ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags US-Iran relations

View Poll Results: ?
Very skeptical 30 85.71%
Somewhat skeptical 3 8.57%
Not skeptical 2 5.71%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 26th June 2019, 12:33 PM   #41
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,373
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
I'm not sure either, but I voted "very skeptical". Since I'm skeptical of Iran, I'm skeptical of Bolton, and I'm skeptical that Trump has any sort of plan.
That reminds me, I forgot to vote. Went for "very skeptical" because a) what policy and b) the evidence that the general public receives is very sketchy.

I'm skeptical that there is a policy. Iran's policy is to poke America's eye with their thumbs.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 12:53 PM   #42
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,373
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I have a friend based not far from me in Mapua, who takes groups of older & retired tourists on 2˝ week guided tours of ancient Persia.

http://www.tourpersia.co.nz/

Their experiences sound similar to yours
Iran has a lot going for it. The rest of the world apparently wants to do business with Iran and Iran very much wants engagement with the rest of the world. That said, I'm still not sure what U.S. policy toward it should be. Pissing off the U.S. is a big part of the Iranian government's mission statement.

In 1979 I never would have believed that the theocracy would still be in place 40 years later.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 02:46 PM   #43
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,198
I am skeptical of everything to do with Iran
Trump's policy is stupid, but Iran is not to be trusted because of the constant power struggle between the more moderate and the extermists (though most of the moderates would be considered pretty extreme by Western Standards) it's total mess with no solution in sight.
And Trump's talk about how easy a war against Iran would be should set off alarms. I don't think Iran is a powerful militarialy as a few people here think,( I don't think they much of a naval capability) but a war agains them would be long and bloody. Trump's claim today that the could win without Ground Troops is pure crap.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 03:26 PM   #44
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,483
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
And: I can only speak to 2003, but my experiences in Iran to some extent contradict the idea that it is a theocratic hellhole. I found a vibrant, diverse and often fairly secular culture that loves to celebrate. That was during a liberalized period and I'm pretty sure the government wanted to make a good impression on a group of visiting Americans, but it wasn't a Potemkin-type setup; we had many spontaneous encounters that could not have been staged.

I think Tehran is a fairly Western, literate and liberal city. As one gets farther from Tehran, the situation becomes much more unstable.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 04:14 PM   #45
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,373
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I think Tehran is a fairly Western, literate and liberal city. As one gets farther from Tehran, the situation becomes much more unstable.
There are big divisions within the city itself. We were in the boonies some of the time and everyone seemed inordinately thrilled to be meeting Americans.

I had hopes for Iran at the time but have dialed that back considerably.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 04:44 PM   #46
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,675
I think Iran will get nuclear weapons no matter what. I don't think there's anything short of war and regime change that could prevent it.

One day, Iran will threaten the Persian Gulf with nukes. On that day, Europe will plead with America to let Iran have its way. China will accuse America, not Iran, of warmongering. Russia will promise to safeguard Iran against retaliation. America, bless its heart, will back down.

And then the Strait of Hormuz will be nothing more than a revenue stream for a regime that uses terrorism to get what it wants.

I think most members of this forum support this outcome, the same way most Trump voters support white supremacy. The difference being that most members of this forum are probably smart enough to reevaluate their support, if they choose. But will they?

Raise your hand if you want Iran to have nuclear weapons.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 06:12 PM   #47
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,373
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think most members of this forum support this outcome, the same way most Trump voters support white supremacy. The difference being that most members of this forum are probably smart enough to reevaluate their support, if they choose. But will they?
Wait - are you saying Trump voters *aren't* smart enough to re-evaluate their support?

Your post is pure fantasy. There's no reason to think that Iran, unique among nations, is going to hold the world at nukepoint in order to control the world's oil, while the rest of the planet watches helplessly, waiting for the U.S. to do something. If Iran could produce that effect, why bother even producing oil? They could just extort cash.

