Should the president have a meeting with Rouhani? Should a "deal" be made? The wrong response might provoke some radical reaction in the US. Is the president walking back on his position? Who should be advising the preisdent on Iran?
It will be interesting to see how this resolves itself.
Iran has been in the crosshairs for as long as I can remember.
They have also been protected by Russia and China for just as long.
A very high ranking Chinese General once said a decade or two ago that an attack on Iran would be considered an attack on China... which makes sense as the majority oil and NG produced by Iran is shipped to China and China built Iran's infrastructure so that they could access that oil and gas.
Russia of course does not need their oil or gas, and they have different reasons for allying themselves to Iran.
What we're finally seeing here with Iran is the destruction of American credibility because of President Trump. Now, that may or may not be important, but because of how much President Trump lies, it's almost impossible for anybody to know what's going on. Who are we supposed to believe? In order to believe somebody's story, they need to have credibility. How much credibility does the United States now have when it says it's telling the truth?
Clearly, in these matters, countries are going to need to put forth clear evidence that what they're saying is true.
Looks like the classic "Wag the Dog" scenario...
I don't think it matters who the president's advisor on Iran is, with the possible exception of Sen. Tom Cotton who would just love to get us into a war with Iran. If "Warhawk Tom" misses Middle East warfare so much, why doesn't he go back there. I don't think it matters because the president doesn't listen anyway.
Frankly I would like to see us using clean energy like wind and solar and not need Iran as a fuel source.
The president tells at least 12 lies a day according to the media, including Fox, so is he telling the truth when he says that we were only "10 minutes" from retaliation when he pulled the orders. Somehow, I can believe that. I've always believed his naiveté and bull-headness would get us in another war. Oh, John McCain, where are you when we need you?
We do not need Iran as a fuel source; we are now a net exporter.
Not sure of gas, but we are of oil. We import as well, when the financial end works out well, but we export more than we import. We are now the world's biggest producer of natural gas and assume that we export more than we import there as well.
Personally I think that is rather shortsighted; we should be keeping our oil and gas reserves for when the world runs short, but I'm not making the decisions. And it IS cheaper than importing it all.
Do you think he will fire Bolton? Bolton was upset today when it was announced that Trump would agree to a "freeze" rather than denuclearization.
Diane, perhaps we should look at what is happening with N. Korea for a guide. The N.Y. Times, according to CNN, reports Trump is considering recognizing N. K. as a nuclear power while, it appears, getting nothing in return. Oh, yeah, he did get that neat photo opt walking across the demilitarized zone. Maybe he'll walk through Tehran or something followed by cameras.
Tim: There is a pattern emerging with Trump. I think he plays both good cop/bad cop. With Iran and North Korea. With North Korea he has gone from bad cop who is going to "fire and fury" them to making nice with Kim and walking across the the DMZ and shaking his hand and invited him to the White House.
I think he is still in the bad cop stage with Iran using his "armada and complete obliteration technique.". We will have to see if he backs off and does something similar with Iran that he did to North Korea.
Mike, your "good cop - bad cop" thought gave me pause. And even though your "walk through Tehran" comment may have been tongue-in-cheek, I am undecided.
I won't turn this into a Trump-bashing comment, or a declaration comment, but . . . I have to wonder if he thinks that way. He may, and it would be a kind of genius to do so, but, his past actions haven't caused me to think so.
I am shooting from the hip Mike, and this is just a knee-jerk thought, but, the recent prognostications that the Trump administration may be willing to settle for a freeze vs. denuclearization leads me to believe that Pres. Trump lost this gamble and is now struggling to save something from his interactions.
I am not greatly informed on the Iran situation, but I am thinking Pres. Trump's direction is not the most productive one. Actually, I am inclined to believe his position is a dangerous one. He seems to be forcing the Iranians with no option of compromise.
A sort of cornered animal scenario. I am worried.
The news tonight reported he was considering a freeze. And reported a tweet from Trump that he was doing no such thing.
Don't know what to believe...except that if there are more leaks going on someone needs to hit the unemployment office.
The world is saying Iran is breaching the contract now that they are going over a stockpile of 300kg, but as per the deal if one or more of the parties in the deal did not fulfill their promises the deal could be treated as null and void. Since the USA broke the deal, I don't see Iran as the ones breaking the deal.
Relative to the U.S. there isn't a deal to be broken anymore. I don't know what to expect from either side now, but after the drone incident, I think we could be in a very dangerous situation.
Even a simple mistake or unintended action could lead to shooting.
We've already had a shooting and it was neither unintended nor a mistake. If you count mining freighters as a "shooting" there have been several.
There's no proof of those being Iranian mines other than the US saying they believe them to be. So technically those do not count. The rest of the world has asked the US for more proof and were not given it. Usually, in such matters, the country at least shares it with the security forces of their allies if not made public and the country that receives it acknowledges that proof has been received. But Japan, for instance, is still waiting for proof that it was Iran that did it.
You watch a different news than I do - they were commonly used by Iran and an Iranian boat was seen removing one that failed to explode.
No, no one watched them apply them, but the evidence is pretty conclusive.
Iran was the first to respond to an emergency situation and it was an Iranian boat naturally, they aren't going to put their team on a boat from Oman. Any country or any emergency team would definitely defuse a bomb that is attached to a ship if they are going to recuse people. Anyone who thinks otherwise has some different logical process.
Terrorists in Afghanistan have US weapons, does that mean the US army is firing them when they are used? Correlations do not equal causations unless proven otherwise.
President Trump has already stepped back and has asked others to do the same, while this is all sorted out. If in the end a strike is required, then President Trump, will listen to his advisors and will do what he believes is in the best interest of this Country.
We certainly don't need the endless hand-wringing as we had with Jimmy Carter. I'll never get the images of our men in restraints and blindfolds, paraded around in front of the cameras, as Iran mocked them and mocked this Country. They've shown us exactly who they are, restraint can only last for so long....
One of my best friends was an Iranian hostage. A long time republican and former president of one of the nations largest lobbying firms--The Harris Corporation--which arranged most of our military weapon purchases, he detests Trump. He retired when Dubya was elected and attacked Iraq.
He knew many of the players in DC, describing Flynn as "an arrogant little $hit."
I’m so sorry that your friend went through that humiliating and horrific experience Randy. Let him know that each and every night, my family was praying for their release
A rather frightening assessment of foreign relations strategy.
Trump knows more than the generals. Don't believe me? Just ask him.
Trump's sanctions on Iran's leader are nothing but smoke and mirrors. How can he sanction the Ayatollah's, unless he controls their paychecks? Sanctions are for embargoes, and blockades, not for specific people. But naming all of those Iranian leaders sounds great to his ill-informed base who he needs to re-elected.
He loves to go it alone without congress' support and without coalitions. That means he owns it if it fails, but he will blame others for his failures. He has an uncanny way of making himself immune to his screw ups. He creates the problems and then back-off and to his base, he makes it look like he solved the problem. They could care less that he created the problem in the first place.
Steve Munichin says they are going to lock-up billions in Iranian assets. Where are these assets and who controls them? He and Trump also said that Obama gave Iran 150 billion to support terrorist. That money that was given to Iran was their own money that we and several other countries were holding as a result of lifting nuclear sanctions. But Trump has used it as propaganda many times and his base believe him.
Yep, Trump makes a stupid decision and then blames the left. His M.O. in many instances. Remember the shutdown? He owned it at first then blamed the left. What a cretin...
Its not enough to say "look this guy is a jerk"...
You have to present a clear and decisive better alternative.
Until that time, all the angst and anger over Trump the 'left' has is not going to gain traction with anyone not firmly in that camp.
Your admiration for Trump confounds me and we couldn't be farther apart, but your brief, concise statement here is spot on. I'm generally in agreement with your assessments of the political landscape.
Admiration is a strong word, and doesn't fit my position or opinion on Trump.
I have a very simple measuring stick really, things like what is best for America, what is best for my economic situation, what is best for the future my children.
Whether the President comes across as sophisticated and articulate or a burly bear, whether he is pleasant or insulting, I couldn't care less... its the economy and technology and our freedoms that matter.
I use common sense, experience, and no political party loyalty to come to my assessments, so if you find yourself in agreement with them, it is likely because you have a substantial amount of common sense and are not particularly beholden to a specific party/belief/fanaticism.
