Iran Sympathizers in Biden Admin Leak Intelligence on Israel Attack Plans

a reply to: CriticalStinker

But attempts at diplomacy don’t always equate to being an apologist for an adversary.

I've noticed your posts lately, which I think are underrated and not given enough attention. Unfortunately, I was always too late and pages had already passed.

Taking Russia as an example, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder spoke to Putin at Zelensky's request. The media were more concerned with urging Schröder to distance himself from Putin than with seeing that a moral statement from him would have burned the last bridges to Putin.

Schröder put it beautifully: "On such a level, you don't come with the moral cudgel if you want to work out a solution, I ask you to use your common sense. If I were to comment on that, well, maybe I can be useful again in this crisis, maybe I can't do that if I answer your question?"

One can now ask whether such dynamics are being forced on purpose and whether the reporters don't know exactly what they are doing... or what is the case here.

And to say something on the subject. One can't say that the USA isn't a good partner for Israel. That's also known in Europe. How much of that is a projection of geopolitical power is debatable. The USA is Israel's best ally. Proven by the actions you list.

a reply to: Naftalin

We could go back further and find an even more extreme example IMO. During the 80’s, arguably one of the peaks of the Cold War, Reagan who was considered a hawk against the soviets began talks with Gorbachev. At the time, they were an enemy we just about thought were ready to end the world. There were several close calls, yet we came together to start some dialogue which proved to pay dividends.

That’s in hindsight, and it doesn’t always work. But when writing the history of failed diplomacy, it’s typically written in less blood.

It didn’t work in the case of Iran, but I also don’t think thats what ultimately tipped the scales to make 10/07 happen. There was a lot leading up to that, decades and decades. Did some of that money probably get used? Sure. Could they have done it without that money, probably.

a reply to: CriticalStinker
If someone is looking for a way, they will find it, with or without support. The question of effectiveness remains, but otherwise I agree.

It is also clear that the path of conducting a conversation does not always lead to the goal. That is not a guarantee, it is true. I would always try to talk to people first, at least that doesn't cost human lives. It is the more humanitarian way.

Unfortunately, I have missed that a lot recently. In general, politics seems to be getting more corrupt, more flimsy. Somehow, politicians are no longer making a secret of how we as a mass are being manipulated and controlled. As a smoker, I can only give the example of tobacco tax, which is increased every year. That is why an addict like me doesn't stop smoking. That is known. Officially. And yet tobacco is made more expensive so that people finally stop smoking. Huh?

All these discrepancies, where actions do not match words. So it seems unproductive to me to blame individual money flows here. Even I am well aware that geopolitically people like to say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

You obviously know a lot more about world history than I do, so I can't answer as detailed as I would like. I hope that was understandable.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: hangedman13

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: WeMustCare

That was frozen bank assets that we had for part of the nuclear deal.

It was failed diplomacy, but we didn’t “give” them money. We unfroze it.

People act like that tipped the scale and created the environment in the Middle East now… but the reality is the toppling of Saddam created a power vacuum in the Middle East allowing Iran to consolidate power.

No it was not. That money was from the previous regime. It had nothing to do with the current regimes nuclear program, until it was used to pay them from allegedly stopping that program. Which they did not do!

It was frozen Iranian assets. I never said from which regime.

The US started the Iranian nuclear program in the 60’s. We built them a nuclear reactor.

Not everything can be boiled down to the last decade, much less two.

Everyone is so hell bent on figuring out how every geopolitical matter translates to US domestic 2 party politics. It’s rarely that easy.

there is a clear difference between the way the two parties view Iran. You can pretend it's not there, and bloviate about spending till the cows come home, but for the future of the nation, it might be a good time to put aside your anger, and look at this from an outside in perspective. Trump can be just another over spender, or out of the picture, but Iran is still an issue that needs to be dealt with. And the left doesn't seem interested in upsetting the Muslims in the ME. I still wonder what the people of Iran want. I can't imagine it's war with everyone, but that seems to be the current posture.

you used to post much more thought provoking things when you weren't so political. I'm just the same douche bag I've always been. I hope you can move past this in a few weeks.

Good, gooood. So Iran will be looking in the wrong place. I like it. Maybe there is still some intelligence at work.

a reply to: network dude

I’d argue I became less political. I view them as two sides of a similar coin.

Part of that was because of the double speak I saw.

I was and am very anti Obama. The added conflict and debt was something that made Trump appealing to me. We all agreed that the new battlefields were just asking for something to get out of hand, and budget.

But then the groups I were with kind of dialed back the debt talk because it would bring in both parties.

Now it’s reminiscent of the freedom fries talk pre Iraq. It’s a contest to which party can come off more hawkish.

I think Iran should be dealt with, but I’d argue whether we have to deal with Iran. It’s more of a threat to Israel, which we’ve been supporting. But we don’t have any treaties with them, and last I checked they’ve never helped us out with our wars.

Israel is a good ally in the region, and the closest thing to a free country. But we don’t “have” to do anything for them. We helped make them, defend them, and funded them more than any other country. There’s a constant debate we have to do things on their terms, we’re not their client state. I’m all for helping so long as we’re not getting talked down to.

I’ve never engaged in calling Trump a Putin apologist because I found the premise hyperbolic. Same applies here. I don’t think anyone in a position of power has been pro Iran. There’s better ways to argue against the current admin than stretching the truth.

Look at the title “ Iran Sympathizers in Biden Admin Leak Intelligence on Israel Attack Plans”. Then the snippet in OP points out all of five eyes had this intel. If this thread was allegations against Trump in a similar vein with a title state so matter of fact, they’d be shredded. But it flies because people hate the current admin more than they care about truth.

I can dislike Biden and Trump while still attempting to have fact based debates. So can everyone.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I wonder how the people involved in this spying ring has been allowed to even get their hands on classified information at the pentagon.

Is the US that vulnerable to the point that our secrets are actually open books.

I know is always spies roaming around looking for deals, is also known that many will sell their grandmothers for the right amount of money.

But this is beyond that, this is a big dangerous problem. We as well post on the liberal media all the US working secrets at the moment because they are already terrorist sponsoring countries common knowledge.

Democrats love kissing Palestinian terrorist butts in the US, I wonder how many are working at the pentagon right now too.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: KrustyKrab

Obama didn't "give" them the money. Iran went to an International Tribunal. And instead of possibly have to pay Iran billions of dollars if we fought them in the tribunal. They decided to settle. So it's a catch 22 situation. Pay them the 400 million or perhaps pay them billions. What would you have liked to have happened?

Look at it however you want, he gave them 1.7 billion cash no matter how you slice it. It was a agreement/settlement. It certainly wasn’t a loan.