If there was a feasible way to bet you a lot of money, I would do so.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And then the Strait of Hormuz will be nothing more than a revenue stream for a regime that uses terrorism to get what it wants.
You mean Saudi Arabia?
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 06:17 PM   #48
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,538
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
One day, Iran will threaten the Persian Gulf with nukes. On that day, Europe will plead with America to let Iran have its way. China will accuse America, not Iran, of warmongering. Russia will promise to safeguard Iran against retaliation. America, bless its heart, will back down.

And then the Strait of Hormuz will be nothing more than a revenue stream for a regime that uses terrorism to get what it wants.
Dude, normally you talk people down from hysterical pessimism.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 06:52 PM   #49
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
I thought that this might be a relevant topic.
I will let you know if I ever figure out what that policy is since there is no clear evidence of a coherent policy or an effective way to carry it out.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 07:09 PM   #50
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,483
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
One day, Iran will threaten the Persian Gulf with nukes. On that day, Europe will plead with America to let Iran have its way. China will accuse America, not Iran, of warmongering. Russia will promise to safeguard Iran against retaliation. America, bless its heart, will back down.

I don't think any of that will happen. I think a coalition of world powers will police the gulf. It's just too important to everyone. I think we'll end up with pretty much the same deal that Trump backed out of. And every so often the world will pay Iran money to just not be jerks for five more years.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 08:10 PM   #51
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,159
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think Iran will get nuclear weapons no matter what. I don't think there's anything short of war and regime change that could prevent it.

...

I think most members of this forum support this outcome, the same way most Trump voters support white supremacy. The difference being that most members of this forum are probably smart enough to reevaluate their support, if they choose. But will they?

Raise your hand if you want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Except that's all pretty much ********. The Iran Deal was working, and most of the non-Trump-supporters here seem to have supported that deal.

Years of sanctions didn't stop North Korea from developing nukes, so why would we keep trying the same thing with Iran? Having failed in one case, what's the point in continuing that failed methodology in this case?

The only thing that can stop Iran from developing nukes is convincing them that they don't really need nukes, and to do that, we need to engage them on some level other than the antagonism that has characterized the last 40 years, and that Trump et al. have decided to double down on.

If you're so concerned about the problems that might arise for a nuclear armed Iran, the one plan you should absolutely not be supporting is the Trump plan. Even if you think the Iran Deal wasn't working, Trump's plan cannot possibly work.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 08:10 PM   #52
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,897
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I don't think any of that will happen. I think a coalition of world powers will police the gulf. It's just too important to everyone. I think we'll end up with pretty much the same deal that Trump backed out of. And every so often the world will pay Iran money to just not be jerks for five more years.
I can easily see a situation where, if necessary, the US Navy (and perhaps the navies of some other nations) will own fleets of military oil tankers, armed to the teeth with air and sea defence systems, and escorted by missile frigates through the Persian Gulf. Any Iranian military ships that come with range will be warned off, and if they don't heed the warnings, they will be put on the bottom.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 08:20 PM   #53
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,159
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I can easily see a situation where, if necessary, the US Navy (and perhaps the navies of some other nations) will own fleets of military oil tankers, armed to the teeth with air and sea defence systems, and escorted by missile frigates through the Persian Gulf. Any Iranian military ships that come with range will be warned off, and if they don't heed the warnings, they will be put on the bottom.


...and the price of oil will double, anyways.

Not that this will mean we won't do it, of course, but it would still be stupid.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 08:52 PM   #54
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,678
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think Iran will get nuclear weapons no matter what. I don't think there's anything short of war and regime change that could prevent it.

One day, Iran will threaten the Persian Gulf with nukes. On that day, Europe will plead with America to let Iran have its way. China will accuse America, not Iran, of warmongering. Russia will promise to safeguard Iran against retaliation. America, bless its heart, will back down.

And then the Strait of Hormuz will be nothing more than a revenue stream for a regime that uses terrorism to get what it wants.