Reality, reason, self-interest, and capitalism... throw in a bit of believing we should strive to uplift humanity and better our society and that sums up my 'political views' as much as anything I suppose.
But the word 'admire' though, I just don't hold politics or ideologies in high enough esteem to use it on behalf of Rand or Trump.
I would likely use it for Nikola Tesla, also Elon Musk if he actually sees through his goals of transforming transportation and reaching Mars (he is getting closer to making those things a reality but he's not there yet) people who have invented and accomplished things which transformed and impacted civilization with their far ranging projections for the future of humanity in positive ways that almost no one else has.
Interesting, your description pretty closely aligns with mine, yet we seem to disagree on quite a lot. My lack of support for most Republican candidates stems ultimately from how they treat people. Even today, we still have Republicans talking about killing all homosexuals. I just can't align myself with a party that supports such statements, implicitly or explicitly. Saying climate change is a hoax drives me crazy as well. I just can't trust anyone who doesn't understand basic science. They don't have to agree on the solutions, but the science is clear.
I do admire your willingness to cite self-interest as a driver. Everyone, whether they admit so or not, is driven by self-interest. This is often where Democrats go off the rails, suggesting that they're doing everything for the good of everyone else.
I suppose I'm not quite as wedded to capitalism as a principle. If there's equality of opportunity, then yes, but so much seems twisted to advantage the wealthy and super-wealthy that our current idea of capitalism has become quite perverted - not that the wealthy and super-wealthy haven't always had an advantage.
So much to reply to here.
I don't think it matters whether Republican or Democrat, both parties harbor fringe elements that want to do the worst, such as you noted. If you think all those who are in the Democratic Party that support Sharia Law also support Homosexuality, you are deluding yourself.
Climate change occurs, that is a fact, what is its cause is debatable, the part that is a hoax is TAXING people for their carbon footprint... it is just one more way the government wants to take control, of you and your income.
I have often stated for an example of this: the government has a fleet of over 300,000 vehicles (not including the military or postal service)... they are all ICE vehicles. If they wanted to do something for the environment they could easily say that all Federal vehicles must be EV... they do no such thing, they don't even give tax deductions anymore to those who buy EVs.
So the truth is... the Paris Accord, and any talk of a Green New Deal, is not about fixing the problems... its about control and taxation. They are just masking it in a cause that people will support. Because no one will support a tax called 'allowed to live' tax. Or a 'take your freedoms away' Law.
I try and look to see what is really there, I don't accept the propaganda at face value, and I certainly don't trust the media to tell the truth.
See, this is where common sense seems to go out the window with you.
Please show me where any Democrat supports Sharia law. I suppose that's possible (and perhaps you're just using it as an extreme example because you once read about one Democrat who supported Sharia law - but again, that's a typical Republican dog whistle). Like you say - a fringe person. The problem with Republicans is, death for homosexuals isn't fringe. Just look at our Vice President.
Second, the phrase "climate change occurs" is a typical Republican phrase used to suggest that the current problem is one that has been going on for ages because the climate has always changed. This is, in fact, not true. The current man-made rise in carbon dioxide and resulting warming of the earth is something new and serious.
The solutions, I will agree, vary, and some are nuts. That said, common sense solutions for reducing greenhouse gases are not a hoax. I also generally agree that unless there is some overall agreement from all countries, forcing restrictions on the U.S. while China goes nuts seems really counter-productive.
Actually, the exact opposite, I research such issues to the best of my ability, for instance I read many foreign sources (articles and publications not found in U.S. media sources) to learn years ago of members of the Muslim Brotherhood in President Obama's Administration, it was never brought up here in the states, not even by Fox News.
I believe I even referenced such in an article I wrote about Benghazi several years back, much of what went on in Egypt, Libya, and Syria was by design and with the support of the Muslim Brotherhood working with the Obama Administration. From the overthrows in Egypt and Libya to the civil war in Syria.
Common Sense (with experience) is knowing that there is no way some un-organized rebels took out an Ambassador protected by some of America's best trained Ops.
Common Sense is knowing that the Middle East riots that occurred at that time had nothing to do with a YouTube video that had less than 1,000 views at the time of the riots. Despite this being the official reason given by the Obama Admin, which was then fully supported by our media.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) lists on its website the names of US Senators who endorse its pro-Sharia outlook and activities: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sen. Corey Booker (D-NJ), Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sen. Christopher Murphy (D-CT), Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA).
There are of course, many Representatives who are Muslim and who also would make this list. Rashida Tlaib (who wrapped herself in a Palestinian flag on election night) and Somali-born Ilhan Omar are two that come to mind.
To quote a man named Ibrahim: "Sharia law is part of our religion, if we can not apply it this means the state is fighting against us for our religion thus we must eventually start jihad.
This is the reason of all conflicts and jihad movements in Muslim countries.
A Muslim can not go secular courts, it is forbidden to be judged with secular laws, ultimately all governments and agencies of law must be of and by Sharia."
Thanks for the reminder of why I stopped reading your posts. I love conspiracy theories that are "secret" that everyone missed. I'm sure Fox News decided it didn't want to hurt Obama with those revelations. Kooksville.
Yes, most people like to remain ignorant, or deny facts that don't fit their reality. And that is why we have the issues in the world we have, people choose to ignore facts right in front of them rather than confront them.
Whether its the parents that believe their daughter is an angel and ignore her drug abuse until it is to late. Or the fools who buy into a political party as if it is their faith/religion/purpose despite the fact that those in control of the party are committing heinous crimes far worse than anything they accuse the opposition of.
Its also why I choose to put my opinions, supported by facts, out there for readers to see, without bothering to respond to the nay-sayers... those with open minds will research themselves anything I say, and decide for themselves the truth … closed minds just turn away from anything that affronts their politics/beliefs/viewpoints. And try to denigrate the person putting them forth.
I recall you saying something about climate change "debate" a few posts back among a few other things. You don't seem to be an expert when it comes to handling facts.
You're just now realizing that, Brando? Ken is definitely looking out for Number One if you read his posts. He doesn't care if the POTUS is crooked as long as his portfolio is doing well. Typical of a right wing voter...
Nope, I realized long ago, never bothered replying, but he went out and said that he unlike many others looks at facts, bla bla bla.
That's the point right. I don't have political views at least not the famous US Right and Left. That's all most of you here care about like it's some sports team you got to support no matter what.
I'm only talking about the so-called facts that you do not care about or choose to ignore. But, let's just say you don't understand them. Thanks for the good wishes. You have fun too.
I think you are deluding yourself, you seem all to intent on interceding in political debates here in these threads.
But by all means, feel free to present examples of these positions I have taken where I choose to ignore 'facts'... not what you believe to be facts mind you, but provable, hard evidence facts.
I stepped in when you spoke about climate change and said it's a debate. Go back and you will see exactly where it is.
You stepped in to join in the personal attacks, without even having a clear understanding of my position... I didn't agree with your perspective or politics on the issue, so you chose to pile on.
This is what I typed:
And then, posts later when the people trying to debate the issues could no longer be bothered confronting facts, the insults began, in which you joined in with:
Well there it is, the something I said about climate change... and there you were ready to leap to the attack... I didn't goose step in line on the issue of climate change, and low and behold you were on the offensive.
Have a nice day, I'm done here.
Here is the counter to political dogma that is called 'climate change' or 'global warming'.
Just watch the first 10 minutes that deals with Climate.
Did Ken flounce away again? He doesn't like to be told he's wrong..
Don't you think Mars is a bit of a reach?
Ken, you ask for "a clear and decisive better alternative" to the belligerent approach that has brought us to the brink of war with Iran.
Perhaps you mean something like using the heaviest international sanctions ever imposed to bring Iran to the negotiating table; then, along with China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the European Union, working out a deal with Iran that has stringent oversight to insure they don't get nuclear weapons; then instituting an ongoing, comprehensive and technologically sophisticated inspection regime that conclusively shows, according to every signatory, including U. S. experts, that Iran is fulfilling its responsibilities under the agreement.
Would something like that qualify as a better alternative than what we are doing now?
good measuring stick:
"... things like what is best for America, what is best for my economic situation, what is best for the future my children."
I really don't think we need to go to Mars.
I don't understand the "space race."
Why can't we just focus on earth?
And solve our problems.
And find solutions for the myriad of issues we have no idea how to fix.
