The sanctions war on Iran continues despite the COVID-19 pandemic.

[the other mike]

Wes is a whiney twat.

So, Iran with nukes is cool with you?

A whiny twat who spilled the beans on who should be held
accountable for the last 20 years of disasterous American foreign policy.
( not that it was anything to be proud of before)

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

China, Russia, and North Korea have the resources to help with the Kung FLu Panda Pandemic that is killing people in Iran, so why are they not doing more?

I say this and Iran can suffer all I care, simple as that...

 

[MAGAman]

China has blood on it's hands and now so do we.

Thousands , maybe 10's of thousands more will die in Iran directly because of our sanctions. This is
an act of war.

In every iranian parliament session the members of the body all chants "Death to America" in unison.

Even before Obama sent them a plane load of cash, Iran was funding terrorists that targeted Americans.

They're already at war with us, Einstien.

 

[Meathead]

China has blood on it's hands and now so do we.

Thousands , maybe 10's of thousands more will die in Iran directly because of our sanctions. This is
an act of war.

stupid

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

There is quite a bit food for thought in the above, some I agree with, other not so much. Just one thing I think you should take care of in there: "But at least he understood the U.S. needed a rational foreign policy, and that it not be controlled by AIPAC."

While I agree AIPAC is a largely a malign influence, a foreign policy "controlled by AIPAC" is a serious overstatement, and I find you are missing the larger point. AIPAC is currently NOT the main problem - rather, the destruction of the inter-agency process previously set up so that foreign policy decisions be guided by the best insight gathered from all involved institutions, is. If anything truly new AND catastrophic came out during the investigation into the Ukraine thing surrounding Trump and Giuliani, it was that foreign policy is being made from the hip, at the Dear Leader's whim, using outside channels, and folks usually consulted and heard inquiring for months as to the goings-on, trying to find out what decisions were being made, and by whom and on what grounds. So, that's not "controlled by AIPAC", that is chaos. Chaos, presided over by an incompetent, to-the-bones corrupt, self-serving nitwit who doesn't know anything about anything, and who thinks being elected president entitles him to personal ownership of the federal government.

Appreciate your criticism. I think we agree on AIPAC. I agree with you that my statement could be easily misinterpreted. I only meant that Obama showed courage standing up to AIPAC's tremendous lobbying efforts in negotiating with Iran. AIPAC doesn't control U.S. foreign policy in general, but it certainly, as you say, has a strong "malign influence" on Middle East policy. There are other powerful interests that influence that policy, as I mentioned. Unfortunately most were united in favor of irrational sanctions against Iran.

Trump is a wild card, as you say. He actually wanted to meet with Iran's President at the UN, but was rejected. He has locked himself into maximum pressure sanctions after he tore up the JCPOA treaty and he is far too reliant on Pompeo and his Jewish son-in-law. His policy in Syria and Iraq is tragic and counterproductive, where he is just acting like a bull in a China shop. But his essential policy still follows mainly in the footsteps of the imperial security state. In my opinion we shouldn't forget that Hillary Clinton also had a very "malign influence" -- working through interagency channels -- particularly in Syria, Libya, and the Ukraine.

 

[MAGAman]

Keep our grievances out of it.

Drop sanctions on medical aid

In exchange for them dropping aid to terrorists, sure.

As long as they fund IEDs that target Americans, they arent getting my pity.

 

[Olde Europe]

Appreciate your criticism. I think we agree on AIPAC. I agree with you that my statement could be easily misinterpreted. I only meant that Obama showed courage standing up to AIPAC's tremendous lobbying efforts in negotiating with Iran. AIPAC doesn't control U.S. foreign policy in general, but it certainly, as you say, has a strong "malign influence" on Middle East policy. There are other powerful interests that influence that policy, as I mentioned. Unfortunately most were united in favor of irrational sanctions against Iran.

Trump is a wild card, as you say. He actually wanted to meet with Iran's President at the UN, but was rejected. He has locked himself into maximum pressure sanctions after he tore up the JCPOA treaty and he is far too reliant on Pompeo and his Jewish son-in-law. His policy in Syria and Iraq is tragic and counterproductive, where he is just acting like a bull in a China shop. But his essential policy still follows mainly in the footsteps of the imperial security state. In my opinion we shouldn't forget that Hillary Clinton also had a very "malign influence" -- working through interagency channels -- particularly in Syria, Libya, and the Ukraine.

I understand your point, and by and large find it all reasonable. Just as a reminder: Hillary didn't set foreign policy. She just executed it. I don't know why that isn't commonly understood.

I guess we agree that the U.S. Iran policy is a tragedy, and, quite possibly, a monstrous crime, enabled by a spinless, hysterical Congress, and lately set in motion by a moron operating the biggest levers of power in pursuit of his own grandiosity.

As we see on here, the enmity is such that forgetting the humanity of Iranians (and the posters' own) is quasi-mandatory, as is forgetting that Iranians suffer under the consequences of U.S. foreign policy for almost 70 years now. There is hardly anyone alive in that country who wasn't made to suffer in one way or another throughout their entire life. And then, go watch the raging nitwits salivating for more suffering to come. Also, AIPAC had very little to do with that tragedy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wes is a whiney twat.

So, Iran with nukes is cool with you?