I think most members of this forum support this outcome, the same way most Trump voters support white supremacy. The difference being that most members of this forum are probably smart enough to reevaluate their support, if they choose. But will they?

Raise your hand if you want Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Pakistan already has them. They are right next door. They are "friendly" countries. Raise your hand if you want Pakistan to have nuclear weapons.

India already has them. They are one country further down. They and Pakistan have already threatened each other with nukes. Raise your hand if you want India to have nuclear weapons.

Israel already has them...probably, sold to them by the USA. They are within bomber or missile range. Israel is on "your" side and is fully prepared to nuke anyone else who threatens their regional hegemony. Raise your hand if you want Israel to have nuclear weapons.

Saudi Arabia will be getting them if Trump has his way, because he will make an insane personal profit from the sale. They are straight over the gulf, within spitting distance. Saudi Arabia is a despotic Muslim regime where the 9-11 terrorists came from and they like to chainsaw dissident Americans. Raise your hand if you want Saudi Arabia to have nuclear weapons.

Russia already has them. They are every ******* where in the region. Russia is Trump's bosom buddy - he owes them his fortune. Raise your hand if you want Russia to have nuclear weapons.


Seriously. Iran won't have nuclear weapons anytime in the foreseeable future. But they will have nuclear power and research. That's what the oversight agreement that Trump tore up was about. They were complying, and they still are complying, even though Trump is no longer in the game. For now.

The one actual reason for all this is that Bolton has this raging hard-on to start a war with somebody, anybody, even if it means lies and unreasonable provocation. Pompeo to a lesser extent but still prepared to push the button. And Trump is such a weak and feckless character that he is being dragged along as the fall-guy. He hasn't a clue what he is doing, any time of day.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 10:14 PM   #55
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Lion's Den
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
"Bad actor" does not equal "started a war"

Iran has done very provocative things including attacking oil tankers and attempting to lay mines in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz, since shortly after the 1979 Iranian Revolution that unseated the Shah, and put Sayyid Ruhollah Khomeini in power.
So Iran does provocative things, while the USA engages in wholesale slaughter, murder and destruction from one end of the Middle-East to the other.

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
This reads like something out of a b-movie, and a pretty uninspired one at that. I believe Tom Clancy is diseased, but maybe one of his colleagues might be able to give the CTers a writing workshop?
Once a skeptic discovers that truth might be more stranger than fiction he reflexively dismisses everything he hears as a conspiracy theory. However, recent history will attest to reality of the statement by General Wesley Clark.

Iraq War(2003)
Somalia(2006)
Libya(2011)
Syria(2011 - )

And we are currently beating the war drums for Iran.
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"
tanabear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 10:21 PM   #56
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,531
What we've got so far in terms of Iran policy out of this administration is Pompeo's demand for Total Surrender of the Leadership in Teheran.

Yeah, I'm a bit skeptical about that.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 02:36 AM   #57
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,373
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
The one actual reason for all this is that Bolton has this raging hard-on to start a war with somebody, anybody, even if it means lies and unreasonable provocation. Pompeo to a lesser extent but still prepared to push the button. And Trump is such a weak and feckless character that he is being dragged along as the fall-guy. He hasn't a clue what he is doing, any time of day.
Ah, but Putin will be whispering into Trump's other ear and he probably has more influence than Bolton. Maybe we can outfit an excursion into Venezuela to keep Bolton happy. Or do something to Cuba.

Point taken about all the other nukes around the globe. We don't need another nuclear-armed state, but I'm no more alarmed about Iran's program than I am about Pakistan's etc.

It's been said that crippling sanctions only gives the Iranian regime cover for the crappy job it does managing the economy. The rest of the world wants to do business with Iran which in turn I think would welcome being back in the mainstream politically and economically. IMO they want that more than they do nukes.

