cuba crisis.
What stated the crisis later known as Cuba Missile Crisis was started by the US via setting up Jupiter missile sites in (Eastern) Italy and Turkey directly targeting Moscow. The final end was taking the Jupiter sites down.

But ask around: CUBA is still about a virgins ruptured hymen and valiantly fighting an ambush.

The parallel: N-Korea didn't really start this recent spat.

NoTime wrote:

Nah, not blaming them (at least, not in that instance). Just proving the original poster's statement, "we've not had a sitting US president threaten "Nuclear War" with North Korea ... since WWII with Japan", as blatantly incorrect.

But, if it's blame you want, here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TcbU5jAavw

(A 60 second snippet of Slick Willy's presser following his deal with North Korea, in which he claims "this is a good deal for the United States" and "North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program" and "South Korea and our other allies will be better protected."

(Also, coming soon to Iran, thanks to Obama.)

Short of military action what could have been done to stop North Korea? The only country with any leverage with North Korea is China. I guess if China sealed their border with North Korea and shutdown trade that might have been enough. But we all know that wasn't going to happen.

Since you bring up Obama what about GWB? Why in his eight years didn't he do anything about Iran or North Korea? See, two can play this game.

CH47A wrote:

Fears of food shortages as North Korea faces worst drought in 15 years

North Korea is facing severe food shortages after being hit by its worst drought in more than 15 years, the UN said, calling for urgent food imports to stop children going hungry.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

Bob, if you're listening, here's a quick lesson in breaking down fake news.

I looked at the FAO website, there are about 5 different links to articles /reports on NK

Not one of those mentions the words starvation or undernourished. SBS is definitely a reputable news service as they are very vocal about minority rights, so surely they arent trying to manipulate public opinion using emotive language?

rfields5421 wrote:

Bob,

I was talking what I personally think is behind Trump's public statements.

He's a terrible President, a liar and a cheat, but I also think he understands the art of the bluff very well. He has a lot of information we do not know. I think he is talking to the public and to diplomats in other nations than North Korea. He wants them to take action/ initiate more pressure.

.

The problem is that other world leaders have probably figured out he's BS artist. Therefore they probably don't take what he says very seriously. There's an inherent danger in this.

LMP737 wrote:

Since you bring up Obama what about GWB? Why in his eight years didn't he do anything about Iran or North Korea? See, two can play this game.

I'd take "president of the united states of america" as a cue for once.

It does not mean hamfisted fixer upper of all perceived as global problems.

LMP737 wrote:

NoTime wrote:

Nah, not blaming them (at least, not in that instance). Just proving the original poster's statement, "we've not had a sitting US president threaten "Nuclear War" with North Korea ... since WWII with Japan", as blatantly incorrect.

But, if it's blame you want, here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TcbU5jAavw

(A 60 second snippet of Slick Willy's presser following his deal with North Korea, in which he claims "this is a good deal for the United States" and "North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program" and "South Korea and our other allies will be better protected."

(Also, coming soon to Iran, thanks to Obama.)

Short of military action what could have been done to stop North Korea? The only country with any leverage with North Korea is China. I guess if China sealed their border with North Korea and shutdown trade that might have been enough. But we all know that wasn't going to happen.

Since you bring up Obama what about GWB? Why in his eight years didn't he do anything about Iran or North Korea? See, two can play this game.

There's no game to play. All of our Presidents over the last 25 years have continued to kick the can down the road. Which has brought us to this day - in which the Norks may very well have both the missile technology and the warhead technology to reach the US. This, of course, completely changes the leverage and negotiating dynamics involved in any future deals or treaties. The same will be said of Iran within the next decade or so.

However two (Clinton and Obama) have formalized this nonsense with supposed "deals" that do nothing but help obfuscate the actions of the two regimes. Trump, for all of his bumbling posturing and nonsense, is at least trying to change the dynamic somewhat, by trying to establish a more restrictive red line.

NoTime wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

NoTime wrote:

Nah, not blaming them (at least, not in that instance). Just proving the original poster's statement, "we've not had a sitting US president threaten "Nuclear War" with North Korea ... since WWII with Japan", as blatantly incorrect.

