The State department should wonder aloud “What did the Iranians do to make Israel so mad it it?” and “Why did Iran cross the red lines?”
When America gets attacked or when American Presidents cross red lines liberals like @Bill.in.PA quickly points out how wrong America is. I’m thinking they are a bunch of America-hating hypocrites. I think they suddenly won’t find any redlines and won’t find anything Iran did to make Israel angry. Here is their golden opportunity to prove me wrong.
The State department should wonder aloud “What did the Iranians do to make Israel so mad it it?” and “Why did Iran cross the red lines?”
According the State Department, red lines are only important when they are set by the US or its allies. The US is free to ignore the red lines of other countries, and then claim that the resulting response is “unprovoked”. See the difference?
I have a pretty good guess what the State Dept thinks all on my own.
I was wondering what you think.
With regard to ref lines are you willing to treat the US as lovingly as you treat Iran or will you give Iran a pass for crossing redlines?
Will you bash the US for crossing redlines and then give Iran a pass for crossing redlines?
The US should pursue a policy of enlightened self-interest. By self-interest I mean what is good for the American people, not the military-industrial-surveillance complex. By enlightened, I mean that we should work with other nations for mutual benefit rather than subjugation and oppression.
As far as red lines, the US ignored Russia’s red lines even though Russia has enough nukes to wipe out every city in North America and Europe. Instead of negotiation, we willingly instigated a coup and civil war in Ukraine, armed violent anti-Russian extremists, and have insisted on expanding the world’s largest and most aggressive military alliance to Russia’s doorstep. At the same time, the leader of Russia is portrayed as totally crazy and more evil than an unemployed Austrian painter, but we can count on him not to launch the missiles.
Given that context, I don’t see how the ayatollahs having a few nukes will make any difference in our security. If we don’t care a whit about thousands of Russian ICBMs, what possible difference will a few Iranian nukes make?
latest unprovoked attack?
the invasion on our southern border…
Yes. The American people overwhelmingly want better border security, but the oligarchs who run Washington don’t. Guess who wins.
Most Americans generally don’t want war. That is why fabulous exaggerations are necessary to make the enemy de jour into the something worse than the antichrist.
the coyotes and the schools running bake sales to fund them
Hmmm…I was being facetious: there is no way that America backs Iran against Israel. A public admonition (smoothed over in private) is likely to be the extent of it.
But, I am also aware I am not the target of your post. Carry on.
What a stunning lack of awareness.
I try to put my self in Israel’s shoes, why they definitely are not innocent on everything and have done some shady stuff. The whole region basically wants them wiped off the map.
I watched a good Oxford debate once where one man I thought had a good point. Paraphrasing what he said “if one thinks Iran is a problem now wait to they get the bomb”.
Carter’s efforts were as disastrous as his Presidency. 
Iran held those Americans 444 days so one has to wonder how much effort he really put into it.
I remember those years and Carter was warned the country would fall into the control of the Ayatollah and Carter’s civil rights concerns for Iranian citizens would get worse if he removed American support from the Shah, and sadly of course, it did.
Carter was/is a bleeding heart liberal who should have been in the clergy, (or a carpenter), rather than politics. He never should have been President and his policies caused a lot of misery for America, the Middle East and much of the rest of the globe.
Yes, Jimmy Carter arguably has the worst performance of any president in modern history. My theory in the past for his poor performance was because Carter was an engineer, and he spent too much time micromanaging things.
My current theory is that a bigger problem may be that Carter made powerful enemies within the military-industrial-surveillance complex. Here are some examples:
Carter cut the budget for the CIA and laid off operatives, an unforgivable sin.
Carter successfully prosecuted Mark Felt, the FBI supervisor who directed illegal warrantless COINTELPRO surveillance. Felt’s conviction was another unforgivable sin.
Mark Felt was also “Deep Throat” who used FBI leaks to bring down the Nixon presidency. Nixon won in a landslide in 1972 with his policy of detente with Soviets and opening relations with Communist China. As a result of these policies there were massive layoffs in the defense and aerospace industries. Prosecuting Felt was an unforgivable sin in multiple ways.
The same people who brought down Nixon, may well have sabotaged Carter. The successful effort to delay the release of the Iranian hostages is one example of how that was done.
Immediately after taking office in 1981, Reagan pardoned Felt before he was sentenced. Reagan immediately started a major increase in military spending. In addition, he had George Bush as his VP. While Bush’s had been CIA director for a year, his ties to the agency appear to be much deeper. It is not an accident that the agency operates out of George Bush Center for Intelligence. Reagan’s victory was a major win for the military-industrial-surveillance complex.
Nope. So long as Iran refuses to recognize Israel and funds terrorist groups hostile to the Israeli state then they should do what they feel as necessary.
Kind of sad how the Iranian government acts. Israel and Iran used to be close allies. Even after the revolution they were clandestine allies; Israel was one of the few countries to assist Iran against Iraq.
And the Israeli attack on Osirak was basically a joint operation; Iran not only attacked the reactor a year before but they also overflew the reactor complex shortly before the Israeli strike and provided Israel with valuable intelligence. Once Iraq was no longer a threat Iran decided to do a complete 180.
Once the mullahs are gone I could see things returning to that. Hopefully. The Jewish and Persian peoples have a long history together. It wasn’t always hostile. Even in the 20th century.
Thanks for the info. I was always focused on irans nutty president, Ahmadinejad, that i never gave irans people any merit for wanting a stable relationship with israel.
Unprovoked? Man, you guys are really spinning stuff now.
https://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/
You guys are too easy.
Yes, and the US government has been developing plans to wipe Russia off the map and create NATO puppet states, but the State Department insists that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been “unprovoked”. Clearly plans do not qualify as provocation.
You can’t stop them. They have just as much a right to them as the countries that already have them.
I’ll bet we could if we actually wanted to. 
The attacks on Iran have occurred with at least tacit support from the US, and the proxy war in Ukraine is a driving factor. Iran and Russia have been developing closer relations, and the US believes the Iran has been supplying weapons to Russia.
Russia has condemned the recent attacks on Iran and denies that it has been using Iranian weapons in Ukraine.
Of course, Russia accuses Ukraine of war crimes as well. The alleged crimes include bombing civilians in Donbass using NATO-supplied HIMARS missiles and artillery. If supplying weapons to Russia justifies attacks on Iran, then what would that logic mean for NATO factories and warehouses that supply weapons to Ukraine?