Last edited by Minoosh; 27th June 2019 at 02:38 AM.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 03:43 AM   #58
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,260
Reports at the moment seem to indicate that it was the foreign affairs advisor, someone called Tucker I think, that persuaded Trump that it would cause terrible harm and the consequences were simply unthinkable if Trump started a war in the middle east.....
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 04:15 AM   #59
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,897
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
So Iran does provocative things, while the USA engages in wholesale slaughter, murder and destruction from one end of the Middle-East to the other..
FFS calm down!

Always with you its the extremes isn't it! You are just totally incapable of undertstanding context and nuance.

Just because I think Iran is, and has been, a bad actor in the region does not mean I would favour unleashing a barrage of nukes and glassing the whole country!
__________________
#THEYAREUS
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 05:47 AM   #60
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,159
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Ah, but Putin will be whispering into Trump's other ear and he probably has more influence than Bolton.


This is the part of the Trump Tea Leaves I have the most trouble figuring out. Trump keeps going hot and cold on if he's going to engage Iran, or just obliterate them, but if he's really not keen on the obliteration option, why the **** is Bolton even in the room? Is Trump really so stupid that he doesn't have Bolton's number the way everyone else who has been paying attention has it?

If he really does want to engage Iran in a non-confrontational manner, then Bolton should be Public Enemy #1 around the White House.

And yet, there he sits, mustache and all.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 06:06 AM   #61
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,426
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
This is the part of the Trump Tea Leaves I have the most trouble figuring out. Trump keeps going hot and cold on if he's going to engage Iran, or just obliterate them, but if he's really not keen on the obliteration option, why the **** is Bolton even in the room? Is Trump really so stupid that he doesn't have Bolton's number the way everyone else who has been paying attention has it?

If he really does want to engage Iran in a non-confrontational manner, then Bolton should be Public Enemy #1 around the White House.

And yet, there he sits, mustache and all.
From what I understand, Bolton is the only guy who would take the job.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 10:34 AM   #62
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,373
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
And yet, there he sits, mustache and all.
As far as I know, Bolton is at least not one of Trump's more evangelical advisers. That would be Pompeo. They think the world is going to end soon and conflagration is necessary development to fulfill biblical prophecy.

That scares me more than a secular neocon. (If "neocon" is still a thing.)
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 10:36 AM   #63
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,531
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
As far as I know, Bolton is at least not one of Trump's more evangelical advisers. That would be Pompeo. They think the world is going to end soon and conflagration is necessary development to fulfill biblical prophecy.

That scares me more than a secular neocon. (If "neocon" is still a thing.)
What scares me most is the two teaming up.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 04:46 PM   #64
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,407
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
I believe most Americans have lost count of the wars we've started just this century.
Please, do count them. What wars have the US started in the past 100 years?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 05:03 PM   #65
AnonyMoose
Muse
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 532
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Please, do count them. What wars have the US started in the past 100 years?

Directly or by proxy?
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
AnonyMoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 05:08 PM   #66
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,407
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
Directly or by proxy?
Directly. Claiming actions by proxy requires a lot of evidence of what was going on in back channels we likely have very little evidence of, but rather a lot of opinion biased speculation about.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 05:11 PM   #67
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,198
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Reports at the moment seem to indicate that it was the foreign affairs advisor, someone called Tucker I think, that persuaded Trump that it would cause terrible harm and the consequences were simply unthinkable if Trump started a war in the middle east.....
That is sort of a remnant of Carlson's Libertarian days, since Libertarians have a Isolationist foreign policy (although they brand it "Non Interventationist"). Tucker sort of deserted the Libertarians for the Hard right along time ago, but occasionally his early Libertarian leanings resurface.
But don't get your hopes up. in the end I think that Sean has Trump's ear a lot more then Tucker, and Sean is an super hawk.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.

Last edited by dudalb; 27th June 2019 at 05:12 PM.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 06:01 PM   #68
AnonyMoose
Muse
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 532
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Directly. Claiming actions by proxy requires a lot of evidence of what was going on in back channels we likely have very little evidence of, but rather a lot of opinion biased speculation about.

