Mr.T is a crazy pal with troublesome tweeting habits and his flip flop positions on so many different issues, but he might have few/single quality(s) or thing(s) you might like. What is it? I like him on two issues A) his tough entertaining position on illegal immigration (we will build a tall and beautiful wall). B) his radical crushing policies on despotic-fanatic-backward-brutal-theocratic Iranian regime. A regime that supresses its people and keep them in poverty and hunger while sending oil money to radical fanatic groups around the world to spread their backward ideology and wreck havoc in Middle East and beyond. A regime that only responds to excessive force and crushing coercive policies. I just love to see ayatollahs suffer and popping blood vessels in agonizing pain when their toys are taken away from them.
I'm excited to see how long you last. The only redeeming thing to me is he's the first President to crack down on Chinese intellectual property theft. But first, a question: 1) Why do you think he will build a wall with Democratic control of the House of Representatives, when he was unable to build a wall with unified Republican control of Congress?
I am not sure if he can build the wall, but his struggle is entertaining. I am not necessarily against his effort to stop the waves but his method.
I've really enjoyed this so far! If I may ask another question: 1) If sanctions against Iran, which aren't working because only the US is enforcing them, fail to harm the regime or destabilize it, what do you think the US should do?
Second bold sentence is just Trump's words not mine. I assure you the sanctions are working perfectly and has cornered the regime in a hard position. Give them time and make it even worse for Islamic regime to sell oil and they are done. People are inches away from àn open public rebellion. The regime gambled big time on Bashar Al Assad regime and is losing its leverage to Turkey and Russia.
Right, sure! Totally my misunderstanding and you in no way should feel like your writing is terrible. Yes, but what if you're wrong? What if the regime is still around in twelve months? What should we do then?
They are literary begging EU for money and no European company is willing to deal with them. They are in a dire situation. They don't even have enough money to pay the army personnels for more than few months. Without money they lose their mercenaries and allies in Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Few facts about that country. Most of the projects are abondoned, major banks and social security system are bankrupt. Big industrial plants haven't paid the labors for several months which resulted in rampant strikes across the country. The retirement funds are gone to Syria. The regime has been printing money for a couple years which resulted in Iranian currency losing its value 4 times over last year alone. People are hungry and fed up. If it won't bring the regime to negotiation table on Trump's term, it creates massive social unrest in Iran, or start a war in Persian gulf. They are boxed in. There is no other alternative to this stand off. If Trump wins next election, Iranian regime is gone or Trump will have his new deal.
Okay, so to be crystal clear, because I am again misunderstanding your point (again, your writing is perfect, the three-word sentence "The civil war." was perfectly understandable), what you are saying is that in the next twelve months there will be massive social unrest in Iran. And you are then saying that if social unrest does not happen, the United States should declare war on Iran. Do I understand you correctly? And if I do not, could you continue to use your perfect prose to explain for me?
I didn't say we should declare war on Iran. The situation is so bad for the regime that if their livelihood is cut off (selling oil) it may attack oil tankers that pass through straight of Hormuz as a bargaining chip. It will cause a reaction by global and regional military powers. This happened during Iran-Iraq war of 1980s. One of the 3 scenarios or a combination of them will occur. 1. Accepting Trump deal 2. Social unrest 3. War
I have three questions for you. 1) What is Donald Trump's deal? Would you be so kind as to send me a link to the document, rather than describe it yourself? 2) If the Iranians attack oil tankers in the straits (sp?) of Hormuz, does that mean they declare war on the United States? If the Iranians attack an oil tanker owned by Saudi Arabia, are we obligated to declare war on Iran? 3) Let's say you're wrong and in twelve months, the US is at peace with Iran, there is no mass social unrest, and they have not accepted Trump's deal. Head down this hypothetical with me. In the event that none of those three things has happened, what is it that the United States should do? I want to apologize for not having asked the third question before.
Let me answer you tomorrow. It is 4:24 am here and I have got to sleep. I read about Trump's deal and its 12 terms on BBC News website (BBC Persian to be exact). You can dig it yourself.
Well that's the problem. The deal doesn't exist. Here are the twelve terms that Mike Pompeo laid out in a speech, but there is no negotiation ongoing, the US gives up nothing in return, and Trump hasn't even bothered to set deadlines for these "terms." Here's the thing. You obviously know that there is no Trump Iran deal, but you didn't bother looking up who I was and assumed you could bullshit your way through an argument about Iran. You can't. You didn't. Now go run along to bed and stop posting here until you've bothered to treat other posters with some respect. Until then, you can guarantee there will be no reciprocity.
You never know about negotiation being made or not. You are obviously naive about how Iranian regime negotiates, go back and read about how long it took for Iran to admit it was negotiating with US govt directly or indirectly and when it took place, to admit having boots on the ground in Syria, Iranian intelligent officers killing Iranian political and social activists, or sending money and arms to Lebanese Hezbollah. Iranian regime always denies facts on the ground at the beginning because it doesn't want to lose face in international politics. It likes to show face of a victor for local consumption even if they are soundly defeated or accepted embarrassing terms. You just read an article or find a link and repost it here. Trump terms are embarrassing for Iranian regime to accept. It neutralizes Iranian regime destructive powers and renders it to a position weaker than prior 2003 invasion of Iraq, but keeps them alive. Behave well and sell your oil type of deal.
