Iran Nuclear Deal

Yeah, and you have to be a loon with his head up his ass to believe the contrary. Which is why Glenn Greenwald – a far-left scumbag with whom this increasingly alt-right and fact-free board has found a fascinating chunk of common ground vis-a-vis Obama, Clinton, Trump, and Assange – can write things like this:

It’s another little glimpse into the reality that to read PWI on anything remotely related to foreign affairs is to do actual damage to your understanding of the world.

1 Like

Strange definition of a friend - a country that organized the largest terrorist attack on US soil and funded an apocalyptic death cult.

Saudis are a paper tiger, their only influence and power is manifested through their ISIS footsoldiers and Washington lobbyists.

The Saudi army is a joke. With all that F-15s and billions of US military hardware (notice how KSA always has US hardware usually not sold to other countries?) they cannot defeat a dirt poor Houthi village militia. Most of the soldiers are foreign mercenaries as the Saudis are…well…afraid of that whole death thing.

There were many reports of Yemeni Houthis confidently stalking and destroying Saudi armor - they knew the tanks had no infantry support as Saudis stayed in their air conditioned tanks, not wanting to venture outside.

1 Like

Technically, no. You’re right, as a matter of policy we can never leave Israel to fend for itself totally. The impression is that, the “optics” are that our alliance with Israel appears to have been weakened. And to some degree it actually has. Our publicly calling out Israel the many time we have and the intevening in their affairs give the appearance of leaving Israel cold. And it obvious that Obama and Netanyahu hate each other.
But you are right, despite appearances we are Israel’s ally. But its a much chilled relationship, that is a fact.

Oh I agree. I hate being allied with Saudi Arabia in anyway. As far as I am concerned they are the genesis of modern terrorism. A liberal democratic -republic has nothing in common, nor should. We got in the bed with the devil and we cannot kick them out of the sack.
You have an ally in me with regards to hating Saudi Arabia. They can suck a dick as far as I am concerned.

1 Like

Only problem is…if the Monarch falls, who will step into the power vacuum? It’ll be the same as Iran & the fall of the Shah. The Sunnis who take over if the Monarchy falls will be even more extreme but blatantly anti-Western and pro-Jihad. Even worse than ISIS, I fear.

From the article smh posted:

" A senior Israeli official will arrive in Washington next week for a final round of negotiations involving the largest military aid package the United States has ever given any country and that will last more than a decade after President Obama leaves office.” The U.S. already transfers $3.1 billion in taxpayer money every year to Israel — more than any other country by far — but the new agreement Obama is set to sign “significantly raises” that amount, and guarantees it for 10 years".

I’d love to hear how you came to this conclusion.

Eh, they got a line of robotic monarchs. I don’t feel like that will make a difference.

I was speaking in terms of appearance, not the behind the scenes actualities. Since we were talking a lot about the appearance of actions and what they tell the world. One can conclude at a glance, the U.S. as has all but abandoned Israel. Given the fact that the Israeli PM came here giving a speech to congress on a matter that was skirting congress, that is of great importance to his country and the president didn’t even so much as acknowledge his presence, gives the appearance of abandonment.
We have deep, deep ties to Israel not even the president could subvert even if he wanted to. Though the impression he gives is that he does want to, but couldn’t do it if he wanted to.
I nearly felt comfortable enough to speak freely without it being read into as a deep analysis into every nuance of American policy with regards to Israel. That wasn’t the point. The point was the appearance of the utter failure in Syria, with the worst case scenario playing out. The appearance of increasing support for the Wahhabist, down right satanic regime of Saudi Arabia as a counter, and the appearance of nearly an anti-semitic tone from the administration with regards to Israel and it’s effect on how the U.S. appears on the world stage.

Israel wasn’t even the prime topic of the conversation… It was a passing comment on how this president appears to hate Israel. It wasn’t an accurate delving into the history of American - Israeli relations, but no doubt that has suffered at the hands of this administration. Israel fights daily for it’s very survival, we couldn’t even imagine. Getting admonished repeatedly by an administration for how it treats those who pledges its destruction leaves one with the impression that this administration would rather Israel capitulate to Hamas and give up it’s sovereignty.
Fortunately, the work of many administrations before this one has preserved American/ Israeli relations despite obama’s hate for them.

Do I really think obama hates Israel? Yes, absolutely. Is he compelled to abide by our lawful support to their thriving and survival? Yes, he has no choice. That is my opinion, which is an opinion, to which I have a right.

