No no, let's try giving them another $10,000,000,000 and see if that helps. If it doesn't help and they once again use it for terror we can just say they are acting out because Orange Man Bad.Doc Holliday said:
The mentality of playing nice with the number one state sponsor of terrorism so they might not act out is weak AF.
Don't make deals with terrorists. Threaten them and make them hide and cover.
U.S. relationship with Iran will be significantly closer than with Saudi Arabia within a decade.
— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) January 2, 2016
Of course you do.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I wonder if that had any relation to Iran being more aggressive today? A lot of "agreements" are simply posturing but I think this key decision may come back to haunt us.
Aliceinbubbleland said:
I wonder if that had any relation to Iran being more aggressive today? A lot of "agreements" are simply posturing but I think this key decision may come back to haunt us.
Mitch Blood Green said:
I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?
After seeing what we did last night, I'm not too worried about Iran. Their slow speed attack in the white Bronco while the world watched was pretty pitiful. It was reported that half of their weaponry didn't even make it close to Israel. The Mullahs had better pray to Allah that Israel doesn't blow them back to the stone age. Israel could if they wanted to.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I wonder if that had any relation to Iran being more aggressive today? A lot of "agreements" are simply posturing but I think this key decision may come back to haunt us.
Mitch Blood Green said:
I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?
National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan:
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 14, 2024
"The Middle East is quieter today than it has been in two decades."
This was on September 29th, 2023. pic.twitter.com/7v9ejJane3
GrowlTowel said:Mitch Blood Green said:
I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?
A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:After seeing what we did last night, I'm not too worried about Iran. Their slow speed attack in the white Bronco while the world watched was pretty pitiful. It was reported that half of their weaponry didn't even make it close to Israel. The Mullahs had better pray to Allah that Israel doesn't blow them back to the stone age. Israel could if they wanted to.Aliceinbubbleland said:
I wonder if that had any relation to Iran being more aggressive today? A lot of "agreements" are simply posturing but I think this key decision may come back to haunt us.
Putin's military is tired and Russia's weaponry is depleted. They are no longer in a good position to kick anybody's ass.
The sleeping giant is still China. The big question is, how aggressive will Xi Jinping be before our election? His time is running out.
Not with the current idiot that's in the White HouseMitch Blood Green said:GrowlTowel said:Mitch Blood Green said:
I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?
A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.
If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?
I think the Iranians have figured that out at this point. You can't blame them for trying, though.Doc Holliday said:
The mentality of playing nice with the number one state sponsor of terrorism so they might not act out is weak AF.
Nothing should be more alarming to an intelligence professional than dead silence.Redbrickbear said:National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan:
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 14, 2024
"The Middle East is quieter today than it has been in two decades."
This was on September 29th, 2023. pic.twitter.com/7v9ejJane3
The bigger picture here is that it was not until the day of 9/11 before Sunni extremist groups (funded on their own) had killed more Americans than Shiite extremist groups (funded by Iran). Even then, AQ only barely jumped into the lead Until 9/11, the Sunnis were the "good ones" and the Shiites were the "bad ones."Realitybites said:
Objectively, what is the difference between how the Iranian government treats its citizens and how the Saudi government treats its citizens? Which of the two nations is the #1 funder of Wahabbism? How many Iranians were involved in the 9-11 attacks? How many Saudis? What was the US involvement in the 1953 coup that overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh and why did we get involved?
I know a lot of us remember the Iranian hostage crisis when the Shah was overthrown by Kohmeni and dislike Iran for that (myself included). We should not be paying off the Iranian government...but we should not forget that there is a bigger picture here.
Yeah I mean its an easy cash grab for them. Obama really set the precedent of paying them billions to back off.Sam Lowry said:I think the Iranians have figured that out at this point. You can't blame them for trying, though.Doc Holliday said:
The mentality of playing nice with the number one state sponsor of terrorism so they might not act out is weak AF.
Oh, you're saying Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism...gotcha.Doc Holliday said:Yeah I mean its an easy cash grab for them. Obama really set the precedent of paying them billions to back off.Sam Lowry said:I think the Iranians have figured that out at this point. You can't blame them for trying, though.Doc Holliday said:
The mentality of playing nice with the number one state sponsor of terrorism so they might not act out is weak AF.
Anytime they need cash they can just act up.
Biden foreign policy is a bad mixture of corruption and incompetence.Redbrickbear said:National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan:
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 14, 2024
"The Middle East is quieter today than it has been in two decades."
This was on September 29th, 2023. pic.twitter.com/7v9ejJane3
BearFan33 said:Biden foreign policy is a bad mixture of corruption and incompetence.Redbrickbear said:National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan:
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 14, 2024
"The Middle East is quieter today than it has been in two decades."
This was on September 29th, 2023. pic.twitter.com/7v9ejJane3
Now that you have substituted a different inquiry, let us pick apart your substantially less ridiculous question.Mitch Blood Green said:GrowlTowel said:Mitch Blood Green said:
I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?
A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.
If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?
GrowlTowel said:Now that you have substituted a different inquiry, let us pick apart your substantially less ridiculous question.Mitch Blood Green said:GrowlTowel said:Mitch Blood Green said:
I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?
A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.
If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?
Hypothetical State (HS) is presented with an opportunity to enter a deal with the US. HS should consider the following before entering into the deal:
1. Is this a deal with a temporary leader or will the deal be ratified by the US government?
2. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and US?
3. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and the US' allies?
4. Has HS ever held US citizens hostage?
5. Does the US believe HS is a state sponsor of terrorism?
6. Does HS regularly chant death to US or believe that the US is the Great Satan?
After evaluating these questions, HS should be able to decide if the US will completely honor the deal.
