America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 38,011 comments
- 1,485,161 views
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
- 1,292
- CZE
- novcze
Not exactly, one would say that it started when Iranian parlament voted to nationalize oil industry.
I don't think that anybody here is denying involvement of the US in the region but it doesn't negate what Iran do.
btw. I have wonderful plan for the ME region:
- quickly move to another energy source for transportation, e.g. fuel cells, preferably before Iran have nukes
- move out of the region
- let them kill each other in their wars
- deal with whoever 'wins'
I hope that the US president reads
.
- 11,327
- Marin County
The implication being....countries shouldn't be allowed to do what they choose with their own resources? You must be a big fan of imperialism. What are your thoughts on the Nazi occupation of Czech territory in the second world war?
The rest of your post is just childish nonsense not worth responding to.
- 1,292
- CZE
- novcze
Nice try to spin it, but we were talking about why Iran - US relationships became bad. The rest is just your jumping to conclusions.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
That's not a bad plan. But what actually is the US plan? The key question, especially on the minds of those in the region, is does the US intend regime change in Iran?Not exactly, one would say that it started when Iranian parlament voted to nationalize oil industry.
I don't think that anybody here is denying involvement of the US in the region but it doesn't negate what Iran do.
btw. I have wonderful plan for the ME region:
- quickly move to another energy source for transportation, e.g. fuel cells, preferably before Iran have nukes
- move out of the region
- let them kill each other in their wars
- deal with whoever 'wins'
I hope that the US president reads
- 6,293
- Canada
I’m a bit of a fence sitter when it comes to Trump. He certainly has his jaw dropping gaf moments, talks out of his ass, and seems to have lowered the standard for how a president behaves...but at the same time, I don’t think he’s the worst thing ever in the sense that he’s actually not that different than those who came before him. Sure his conduct is a little different, but his actions aren’t incredibly different. I honestly think it’s his “proverbial pulling back of the curtain” that has most people in the establishment shook.
I’ve seen the argument made, and I tend to agree, that Trump himself isn’t actually a major problem. What is a problem is the benchmark he has set. Someone, either Democrat or Republican, who is younger, better looking, and who has an even stronger grasp of social media, will follow the Trump model, will build a cult base even stronger than Trump’s, and will win the presidency by being really good at elections, while having zero qualifications to run a country.
There is absolutely zero point in playing this game of “they started it”, or trying to come up with these lists of who has wronged who. There are so many people on all sides of this 🤬 show that bear responsibility, it serves no purpose, especially to regular people caught in the middle, to play this back-and-forth blame game.
——
Regarding twitter, I think the social media aspect of this is going to be one of the interesting things to watch going forward.
- if Trump and other governments are going to use a privately owned platform to make official government statements (as Trump indicated, his social media posts would serve as official communication), what is the legality of a private company banning US citizens from participating in the national discourse?
- if there wasn’t already multiple tiers regarding who is allowed to get away with what on social media, there certainly is now. Many of both Trump’s and Iran’s twitter posts over the last week have violated several aspects of twitter’s TOS, most notably making direct threats of violence. I’ve seen several people raise this point, but as far as I know, there has been silence from Twitter.
I’ve seen the argument made, and I tend to agree, that Trump himself isn’t actually a major problem. What is a problem is the benchmark he has set. Someone, either Democrat or Republican, who is younger, better looking, and who has an even stronger grasp of social media, will follow the Trump model, will build a cult base even stronger than Trump’s, and will win the presidency by being really good at elections, while having zero qualifications to run a country.
True, but are you familiar with the back story there? You know the Vincennes was in the Gulf as part of a response to Iran mining the straights of Hormuz, and hitting a civilian ship with a mine, right? (Edit: correction, a US Navy ship was hit by a mine, nearly sinking it, while escorting civilian ships through the Strait of Hormuz).
There is absolutely zero point in playing this game of “they started it”, or trying to come up with these lists of who has wronged who. There are so many people on all sides of this 🤬 show that bear responsibility, it serves no purpose, especially to regular people caught in the middle, to play this back-and-forth blame game.
