Posted on 10/02/2014 3:27:32 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
Yes, of course. The Saudi Leadership is at war with the West where it invests it’s wealth. Honestly folks, you just go nuts over this.
We have about 30,000 Saudi kids here now. I’m against it based on what took place before, but do you have any idea of the trouble there would be if these kids were truly sent here by the government of Saudi Arabia?
No. You don’t.
When Iran gets the bomb, who do you think is going to have it next? You have jihadists in that government that will supple technical know-how to any terrorist around. But no, Iran is no threat at all.
It’s on the record of wanting to destroy Israel. Did you know that?
Every nation in the Middle-East is afraid of Iran getting the bomb. Why is that? Is it because Iran is not a threat to anyone?
The Saudi Government disburses oil wealth to it’s extended family, and beyond. Some of that money does wind up supporting things we don’t like.
It is interesting to me how we know that though, becuase we can’t find out a single thing as to transfers from the Middle-East, and yet we seem to know every penny that is moved around by Saudis. Don’t you find that the least bit interesting?
The Saudi Government has been a moderating force on our behalf for the last 50 years that I know of.
Our enemies would love to drive a wedge between Saudi Arabia and the U.S., and some of our cleverest citizens seem to think that would be a great idea.
How did it turn out when Iran’s leadership was changed? Is that what you’re hoping for?
Oh that’s right, Iran is our friend. Good grief!
Iran, a country with an intelligent, well-educated population that was once the best friend of the US in the region, could be brought round as a friend of the US.
Not as long as they are ruled by the mullahocracy.
Never happen.
OTOH, most 'independently working citizens', who have carried out terrorist attacks, have most if not all been from Arab countries & their citizens, including 9-11 attacks, as you also noted.
Moreover, did you know that even during the Shah's era, the US and Britain didn't want Iran to go nuclear? Now, back then the Shah's govt was not only an ally of the U.S. but also never supported any terrorism at all. Also, Arabs, Saudis in particular, have always been wary if not fearful of Iran. That rivalry (to put it mildly) has always existed, even during the Shah's era.
Exactly right. James Earl Carter saw to that.
I like your post and would like to respond to it. I’m going out now and will come back later.
Cool, no prob
“ulled off with Gorbachev and Nixon pulled off with the Chinese, Iran, a country with an intelligent, well-educated population that was once the best friend of the US in the region, could be brought round as a friend of the US.”
I’m afraid, that as long as the Mullah regime is in charge, that will never happen.
Thanks for the note of agreement regarding the Mullahs. It strikes me those who think we can get along with Iran, have to be those who didn’t live through the Carter years. If they had, they would know exactly why Iran is not our friend, and never will be.
Yes, I agree they have all been Arabs. That’s not to say that Iran wouldn’t help terrorist groups though. The leadership of Iran is incredible anti-US. It always has been. I can’t see Iran not wanting to help those who are against the US at some point. It’s the old death by proxy doctrine, now being practiced by lowly states like Iran, instead of Russia or China. Very dangerous IMO.
I did not know that, but I wouldn’t want the Shah to have it. He didn’t need it. Nobody else had them in the Middle-East. Pakistan may have been headed that way, and perhaps that’s why the Shah may have wanted them. I don’t honestly know.
I am not knowledgeable about Iran’s working relationship with other near-by nations during the Shah’s rule. My awareness of the Shah arose out of the Carter fiasco.
Thanks for the comments and information.
It strikes me those who think we can get along with Iran, have to be those who didn’t live through the Carter years. If they had, they would know exactly why Iran is not our friend, and never will be.
Explain? Sounds like you know more and can provide more clarity; at least from your point of view.
Yes, I agree they have all been Arabs. That’s not to say that Iran wouldn’t help terrorist groups though.
You seem to be dismissive of the difference between Arab nationals, and people, who have carried out terrorist attacks against USA and the West, versus Iranian nationals and people, who have not. Am I correct?
You also make a sweeping comment: "that's not to say that Iran wouldn't help terrorist groups." Are you saying or implying Iranian people 'working independently of the mullahs' regime' have carried out terrorist attacks, like Saudis and other Arabs have done? Or will do so?
I did not know that, but I wouldn’t want the Shah to have it. He didn’t need it.
Why?
I am not knowledgeable about Iran’s working relationship with other near-by nations during the Shah’s rule. My awareness of the Shah arose out of the Carter fiasco.