Mitch Blood Green said:GrowlTowel said:Now that you have substituted a different inquiry, let us pick apart your substantially less ridiculous question.Mitch Blood Green said:GrowlTowel said:Mitch Blood Green said:
I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?
A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.
If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?
Hypothetical State (HS) is presented with an opportunity to enter a deal with the US. HS should consider the following before entering into the deal:
1. Is this a deal with a temporary leader or will the deal be ratified by the US government?
2. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and US?
3. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and the US' allies?
4. Has HS ever held US citizens hostage?
5. Does the US believe HS is a state sponsor of terrorism?
6. Does HS regularly chant death to US or believe that the US is the Great Satan?
After evaluating these questions, HS should be able to decide if the US will completely honor the deal.
That's not qualifications to enter into an agreement. We have always entered into deals with States we fundamentally disagree with.
Our number one Trading Partner is China. We trade with Saudi. The requirement is that we all honor the agreement. Not that we bro hug. If we aren't honorable why should HS be?
Mitch Blood Green said:GrowlTowel said:Now that you have substituted a different inquiry, let us pick apart your substantially less ridiculous question.Mitch Blood Green said:GrowlTowel said:Mitch Blood Green said:
I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?
A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.
If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?
Hypothetical State (HS) is presented with an opportunity to enter a deal with the US. HS should consider the following before entering into the deal:
1. Is this a deal with a temporary leader or will the deal be ratified by the US government?
2. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and US?
3. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and the US' allies?
4. Has HS ever held US citizens hostage?
5. Does the US believe HS is a state sponsor of terrorism?
6. Does HS regularly chant death to US or believe that the US is the Great Satan?
After evaluating these questions, HS should be able to decide if the US will completely honor the deal.
That's not qualifications to enter into an agreement. We have always entered into deals with States we fundamentally disagree with.
Our number one Trading Partner is China. We trade with Saudi. The requirement is that we all honor the agreement. Not that we bro hug. If we aren't honorable why should HS be?
Iran is, in their own context, quite rational. They want the entire world to be an islamic state. In addition, as Shias, they are not just are a minority in the islamic world, but also still technically at war with the larger islamic world.BearN said:Mitch Blood Green said:GrowlTowel said:Now that you have substituted a different inquiry, let us pick apart your substantially less ridiculous question.Mitch Blood Green said:GrowlTowel said:Mitch Blood Green said:
I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?
A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.
If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?
Hypothetical State (HS) is presented with an opportunity to enter a deal with the US. HS should consider the following before entering into the deal:
1. Is this a deal with a temporary leader or will the deal be ratified by the US government?
2. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and US?
3. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and the US' allies?
4. Has HS ever held US citizens hostage?
5. Does the US believe HS is a state sponsor of terrorism?
6. Does HS regularly chant death to US or believe that the US is the Great Satan?
After evaluating these questions, HS should be able to decide if the US will completely honor the deal.
That's not qualifications to enter into an agreement. We have always entered into deals with States we fundamentally disagree with.
Our number one Trading Partner is China. We trade with Saudi. The requirement is that we all honor the agreement. Not that we bro hug. If we aren't honorable why should HS be?
You can't compare a rational actor with an irrational actor. China is self-serving and wants to dominate the world, sure, but they can be reasoned with because they also want economic prosperity.
Iran only wants to destroy the United States and Israel. The only thing they understand is the stick.
We've disagreed on quite a bit lately, but you're absolutely dead on here.Doc Holliday said:
The mentality of playing nice with the number one state sponsor of terrorism so they might not act out is weak AF.
Don't make deals with terrorists. Threaten them and make them hide and cover.
It may come as a shock, but we live up to the vast majority of the ones we have in place.Mitch Blood Green said:GrowlTowel said:Mitch Blood Green said:
I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?
A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.
If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?
I agree 100%. This is the script most Western leaders are unable to flip. They think everyone is motivated by capitalist interests and win-win scenarios. And that may be true for some of the smooth billionaire oil sheiks. But the true-believer "Islamist" leaders have a completely different goal. This would be irrational to capitalists, but for them, is the only rationale. Submission to Allah.whiterock said:Iran is, in their own context, quite rational. They want the entire world to be an islamic state. In addition, as Shias, they are not just are a minority in the islamic world, but also still technically at war with the larger islamic world.BearN said:Mitch Blood Green said:GrowlTowel said:Now that you have substituted a different inquiry, let us pick apart your substantially less ridiculous question.Mitch Blood Green said:GrowlTowel said:Mitch Blood Green said:
I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?
A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.
If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?
Hypothetical State (HS) is presented with an opportunity to enter a deal with the US. HS should consider the following before entering into the deal:
1. Is this a deal with a temporary leader or will the deal be ratified by the US government?
2. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and US?
3. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and the US' allies?
4. Has HS ever held US citizens hostage?
5. Does the US believe HS is a state sponsor of terrorism?
6. Does HS regularly chant death to US or believe that the US is the Great Satan?
After evaluating these questions, HS should be able to decide if the US will completely honor the deal.
That's not qualifications to enter into an agreement. We have always entered into deals with States we fundamentally disagree with.
Our number one Trading Partner is China. We trade with Saudi. The requirement is that we all honor the agreement. Not that we bro hug. If we aren't honorable why should HS be?
You can't compare a rational actor with an irrational actor. China is self-serving and wants to dominate the world, sure, but they can be reasoned with because they also want economic prosperity.
Iran only wants to destroy the United States and Israel. The only thing they understand is the stick.
Sam gonna Sam,..Sam Lowry said:I think the Iranians have figured that out at this point. You can't blame them for trying, though.Doc Holliday said:
The mentality of playing nice with the number one state sponsor of terrorism so they might not act out is weak AF.