A whiny twat who spilled the beans on who should be held
accountable for the last 20 years of disasterous American foreign policy.
( not that it was anything to be proud of before)

So between 2001-2006, when did we "take out" Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran?

So, Iran with nukes is cool with you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Appreciate your criticism. I think we agree on AIPAC. I agree with you that my statement could be easily misinterpreted. I only meant that Obama showed courage standing up to AIPAC's tremendous lobbying efforts in negotiating with Iran. AIPAC doesn't control U.S. foreign policy in general, but it certainly, as you say, has a strong "malign influence" on Middle East policy. There are other powerful interests that influence that policy, as I mentioned. Unfortunately most were united in favor of irrational sanctions against Iran.

Trump is a wild card, as you say. He actually wanted to meet with Iran's President at the UN, but was rejected. He has locked himself into maximum pressure sanctions after he tore up the JCPOA treaty and he is far too reliant on Pompeo and his Jewish son-in-law. His policy in Syria and Iraq is tragic and counterproductive, where he is just acting like a bull in a China shop. But his essential policy still follows mainly in the footsteps of the imperial security state. In my opinion we shouldn't forget that Hillary Clinton also had a very "malign influence" -- working through interagency channels -- particularly in Syria, Libya, and the Ukraine.

I understand your point, and by and large find it all reasonable. Just as a reminder: Hillary didn't set foreign policy. She just executed it. I don't know why that isn't commonly understood.

I guess we agree that the U.S. Iran policy is a tragedy, and, quite possibly, a monstrous crime, enabled by a spinless, hysterical Congress, and lately set in motion by a moron operating the biggest levers of power in pursuit of his own grandiosity.

As we see on here, the enmity is such that forgetting the humanity of Iranians (and the posters' own) is quasi-mandatory, as is forgetting that Iranians suffer under the consequences of U.S. foreign policy for almost 70 years now. There is hardly anyone alive in that country who wasn't made to suffer in one way or another throughout their entire life. And then, go watch the raging nitwits salivating for more suffering to come. Also, AIPAC had very little to do with that tragedy.

I guess we agree that the U.S. Iran policy is a tragedy, and, quite possibly, a monstrous crime,

Iranian support for world-wide terrorism is a monstrous crime.

forgetting the humanity of Iranians

Yes, Obama's failure to support the Iranian Green Movement is one of the darker stains on his weak record.

 

[the other mike]

So, Iran with nukes is cool with you?

They want nuclear energy so they can sell their oil, and we won't allow either.
What difference does it make what I think ?

 

[the other mike]

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

One of my biggest fears is that the U.S. imperial state, in crisis, may actually decide it wants a major war in the Middle East -- aimed not just at Iran but also Gulf Oil dependent China. This is the crazy ultimate logic of "America First." A total temporary cut off of Gulf Oil would hurt China, who could do nothing about it, and firmer U.S. control of the oil sources would certainly give it more leverage in new ruthless trade wars. The Russians are cozying up to Israel now. Russia would certainly stay out of it. This doesn't have to be "a decision" even, just the logical outcome of allowing the situation to get out of hand. For a long time now, especially as the U.S. developed its own oil independence, Israeli and Russian and Chinese geo-political gurus (as of course also the Iranians) have all been aware of this underlying reality, which pushes the American adventurist policy and the whole trend toward war.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, Iran with nukes is cool with you?

They want nuclear energy so they can sell their oil, and we won't allow either.
What difference does it make what I think ?

They want nuclear energy

You have to be seriously brain damaged to believe that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Iran doesn't only threaten the US...…..

 

[the other mike]

Iran doesn't only threaten the US...…..

So let their neighbors China, Russia, Israel and Saudi Arabia keep them in check.
We have no business being there and never did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Iran doesn't only threaten the US...…..

So let their neighbors China, Russia, Israel and Saudi Arabia keep them in check.
We have no business being there and never did.

So let their neighbors China, Russia, Israel and Saudi Arabia keep them in check.

And let's keep those sanctions in place.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The Iranian regime created an "Axis of Resistance" in the Middle East and spent its meager resources building missiles ... in self defense. At least that is how they see it. And though the regime is dastardly and theocratic, it is not wrong about the U.S. (and Israeli) threat. A look at the map of U.S. bases above, or any unbiased look at the history of U.S. interventions, invading and encouraging civil war in the region, and all this becomes clear.

 

[the other mike]

So let their neighbors China, Russia, Israel and Saudi Arabia keep them in check.

And let's keep those sanctions in place.

Speak for yourself.
There's no blood on my hands.

 

[MAGAman]

They want nuclear energy so they can sell their oil, and we won't allow either.
What difference does it make what I think ?

Really?

If you believe Iran wants nuclear energy and not nuclear power you're not thinking at all.

 

[Decus]

Iran has a brutal regime that many Iranians would like to see gone:

"“Iranian authorities have systematically repressed dissent for decades, and they are now confronting popular protests with an astonishing level of violence,” said Michael Page, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Principled international voices should send an unequivocal message that Iran cannot get away with killing protesters.”

The protests began over an abrupt fuel price increase, but they transformed into broader popular discontent with the government’s repression and perceived corruption."

Iran: No Justice for Bloody Crackdown