The real question Mufasa, is do you agree with the way Syria has been dealt with by the U.S.? Do you think it was handled like it should have been or could have it been dealt with better? That was the actual topic in question.

Leave it to those with a personal beef with me, to subvert the actual topic of discussion to take a personal shot based on a passing comment, used to illustrate a greater point. Yes, I could have said it better, in more accurate terms. My bad for not recognizing that everything I say is going to be dissected like a murdered corpse…

No one (the least of which was me); was attacking you, Pat.

For me, it was the incessant narrative (among many about this Administration that simply are not true); that 1) they are doing “nothing” in the Middle East and 2) they “hate” Israel.

I don’t believe this about the President and his Administration; and that opinion is my right also.

Now; Syria. There has been a lot written about Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War. One movie that I thought illustrated it best was “Path to War” (I think that was the name). It was as if every other week Johnson was told “more men/more weapons/more tonnage dropped…and we will “win” this thing”. (INCLUDING, ultimately nuking the North).

More tonnage was dropped on Vietnam than in WW-II; with the loss of enormous amounts of Blood and Treasury.

To me; Syria (like Vietnam); never has; and never will, have a military solution.

Even though the Right likes to say that the President has an enormous ego (as McConnell says incessantly “He thinks he is the smartest guy in the room”); thank goodness he let his head and even-temperament prevail when it came to Syria DESPITE the “red-line” declaration. (Which I am sure he wished he never said). The reality is that someone with a greater ego would have gone in with “guns and bombs blazing”…and simply made a terrible situation worse.

SYRIA IS ULTIMATELY A DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION, NOT A MILITARY ONE; and you can believe that all the major players (Yes…the U.S.;(thanks to a level-headed President) knows this; as well as Putin, Iran and Saudia Arabia).

So; there you have my opinion that I have a right to.

One last thing.

This siren-song of "Our credibility as an ally was weakened by us not (doing what exactly?) when Assad “crossed the line”…

With the EXCEPTION of Assad and the American Right…does anyone SERIOUSLY think that Putin is a stronger, more reliable ally because we did not choose to sink enormous Blood and Treasury into a place that has no military solution?

I honestly don’t think that our true allys think that. (Including Israel).

Not stronger, but more inclined to act. No one pressured the President into issuing the “red lines” statement, publicly commiting to supporting the so called Syrian opposition, providing them with weapons and recognizing them as the legitimate government of Syria. That last act was crucial from a formal standpoint - recognizing the rebels as the legitimate Syrian government, pressuring the NATO allies into doing the same, and then literally giving up. Now it’s pretty clear Assad isn’t going anywhere, the only issue is how much Syria he’ll end up controling.

That sends a message to NATO allies. A very bad message.

The US simply backed out, letting the Russians take over. And everyone saw it as a sign of weakness or unwillingness to follow through their rhetoric. No stomach for a fight, one could say.

Now Russia is running things in Syria - they’re dictating the narrative, discussing matters with the UN about an alleged humanitarian ceasefire, while the US is playing second fiddle, just commenting on Russian proposals and actions.

And unlike the Russians, the US supports their allies the Kurds half-heartedly with many caveats - only facilitating the provision of antiquated Soviet era weapons through third parties, the occasional airstrike and some SOF involvement. Remember how the US backed down on the shoulder patches.issue?

In other news, the ousted Yemen president, closely linked to Houthis is calling for deployment of the Russian navy and airforce in Yemen, citing old agreements with the USSR. I guess we’ll hear another warning from the White House and calls for deescalation.

1 Like

loppar:

One man’s “No stomach to fight” is another man’s learning from History…

Tell me one war and/or engagement since WW-II; especially the most recent in the Middle East; where greater tonnage and greater numbers of American Draped Coffins lead to better outcomes?

What exactly is Russia “running” in Syria?

And as it relates to the Kurd’s…I don’t think that it is our will at all…but our ability to use an already stretched Military; in the most effective way possible; over several hot-spots and theaters of Operation. We simply don’t have the ability to be everything to everybody all the time.

There is also the thorny problem of an insurgency the Kurd’s have fought with Turkey for decades.

Turkey is ESSENTIAL to the movement of aircraft, personnel and material with any engagement in the Middle East. What is the “balance” between supplying the Kurd’s large amounts of modern weapons, without completely alienating Turkey?

The list goes on-and-on.

The Middle East HAS no easy answers.

