4 US Embasys?

sooda · Jan 14, 2020

Nowhere Man said:
You don't know that.

Read the article.

Discord over the rationale for the Soleimani attack is awakening history's ghosts of US foreign interventions that went bad after questionable rationales for war -- for instance in Iraq -- as well as contemporary questions about this administration's attitude toward trust and truth.

Guitar's Cry · Jan 14, 2020

Landon Caeli said:
Are you serious? CNN is psuedo-news...

Biased, not fake.

sooda · Jan 14, 2020

Guitar's Cry said:
Biased, not fake.

Now Trump is saying that it doesn't matter whether the attacks were imminent or not.

Stevicus · Jan 14, 2020

Riders said:
What really happened why is Trump lying ?

Trump revives bad memories in new storm over intelligence - CNNPolitics

I generally take with a grain of salt any statement that comes from "intelligence," the military-industrial complex, law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, or other such "official" sources.

On the other hand, the Iranians have a history of attacking embassies. That appears to be their M.O. Apart from that, various agencies and other governments have been claiming for decades that Iran is some sort of "threat" to something or other, long before Trump ever entered the fray.

So, if Trump is lying now, that would suggest that our government has been lying about Iran for decades.

sooda · Jan 14, 2020

Stevicus said:
I generally take with a grain of salt any statement that comes from "intelligence," the military-industrial complex, law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, or other such "official" sources.

On the other hand, the Iranians have a history of attacking embassies. That appears to be their M.O. Apart from that, various agencies and other governments have been claiming for decades that Iran is some sort of "threat" to something or other, long before Trump ever entered the fray.

So, if Trump is lying now, that would suggest that our government has been lying about Iran for decades.

We have told a lot of lies about Iran as far back as 1950.

Stevicus · Jan 14, 2020

sooda said:
We have told a lot of lies about Iran as far back as 1950.

I can believe that.

One thing that comes to mind is that, when the Tehran Conference took place in 1943, our own government (including our State Department) knew next to nothing about Iran. Whatever information we had, we had to get from somewhere else.

Somehow, ten years later, we apparently knew enough to believe that they were on the verge of becoming a pro-Soviet satellite, which is why we interfered in their internal affairs and installed the Shah. Of course, the idea of anything being "pro-Soviet" was part of a bigger, more grandiose prevarication commonly known as the Cold War.

In that sense, Iran is hardly unique, as we did much the same thing in multiple nations across the planet.

sooda · Jan 14, 2020

Stevicus said:
I can believe that.

One thing that comes to mind is that, when the Tehran Conference took place in 1943, our own government (including our State Department) knew next to nothing about Iran. Whatever information we had, we had to get from somewhere else.

Somehow, ten years later, we apparently knew enough to believe that they were on the verge of becoming a pro-Soviet satellite, which is why we interfered in their internal affairs and installed the Shah. Of course, the idea of anything being "pro-Soviet" was part of a bigger, more grandiose prevarication commonly known as the Cold War.

In that sense, Iran is hardly unique, as we did much the same thing in multiple nations across the planet.

Not exactly.. The issue was revenue sharing from oil production. The Brits were paying 7 cents on the dollar while other countries were getting 50 cents. After Operation Ajax they did increase the Iranian revenue share to 13%.

Shaul · Jan 14, 2020

The administration says there were threats to U.S. embassies. We can take that at face value. They alone have access to their internal intelligence. If they could publish it without compromising national security, they would do so. Critics that conclude there were no such threats do so based in speculation, not evidence. This is a case were a lack of evidence is not an evidence of a lacking.

You have not made a case proving the administration lied.

There are many possibilities. Shall we speculate? Ok, here’s a speculative scenario: the administration discovers there will be attacks on embassies but doesn’t know which ones or when, so it telegraphs a story saying it does know, those that were planning the real attacks get fooled, call off or delay their attacks and suspect within their ranks about who is betraying them. Meanwhile some U.S embassies are not attacked. Did this scenario happen? Probably not. Speculation can be a big waste of time. Let’s not speculate. There are enough real cases within need for speculative ones. To quote Sir Isaac Newton, “Hypotheses non fingo”.