In the last 100 years, I'm not able to recall any directly... or do we get to include historically well-known false flags?

Needless to say, there has been plenty by way of proxy, regime changes, military 'interventions' for 'humanitarian' purposes or otherwise, so-called red lines, etc.

All the while playing both sides of the chess board (Psst! Hey you, wanna buy some arms?).

It's almost as if these indirect ways have been perfected down to a science over the decades, so as to keep the USA (or any of its western allies) from getting some fingers pointed in their direction via any potential concrete evidence showing how they may have started it and/or purposefully fanned the flames. I might even go as far as to--

Oh look, squirrel!
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
AnonyMoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2019, 07:19 PM   #69
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,407
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
In the last 100 years, I'm not able to recall any directly... or do we get to include historically well-known false flags?
That depends, do you plan to claim that 9/11 was a false flag? Or are you planning to bring out ones that were suggested but never happened like Operation Northwoods?

Quote:
Needless to say, there has been plenty by way of proxy, regime changes, military 'interventions' for 'humanitarian' purposes or otherwise, so-called red lines, etc.
And this is the issue, because as soon as you chase down that rabbit hole, we have to take the conversation over to the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum. This is why I want to stay in "fact based", direct wars that the US started.

Heck, I am even happy to give you Iraq 2003 as a starter.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2019, 10:40 AM   #70
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,159
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
From what I understand, Bolton is the only guy who would take the job.


The one time it might have been better to leave the post vacant, Trump nominates exactly the wrong guy for the job, because there's no one else available.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by that.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2019, 11:23 AM   #71
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,728
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
In the last 100 years, I'm not able to recall any directly... or do we get to include historically well-known false flags?
I mean... Iraq part 2. Not that Saddam was blameless, but we started that one.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2019, 12:08 PM   #72
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,675
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
I mean... Iraq part 2. Not that Saddam was blameless, but we started that one.
Does Reagan bombing Libya count? Does Obama bombing Libya count?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2019, 04:53 PM   #73
AnonyMoose
Muse
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 532
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
I mean... Iraq part 2. Not that Saddam was blameless, but we started that one.

Ah yes, I forgot about that one.

Saddam made the mistake of trusting the US's word when they gave him an indirect thumbs up to attack Kuwait... meanwhile the US was actually playing both sides of the chess board on that one.

Also the US bombing of Libya brought on by an admitted Mossad false flag. You can't tell me the US wasn't aware of what their Iraeli allies were up to in Tripoli.
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
AnonyMoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2019, 05:03 PM   #74
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,407
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Does Reagan bombing Libya count?
Nope, it wasn't a war, and it was retaliation for the Pam Am 103 1986 West Berlin discotheque bombing

Quote:
Does Obama bombing Libya count?
Nope, they were part of a coalition that was created by and lead by France.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 28th June 2019 at 05:29 PM. Reason: wrong bombing
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2019, 05:37 PM   #75
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,407
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
Ah yes, I forgot about that one.
You forgot the most major war involving the US in the 2000s?

Quote:
Saddam made the mistake of trusting the US's word when they gave him an indirect thumbs up to attack Kuwait... meanwhile the US was actually playing both sides of the chess board on that one.
how exactly do you indirectly give someone your word?

Quote:
Also the US bombing of Libya brought on by an admitted Mossad false flag. You can't tell me the US wasn't aware of what their Iraeli allies were up to in Tripoli.
The 1986 West Berlin discotheque bombing was a Mossad False flag? care to prove that or should we just send you to the CT Forum right now? Especially since deals of the attack were revealed when the Berlin Wall fell and the East German police files were opened to the West.

Or are you meaning that somehow Gaddaffi's troops firing on protesters and leading to the Libyan Civil war and the subsequent French planned and lead air operation, was a Mossad false flag?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2019, 07:05 PM   #76
AnonyMoose
Muse
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 532
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You forgot the most major war involving the US in the 2000s?