It's ok, not many are. To be fair, there is Always more than one side to consider, closely. Most, in the West are only aware of the one side (their own side), and/or prefer to take one side of an issue into consideration. But it Always takes 2 to tango, as they say.
I'm interested to get full clarity regarding your thoughts per above points & questions, if you choose to share.
...now being practiced by lowly states like Iran, instead of Russia or China. Very dangerous IMO.
The other ones are very much up and coming, including the biggest U.S. creditor China, while the U.S. continues to be weakened.
Yep... our administration should be giving tax breaks to oil companies when they work to develop new ways to drill for oil and gas in radioactive wastelands...
It strikes me those who think we can get along with Iran, have to be those who didn’t live through the Carter years. If they had, they would know exactly why Iran is not our friend, and never will be.
Explain? Sounds like you know more and can provide more clarity; at least from your point of view.
The Shah was our ally. He ruled with an iron fist, but he wasn't like Hussein of Iraq. IMO, you have to rule with an iron fist in that region. Different factions are always trying to gain control. If you don't rule with determination, you're basically toast.Carter thinking he knew it all, undercut the Shah. To Carter it seemed the Shah was a ruthless dictator and the Iranians deserved better.
He telegraphed the Shah had to go. He supported the idea of the Ayatollah coming back to rule. Encouraged by Carter's view, protests in Iraq got out of hand, the Shah had to leave, and the Ayatollah did return.
Then we got an Islamic driven government and all the anti-U.S. sentiment that generally comes with that. You also got a very opressive government many times worse than the Shah. Carter never acknowledged that.
The Iranian people had been pro U. S. The nation had become Westernized under the Shah. Women were able to go outside wearing western garb. At least they weren't stoned or given trouble if they didn't wear the habab. They were allowed to go to school. Christians were free to worship there.
Then the Islamic leadership took control. It was from day one very anti-U. S.
Then a faction of the University Kids decided that U. S. was the enemy of the Iranian people, they stormed the U. S. Embassy, and held the staff hostage for 444 days. It hadn't occurred to Carter there might be some anti-U. S. backlash to his stupid plan to replace an ally of the U. S. with someone who wouldn't be an ally of the U. S.
We have had to deal with Carter's mess since the late 1970s. Iraq emboldened by U. S. disatisfaction with Iran's leadership, attacked Iran. This led to a very bloody war that cost both sides massive numbers of losses. Some estimate upwards of one million died, both military and civilians. This would never have happened without Carter's brilliant stratetic actions. He has the blood of those people on his hands. He was a typical Leftist when it came to global diplomacy. He could make massive messes, but he had no idea how to clean them up.
The Islamic leadership of Iran was an enemy of the U. S. It has been hostile ever since. Not only had Carter destabalized a good friend of the U. S., he had helped replace him with a man that dispised the U. S. The leadership was anti-U. S. back then. It has remained anti-U. S., and it will remain anti-U. S.
Now Iran is developing the bomb. We are sitting back letting it happen. Soon Iran will be a nuclear power. Every nation in the region will be in danger once that takes place. With the proper missile technology, Iran could become a nuclear power capable of striking our shores. It will be able to hit Europe in short order. It has some fairly advanced missile technology already.
We are forced into being anti-Iran by good old peanut boy. We simply cannot act as if everything is kosher, with Iran seeking the bomb. We are going to be butting heads with Iran's leadership. Soon it will be a leadership with nuclear weapons.
Those ayatollahs are never going to be friends with the Great Satan. Yeah, who knew Jimmy?
Carter destabalized the Middle-East with his actions concerning Iran. Now Obama is destabalizing the rest of the Middle-East. He telegraphed his willingness to see leaderships fall, and nations be converted at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood went in and worked it's magic. Force is being used here, but these actions mirror Iran with the changes in leadership, and the Islamic driven governance. Obama has not only look on favorably, he has actually armed and funded some of these efforts. So what Carter helped accomplish in the late 1970s, is being facilitated across a number of nations right now by Obama. We will have a number of Islamic governments that hate the U. S. at the end of the day. These are members of al Qaeda.
This is why I state that Iran will not be our friend. We're not going to be able to cozy up with them. Now we've intalled other governments that we will never be able to cozy up with. What Carder did with one nation, Obama has doen with a number of them..
Yes, I agree they have all been Arabs. That’s not to say that Iran wouldn’t help terrorist groups though.