Stevicus · Jan 14, 2020

sooda said:
Not exactly.. The issue was revenue sharing from oil production. The Brits were paying 7 cents on the dollar while other countries were getting 50 cents. After Operation Ajax they did increase the Iranian revenue share to 13%.

Well, yes, it was that, too. Iran was just one of many victims of Western greed, which was what the Cold War was really all about.

The only real difference with Iran is that they attached some sort of larger, more significant religious meaning to it all, while from the US point of view, they're just another banana republic.

sooda · Jan 14, 2020

Stevicus said:
Well, yes, it was that, too. Iran was just one of many victims of Western greed, which was what the Cold War was really all about.

The only real difference with Iran is that they attached some sort of larger, more significant religious meaning to it all, while from the US point of view, they're just another banana republic.

All the other oil producers were paying 50-50 on the revenue split.

Stevicus · Jan 14, 2020

sooda said:
All the other oil producers were paying 50-50 on the revenue split.

And Iran was getting screwed? Yes, I can see how it was a raw deal for them.

Lyndon · Jan 14, 2020

Shaul said:
The administration says there were threats to U.S. embassies. We can take that at face value. They alone have access to their internal intelligence. If they could publish it without compromising national security, they would do so. Critics that conclude there were no such threats do so based in speculation, not evidence. This is a case were a lack of evidence is not an evidence of a lacking.

You have not made a case proving the administration lied.

There are many possibilities. Shall we speculate? Ok, here’s a speculative scenario: the administration discovers there will be attacks on embassies but doesn’t know which ones or when, so it telegraphs a story saying it does know, those that were planning the real attacks get fooled, call off or delay their attacks and suspect within their ranks about who is betraying them. Meanwhile some U.S embassies are not attacked. Did this scenario happen? Probably not. Speculation can be a big waste of time. Let’s not speculate. There are enough real cases within need for speculative ones. To quote Sir Isaac Newton, “Hypotheses non fingo”.

total BS the secretary of defence, Mark Esper said there were no imminent threat to US embassies directly contradicting Trumps made up garbage

Lyndon · Jan 14, 2020

‘Four embassies’: The anatomy of Trump’s unfounded claim about Iran

Cooky · Jan 14, 2020

Lyndon said:
total BS the secretary of defence, Mark Esper said there were no imminent threat to US embassies directly contradicting Trumps made up garbage

That's not true AT ALL. He said he also believed multiple embassies were under threat, but just that President Trump didn't show him that evidence.

...Let's please get our facts straight. Esper's exact words:

“What the president said with regard to the four embassies is what I believe as well,” Esper said. “He said he believed that they probably ― that they could have been targeting the embassies in the region. I believe that as well, as did another national security team members.”

Esper says he never saw evidence of threat against four US embassies

Cooky · Jan 14, 2020

Lyndon said:
‘Four embassies’: The anatomy of Trump’s unfounded claim about Iran

The Washington Post is psuedo-news. I would recommend using less biased news sources.

Cooky · Jan 14, 2020

Lyndon said:
were actually quite sick of the pseudo news coming from the Trump camp, have some respect for yourself, trumpeting Trump does you no service.

It is what it is, Lyndon. The Washington Post is definitely psuedo-news, whether you like it or not.

Washington Post Media Bias Rating

Lyndon · Jan 14, 2020

slight left lean would be pretty close to rational, not far right lean like Fox propaganda outlet

Cooky · Jan 14, 2020

Lyndon said:
slight left lean would be pretty close to rational, not far right lean like Fox propaganda outlet

Who here is advocating FOX?

Besides, FOX news online was rated equally biased to WAPO according to ALLSides.

Lyndon · Jan 14, 2020

not true Fox is much much more biased, I guess your site is biased.

Cooky · Jan 14, 2020

Lyndon said:
not true Fox is much much more biased, I guess your site is biased.

Nope. You're just incorrect in your assumptions.

4 US Embasys?

Veteran Member

Disciple of Pan

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014

Veteran Member

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014

Veteran Member