The President knows this.

Putin will learn this in due time.

I was never advocating US ground troops, that would be a mistake - merely pointing out the fact that a world superpower cannot afford to make belligerent proclamations, promise an imminent military intervention, double down on that and then simply back down because it seems everyone called their bluff.

I think this was the first time US backed down so openly without a face saving compromise.

That’s the role usually assigned to Kim Jong Un of North Korea who seems to promise an invasion of California at least once a year.

The Russians are running everything - they’ve turned the tide as far as Assad is concerned, Russian AF flies in direct support of Assad’s offensives on the ground and every action is designed to push back against the US.

Did you know that the Syrian AF started flying sorties against the Kurds just a few days ago after a break of several years? They were afraid, lest they provoke the Americans. Guess what, they’re not afraid anymore because the Russians have their back and they know the US won’t shoot down their planes.

As far as Turkey is concerned, A LOT has changed. Erdogan is openly calling out the US “either you’re with us or against us” over the extradition of Gulen, the Turks have cut power to the NATO base at Incirlik intentionally on several occasions, forcing them to resort to generators.

Doesn’t sound like a treasured ally.

1 Like

Thanks of the info and the updates, loppar.

“Ally” in the Middle East is certainly often an extremely nebulous thing.

1 Like

Yeah, it’s absolutely sad. It is a major sphere of influence change and not in a good direction for us. Or the rest of Europe for that matter.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Netanyahu committed one of the most egregious violations of diplomatic decorum in recent memory.

Really? Addressing the US Congress is the an egregious violation of diplomatic decorum? Congress is 1 of the 3 branches of our federal government who at the time of Netanyahu’s visit was virtually diametrically opposed to the executive branch. While I’ll agree that the executive branch has by no means been an enemy of Israel, their actions in addressing congress were merely an attempt to garner support among a friendlier branch of government one who may push for US action that is in line with Israel’s best interest. Every point posted in the article you listed could be picked apart with ease, I really don’t understand why you would take such offense at their attempt to garner support among the GOP.

1 Like

I know. You’re not part of the peanut gallery. You brought up a good point that I needed to elaborate on and I hope I did so satisfactorily. I appreaciate that we can differ and always talk rationally and calmly, without name calling and disparagement.

I didn’t say they did nothing. They did the wrong things. But I do believe obama, personally dislikes Israel. If not Israel, certainly Netanyahu.
However, there are legit criticisms about this administration’s ME policies. Saying he did ‘nothing’ goes back to his lackadaisical attitude toward ISIS, when everybody else in the world was immediately worried, he had that ‘meh, nothing to see here. They are not a big deal’. And he did infact do that.
He didn’t do nothing, he did some dangerously bad things.

[quote]

I appreciate your opinion. I definitely disagree. We stayed out of Syria for a long time and it disintegrated right in front of our eyes. ISIS rose, the country fell into a terrible civil war. Assad gassed his own people. And when we drew the ‘Red Line’, we got stared down.
Oh okay, we got rid of ‘all of their chemical weapons’. What did Assad do? He found something else to gas and kill them with.
Yes, a political solution is necessary, but it takes a military action to get people to the table. ISIS isn’t going to come to the table.
Let’s stop right there for a minute… If you believe there is anyway to get ISIS to the table politically… you cannot possibly believe that. We could bring them a bag of money, 12,000 sex slaves and completely pull out of the ME and that would not even give them pause. That would only embolden them even more. If you don’t believe me, read the latest issue of Dabiq, their little quarterly magazine. On page 30, they have an article “Why we hate you and want to kill you.” (Very well written btw). They explain very clearly, they will first hate us and want us dead because we are not islamic. That’s number 1. Aside from the fact they have killed thousands of muslims for being the wrong kind, or not being muslim enough. Unless we are militant muslims, they want to kill us.
Aside from ISIS, how do you get Hezbolah, Syrian Resistance, the Kurds, Syrian Democratic Forces, Al Nusra, the Syrian government, etc. all to the table?

How do you get to a political solution without any military intervention? If you know the way, I sure would like to hear it, because what’s going on there is affecting the entire world one way or another. If you know a peaceful way, that will truly work, I am on board…


I think at the core, where you and I differ, and correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me you tend to believe people are generally good and all want the same things in life? ← Does that sound like you?

I think people are generally shitty and selfish and are generally evil.
Unfortunately, the empirical evidence favors my world view.

2 Likes