No. I forgot about the specific circumstances behind how it all began. No need to be a sarcastic dick about it.


Quote:
how exactly do you indirectly give someone your word?

By telling Hussein's ambassador that the US had no interest in arab fights (Hussein originally asked permission from the US to start a war with Kuwait by way of his ambassador), giving the false impression to Hussein that the US would not interfere should he go after Kuwait because they apparently 'couldn't care less'. It was an outright lie.



Quote:
The 1986 West Berlin discotheque bombing was a Mossad False flag? care to prove that or should we just send you to the CT Forum right now? Especially since deals of the attack were revealed when the Berlin Wall fell and the East German police files were opened to the West.

Or are you meaning that somehow Gaddaffi's troops firing on protesters and leading to the Libyan Civil war and the subsequent French planned and lead air operation, was a Mossad false flag?

The 1986 bombing. A mossad agent (Victor Ostrovsky - forgot his name, had to look him up) admitted that the mossad planted a trojan transmittor near Gaddafi's headquarters and sent out false transmissions. These fake transmissions to Berlin were intercepted by the US that gave them the 'proof' they needed that Libya supposedly ordered the bombing of the Berlin nightclub. Reagan bombed nine days later.

This has been written about by many news outlets over the years.

I find it hard to believe that the US wasn't aware of what the mossad was doing. But hey, you never know... maybe US intelligence did honestly bungle that one up and took the bait hook, line, and sinker. I have my doubts though.
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
AnonyMoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2019, 07:30 AM   #77
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,450
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Once a conspiracy theorist discovers that truth might be more stranger than fiction he reflexively makes up a conspiracy theory.
FTFY .

Quote:
However, recent history will attest to reality of the statement by General Wesley Clark.

Iraq War(2003)
Somalia(2006)
Libya(2011)
Syria(2011 - )

And we are currently beating the war drums for Iran.
Firstly, I was commenting on the writing style. It didn't sound like a description of an actual event, but something out of some sub-par action novel.

Secondly, the fact that these countries are or have been at war, several of them without the US having lifted a finger to start those conflicts, doesn't mean this alleged Tom Clancy-wannabe meeting scene actually happened.

Also, if the US had plans to topple the regime in Syria or in any way , isn't it very odd that they've been doing nothing since the hostilities there began. Obama had the authority to send forces there without congressional approval. So why didn't he? Did they change their minds? Are black men not allowed to be in on the conspiracies?
__________________
In choosing to support humanitarian organizations, it's best to choose those that do not have "militant wings" (Mycroft, 2013)
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2019, 07:48 AM   #78
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,538
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
Secondly, the fact that these countries are or have been at war, several of them without the US having lifted a finger to start those conflicts, doesn't mean this alleged Tom Clancy-wannabe meeting scene actually happened.
I think that's the key. The US is going to get involved to some degree in any civil or international conflict that occurs in certain parts of the world, for its own interests. Which is nothing new, nor is it unique to the US. If anything it would be more sinister if there were a conflict we were conspicuously absent from.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2019, 12:58 PM   #79
portlandatheist
Illuminator
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,113
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
No. I forgot about the specific circumstances behind how it all began. No need to be a sarcastic dick about it.





By telling Hussein's ambassador that the US had no interest in arab fights (Hussein originally asked permission from the US to start a war with Kuwait by way of his ambassador), giving the false impression to Hussein that the US would not interfere should he go after Kuwait because they apparently 'couldn't care less'. It was an outright lie.






The 1986 bombing. A mossad agent (Victor Ostrovsky - forgot his name, had to look him up) admitted that the mossad planted a trojan transmittor near Gaddafi's headquarters and sent out false transmissions. These fake transmissions to Berlin were intercepted by the US that gave them the 'proof' they needed that Libya supposedly ordered the bombing of the Berlin nightclub. Reagan bombed nine days later.

