FTFY.
Not exactly, one would say that it started when Iranian parlament voted to nationalize oil industry.
I hope that the US president reads
The implication being....countries shouldn't be allowed to do what they choose with their own resources?
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 .
It's now over 300 days since the White House has held a 'daily' press conference.
300 days!!!
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).The US definitely shot down an Iranian civilian airliner killing everyone on board, including 66 children.
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?
"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:
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.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?
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.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.
Christ, how far back in history do you have to go to attempt in justifying actions from recent..For starters, take a look at the post above. Iran has never helped overthrow a democratically elected US government.
The US definitely shot down an Iranian civilian airliner killing everyone on board, including 66 children.
Iran has never financed & armed a neighbouring rival to attack the US, not "terrorist attacks" mind you, but a full fledged war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians.
Iran has ever invaded a direct neighbour of the US causing region-wide chaos & resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis ... & leading to the very ascendency of Iran in the region that the US is now trying to counter.
Iran has never launched crippling economic sanctions against the US.
I guess the question then becomes, should governments be making official statements via private platforms that can control who sees these statements?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.
I guess the question then becomes, should governments be making official statements via private platforms that can control who sees these statements?
Given that the current Iranian leadership exists because of the US, you tell me?Christ, how far back in history do you have to go to attempt in justifying actions from recent..
Wut?Given that the current Iranian leadership exists because of the US, you tell me?
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?
Wut?
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 .
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?
That's not a bad plan.
And when are you coming to the wonderful plan?
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 ... 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.
Christ, how far back in history do you have to go to attempt in justifying actions from recent..
I don’t know, what’s with shooting a passenger airline out of the sky?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?
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.
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.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.
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....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.