——
Regarding twitter, I think the social media aspect of this is going to be one of the interesting things to watch going forward.
- if Trump and other governments are going to use a privately owned platform to make official government statements (as Trump indicated, his social media posts would serve as official communication), what is the legality of a private company banning US citizens from participating in the national discourse?
- if there wasn’t already multiple tiers regarding who is allowed to get away with what on social media, there certainly is now. Many of both Trump’s and Iran’s twitter posts over the last week have violated several aspects of twitter’s TOS, most notably making direct threats of violence. I’ve seen several people raise this point, but as far as I know, there has been silence from Twitter.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
According to unverified reports, the populace of Iran is extremely disappointed in the incompetent and feckless behavior of its leadership, and many are calling for it to step down.
If this is so, and regime change is the US agenda, the time may be ripe for a concerted but careful push in that direction.
If this is so, and regime change is the US agenda, the time may be ripe for a concerted but careful push in that direction.
Joey D
Premium
- 46,710
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
In the US? Nothing. Since Twitter is a private company, it can do whatever it wants and the government can't legally do anything to stop it. However, Twitter knows that having these people in power use their platform is a great way to attract users, mine data, and ultimately shove ads in your face as much as possible. Even with Trump breaking Twitter's TOS, it knows where it's money is coming from. It's the same reason news networks like CNN and Fox News just sensationalize everything and blows smoke up everyone's backside. They know it attracts viewers and makes them money, even if it's not actual news.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
"To the brave and suffering Iranian people: I have stood with you since the beginning of my presidency and my government will continue to stand with you. We are following your protests closely. Your courage is inspiring." google translation
Also Donald Trump:
Last edited:
- 11,327
- Marin County
I wish Donald Trump realized that he isn't helping their cause. Why can't we respect another countries people enough to let them sort out their own destiny?
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Please understand, I am thrilled to see someone seen in this forum as a solid Trump supporter pointing out his grand hypocrisy, its gotta be said, this was actually an almost decent move. And he was reaching out to another country, not addressing his own.
But, also, that google translation was far to grammatically correct. I am guessing, despite having many talented translators at his disposal, he likely used google translate to put his words into Persian. And that really cheapens the message I think and would very likely look fairly illiterate to Persian speakers, cause, you know, google translate.
Snide "democracy" joke aside. I would be surprised if the Iranian government put up with civil dissidents for long before they started silencing some of the louder individuals and groups. I dont see this going the way of Poland 1989.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
There is an election in Iran next month. Many people have already been protesting, especially about gasoline prices. Now that the top leaders have been revealed as exceptionally stupid or unlucky, the government finds itself on the slippery slope of rejection. May the people of Iran find their way through this catastrophic revelation to a brighter future.
The Ayatollah has lost the Mandate of Heaven. He has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.
Last edited:
- 6,425
- KCCO
Joey D
Premium
- 46,710
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Ideally, no. It starts to blur the line too much between government and business. The two should be separate in my opinion and when you combine the government with something like social media, the likelihood of a First Amendment violation is high. I mean, imagine if Trump demanded Twitter ban all Iranian leaders? That would bring up all sorts of issues regarding how Twitter conducts its business and with government censorship.
However, I'm not sure how you contact a large group of people nowadays. Social media is everywhere and it's probably the best platform right now to communicate, especially with the up-and-coming generations. I suppose the only way to really do it would be for the US government to create its own platform. But giving how tragic the ACA website HealthCare.gov was when it launched, I'm not sure the government could do that.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Given that the current Iranian leadership exists because of the US, you tell me?
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
- 13,739
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Lol, since it turned out so well for them the last time they tried that in Iran.
The US arranged a coup d'etat in the 50's, overthrowing the legitimate (and popular) leaders of the country and putting the Shah in charge.
The Shah turned out to be a bit of a monster, and his oppression of his own people led to a revolution.
At the end of the 70's, demonstrations and strikes built up to the point where the Shah fled the country and Khomeini formed a new government. Given the history, this new leadership tended to be pretty anti-US. They probably weren't as bad as the Shah, but were still pretty oppressive as they consolidated power.