You seem to be dismissive of the difference between Arab nationals, and people, who have carried out terrorist attacks against USA and the West, versus Iranian nationals and people, who have not. Am I correct?
Yes, you are correct. You see, Iran is not ruled by it's people. It is ruled with an iron fisted government. It's my opinion rightly or wrongly, that the Iranian government would kill many of it's own people if they tried to topple it. So no, this isn't going to change any time soon..
You also make a sweeping comment: "that's not to say that Iran wouldn't help terrorist groups." Are you saying or implying Iranian people 'working independently of the mullahs' regime' have carried out terrorist attacks, like Saudis and other Arabs have done? Or will do so?
I am saying that there are undoubtedly Islamic people working on the Nuclear technology. I am also saying that it is resonable to believe they will share technology with other followers of Islam.
You keep saying Iran has not been involved in terrorism with the U. S. Are you aware that Iran was supplying training, munitions, and full support to the terrorists fighting in Iraq? Do you have any idea were supplies for IEDs were coming from, at least in part? Iran was heavily involved in terrorist activity during the Iraq war. It wasn't carried out here int he U. S., but please remind me where terrorism has been carried out in the U. S. over time. The two attacks on the trade center are the only ones I can think of, and they were driven by private parties, and not governments.
Iran has been operating just like other terrorist states, who carry out their terrorism away from the U. S. They are not pristine in this. Their government is perfectly happy to carry out terrorism against the U. S., when the right circumstance presents.
I did not know that, but I wouldn’t want the Shah to have it. He didn’t need it.
Why?
For the same reason we don't supply other allies with nuclear weapons. I don't believe in nuclear proliferation. The fewer nations that have the bomb, the better.
I am not knowledgeable about Iran’s working relationship with other near-by nations during the Shah’s rule. My awareness of the Shah arose out of the Carter fiasco.
It's ok, not many are. To be fair, there is Always more than one side to consider, closely. Most, in the West are only aware of the one side (their own side), and/or prefer to take one side of an issue into consideration. But it Always takes 2 to tango, as they say.
I'm interested to get full clarity regarding your thoughts per above points & questions, if you choose to share.
Those are my thoughts developed over time.
I agree.
You keep saying Iran has not been involved in terrorism with the U. S. Are you aware that Iran was supplying training, munitions, and full support to the terrorists fighting in Iraq?.............
I know what the Iranian Regime has done and have said so in this thread, and many times in the past on FR.
Equally, I've also said the U.S. ally Saudi Arabia and its extensions are just as much of terrorists as the Iranian regime. If you're are discarding that, then you obviously support terrorism when you think it's officially ok to do so. But, don't post rubbish about what I've said and out of context. I shall repeat further below.
Yes, you are correct. You see, Iran is not ruled by it's people. It is ruled with an iron fisted government...
Fully agree. Shame govts do as they want, even if elected in a 'true democracy' such as the USA.
As for your opinion why you think Iran during the Shah even never needed to go nuclear, because "you don't believe in nuclear proliferation" that's fair enough for your opinion. Nonetheless, at that time, even India was going nuclear, why not Iran? Even today, the U.S. has been ok with a nuclear Pakistan, who produces more terrorists per its people.
It's very safe to say the U.S. has been selective and still has double standards in its foreign policy. The U.S. appears to like turning a blind eye to those countries, which have terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, so long as their govts toe the line with U.S. admins, and the U.S. thinks can control them.
Finally, the playing of different factions of Islamists against one another will not bode well for anyone. It'll be increasingly a disaster of a larger magnitude, as we have already, somewhat, witnessed the chaos and murders in the M.E. and North Africa. Neither You nor I can only blame the Iranian regime for that. The U.S. as the so-called responsible 'beacon of light' needs to act responsibly too.
You keep saying Iran has not been involved in terrorism with the U. S. Are you aware that Iran was supplying training, munitions, and full support to the terrorists fighting in Iraq?.............
I know what the Iranian Regime has done and have said so in this thread, and many times in the past on FR.
Hmm, and yet you thought it wise to discount Iran's terrorist activity in your post to me. Why was that? How did you put it? Oh yes...
You seem to be dismissive of the difference between Arab nationals, and people, who have carried out terrorist attacks against USA and the West, versus Iranian nationals and people, who have not. Am I correct?
In a word, NO. Iran has clearly carried out terrorist activity against Western interests in Iraq. DUH! And unlike most of the Arabs behind terrorist activity against the West, this was done with clear government support and approval in Iran.
Iran was also the major supplier of Hezballah in Southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is a major enemy of Israel. Iran supported the threat against Israel as much as it could.
As it relates to nationals only, you could say that Iran is much more dangerous, because it's government actually sanctioned and supported terrorist activity against us. In most instances these actions are carried out by Arabs who are not sponsored by national level governments.
You seem to be trying to move this into a discussion on the people of a nation, when the topic is Iran. We are not dealing with the actions of the people of Iran here. You do know that right?
Equally, I've also said the U.S. ally Saudi Arabia and its extensions are just as much of terrorists as the Iranian regime.
Well, you can say whatever you like. It is untrue, but you can dream on at will. I have no problem with it.
Iran allowed al Qaeda training camps on it's soil. It saw that they were trained. It armed them. It then sent them into Iraq.
If you're are discarding that, then you obviously support terrorism when you think it's officially ok to do so. But, don't post rubbish about what I've said and out of context. I shall repeat further below.
Out of context? Rubish? LOL. My aren't we a bit touchy for being called on idiotic untrue comments.
Yes, you are correct. You see, Iran is not ruled by it's people. It is ruled with an iron fisted government...
Fully agree. Shame govts do as they want, even if elected in a 'true democracy' such as the USA.
Weren't we talking about how unfair we have been to poor little Iran? Now the governments are being compared as if Iran's is equally as sound as our own.
Look, I disaprove of our government right now. There are plenty of problems with it. I do however realize that Obama will be gone in a couple of years, and policies will change. Is that going to happen in Iran? No.
As for your opinion why you think Iran during the Shah even never needed to go nuclear, because "you don't believe in nuclear proliferation" that's fair enough for your opinion. Nonetheless, at that time, even India was going nuclear, why not Iran? Even today, the U.S. has been ok with a nuclear Pakistan, who produces more terrorists per its people.
The subject was the United States supporting giving the Shah the bomb. I stated why I didn't think we should. You have stated that other nations got the bomb. First of all, we didn't supply them with it. As it relates to our discussion regarding the Shah and the bomb, that's the only fact that would be pertinant.
The Pakistani and Indian governments had not spent decades declaring the United States to be the great satan. They had not been specifically anti-Western. India has a government that remains structured by their Colonial overlords the English. Surprisingly they still remain friendly with Britain and the West. Pakistan hasn't been overtly anti-Western.
It's very safe to say the U.S. has been selective and still has double standards in its foreign policy. The U.S. appears to like turning a blind eye to those countries, which have terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, so long as their govts toe the line with U.S. admins, and the U.S. thinks can control them.
Pakistan does not control all it's people. It's not a super strong government. Saying that it allows terrorists on it's soil, is a misrepresentation. The government of Pakistan doesn't control all of it's territory. You didn't know this? You obviously didn't know the difference between Iran vs Pakistan and India regarding the bomb either. Those governments haven't been hostile to the U. S. Iran's has been.
As it relates to this topic, the U. S. has not had a double standard. We did not support giving the bomb to the Shah. We didn't give the bomb to Pakistan or India. We have objected to a nation developing the bomb, who is vehemently anti-Western and in particular the United States. And evidently this doesn't seem rational to you. Well, it is.
Finally, the playing of different factions of Islamists against one another will not bode well for anyone. It'll be increasingly a disaster of a larger magnitude, as we have already, somewhat, witnessed the chaos and murders in the M.E. and North Africa. Neither You nor I can only blame the Iranian regime for that. The U.S. as the so-called responsible 'beacon of light' needs to act responsibly too.
.In so far as the U. S. has helped destabalize regimes in the Middle-East in this Obama comedy of errors, I agree. No we can't blame Iran for that. We can only blame Iran for what it is responsible for, and that is plenty enough.
I haven't defended our current president's polices at all. I'm not sure why that is pertinant to the discussion of Iran and the bomb, but I guess you are.
Read my posts to your here and elsewhere. If you have difficulty comprehending, I can’t help you. See you later.
Well in this instance I’m okay with your perception that I have a difficulty with comprehension.
Thanks for the discussion.
Thanks too. Am sure we’ll have many more discussions in the future :)
I agree. Take care.
An addition just for you: “Sultans of Swing” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0ffIJ7ZO4U
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.