This has been written about by many news outlets over the years.

I find it hard to believe that the US wasn't aware of what the mossad was doing. But hey, you never know... maybe US intelligence did honestly bungle that one up and took the bait hook, line, and sinker. I have my doubts though.
No mention of the False Flag theory here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_W..._note-linked-1
Four people found guilty here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/w...-to-libya.html
Quote:
Any historian of warfare knows it is in good part a comedy of errors and a museum of incompetence;
but if for every error and every act of incompetence one can substitute an act of treason, many points of fascinating interpretation are open to the paranoid imagination.
--Richard Hofstadter in The Paranoid Style in American Politics.

Last edited by portlandatheist; 30th June 2019 at 12:58 PM. Reason: spelling
portlandatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 09:12 PM   #80
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,407
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
By telling Hussein's ambassador that the US had no interest in arab fights (Hussein originally asked permission from the US to start a war with Kuwait by way of his ambassador), giving the false impression to Hussein that the US would not interfere should he go after Kuwait because they apparently 'couldn't care less'. It was an outright lie.
I suggest you go and look at what was really happening at the time. Hussien never asked for permission, but yes the US was being "weak" in its stance on the Iraqi build up. The US ambassador did not say that they "didn't care," but rather that they "had no opinion on Arab-Arab conflict." However, at the same time he also said that Iraq needed to find a peaceful way to resolve the border conflict.

Meanwhile the White-house was relaying mixed messages including that they had no strategic interest in Kuwait, and that they would support their friends in the Middle East. The problem wasn't that they were giving a go ahead, it was that they literally had zero policy on what to do if Iraq invaded and they were being assured by both Egypt and Saudi Arabia that Saddam would not invade, that things could be sorted out peacefully if the US stayed out of it and didn't escalate the situation with hard line rhetoric.

Right up to invasion itself, it was believed that there would be no need for action, even if Iraq did invade a small area of the border with Kuwait and carved that part off.

Things changed when Iraq invaded and took the entire country, and further again when the Kuwait Ambassador lied about the incubator babies and Saudi Arabia started to fear Saddam would push on deeper into the Arabian Peninsular and was planning to invade them.

To take a quote from the article linked above...

''To suggest that we are to blame for all of this and we lulled them into thinking they could have Kuwait is really terrible,'' a senior official said. ''But we should have had a stiffer tone. It is unlikely to have made a difference, but it might have made a difference.''

Quote:
The 1986 bombing. A mossad agent (Victor Ostrovsky - forgot his name, had to look him up) admitted that the mossad planted a trojan transmittor near Gaddafi's headquarters and sent out false transmissions. These fake transmissions to Berlin were intercepted by the US that gave them the 'proof' they needed that Libya supposedly ordered the bombing of the Berlin nightclub. Reagan bombed nine days later.

This has been written about by many news outlets over the years.

I find it hard to believe that the US wasn't aware of what the mossad was doing. But hey, you never know... maybe US intelligence did honestly bungle that one up and took the bait hook, line, and sinker. I have my doubts though.
So first off, this isn't an "admitted" false flag. It is an allegation made in a book by one man, and it has a very major and glaring hole in it.

Despite a number of sources saying "radio transmissions" the US, and West Germany, did not intercept radio transmissions from a transmitter.

They intercepted a Telex message, send over the Telex Telecommunications Network. This can be found when studying a little bit deeper.

So even if the claim of the radio transmitter was true, for which we only have the word of one person selling a controversial book, it wasn't the way the US got the Libyan message, they got it through an interception on communications at the Embassy end, not the Tripoli end, and when the Staci files were opened in 1990, there was enough information about the bombings to prove conclusively who was responsible for the bombing, where they made the bomb, who took it into the club, because one of the group was a Stasi double agent and they had them all under surveillance, and that information resulted in three convictions.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 2nd July 2019 at 09:25 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.