to your list of nations that have significantly altered they behavior to sanctions to prove that wrong.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
MtM and CoH, was fascinated with your discussion concerning sanctions on Iran and whether the Iranian economy was on the ropes.I am curious as to what "on the ropes" means. I have asked before, has a government ever fallen due to sanctions? Can you name the times?
North Korea is under tremendous sanctions. At one time it was the industrial heart of Korea, the South was the agrarian Korea. Below is a picture from space at night. North Korea can't even light up its cities. Yet I see no evidence they are conceding a single thing to the rest of the world. Iran has religious fervor, they will gladly forgo the latest TVs if that is what it takes to export their crazed ideology. My guess, I haven't seen stats, the vast majority of people killed in the October attack were killed by AK47s and grenades. Neither requires very much cost at all. My guess is you yourself could have funded that part of the attack. Probably even the motorized gliders as well. I'm not arguing against sanctions, but they have to be part of an overall plan that quite probably includes negotiation or military action.
We have had sanctions on North Korea, Venezuela, Iraq, Cuba, Syria, and now Russia. Serbia's economy went from $24 billion in 1990 to $8.6 billion in 2000 because of NATO sanctions, yet it was war that changed the situation on the ground. I wish sanctions worked, I had been a huge proponent. But once we try them a dozen times to no success it becomes obvious they are a weak tool. Countries that want to be part of the global community might be responsive. Pariahs don't care, and seem to have an opposite effect. They bolster the leadership by making them seem tough by standing up to the evil US/NATO/UN. Nothing allows a dictator a better internal excuse for failure than blaming outside forces.
We might as well sanction enemies, at least then we are sending them America dollars to do what we don't like. But we can't fool ourselves, withholding American dollars isn't going to change governments nor is it going to change actions. I look forward to your list of nations that have significantly altered they behavior to sanctions to prove that wrong.
Came across this article on the economy of iran which includes the use of sanctions. After reading it, seems to me a conclusion could be reached both pro and con about the economy being on the ropes thanks to sanctions.
The article in part has this to say...
American sanctions have been a fact of life for Iran, since 1979, with a brief pause, curtailing Iran’s crucial oil exports. This has caused the external value of the rial to plummet. To buy one dollar, you need 42,000 Iranian rials. A Coca-Cola costs 60,000 rials.
Yet the Iranian economy has been resilient. Iran still exports hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil daily, mainly to China. And the weak rial and sanctions have helped Iran’s manufacturers to substitute local goods for imported ones.
In my view the notion that sanctions and the impact on ordinary Iranians will cause a revolution is foolhardy. The sanctions simply gives the ayatollahs a case for blaming the United states for all that ails the Iranian economy.
That is uncalled for. I have responded to you with absolutely no personal comment and treated your position with respect. But I have expressed strong disagreement with you. That’s okay, isn’t it?
This comment is the reason many threads sink to stupid personal attacks about partisanship. and why this board sucks. Do you really wanna join the goat/ hickory club?
Except, the fact that Iran asked for and received a release of embargoed funds in exchange for a release of a couple of hostages. Those funds mattered.
I believe I said if a country wants to remain part of the global community, sanctions might have a small impact. An investigation, remain in place, are both very small items and both countries desperately want to remain a member of the world community in good standing.
Iran wants to be an instigator, they want to be seen as the alternative in the M.E. to American hegemony. In a West Wing episode, a Saudi said that when their opponents really want to hurt the ruling family the opponents call the ruling family "Americans". Yes, that is fiction, but there is little doubt in much of the M.E., the term American is an insult. Iran is very happy to wear the mantle of the alternative to American.
We need to start thinking ahead. Iran is the disaster it is because we ran a coup and put a horrible person on the throne. Central America is largely filled with failed nations because we routinely fought wars to put in leaders beholden to United Fruit Company (late 1800s the early 1900s) or supplied weapons to any dictator who claimed to be anti-communist (1950-circa 1990). If we conduct foreign policy where we consider, "what is the best interests of the people in country 'X'" maybe in 40 years we won't be faced with all these messes.
But Iran very specifically wants to be seen as the anti-western player in the M.E. Either we have to coopt them through diplomacy or attack them. Sanctions can be part of that, but sanctions alone ain't going to move the needle any more than they did on Castro, Assad, Gaddafi, Hussein, or Kim.
Or put it in terms in this country. Sanctions are like home confinement. If someone has an interest in having a job, having a family and a normal life, they will abide by it. If someone doesn't care and just wants to kill others, putting a leg monitor on them and asking them to stay home isn't going to be much of a sanction.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
you mean join the coh, danc, stoll, dmb, indianftw club
stop acting like your side's crap doesn't stink.
Iran is disappointed this hasn't evolved into a full-scale war. I suppose it still could, but it wouldn't be pretty for Hezbolla or Iran.
Oh my! Some posters will be shocked you use the F word.
Ban yourself! lol
Yep, it hasn't taken you long to figure out his MO.
He's the most misunderstood poster here - if you don't believe it, just ask him.
@Bowlmania is going to be OUTRAGED about this…
I think there's no doubt that sanctions limit the amount of money Iran can spend on terror activities in the ME. I don't know anyone who thinks it will spark a revolution now - used to be that was part of the goal, but I don't think anyone believes it now.
you want me to ignore the obvious just so you can go on thinking you're being objective and coming from a place of knowledge? not my job. want a different outcome to a thread? do better. I'm sure you are a good dude but blaming any single president for 10/7 is actually why this board sucks.
There's a difference between blaming a President for 10/7 - which no one is doing - and a President setting the conditions for 10/7 to occur - which is what I believe to be CoH's argument, and one with which I agree.
doubtful, sanctions likely limited the amount of money Iran could spend on civilian infrastructure or healthcare or things like that. Those dudes are gonna be well armed and do terrorist things; it's the foundation of their ruling party.
Well, it's interesting that there was relatively little terror activity in the ME under Trump's policies.
What he said:
"Cause and effect is never certain, but it is much more likely than not that Obama with his bad people on both sides nonsense, and Biden with his Obama inspired boneheaded Iranian policy directly led to the October 7 slaughter and ongoing war."
Weird you are defending his objectivity while blindly jumping in on his side. anyway, who cares about this schoolyard shit. If you agree that Democrats set the stage, make your case. maybe you have new, more compelling arguments. .
this is your contribution? at least the other guy tried. we're done here.
Maybe you forgot to emphasize "POLICY" in that quote?
Makes a big difference.
I'm not 'blindly' jumping in anywhere. I agree with him 100% and it's what I told you - the conditions were set by Obama and Biden.
Lol. I'm fine with "fvck off." Basically it's "get out of here" or stop bothering me. "Fvck you," though, should result in a time out. Very different connotation.
Now fvck off.
So would you accept that 9/11 didn't happen under Clinton therefore Clinton doesn't share the blame? Even I don't believe that. Nor do I accept that Ike and JFK played no role in Vietnam because Tonkin happened under LBJ. We like to think there is an immediate causation. Pearl Harbor didn't happen because of an American action on December 6. What happened in October has been building for a very long time. Shat happened on 9/11 had been building for a long time. Fort Sumter had been building a long time.
Our problem is that we have had very bad politics in the ME for a couple of generations. I'm not going to excuse Democrats or Republicans. Anything I read on attitudes of "the street" shows America to be disliked and untrusted. We score well with elites though.
I don’t want you to ignore what I said. But responding with that “political identity” claptrap is the same thing.
I don’t hide the fact that I consider Biden a weak man and terrible president. Iran brags about Jew hatred as being an official policy., Its funding anti-Jew terror is undisputed. October 7 is an obvious foreseeable result of Obama/Biden political and economic leniency toward Iran.
