Prince Reza Pahlavi speaks on Fox News! Wonderful interview! This may be finally a positive change for reform in Iran, God willing. Instead of war against Iran, hopefully, a covert operation will bring the right change needed. I am praying the U.S. government finally makes the right decision and backs those against the regime. It would be a positive move.
If a regime change takes place in a peaceful way it would be a good thing. It´s clear that in the current situation it´s all about the citizens of Iran. I don´t know how restricted it is to live in Iran. They live under law´s of sharia but how the “normal“ people feel often is different from what we hear in our medias. I know it from a personal level, because I could talk to refugees from Syria in my neighbourhood a time ago. Most of them came here not because they were in danger but because they were searching a better economic future. Of course some of them had to escape because they lived in a war zone. But what people of Iran not would help is to put Iran into war and bombs. In General people want to have a good live like we do have in the first world. If they do so they don´t care about political systems.
It's more than just a political system. It's a theocracy in Iran, very different from the secular Syria. Iran's radical Islamists are tyrants in every way.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see how more covert Western intervention will solve Iran's internal problems, when covert Western intervention is the reason for the Islamic fanatics taking power in the first place, as cited back in post #13. Iran is a sovereign nation. Their internal affairs are their concern, not ours. The mindset that says that we have a right to covertly affect regime change in a sovereign nation, is in my opinion a way of thinking alien to American's founding principles and basic common sense. How would we feel if another, more powerful nation than us felt it had the right to treat us as colonial subjects and interfere in our internal affairs as it deemed appropriate? Oh, wait... Team Neocon feels that they have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of nations that don't tow their line. This policy came into sharp focus during Obama's Administration with the covert overthrow of Ukraine by Team Neocon and then their demonic regime change plan masquerading as democratic "hope and change" known as the Arab Spring which unleashed the greatest persecution on Christians in the Cradle of Christianity since Nero. Team Neocon has been using this interventionist and "color revolution" playbook for a long time now. Their ancestors used it to devastating effect in 1917 when their "Red" color revolution overthrew Orthodox Russia. This is why their progeny today is in such constant conflict with a resurgent Orthodox Russia and why "Russia, Russia, Russia" is daily in the news. It's just sad to see that Trump has decided to continue to use the same boring Neocon playbook, one that will ultimately not make America great again and will make the world a much more violent, dangerous place. Trump was elected as the real "hope and change" candidate. He came in as a fresh slate and an outsider. Trump, more than anyone in decades, had the chance to finally end the decades of Neocon warmongering, covert and overt. Sadly, he only seems concerned with escalating and continuing the Neocon foreign policy of Bush-Obama, a foreign policy that is on the wrong side of God and is destined for defeat.
jackzokay, You are probably correct but I highly doubt it will be President Trump's fault. The USA has already lost a great number of American boys (and girls) killed in the Middle East during wars which began during President George H. Bush's presidency. We went from one war to the next to the next and so on since the Gulf War, more or less. It goes back even further, of course, but there is a very strong connection to where we are now in the Middle East to the time of President George H. Bush's presidency. The truth of the matter is that most US citizens other than those who have fought in war or lost someone due to war have never experienced war or unrest. For instance, most Americans are unfamiliar with what Northern Ireland experienced for 30 years which resulted in the loss of over 3,500 people including almost 1,900 civilians and God only knows how many people were maimed, many of whom were children. Most of us have no idea what it is like to live with constant fear that some thing is going to literally blow up and most of us have no idea what it is like to live with a nightly curfew including lights out in our homes by 10pm, the fear of using a light to go to the bathroom, etc. which could result in a plastic bullet being shot through the window of our home which may kill us or permanently maim us. In addition, I think most of us change our "tune" when the bloodshed occurs on our own soil - then we wonder what could have been done in advance to prevent what has occurred. I am not saying that I have the answers and I have questioned the motives of my President at times just like the author of the following article, https://townhall.com/columnists/bob...cas-vital-national-security-interest-n2429268 but unlike Ms. Johnstone, I don't believe that President Trump is very similar to President Obama nor do I believe that he will be the aggressor in relation to Iran. I suppose I am tired of the all the anti-Trump (anti-American) rhetoric which just appears to be useless banter at the moment, maybe it is induced by fear. I also think many people want a fall guy, they want to point the finger at one single leader or group when instead there are many leaders to blame for where we are now, which is possibly on the verge of nuclear war as you have stated. Ms. Johnstone is concerned that President Trump commended the Iranians for taking a stand against their government's support of terrorism. She thinks that the President will attack Iran and claim it is in defense of human rights but in comparison some members believe that all of the actions of Russia involving the Ukraine have been justified*. Unfortunately, all leaders get caught lying at times but ask yourselves what is a bigger lie, a "lie" about which country is the number one supporter of terrorism at the moment or a lie about a well planned military operation in eastern Ukraine? The following paragraph is from this 2014 article, *http://www.businessinsider.com/philip-breedlove-activists-professional-military-force-2014-4 , In my blog last month I spoke about the importance of identifying the Russian troops in Crimea. Today, the Russian president has finally admitted that Russian troops were there after denying it repeatedly early on. Also today he claimed that the idea of Russian forces in eastern Ukraine was "rubbish.” I would ask that you keep this in mind as you consider your answer to the question "Who are the men behind the masks in eastern Ukraine, today?” Richard, I didn't ask about Crimea specifically, I asked about the Ukraine in general. What was/is Russia's intentions in relation to the Ukraine was my question. It's amazing to me that you appear to place the blame on the Neocons for 10,000 deaths of Ukrainians since late 2013 which was clearly the fault of Russia/Putin.
No, Carol, the blame for those thousands of deaths in the Donbass falls squarely on Barack Obama, Victoria Nuland, John McCain and those in our government who supported the violent coup against Yanukoyvch in 2014. Poroshenko is a war criminal and continues to wage a punitive war of genocide against the people of the Donbass, with full U.S. support. Trump decided to give advanced anti-tank missiles to this war criminal and fake president Poroshenko and this disappoints me greatly. The violence in Ukraine is the direct consequence of the West violently overthrowing the democratically-elected President of Ukraine in 2014. Trump must disavow and disown this Junta or he risks having innocent blood on his hands and nothing good will come of it for Ukraine or for America.
Carol— I too am tired of the constant bashing of President Trump he has become a lightning rod for everyone’s particular grievance. It is wearying beyond measure. Honestly I’ve never seen anything like it! Derangement! If people don’t like him vote him out. That’s how it’s done. But to harangue at full volume 24/7 as the chattering class and Hollywood and assorted self appointed journalists do is just enough!! Sorry. Had to rant for a bit. Ten deep breaths. Okay.
You have a right to your opinion. http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/20/politics/us-ukraine-weapons-export/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/22/politics/us-ukraine-anti-tank-weapons-russia/index.html
We took out the Shah covertly, and that was a huge mistake, we can put him back too. I know our founding father's were against foreign entanglements, and they were right of course. But we live in a different world today. It has become a smaller one. We are all interconnected, that's why the internet is called the internet. Although I highly respect Ron Paul and his son Rand, and I voted for them, I must tell you not all regime change is wrong. If we can make a better change in Iran and a place like Cuba, so be it. They are not Ukraine. The problem with New Cons is that they are immoral communists. The changes they want are against Christianity. They have no problem with Islamic radicalism, in fact, they take great pleasure in watching the butchering of both Muslims and Christians. And if they can divide a Christian nation like Ukraine even better. There is nothing that gives them more pleasure than watching Christians killing each other. That's a bonus for them. When Reagan, Pope JPII, and Thatcher teamed up against communism, Neo Cons went bananas. Still some of them credit rock and roll music to the fall of the Berlin Wall, instead of mentioning the true heroes.
Research the real reason why Watergate came about. What did the burglars find in that break-in that the Washington Post never published? What were the Neo-Cons really covering up? I guess Richard we have to agree to disagree. I still believe in that shining city on the hill that can make the world a better place to live. We just need to get rid of the Neo Cons. But they are powerful, they beat up Rand just recently. He almost lost his lungs.
Byron, you are right, it´s a theocracy in Iran. But it is still difficult to judge how people are doing there from the outside. We don´t really know how the welfare system, health insurance or food supply works in Iran. Do you? I read that because of the long-standing sanctions medical care has become difficult in Iran. But for example did you know that medical care had a very good standard in Syria and Lybia (while Gaddafi ruled) and everyone got free access to medical care. That was a better situation than in some western countries... How this works in Iran, I don´t know. I also can not really judge how people are restricted in their freedom. I saw some reports which showed how young people make it possible to live “the western style” in Iran. Nevertheless, talking about how to help people in Iran to get a better life is the one thing. If that really would be the argument to intervene there, one should do the same in Saudi Arabia. They fulfill the same conditions. The reason why this countries are treated in different ways has nothing to do with human rights or care for the citizens. It´s political reasons. Saudi Arabia is a partner of the Western alliance. Iran stands on side of Russia and Western influence is not given. Also that was the reason why Syria was attacked. Same in Ukraine. Before the riots started in the Ukraine, the EU wanted to make a treaty of association with the Ukraine (followed by an integration in the Nato, because that always was the case when countries of Eastern Europe got a member of the EU). The former President of the Ukraine - Wiktor Janukowytsch - refused this contract because he wanted to avoid the resulting disadvantages with Russia and wanted to stay in the historical grown relations with Russia. It didn´t take long and the protests started. By the way, the EU totally missed to speak with Russia about this issue. Because Russia and the Ukraine had a trade agreement and also a custom union. So obviously an agreement between EU and Ukraine would have had an influence on Russian imports. Russia was also exposed to the danger to have the Nato in the nearest backyard and as if that was not enough to lose their historically claimed marine base on Crimea. I will stop going into details, all I want to say is: If Russia would have been involved in finding an acceptable agreement for all sides, the whole conflict would have been avoided. In summary the Western nations (EU,USA) wanted the Ukraine to become a sphere of influence in economical and military terms (e.g. you can find relevant statements of Victoria Nuland which verify this fact). And on the other side Russia didn´t want to give up the Ukraine. The result was and is the conflict which is still going on there. Against this background, the development in Iran appears similar. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with most of Richard67. But I still can not rate Trump. I believe his person can not belong to the demonic forces. Otherwise he would certainly have done nothing against abortion. But his influencers (e.g. Mr Kushner) in terms of foreign policy, well I don´t know...
I think where Donald Trump is concerned you have to look at who hates him. The people who hate him despise everything I believe and hold dear. That is the compass point from which I navigate.
Steve79, Good post. You may think you agree with most of Richard67 but I doubt he agrees with your following statement, "If Russia would have been involved in finding an acceptable agreement for all sides, the whole conflict would have been avoided." I should have included in my previous post that I have the right to my opinion also. We all do, of course. I believe that I agree with more of what you have stated than I agree with Richard's statements about the Ukraine. This is not to say that I am in complete opposition to all of Richard's opinions. I just don't share his opinion that Russia/Putin is not to blame for the loss of life in eastern Ukraine or that Russia/Putin is blameless in every other controversial matter in the world in which they are involved and I don't share all of Richard's latest opinions about President Trump.
Carol, if Russia loses Sevastopol in Crimea they starve. It's all about their geography. Now if you are so concerned about the deaths in this fight over Crimea, then you should also be concerned about what will happen to Russians who are also "Christian" if they lose this fight. Soviet leader Khrushchev is the one who gave Crimea back to Ukraine. And most Russians find that to have been a travesty. But a treaty was respected for many years until today because of U.S. intervention. Russia is defending itself.
Carol. I share the point made by Byron. Russia is defending itself in the Ukraine. In Syria they defend their military base and their partner Assad against Jihadist forces. That is what the “rebels“ in Syria are. But of course where there is war, there is also death. So also Putin had to decide to kill. Yes AED, our Catholic faith is definitely a good compass. And by this Mr Trump seems to be one of the less leaders who makes it good in our sense. At least matters of home policy. This is probably the area in which Trump finds solutions himself and the area which I as a foreigner don´t recognize well. I think to use this compass concerning foreign policy is more difficult. Jesus would have always preferred peace and no violence. At least almost always.
Byron, I am not discussing Crimea but the other parts of eastern Ukraine, mainly Donbass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbass . Specifically the events which occurred after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation a totally different situation. Here are a few photos from the war in Donbass (not Crimea), a destroyed terminal at Luhansk airport and a damaged building in Lysychansk. Also from the 1st link above, Russian involvement Main article: Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) Following its annexation of Crimea, Russia intervened in different ways throughout the war in the Donbass region. Reports and statements by the US State Department repeatedly accused Russia of orchestrating the April unrest across eastern and southern Ukraine. Russia denied these reports. As the unrest escalated into a war in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, Russia supplied arms, armoured vehicles, tanks, and other equipment to the forces of the DPR and LPR. A significant number of Russian citizens and military men have fought in the war as volunteers, something that the leaders of the DPR and LPR admitted. Recruitment for Donbass insurgent groups was performed openly in Russian cities, using private and military facilities. Reports of direct Russian military involvement culminated on 25 August, when the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) said that it captured a group of Russian paratroopers on active service in Ukrainian territory. The SBU released photographs of them, and their names. On the following day, the Russian Defence Ministry said these soldiers crossed the border "by accident". On May 2015 a Russian major was detained near Donetsk while driving an ammunition truck, there was no comment from Russian military, the major was later exchanged for captured Ukrainian soldiers. In May 2015 two suspected Russian GRU agents were detained by Ukrainian forces, Russia's Ministry of Defense stated the men were former soldiers who were not on active duty at the time of capture. The two men were later exchanged for captured Ukrainian pilot and politician Nadiya Savchenko In September 2015 Ukraine's border guards detained 2 Russian internal troops when they crossed the border in Ukraine's Luhansk oblast, the Russian servicemen stated they were lost and crossed the border by accident, with the Russian Military of Defense accusing Ukraine's forces of crossing into the nearby Russian village and abducting the servicemen. Anti-war demonstration in Moscow, 21 September 2014 A new front in the war was opened on 27 August 2014. Vast amounts of military equipment and troops crossed the border from Russia into southern Donetsk Oblast, an area previously controlled by the Ukrainian government. Western officials described this new offensive as a "stealth invasion" by the Russian Federation. US State Department spokesman Jen Psaki said that "these incursions indicate a Russian-directed counteroffensive is likely underway", and Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko said "An invasion of Russian forces has taken place". NATO commander Brig. Gen. Nico Tak said on 28 August 2014 that "well over" 1,000 Russian soldiers were operating in the Donbass conflict zone. During the week prior to the "invasion", Russia had been shelling Ukrainian units from across the border, though instances of cross-border shelling from Russia had been reported since mid-July. At the time, Russian government spokesmen denied these reports. An August 2014 survey by the Levada Center reported that only 13% of those Russians polled would support the Russian government in an open war with Ukraine. Reports of Russian involvement continued into early 2015. Russian forces and equipment participated in the Second Battle of Donetsk Airport and the Battle of Debaltseve. A report released by the Royal United Services Institute in March 2015 said that "the presence of large numbers of Russian troops on Ukrainian sovereign territory" had become a "permanent feature" of the war in Donbass since August 2014. In a press conference on 17 December 2015, Russian president Vladimir Putin acknowledged for the first time that there had been a Russian military presence in the Donbass region, though he said that this did not mean that there were "Russian troops" there. In a February 2017 interview with Ukrayinska Pravda Deputy Head of the OSCE monitoring mission in Ukraine Alexander Hug stated that he and other monitors had met separatists soldiers who claimed that they were soldiers of units of the Russian army. Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass and Casualties of the war in Donbass Finally, A poll of the Ukrainian public, excluding Russian-annexed Crimea, was taken by the International Republican Institute from 12–25 September 2014. 89% of those polled opposed Russian intervention in Ukraine Take for example the following made up scenario: some people in a part of California wanted their region to secede from the USA to rejoin Mexico. These people, revolutionaries/insurgents, began causing unrest so the US Government sent in troops to help the local law enforcement. But then, Mexico started supplying these insurgents with military supplies and equipment possibly even "volunteers" to help with the fighting. Finally, it is discovered that Mexico sent some military into this part of the USA to help these insurgents. Meanwhile, the unrest became war and various buildings & infrastructures were destroyed; and innocent civilians were killed. I think most people would a have problem with this. I am not saying that this is exactly what happened in Donbass but it is similar. In the USA, we would tell these insurgents to move to Mexico.
Most likely, Carol, if the Mexicans elected a government hostile to the US, the insurgency would be in Mexico giving the US an excuse to arm the rebels, supply military advisers and invade if necessary to "protect human rights". That's what powerful countries do to protect their own strategic interests. It isn't right but it's a fact of life. The Russians annexed Ukraine to ensure access to the port there because their agreement with the Ukrainians for its use only had about thirty or forty years before it was due for renewal. The coup happened because the Russian puppet Head of State had rejected the agreement with the EU (the EU had made belated changes to the agreement). Russia had no guarantee that the new Government in Ukraine wouldn't join NATO. The excuse for the coup was to make sure that Ukraine joined the EU which would automatically include a mutual defence agreement. Russia wasn't going to sit back and let that happen. No powerful country would. While Putin is no angel, now that China is buying influence across the world the US could rue the day that Trump's overtures towards the Russians were scuppered by a Republican/Democrat alliance whose interests are questionable. Is there a war that John McCain and Lynsey Graham wouldn't want the US involved in? I don't think so. (I had to delete part of your post in the above quote to keep my response within the permitted number of characters).
Dolours, You mean, Russia annexed Crimea - lol. It is a very complicated situation and I was trying to explain that Russia's involvement in Donbass, Ukraine, which is not in Crimea and totally separate from the Annexation of Crimea, is something that most Russian and Ukrainian people did and do not want. In addition, Russia/Putin lied about their involvement there and there are no excuses for this - not good. That is all. I am not a very clear writer, I don't think that you understood my example. My example, sort of, flows from the following which is in relation to Texas, https://texassecede.com/faq.php . I haven't read through all the stuff on that link but it is something that I have heard of, whether it would ever happen - idk. The difference in my example is I had a small part of California wanting to become part of Mexico. I am not certain that all of those outside of the states realize that a part of California and Texas were once part of Mexico along with parts of a few other states. There was some talk of California seceding also recently, http://www.businessinsider.com/calexit-explainer-california-plans-to-secede-2016-11 . I believe that both of these links talk about these states becoming independent from the rest of the USA, as opposed to my example. I agree that some times it appears that people are in favor of war and unrest. In addition, some people see war as an opportunity for making money and don't always consider the lives that will be lost. I think this may be true for some US politicians along with politicians from other countries around the world.
Carol, I understand your defence of your President. For the record, it is my opinion that if the press dislike Mr Trump, then there is hope. I believe the world dodged a very big bullet in Hilary Clinton. That said, the issues for me are not specific to Americans and their presidents; they are these: - too many citizens of too many countries blindly back their presidents/prime ministers/shahs/etc. Too many people follow nationalistic flag-wavers like sheep. - too many demotratic countries arent really that democratic. I mean, the choice of leadership is limited to either 'A' or 'B'. America is a case in point. Yet this is never challenged, rarely highlighted, little discussed... - many people (rightly) vilify mass killing by another countries government on the one hand; yet in turn justify - JUSTIFY - how their own government often 'legitimatly' kills innocent people. As if collatoral damage in the shape of 'some' loss of innocent life is okay. People actually justify this! - hypocracy is endemic in western governments we know - yes. And the peoples of these countries are often vociferous in their support of how their government picks wars or invades countries; yet these people do not show the same zeal in their objection to how their government slaughters its own innocent babies in the womb. Sure, they disagree with abortion. But their zeal pales when compared to their 'patriotism'. For me, my own country has recently formally accepted gay marriage. And it is currently about to attack its babies in the womb. As a result, I do not consider myself Irish any longer. My family and friends debate this issue endlessly with me. They think me some form of traitor to Ireland. (...and in a country that has struggled with invaders for hundreds of years, this stance gets noticed, it ruffles feathers, it causes a stir). This stance sees me use a British passport in protest, my children - too young to know the difference, also use British passports. I criticise at every turn my country, the political parties and anything that is remotely Irish. I hope that this stance makes the people i know and meet, think - or re-think, how the secular madness is creeping up on us here in our country. One day I hope my country is free of this tyranny. The battle here is no longer between Catholic and protestant, absolutely not. The war is now fircely waged upon Christianity. Recently I wrote my local Sinn Fein MLAs telling them that we are Catholic first, Irish second. I was wrong. Sinn Feins near landslide victory at the polls here in northern ireland proved my naievity. And proved also that Christian, Catholic (northern) ireland has fallen to this baby-killing 'irish' nationalist party. I will continue to relinquish and deny my irish-ness until my country and countrymen re-think the madness. Until my country returns to its irish, Christian roots. We here are lost. But we are not alone in being lost. The endless debates along nationalistic lines are naive at best. A smokescreen. Your country has been usurped, no matter where you live! And the vast majority of people are unaware, asleep, numbed... I honestly think that the Christian people of the world should review their views of what makes them English, American, German, Spanish etc etc. Anything, that other people might wake up.
Yes, Carol, I meant Russia annexed Crimea. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm too lazy now to edit my original post. The current problems in Ukraine stem from the removal of the elected leader who refused to sign the agreement with the EU. Wasn't there a civil war in the US when some states decided to secede? Current talk about California or Texas seceding is no more than talk and nobody takes it seriously. If there were a real prospect of secession and those two States aligning themselves with a government hostile to the US I have absolutely no doubt that the dirty tricks department would be working overtime. In short, the US simply wouldn't let it happen. The first priority of most politicians around the world is re-election. There are very few real statesmen. Sometimes when it looks like re-election is not secure or maybe when the economy isn't going well, they will find a war to fight provided it's a war they can win and preferably if it's fought on foreign soil. Politics is a dirty business and the higher the stakes, the more power to be won or lost, the dirtier it gets. We may never know what really happened in Ukraine. We do know that Soros had his dirty mitts in it.