But, if it's blame you want, here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TcbU5jAavw

(A 60 second snippet of Slick Willy's presser following his deal with North Korea, in which he claims "this is a good deal for the United States" and "North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program" and "South Korea and our other allies will be better protected."

(Also, coming soon to Iran, thanks to Obama.)

Short of military action what could have been done to stop North Korea? The only country with any leverage with North Korea is China. I guess if China sealed their border with North Korea and shutdown trade that might have been enough. But we all know that wasn't going to happen.

Since you bring up Obama what about GWB? Why in his eight years didn't he do anything about Iran or North Korea? See, two can play this game.

There's no game to play. All of our Presidents over the last 25 years have continued to kick the can down the road. Which has brought us to this day - in which the Norks may very well have both the missile technology and the warhead technology to reach the US. This, of course, completely changes the leverage and negotiating dynamics involved in any future deals or treaties. The same will be said of Iran within the next decade or so.

However two (Clinton and Obama) have formalized this nonsense with supposed "deals" that do nothing but help obfuscate the actions of the two regimes. Trump, for all of his bumbling posturing and nonsense, is at least trying to change the dynamic somewhat, by trying to establish a more restrictive red line.

And get us all killed in the process. And nice work blaming only Democrats. How many times did either of the Bush's talk with China over DPRK? No, the latest round of nuclear war talk lies squarely on the shoulders of the minority president.

787Driver wrote:

Why did so many Americans vote for Trump and now you all suddenly think he is a 'mad man'? Should have realized before voting for him.

You are asking the wrong crowd. Not many Trumpian voters posting here (way down since the election).

Freakysh wrote:

CH47A wrote:

Fears of food shortages as North Korea faces worst drought in 15 years

North Korea is facing severe food shortages after being hit by its worst drought in more than 15 years, the UN said, calling for urgent food imports to stop children going hungry.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

Bob, if you're listening, here's a quick lesson in breaking down fake news.

I looked at the FAO website, there are about 5 different links to articles /reports on NK

Not one of those mentions the words starvation or undernourished. SBS is definitely a reputable news service as they are very vocal about minority rights, so surely they arent trying to manipulate public opinion using emotive language?

I don't know why I can find such information at FAO and you can't. Here are a few FAO links regarding N. Korean food crises:

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/412030/icode/

http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/

http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index/en/?iso3=PRK

BobPatterson wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

CH47A wrote:

Fears of food shortages as North Korea faces worst drought in 15 years

Thank you for illustrating my point.

Bob, if you're listening, here's a quick lesson in breaking down fake news.

I looked at the FAO website, there are about 5 different links to articles /reports on NK

Not one of those mentions the words starvation or undernourished. SBS is definitely a reputable news service as they are very vocal about minority rights, so surely they arent trying to manipulate public opinion using emotive language?

I don't know why I can find such information at FAO and you can't. Here are a few FAO links regarding N. Korean food crises:

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/412030/icode/

http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/

http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index/en/?iso3=PRK

Bob, you've linked 3 sites.

Only one mentions undernourishment, and that's just a definition totally unrelated to NK.

As I said I saw 5 NK related reports and none mentioned the word undernourished, even the ones that you have helpfully linked.

I think you are struggling with how to research whether a news story is accurate, you're not doing it right.

By all means link the FAO report that SBS is referring to when they say the FAO has stated NK is starving and I'll admit I'm wrong

Freakysh wrote:

Bob, you've linked 3 sites.

Only one mentions undernourishment, and that's just a definition totally unrelated to NK.

As I said I saw 5 NK related reports and none mentioned the word undernourished, even the ones that you have helpfully linked.

I think you are struggling with how to research whether a news story is accurate, you're not doing it right.

By all means link the FAO report that SBS is referring to when they say the FAO has stated NK is starving and I'll admit I'm wrong

You are being willfully obtuse.

I linked to only one site -- FAO -- and to three pages there that discuss the dire situation regarding food security and malnutrition in North Korea with the prospect of return to broad starvation conditions due to the extreme paucity of rainfall this year.

There are dozens of pages that can be browsed at FAO. You can also use Google to get news reports from many sources. Some of the statements at FAO:

"Food security expected to deteriorate, most households already estimated to have poor or borderline consumption"

"Map: Undernourishment means that a person is not able to acquire enough food to meet the daily minimum dietary energy requirements, over a period of one year. FAO defines hunger as being synonymous with chronic undernourishment."

"Linked page: Prolonged dry weather from April to late June in central and southern main cereal producing provinces raises serious concerns for the ongoing 2017 main cropping season. If rains do not improve in coming few weeks the 2017 cereal output may decrease significantly, deteriorating the already dire food insecurity"

When FAO taks about food security and undernourishment and malnutrition they are merely avoiding the use of words such as starvation.

The dark red coloration of North Korea on that map compares it to the worst basket-cases in Africa.

Nowhere else in Asia is hunger and undernourishment so severe.

NoTime wrote:

Trump, for all of his bumbling posturing and nonsense, is at least trying to change the dynamic somewhat, by trying to establish a more restrictive red line.

He has done no such thing. All he has done is hand propaganda material to the North Koreans and inflame the situation further. Notice when Obama was in office Kim Jr was not making threats against US territory. Quite frankly it's not going to take long for world leaders to realize that his threats are not worth the paper they hare printed on.

CH47A wrote:

A leader of a country is spending millions of dollars (Won, Yen, whatever currency) -- spending millions of dollars on weapons designed for the sole purpose of delivering a lethal weapon to a distant land AND the people under the protection of that leader are starving

That's barely different from the US.

For those that do not trust any of the media organizations, like the New York Times, which was kind enough to include in their "fake news" article the link to the FAO Special Alert, this is the address for the FAO Special Alert #340 concerning the food situation in the DPRK.

SPECIAL ALERT, No. 340

StuckInCA wrote:

CH47A wrote:

A leader of a country is spending millions of dollars (Won, Yen, whatever currency) -- spending millions of dollars on weapons designed for the sole purpose of delivering a lethal weapon to a distant land AND the people under the protection of that leader are starving

That's barely different from the US.

Might it be possible for you to provide some official documentation on starvation statistics in the United States of America? Thank you for your help on that issue.

Well, I should explain the rationale for my request. For one thing, it would not be polite for me to do that as it would imply I do not trust what you state in your posts. Secondly, you are the one that is indicating a correlation between starvation in the DPRK and starvation in the United States of America, so people will only trust your sources on that matter. Community members here would obviously not trust any links I provided. Again, thank you.

In addition, for the sake of being as factual as possible using whatever United Nations information is posted for the general public, I have the following from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Asia and the Pacific: Weekly Regional Humanitarian Snapshot (18 - 24 July 2017)

DPR KOREA
According to Government data and FAO satellite analysis, around 30% of early crops have been lost due to the dry spell that has struck the country. These crops constitute 10% of the overall harvest. Rain began this month which is important for the main crops, but given the reliance on agriculture any loss has negative impact on vulnerable communities’ food security and nutrition. As in previous years, the dry spell coincided with the lean period and as a consequence, government rations, of which 70% of the population rely, recently dropped to 300 grams per person per day from 400g, which is still well below the target 573g.

I hope I'll be excused for highlighting the following: 300 grams per person per day and 70% require those rations from the government.

What I was looking for was a more recent update on the rainfall amounts since the United Nations alert was put out. If anyone can find that information, I'd appreciate the help.

And what does it proof? Little Kim is not a very well meaning leader and the country is economically unstable? I think we all now that, but that does not mean little Kim intends to die in a nuclear exchange with the USA. Obviously his main interest is keeping the USA from invading NK or staging a popular up-rising.

Actually, seahawk, I am afraid my posts just above yours have me engaged in a much more basic exercise. I had to disprove that I was engaging in falsehoods and I suppose I also helped defend SBS's reputation. I hope it is not necessary for me to throw up quote boxes showing where I and SBS were accused of posting false information.

CH47A wrote:

In addition, for the sake of being as factual as possible using whatever United Nations information is posted for the general public, I have the following from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Asia and the Pacific: Weekly Regional Humanitarian Snapshot (18 - 24 July 2017)

DPR KOREA
According to Government data and FAO satellite analysis, around 30% of early crops have been lost due to the dry spell that has struck the country. These crops constitute 10% of the overall harvest. Rain began this month which is important for the main crops, but given the reliance on agriculture any loss has negative impact on vulnerable communities’ food security and nutrition. As in previous years, the dry spell coincided with the lean period and as a consequence, government rations, of which 70% of the population rely, recently dropped to 300 grams per person per day from 400g, which is still well below the target 573g.

I hope I'll be excused for highlighting the following: 300 grams per person per day and 70% require those rations from the government.

What I was looking for was a more recent update on the rainfall amounts since the United Nations alert was put out. If anyone can find that information, I'd appreciate the help.

But the United States is a bit different from DPRK in that, for all the bluff and bluster, the United States actually does not keep strict statistics on it's people like DPRK. Also, not every single person in the United States relies on the government for "rations" like in DPRK. In the United States, it is bad if a person is forced to get food stamps. Heck, even if they take a sandwich while begging at a freeway off ramp, they are sometimes spat on or cursed at.

Yes, things are bad in North Korea, nobody will dispute that. So does anybody think that the situation in the DPRK will trigger them to an attack?

Kim Jung-un should check out the YouTube ULTIMATE MILITARY CHANNEL to see who he's messing with...

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsR9ww ... O4LsotNeEA

Crop expectations this year are similar to what was grown in 2014, the year this article was written.

The myth of starvation

The early 2000s was when starvation was experienced, crop yields were a fifth of what is currently being produced.

I'm not saying they are by any means flourishing today and it would be awful living in NK today, I'm not denying the situation is dire. but we need to be careful of how we classify situations.

This is all I'll say on the matter and allow you all to continue debating whether or not the Don should pre-emptively nuke NK.

One of the best sources of information for answers to questions like you are asking, Dutchy, is the US-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

Their website is:

38 North

In order to stop North Korea from becoming a Nuclear power and to put an end to the Kim Jong-un's regime, is to see a powerful rebel group from within that can easily over power the current ruler. Some day or the other, an average citizen in that country should be able to realize what is happening in his country. He should ask himself whether he is really getting any 'Happiness' under Kim Jong-un's rule.

I think that is the safest option rather than to see an outright war between the US and North Korea. That would be a disaster. But then I don't know Trump's tolerance limit.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Kim Jung-un should check out the YouTube ULTIMATE MILITARY CHANNEL to see who he's messing with...

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsR9ww ... O4LsotNeEA

One youtube video reply for you...

http://youtu.be/U1mlCPMYtPk

For those who haven't heard the conversation between the governor of Guam and Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hGlrV6qsbo

Somewhere in there there talking about tourism and hotel occupancy.

Compare that to Obama's Boston Marathon bombing speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TFlCRClkd0

I know a threat and a bombing are two different things, but you can tell how professional Obama is on dealing with such situations.

aerosreenivas wrote:

In order to stop North Korea from becoming a Nuclear power and to put an end to the Kim Jong-un's regime, is to see a powerful rebel group from within that can easily over power the current ruler. Some day or the other, an average citizen in that country should be able to realize what is happening in his country. He should ask himself whether he is really getting any 'Happiness' under Kim Jong-un's rule.

I think that is the safest option rather than to see an outright war between the US and North Korea. That would be a disaster. But then I don't know Trump's tolerance limit.

I can see this regime implode, each other option will cost the lives of hundreds of thousand people.

John Oliver was brilliant again, besides being very funny, he was also very right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrS0uNBuG9c

It is kind of scary that a comedy show does better in the analyses department then the US presidency.

This issue may be winding down. China has announced sanctions on North Korea for the ICBM launches. China also announded it would remain neutral should NK attack the US, which takes away a lot of bark from NK.


If this sanction work, it could be significant in reigning in NK's continued rhetoric.

it may even give the Trump Administration a win on Foreign policy.

But will it cost us on Trade?

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/in-nort ... ntary.html

Doesn't change the equation one bit. DPRK will not launch a missile in anger, the regime will not commit suicide.

When they nuke each other please grab me some pop corn. At least I hope Europe doesn't get involved like the idiots we are sometimes.

OA940 wrote:

When they nuke each other please grab me some pop corn. At least I hope Europe doesn't get involved like the idiots we are sometimes.

If the shit really hits the fan, Europe will be affected. Perhaps the southern half will be exempted. Sorry to break that news to you.

Dutchy wrote:

OA940 wrote:

When they nuke each other please grab me some pop corn. At least I hope Europe doesn't get involved like the idiots we are sometimes.

If the shit really hits the fan, Europe will be affected. Perhaps the southern half will be exempted. Sorry to break that news to you.

It was a joke. EVERYONE will be affected. At least I hope Kim nukes the southwest US. Gotta keep Brazzers safe. I mean what?

casinterest wrote:

This issue may be winding down. China has announced sanctions on North Korea for the ICBM launches. China also announded it would remain neutral should NK attack the US, which takes away a lot of bark from NK.


If this sanction work, it could be significant in reigning in NK's continued rhetoric.

it may even give the Trump Administration a win on Foreign policy.

But will it cost us on Trade?

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/in-nort ... ntary.html

If he pursues this trade thing the Chinese will view it as a stab in the back. The next go around with the North Koreans the Chinese might just decide to sit on their hands.

LMP737 wrote:

NoTime wrote:

Trump, for all of his bumbling posturing and nonsense, is at least trying to change the dynamic somewhat, by trying to establish a more restrictive red line.

He has done no such thing. All he has done is hand propaganda material to the North Koreans and inflame the situation further. Notice when Obama was in office Kim Jr was not making threats against US territory. Quite frankly it's not going to take long for world leaders to realize that his threats are not worth the paper they hare printed on.

There were no real threats because Obama was content to let them continue their progress with the technology needed to lob some warheads at the continental US.

Would you have us continue kicking the can down the road? Should we just wait until N.K. masters the technology and starts providing support to Iran (the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world)?

NoTime wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

NoTime wrote:

Trump, for all of his bumbling posturing and nonsense, is at least trying to change the dynamic somewhat, by trying to establish a more restrictive red line.

He has done no such thing. All he has done is hand propaganda material to the North Koreans and inflame the situation further. Notice when Obama was in office Kim Jr was not making threats against US territory. Quite frankly it's not going to take long for world leaders to realize that his threats are not worth the paper they hare printed on.

There were no real threats because Obama was content to let them continue their progress with the technology needed to lob some warheads at the continental US.

Would you have us continue kicking the can down the road? Should we just wait until N.K. masters the technology and starts providing support to Iran (the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world)?

So when you say Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism are you simply being stupid or willfully pushing the agenda of war hawks in congress and the pentagon (not to mention Israel) of getting into a shooting war with Iran to get their rocks off.

If the real largest sponsor of state terrorism wanted to acquire nuclear technology they wouldn't go to NK. KSA would simply summon Trump or whichever president currently occupies the oval office and throw him a check.

TheF15Ace wrote:

NoTime wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

He has done no such thing. All he has done is hand propaganda material to the North Koreans and inflame the situation further. Notice when Obama was in office Kim Jr was not making threats against US territory. Quite frankly it's not going to take long for world leaders to realize that his threats are not worth the paper they hare printed on.

There were no real threats because Obama was content to let them continue their progress with the technology needed to lob some warheads at the continental US.

Would you have us continue kicking the can down the road? Should we just wait until N.K. masters the technology and starts providing support to Iran (the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world)?

So when you say Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism are you simply being stupid or willfully pushing the agenda of war hawks in congress and the pentagon (not to mention Israel) of getting into a shooting war with Iran to get their rocks off.

If the real largest sponsor of state terrorism wanted to acquire nuclear technology they wouldn't go to NK. KSA would simply summon Trump or whichever president currently occupies the oval office and throw him a check.

OK, excuse me... the "second largest state sponsor of terrorism." Do you feel better about them having nukes, now?

NoTime wrote:

OK, excuse me... the "second largest state sponsor of terrorism." Do you feel better about them having nukes, now?

Exactly where do you think this Iranian terrorist activity occurs?

