I have to wonder if there are any good guys this time.It seems to be organized by the PMOI,People's Mojahedine Organization of Iran also known as MEK,Mojahedin-e Khalq.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Iran, will it fall this time?
- Thread starter longbow
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
That situation is far more complicated that can be explained in one sitting, but it is arguable that taking over of the US Embassy was a direct result of the United States intervening in the Iranian Revolution... never-minding the fact, that when Iran was actually an honest-to-goodness democracy, the United States helped undermine it, and re-install the Shah.
Looking from a practical perspective, you would also expect any nation to actively oppose another that was trying to inhibit it's sphere of influence. We exhibited the same behavior, in a policy called the Monroe Doctrine.
Iran, admittedly is arming opponents of the United States... does mean that they are terrorists? And if so, what do you call the United States arming groups in Syria which oppose the legal government of Syria?
Last edited:
Hillary has been pulling for the Mullahs up to 3 months ago.Now she is shifted her position and is pulling for the youth who are " protesting the freedom and future they deserve". There has been little MSM coverage.Will this be covered now to make " a squirrel" for the Mueller investigation?
Legal government of Syria! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
That was Daddy, and Bashar took the reigns through what Democratic means? Dynastic succession?
From the State Department:
Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.
Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are four countries designated under these authorities: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Iran, Sudan, and Syria.
I'm sure there are some that think they have better sources and deeper understanding of the situation though...
Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.
Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are four countries designated under these authorities: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Iran, Sudan, and Syria.
I'm sure there are some that think they have better sources and deeper understanding of the situation though...
he pissed away 1.7 billion and the people of Iran are still dirt poor.....
From the State Department:
Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.
Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are four countries designated under these authorities: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Iran, Sudan, and Syria.
I'm sure there are some that think they have better sources and deeper understanding of the situation though...
I can't but see the selective inclusion on this list. Can you honestly, with a straight face, tell me that you think those are the only countries that sponsor terrorism? That, of course begs the question of why the list is confined solely to those 4 nations. I don't trust our govt that much. Don't overlook the politics. Why aren't Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on that list? Surely the fact that they are technically "allies" has nothing to do with it, right? Or Russia, who is steadfast in its support for Iran. Heck, the Russians, just this week, accused the US of sponsoring extremists.
Spear Dane
Grandmaster
It would be impossible for me to describe how much I don't care. Do you give an arsonist his gas can and lighter back?
You can stand on whatever side of the fence you want. No interest in the moral equivalency
Radio signals generally reach further if you can broadcast them from a higher point.
I suppose this also applies to virtue signals broadcasted while standing on the fence.
You can stand on whatever side of the fence you want. No interest in the moral equivalency
In other words, you only have issues with crimes, when it's not you doing them. I don't subscribe to that belief. Just because I'm a member of a particular collective, doesn't mean that I should be ok when it commits crimes I blame others for committing. That's not patriotism, it's hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is the human condition, but not the worst of things.
I'll take a hypocrite who loves his country over a narcissist who's main concern is his personal virtue.
Sometimes there really are just two sides, and nothing in the middle of the road except roadkill and yellow stripes.
People can be universally hypocritical, no matter what "collective" they belong to, but I'm pretty sure that I know the difference between my friends and my enemies.
Global politics is not a land of puppy dogs and flowers.
It seems that this protest is mostly about economic troubles due to the mullah's foreign policy and corruption, rather than ideology. Direct intervention could back-fire and I doubt there's that much the CIA/etc can do to undermine the gov't that it hasn't already done itself.
Anyway, as the locals say: "My enemy's enemy is my friend". I wish them success
Anyway, as the locals say: "My enemy's enemy is my friend". I wish them success
halfmileharry
Grandmaster
"My enemy's enemy is my friend"
This is a strategy we used in the area withOUT success. Iran/Iraq, Iraq/Russia, and tackling Iraq on our coalition terms. I'm not seeing much I can like about this mess.
Leave this crap alone or turn the whole area into glass or scorched earth policy it.
This is a strategy we used in the area withOUT success. Iran/Iraq, Iraq/Russia, and tackling Iraq on our coalition terms. I'm not seeing much I can like about this mess.
Leave this crap alone or turn the whole area into glass or scorched earth policy it.
halfmileharry
Grandmaster
When dealing with these folks (Iran).... It's like saying... "It's your gun". Ok, maybe I'm dense but I'm not even going to consider handing it to these clowns.
Make no mistake about it... Money equals destruction there.
Here's my issue. Where is the culpability? We helped overthrow Iran's democracy, and install a brutal dictator. We supported said dictator, then the Iranian loons captured public, and a theocracy was installed. We've been on bad terms ever since. Since then, Iran has never invaded another nation, nor did it take an aggressive stance towards the United States after the "goodwill gesture" of releasing the hostages when Reagan was elected. What happens after that? Iraq invades Iran with US support. I mean WTF? Is it really a mystery why Iran gets butthurt whenever the United States starts stomping around the region? Iran embarrassed us during the hostage crisis, and we just can't seem to let it go, even after our pretty crappy history with them. What we should do, is simply leave them, and that entire infernal region to their own devices. They fight enough between themselves that it would seem that no one nation would ever reach the point of being considered a superpower.
halfmileharry
Grandmaster
Dang Kut, sounds like you're expecting fair play and putting the U.S. on holy ground here.