Over the years leadership in Iran has tended towards more democracy and freedoms without totally abandoning their theocratic system, but there have been rough patches and it's not helped by the fact that the US continues to impose sanctions on them which prevents them from engaging with the wider international community. Arguably, having the US as a demonstrable boogeyman who is ready to kill Iranians aids the authoritarians in the Iranian government maintain their positions.
You start to see how the US has been meddling in Iranian politics for a solid 70 years, and while clearly they're not wholly responsible it's also unlikely that things would have turned out exactly the same had the US simply minded it's own business and let Iran find it's own way. The US had a solid hand in making sure that Iran had the government and leaders that it has today, and it's a solid bet that the current leadership is worse for everyone, Iranian and American, than if the Iranian government of the 50's had simply been allowed to develop on it's own.
- 10,918
- Sweden
- eran0004
btw. I have wonderful plan for the ME region:
- quickly move to another energy source for transportation, e.g. fuel cells, preferably before Iran have nukes
- move out of the region
- let them kill each other in their wars
- deal with whoever 'wins'
I hope that the US president reads
And when are you coming to the wonderful plan?
- 1,292
- CZE
- novcze
How should I know, one would expect it is securing uninterrupted oil supply.
At least someone noticed
... moving from ICEs to more environment-friendly energy source is what everyone should be aiming for, even Greta would approve. The ME region without US troops is what most people in said region want and also lot of people in the USA want. Wars are completely optional and up to them, surely without the great satan everything would be cool. I'm supporting the first step of the wonderful plan, there's only so much I can do.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Moving to electric cars only stifles one aspect of the demand for oil. Plastics and rubbers, lubricants, lotions, on and on. I dont disagree with the spirit of your post. Its just that we need to find alternatives to a lot more than petrol engines.How should I know, one would expect it is securing uninterrupted oil supply.
At least someone noticed
I'm supporting the first step of the wonderful plan, there's only so much I can do.
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
As Imari has pointed out .. & ought to be obvious to anyone watching current events unfold, US harassment of Iran has been more or less constant over the last decades. You might equally ask why the US continues to persecute Iran 40 years after the hostage crisis, Trump even going so far as to reference "52" possible Iranian targets. What's with that?
- 6,425
- KCCO
- 1,292
- CZE
- novcze
sure, but if we start with fuels we cut a lot of demand for oil
A breakdown of the products made from a typical barrel of US oil.
- 6,293
- Canada
All of this is true, which is why I find it frustrating when people make statements like “Trump started this.” Depending how you want to define “started this,” he kind of didn’t.
I don’t say that to excuse US action in the Middle East, but more to point out that playing a game of “who started it” doesn’t serve much purpose. Hell, if we really want to go there, yes, the CIA and MI6 helped install the Shaw, this was done to appease British Petroleum, who wanted to maintain control of the oil fields. So actually, BP started this. We can go further. If the British had managed to stop or prevent the American Revolution, there would be no USA, and none of this would have happened....this is a stupid game.
However, when you say ”...if the Iranian government of the 50's had simply been allowed to develop on it's own.”, I think you’re painting a very over simplified version of world history when you say that. You cannot forget the roles that the Soviet Union and the Cold War played in American foreign policy through the second half of the 20th century. If the US would have “left the Middle East alone”, it’s impossible to actually say where the world would be at today, as that completely negates the role the Soviets would then have played in Middle Eastern politics. If the Soviets had been able to gain uncontested access to middle eastern oil, and gained control of the Suez Canal (edit, just to clarify, I know the Suez Canal is not in Iran lol. I’m talking about the ME as a whole here), we would live in a very different looking world.
Edit: @Joey D
I honestly don’t know how twitter would handle Trump demanding Iranian leaders be banned. It’s a cluster 🤬 I mean, you can get banned from twitter for using the wrong pronouns, but world leaders threatening to level entire cities is ok. Known designated terrorist organizations run twitter accounts, so....
I’m also aware of at least two cases where a Canadian and an Australian, both ex-Muslims, were temporarily banned for violating Pakistani blasphemy laws. How do you square that circle???
Last edited:
