Posted on 04/14/2024 5:14:05 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz
In 2009, as the newly elected President, Obama made a move which enabled yesterdays attack by Iran. What Obama did was stop Iran’s Green Revolution, keeping the Mullahcracy in place. Additional actions by the Obama administration, most notably handing Iran pallets of money and negotiating the JCPOA set the stage for Iran to produce nukes. "Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, cut its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98%, and reduce by about two-thirds the number of its gas centrifuges for 13 years. For the next 15 years, Iran agreed to enrich uranium only up to 3.67%." (Wikipedia)
A testimonial banquet will suffice.
Obama continues to do so much damage. Remember, he was the first one that started talking about tranny and yet we have to hear all day long about what a great man he is coming out of the media.
Why would any American think it was OK to give all that money to Iran back in Obama’s era and then to allow them to sell oil again in Biden’s error and build themselves up? Nothing I would want to see more than bombing them into oblivion
“ There are plenty of smart Persians who would love to overthrow their 6th century cult overlords”
Ah, the siren song of the neocon.
You are a judge of Persian public opinion? You have sufficient data about what “plenty of people” over there want to commit troops?
We heard these lies in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in Libya. No more.
Never again.
They cannot be allowed to have nukes and the means to deliver them, period.
Iran has finally provided the open door to do it. If we don't help the Israelis (bunker busters, deep earth penetrators, intel and targeting), then we are suicidal idiots.
Waiting for "Joe Iran" to rise up and defeat the Mullahs is not a viable strategy - no matter what my "draft-dodger conservatives" might think.
I think the best way to handle Iran is to undermine it from within. When we war gamed attacking Iran things didn’t turn out well for us or Israel. Yes we can bomb their oil and gas infrastructure but then Iran uses its proxy Hezbollah to take out Israel’s gas fields. They’ve gamed various scenarios and decided a direct attack on Iran was too risky for many reasons.
Doesn't always workout for the US. We always sacrifice our blood and treasure for the world. Anyone wanting to fix things by destroying and taking over Iran needs to get their head examined. We've been messing with them at least back to the early 50's.
You want to “end” Persia. Goddamit ypu’re fkn st00pit - and evil.
American Israel-firsters, like you, should just move to the Israel shithole already.
Yes.
You have sufficient data about what “plenty of people” over there want to commit troops?
Yes.
You're welcome.
Iran should have been ended 45 years ago, the first time they messed with us.
Concur.
I was no fan of Bush. Hussein fought Iran.
And, until Biden, we had Iran bracketed with our presence in Afghanistan and Bagram air base.
Not going to happen. We are funding Iran.
Correct
I know a few educated successful ones with family still there and they tell me that 75%+ of the population would much prefer a secular modern state but that the current apparatus is entrenched and brutal enough to keep people from risking it
.
Not saying Iran isn’t bad, but ending Iran will do absolutely nothing for Middle East peace. They’re one of like 12 constant aggressors in the region. It’s just a messed up part of the world where everybody plays rough.
The Shah removed himself. He was an incompetent dictator, they always have a short shelf life.
And really, so was Hussein.
Really if you think bad people being ousted is bad, you’re the idiot.
I will ignore your unnecessary personal insult, and instead agree with you to a point. Yes, the Shah was incompetent. And yes, Saddam was evil.
So is it a good idea for the United States to interfere in another country, and oust a bad leader? Maybe. But we’d better have a darn good idea about what’s coming next, who the replacement will be.
In both cases it seems to me that we traded down. The region would be better off had Saddam and the Shah been left power. Of course your mileage may vary.
No it’s not a good idea. But let’s remember facts. A we actually PROPPED up the Shah, he was our puppet, so you can’t say we ousted him at all. Now we shouldn’t have been propping him up either, but math matters.
And Saddam was involved in attacking us, and our interests multiple times. We actually have to do something about him.
No the region absolutely would NOT be better with Saddam and the Shah. For one thing the Shah died of natural causes so one way or the other he’s out. The simple reality is the Middle East is a mess. And will remain that way for the foreseeable future. Too many dictators, not enough countries. With or without our interference there’s always crap going down. And scumbags get replaced by scumbags.
It'll probably take only 48 hr, 72 at the most. They'll greet us as liberators.
We've been in this movie before. No thanks.
Never again.
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.