Whatever they are doing in Syria and Lebanon is above board and the terror in Yemen has been brought there by Saudi Arabia. They are allies with the current Iraq and they have nothing to do with AQ, ISIS or the Taliban. They have good relations with all their neighbors including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan and their near neighbor Russia. Outside of Israel, AIPAC and of course the ever lovable Saudis, who are their enemies?

NoTime wrote:

TheF15Ace wrote:

NoTime wrote:

There were no real threats because Obama was content to let them continue their progress with the technology needed to lob some warheads at the continental US.

Would you have us continue kicking the can down the road? Should we just wait until N.K. masters the technology and starts providing support to Iran (the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world)?

So when you say Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism are you simply being stupid or willfully pushing the agenda of war hawks in congress and the pentagon (not to mention Israel) of getting into a shooting war with Iran to get their rocks off.

If the real largest sponsor of state terrorism wanted to acquire nuclear technology they wouldn't go to NK. KSA would simply summon Trump or whichever president currently occupies the oval office and throw him a check.

OK, excuse me... the "second largest state sponsor of terrorism." Do you feel better about them having nukes, now?

Absolutely since:

1) Despite the usual ''USA USA USA'' crowd wishing Iran would attack us so that we have an excuse to hurl a few dozen Tomahawks at them, they haven't.

2) I don't really blame any country for taking measures to protect themselves from ''freedom'' delivered via B-2.

BTW not bending over unquestionably to American/Saudi/Israeli interests in the region is not terrorism. I know some like to portray it as such so that it is easier to try and start a war but anyone who is capable of an intelligent thought can see right through it.

salttee wrote:

NoTime wrote:

OK, excuse me... the "second largest state sponsor of terrorism." Do you feel better about them having nukes, now?

Exactly where do you think this Iranian terrorist activity occurs?

Whatever they are doing in Syria and Lebanon is above board and the terror in Yemen has been brought there by Saudi Arabia. They are allies with the current Iraq and they have nothing to do with AQ, ISIS or the Taliban. They have good relations with all their neighbors including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan and their near neighbor Russia. Outside of Israel, AIPAC and of course the ever lovable Saudis, who are their enemies?

TheF15Ace wrote:

NoTime wrote:

TheF15Ace wrote:

So when you say Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism are you simply being stupid or willfully pushing the agenda of war hawks in congress and the pentagon (not to mention Israel) of getting into a shooting war with Iran to get their rocks off.

If the real largest sponsor of state terrorism wanted to acquire nuclear technology they wouldn't go to NK. KSA would simply summon Trump or whichever president currently occupies the oval office and throw him a check.

OK, excuse me... the "second largest state sponsor of terrorism." Do you feel better about them having nukes, now?

Absolutely since:

1) Despite the usual ''USA USA USA'' crowd wishing Iran would attack us so that we have an excuse to hurl a few dozen Tomahawks at them, they haven't.

2) I don't really blame any country for taking measures to protect themselves from ''freedom'' delivered via B-2.

BTW not bending over unquestionably to American/Saudi/Israeli interests in the region is not terrorism. I know some like to portray it as such so that it is easier to try and start a war but anyone who is capable of an intelligent thought can see right through it.

No worries, gents. I'm sure you two know more than the CIA.

NoTime wrote:

No worries, gents. I'm sure you two know more than the CIA.

So you're informing us that you have no substance: that you're only trolling?

salttee wrote:

NoTime wrote:

No worries, gents. I'm sure you two know more than the CIA.

So you're informing us that you have no substance: that you're only trolling?

No, I just sometimes forget how dense and nonsensical many of the folks on this forum are (present company excluded, of course)... and only remember once I've waded knee-deep into this garbage. I could point out that the CIA director himself, has stated that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, and that their influence is "enormous"... or that Iran seems to have had a hand in recent terrorist plots in Bahrain and India, and of course their support of hamas and hezbollah, or maybe their negative influence in Iraq, and of course their constant wishing for the destruction of my country, etc. I could also point out the stream of weapons and technology from North Korea to Iran, and how that would be more problematic once the Norks have established their nuclear capability.