"Oh, but we got to Mars and colonized it?!!! Yay Us!"
You are right in saying you don't understand it. There is so much we do on Earth that we have learned from exploring the other planets. I'm not going to school you on this, but try Googling something on the lines of benefits on Earth due to space exploration.
Kathryn: Here you go.
Peoplepower gave you a link. But I'm guessing it's too difficult to click on it, it is a step easier than Googling a phrase that was given to you. I wish you luck in the challenge ahead!
I wanted to know what you could name off the top of your head without Googling it.
Meanwhile, from the link which was very kindly provided:
The Benefits (for earth) of Space exploration include:
2 Health and medicine
2.1 Infrared ear thermometers
2.2 Ventricular assist device
2.4 Artificial limbs
2.5 Light-emitting diodes in medical therapies
2.6 Invisible braces
2.7 Scratch-resistant lenses
2.8 Space blanket
2.9 3D foods printing
3.1 Aircraft anti-icing systems
3.2 Highway safety
3.3 Improved radial tires
3.4 Chemical detection
4 Public safety
4.1 Video enhancing and analysis systems
4.2 Landmine Removal
4.3 Fire-resistant reinforcement
4.4 Firefighting equipment
4.5 Shock Absorbers for buildings
5 Consumer, home, and recreation
5.1 Temper foam
5.2 Enriched baby food
5.3 Portable cordless vacuums
5.4 Freeze drying
5.5 Space age swimsuit
5.6 Digital image sensor
6 Environmental and agricultural resources
6.1 Water purification
6.2 Solar Cells
6.3 Pollution remediation
6.4 Correcting for GPS signal errors
6.5 Water location
7 Computer technology
7.1 Structural analysis software
7.2 Remotely controlled ovens
7.3 NASA Visualization Explorer
7.5 Software catalog
8 Industrial productivity
8.1 Powdered lubricants
8.2 Improved mine safety
8.3 Food safety
Haha. I'd name Intel, global warming science, etc.
Kathryn: I posted the link, but you would rather have me take it off the top of my head and give you my opinion instead of facts. Before reading the link, I thought Teflon, Corning Ware, and Tang were developed from the space program and I entered those as part of my comments.
Then I went to the link to check them out and I found that all three of them were myths. So I'm glad I lead you to facts instead of myths.
Why would The GOP Senate be fool enough to give Trump Carte-Blanche in stirring up military confrontation with Iran without prior congressional approval? Has Trump hypnotized them all? Do they not realize the danger of giving a man like this unprecedented and unbridled authority.
An attack on Israel by Iran is not reason in of itself to attack Iran in my opinion.
What about the 20 steps into NK for a photo op. Ivanka and Jared also took a little walk.. This will really enhance their resumes and abiility to deal internationally before and after they leave office.
Well, I guess in his case, restitution is closure, not income. Good to know he is doing good.
Some of you may be interested in this: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/ … RurSOgzbIV
There's a reason no one takes him seriously not for any issue, not even the Iran issue.
by crankalicious 38 minutes ago
First of all, the flu is killing more people still.Second, President Trump says that the coronavirus will go away soon. Why can't people just have faith in our President. He says there's nothing to worry about.
by Scott Belford 23 months ago
Since every authority, save a very biased Netanyahu, says Iran was complying with the terms of the Nuclear Pact, Trump's reinstating sanctions is a clear violation. Do you think:1. Iran will go it alone and start up their nuclear weaponization program again?2. Iran will continue working with...
by Scott Belford 2 months ago
Donald Trump, after some discussion with few of his top generals, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense as well as some of his advisors, over a two or three day period, decided to assassinate the second most powerful person in the Iranian government - General Qasem Soleimani, the leader...
by Margaret Perrottet 7 years ago
Are we on the brink of war with Iran?Romney takes a very hard line concerning Iran. Obama has been trying to make sanctions work, and has urged Israel to wait it out. However, looking at newspapers from Israel, they seem to think that Iran will be capable of producing enough uranium to...
by crankalicious 5 days ago
Don't worry, President Trump just announced that the Coronavirus is under control.Here's his exact quote:"It's a very contagious virus. It's incredible. But it's something we have tremendous control of"So, no problems. Yay!
by Deforest 7 years ago
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The US administration just gave them the...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|