Uh, the United States admitted to those negotiations. And years before them, Obama made it a campaign plank. And Bush2 announced negotiations with Iran during the run up to Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. Just because you don't read something doesn't mean it never happened. You have object permanence. That aside, could you answer any of the three questions I asked? May I have the Trump deal document? And what should the US do if in twelve months there is no social unrest, no Trump deal, and no war?
There are sides of stories that not even American govt admits right away; because of legality (Iran-Contra), political issues (150 billion asset being released and American visa to 5000 individuals related to Iranian regime)/(hostage crisis and GOP negotiating the time of release), or on demand by Iranian negotiating counterpart. There are many cases I can recall which goes beyond scope of this thread. 1: I don't have access to such detials what he wants to do as insentive. He is pretty much is forcing the terms down their throats. 2 and 3:Iranian regime officials stated several times that it will attack Dubai, Riaz (Saudi capital) , Isreal and American bases in the region if they can not sell oil. If they attack Saudi tankers most likely American or European forces will retaliate. Saudis are relying on allies to defend themselves. If it is on me I say come out of Middle East entirely but our politics don't work that way. I am not a politician or strategist to say what to do next. I can suggest what I think it may work. For Iranian regime I only say push for maximum sanctions, containment policies, and Iron fist if they start misbehaving. Iranian regime has a very weak public support. They don't follow even Iranian constitution, don't reform and corruption and money embezzlement is tearing everything apart. They only rule because they pay an army of hooligans and mercenaries. Cut the source of money and soon they will be at each other throat for remaining crumbs. It give me pains to watch regular citizens go to such ordeals but a quick end to this regime is the best option rather than suffering under them for more than 40 years and having 8 million people in exile and desperate living conditions inside the country.
I'm really not sure how many other ways I can put it. I've asked you now three times what you think the US should do if all your predictions fail to come true, and you've clearly not bothered to do it. This thread was begun because you liked two things about Donald Trump. The first, you said you liked him because he was going to build a wall that he has not and will never build. The second, you said was because he was bellicose toward Iran. Donald Trump is a coward and will not go to Iran. What I've just written is called a prediction. In twelve months, if the USA is not at war with Iran, will you pledge to delete your account from BigSoccer, and become a fan of the Columbus Crew?
God it's shooting fish in a barrel. Don't even have to try, do I? https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/17/rand-paul-iran-talks-donald-trump-1418075
I would be happy if Obama would honor that too instead of giving visa to regime supporters who came to my University and laughed at us who ran from them in first place. Same dudes who go protesting in support of Iranian regime and chant death to America. Obama first term was charismatic and hopeful. Second term Obama was lame duck and disaster other than Obama care which got ruined by GOP greed.
Hard sanctions have a very low success rate unless they're accompanied by violence. I can't think of the last time that hard sanctions on a country led to a regime change in any sort of reasonable time frame. It's the turtle theory. Aggressive sanctions make regimes hyper defensive which actually makes it less likely for any positive change to happen. The ultimate losers are citizens. The sanctions don't really affect the lives of the elites in those countries. It's always the working class that suffer, especially with medicine shortages. That's the dirty little secret of sanctions that American government won't tell you. The sanctions we put on Iraq between the two gulf wars was a crime against humanity that devastated an entire generation. Tens of thousands of people dead in hospitals due to lack of basic medicines and supplies. Easily avoidable deaths. It's a human rights violation for anyone that is being ethically honest. Sanctions actually make it easier for regimes to oppress people. As a population loses access to markets, imports, information, food and medicine they become weaker and more dependent on that government. They become less educated by losing access to outside information and thus being more easily manipulated by internal propaganda. The only thing I've seen to work was exactly what Obama was doing. By coaxing the turtle out of its shell the turtle becomes more acclimated and trusting of its outside environment. When citizens of that country have access to markets, wealth, travel etc ... they tend to develop freer values which trickle up into their government from the bottom up. I'm much more open to targeted sanctions against individuals inside criminal regimes. Leave the citizens out of it. Target the elites individually, although even this can be an arbitrary process ripe for abuse. The elites in these countries all have private wealth, kids in Swiss boarding schools, summer villas in Monaco and so on. Go after that stuff and leave the general country's economy out of it.
To answer the thread topic, I was excited about the concept of Space Force ... although I don't see any evidence that Trump has any clue on how to implement something like this. Some people view space programs as one of the biggest wastes of tax dollars. I view it as the investment with the highest return. I wouldn't be surprised if more than 50% of our GDP has some roots inside gvernment aerosace research. Silicon Valley was literally born out of govenment aerospace programs. Cell phones, gps, satellite TV, microwaves, x rays, MRIs, advancements in metallurgy, advancements in optical systems and so on and so on. Which all can tie back into government revenue. This is one of the key justifications for taxing these companies since the taxpayer seeded so many of the products and services they sell us. Always seems odd to me to make cuts in the one area that has a 75 year proven record of creating massive economic gains on a scale that no other government programs can even come close to. Not to mention that Space Force's #1 project could be to build an asteroid defense system which could literally save the human species. Seems like a worthwhile concept.
What sort of nonsense is that thread? Is that an attempt to whitewash this scumbag? What to like about this despicable individual? A complete moron, racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynist, delusional, know-nothing, entitled arrogant prick.
I like that he is old. It will hamper his effort to establish a dictatorship for life. He would be far more dangerous as a 53 year old. That he is fat and has a terrible diet is also a positive. That would be about it. I mean yeah, I guess technically I could echo Brummie and say that his China dealings seem to be (at least relatively) effective, but that's like praising the only part of the pig that isn't covered with shit.