But, then I realize that I'm dealing with people who very likely think that the regimes in North Korea and Iran are just as deserving of nuclear weapons as the USA and, from there, what's the point of continuing the discussion, really?

So, cheers. I look forward to the exciting times ahead when every two-bit regime has the capability to annihilate millions of people. I'm sure that North Korea, Iran and their ilk will be just as cautious and responsible as, say, the US, Russia and China.

NoTime wrote:

salttee wrote:

NoTime wrote:

OK, excuse me... the "second largest state sponsor of terrorism." Do you feel better about them having nukes, now?

Exactly where do you think this Iranian terrorist activity occurs?

Whatever they are doing in Syria and Lebanon is above board and the terror in Yemen has been brought there by Saudi Arabia. They are allies with the current Iraq and they have nothing to do with AQ, ISIS or the Taliban. They have good relations with all their neighbors including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan and their near neighbor Russia. Outside of Israel, AIPAC and of course the ever lovable Saudis, who are their enemies?

TheF15Ace wrote:

NoTime wrote:

OK, excuse me... the "second largest state sponsor of terrorism." Do you feel better about them having nukes, now?

Absolutely since:

1) Despite the usual ''USA USA USA'' crowd wishing Iran would attack us so that we have an excuse to hurl a few dozen Tomahawks at them, they haven't.

2) I don't really blame any country for taking measures to protect themselves from ''freedom'' delivered via B-2.

BTW not bending over unquestionably to American/Saudi/Israeli interests in the region is not terrorism. I know some like to portray it as such so that it is easier to try and start a war but anyone who is capable of an intelligent thought can see right through it.

No worries, gents. I'm sure you two know more than the CIA.

Are we talking about the same CIA that told us about Iraq's WMDs? Maybe they just mixed up the Q and N. I'm sure they got it right this time.

NoTime wrote:

I could point out that the CIA director himself, has stated that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, and that their influence is "enormous"...

And that CIA director is Mike Pompeo who was just another right wing congressman until Trump appointed him DCI. Since his appointment he has spent most of his time licking trump's boots and I'm sure creating havoc within the CIA.

Here is the statement I believe you're referring to:

Iran is not only the world’s top terrorism sponsor, but it’s support has also grown over the last several years

The Islamic Republic’s influence across the Middle East “has expanded considerably ” in the last six or seven years, said Pompeo during an interview with MSNBC. This influence and support of terrorism makes Iran a threat to national security, he added.

“Whether it’s the influence they have over the government in Baghdad, whether it’s the increasing strength of Hezbollah and Lebanon, their work alongside the Houthis in Iran, the Iraqi Shias that are fighting along now the border in Syria — certainly the Shia forces that are engaged in Syria. Iran is everywhere throughout the Middle East,” said Pompeo.

Because of this malign influence, Iran is playing an increasingly “destructive role” in the region, according to the director.

The fractured nature of the Middle East has allowed Iran to play an increasingly dominant role, one which has its Arab rivals in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf on guard. The rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria after the withdrawal of U.S. forces allowed Iran to gain considerable influence of the Popular Mobilization Units, Iraqi militias (mostly Shiite) that were formed in response to the group. Iran has also sent possibly thousands of troops to fight on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a key ally.

Regardless, Iranian leaders continue to blame the U.S. for the region’s woes. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif blasted the U.S. for “unlawful regime-change policy towards Iran.” Zarif’s comments come as Iran continues to support the Houthi rebellion in Yemen, which continues to seek the overthrow of the internationally-supported government.

That is laughably naive, disingenuous is an even better word. He says that "(Iran's) influence across the Middle East “has expanded considerably in the last six or seven years" which is a pretty silly thing for a conservative US Republican politician to say after Bush's war that removed the only check on their power in the ME. Pompeo is one of those who handed Iran carte blanche power to expand their influence in the region. Pompeo's hypocrisy is astounding.

Iran's influence in Baghdad is completely above board, there is no ethical way to challenge that, let alone call it "terrorism"; again, Pompeo and his friends are the people who handed that gift to Iran. In any event, Iraq is our ally in the fight against ISIS and Iran is on board with that policy. They are fighting terrorists for us.

Whining about "the increasing strength of Hezbollah and Lebanon" is ridiculous, Hezbollah is part and parcel of the democratic Lebanese government. Hezbollah represents the political face of a large part of the Lebanese population. There may be policy differences with Washington there, but that is not terrorism, it is political expression.

The line: "The rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria after the withdrawal of U.S. forces allowed Iran to gain considerable influence...." is a willful distortion of the truth. It is meant to snow the uninformed. Iran is thoroughly opposed to ISIS. It is the United States which is responsible for the creation of ISIS, we took down the secular government of Iraq, and installed a Shiite government in its place. The rest is, as they say, History!

I don't see what Pompeo complaint is about Iranian leaders blaming the U.S. for the region’s woes - I mean get real!


If all you've got is Bush/Trump lackey Mike Pompeo, you haven't got much.

Well, like I said - "No worries, gents. I'm sure you two know more than the CIA."

NoTime wrote:

Well, like I said - "No worries, gents. I'm sure you two know more than the CIA."

Cute way to retreat.

salttee wrote:

NoTime wrote:

Well, like I said - "No worries, gents. I'm sure you two know more than the CIA."

Cute way to retreat.

Well, why not... I mean it's the CIA's multi-billion dollar budget vs. a few forum jockeys.

If the freaking director of the CIA (or simple common sense) can't persuade you, then what chance do I have?

NoTime wrote:

salttee wrote:

NoTime wrote:

Well, like I said - "No worries, gents. I'm sure you two know more than the CIA."

Cute way to retreat.

Well, why not... I mean it's the CIA's multi-billion dollar budget vs. a few forum jockeys.

If the freaking director of the CIA (or simple common sense) can't persuade you, then what chance do I have?

You're not even capable of debate. All you have is "Mike Pompeo says" and Mike Pompeo is a lackey.

Those Americans that say Iran supports terrorism should look at their own leaders first.

1. US used nukes on 2 nations killing more than 500K people.
2. US invaded Libya, Iraq & Afghanistan killing hundreds of thousands innocent civilians & those wars only brought more destruction to these countries.
3. US helped the Iranian SAVAK to kill and torture thousands of Iranians inside secret prisons during the Shah's reign.
4. US supported and funded Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war and provided chemical weapons to use on Iranians.
5. US has shot down Iran Air 655 killing 290 people and 66 children - Iranians never received an apology & they gave medals of honor and bravery to the crew who shot the plane.
6. US funded ISIS & Al-Nusrah - The US administration admitted this several times - put on Google & the links will show up.
7. Hezbollah is a terrorist group according to the US - not the UN - keep that in mind.

& so much more...

And even now there are hawks in the US that would support even more destruction in the region, only to fill their pockets! & you wonder why my people burn your flag? Because you have done NOTHING more than murdering in our region.

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons & it doesn't plan to have one - despite the fact that Israel has more than 100 nuclear warheads probably pointed at us!

persiangulf93 wrote:

Those Americans that say Iran supports terrorism should look at their own leaders first.

1. US used nukes on 2 nations killing more than 500K people.
2. US invaded Libya, Iraq & Afghanistan killing hundreds of thousands innocent civilians & those wars only brought more destruction to these countries.
3. US helped the Iranian SAVAK to kill and torture thousands of Iranians inside secret prisons during the Shah's reign.
4. US supported and funded Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war and provided chemical weapons to use on Iranians.
5. US has shot down Iran Air 655 killing 290 people and 66 children - Iranians never received an apology & they gave medals of honor and bravery to the crew who shot the plane.
6. US funded ISIS & Al-Nusrah - The US administration admitted this several times - put on Google & the links will show up.
7. Hezbollah is a terrorist group according to the US - not the UN - keep that in mind.

& so much more...

And even now there are hawks in the US that would support even more destruction in the region, only to fill their pockets! & you wonder why my people burn your flag? Because you have done NOTHING more than murdering in our region.

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons & it doesn't plan to have one - despite the fact that Israel has more than 100 nuclear warheads probably pointed at us!

I get the feeling a sensible post like this will be flamed in a place like this.