Iran: What has Trump Done Now?

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Musburger1, May 9, 2018.

  1. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    Interesting article some of you might be interested in. Before I post the article, I'm reflecting on Trump's foreign policy takes prior to the election.

    1. He was against the Iran-Nuclear deal.
    2. He was against regime changes and long entanglements (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc).
    3. He had no problem with torture.

    I personally hoped he would soften his stance on Iran. I agreed with his stance on less interventionism. I thought his advocacy of torture showed he didn't have much respect for the law.

    Well, he nixed the Iran deal as promised.
    He reversed on his stance of interventionism and has doubled down in Afghaistan and Syria. He's chosen Pompeo and Bolton, two Neocon warmongers, as key advisers to the President.
    Trump nominated for the CIA post the woman who oversaw, and then destroyed records of torture.

    In short, Trump has become everything I thought Hilary Clinton would be with respect to foreign policy.

    https://tomluongo.me/2018/05/08/will-trump-pay-the-price-for-what-he-wants-from-iran/

    Donald Trump is set to kill the JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal and spark a major reset of foreign relations. Is this a mistake or the right course of action?

    That depends on your perspective. It depends on whether you believe, as the Israelis do, that Iran is ready to build a nuclear weapon to point at them.

    But the bigger question to me is whether Trump is willing to put on the table what he needs to get what he wants, a secure Israel and an Iran without nukes. Tearing up the deal may be the first step towards that end, but not in the way he’s thinking.

    Where’s the Beef?
    Now, thousands of column inches have been spilled detailing how inordinately stupid it would be for either Israel or Iran to lob nukes at one another. No matter who starts it, the ending will be tragic for much of the world.

    So, no sane person would do this right? The narrative has been spun up that Israel is rational and Iran is not. Pure and simple. That’s the narrative. That justifies taking away Iran’s ultimate right to defend itself against aggression from foreign powers.

    Both sides of this conflict can rightly point fingers at the other as to their adventures beyond their own borders. And here I break with my libertarian brethren. It does little good today to say who is more justified. To argue about who started it. Because we are well beyond that point.

    So, what does Donald Trump want? What’s his main beef with the JCPOA?

    The sunset clause.

    He wants a guarantee in writing from Iran to forever stop development of a nuclear weapon. Israel has been pushing for this policy point since the end of the Iran/Iraq war, which is where all of this likely started.

    Iran, in response to Saddam Hussein’s own tactical nuclear weapons development, began work on theirs. After this the whole thing gets murky. But, let’s assume that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is right about one thing; that Iran is year or two away from a nuclear weapon.

    So, to Trump the sunset clause is moronic.

    And, rightly so. But, that’s not the whole story.

    The Price of the Deal
    Now let’s go back to 2012. The U.S. and its partners – Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey – begin the regime change operation in Syria.

    We use the financial equivalent of a nuclear strike, cutting them from the SWIFT electronic payment network. We freeze hundreds of billions in Iranian assets.

    The U.S. cuts Iran out of the global financial system to effect regime change. The Iranian Rial devalues 50% overnight.

    Syria’s biggest ally other than Russia is neutralized through financial warfare.

    Nuclear weapons are only effective as a deterrent to behavior. They cannot actually be used. Obama’s first mistake was going to this option weaponizing SWIFT. We’d used it successfully on Switzerland in 2010 to hunt down tax evaders. But everyone watching this play out knew it was a bad idea.

    I remember Jim Sinclair saying this over and over again. You can’t go to the nuclear well. Because if it doesn’t work, you have nothing left to threaten anyone with. Financial wars eventually become hot wars.

    In short, Iran survived, with the help of a lot of people, including Turkey who altered its banking regulations to re-monetize gold as a bank asset to help Iran process international oil payments through Turkish banks.

    Now, fast forward to 2015. The Syria operation is nearly over. Assad is hanging on by a thread.

    The Sunni animals we used as proxies were about to take power.

    Hezbollah would be isolated in Lebanon. Russia’s access to the Mediterranean would be blocked, especially after thwarting our attempt to take Sevastopol and Crimea.

    Negotiating a deal to let Iran back into the world market had little downside. In fact, at that point, opening up Iran to international capital would hasten the overthrow of the theocracy.

    U.S. and European oil contractors wanted access to Iran. With Syria destroyed, pipelines coming in from Saudi Arabia and Qatar through Turkey into Europe would hurt Gazprom and Russia.

    At that point letting Iran back into the world would have been a win for the West. Isolated and alone, with radical Sunnis in power all through the region Iran would never become the kind of power that could threaten Israeli and Saudi dominance.

    So, the JCPOA was a pantomime. Iran agrees to a moratorium on nuclear development it may or may not have been engaging in and in return, it gets sanctions relief and its stolen assets returned.

    If Syria fell to the Wahabists then Iran would need that nuclear capability to defend itself. So, getting that moratorium in writing, the thinking likely went, would be enough because in 10 years the current Iranian government wouldn’t exist.

    The threat would be moot.

    Looking at it this way, 10 years was as good as forever.

    The Bear Trap
    Now, here’s the rub. In July of 2015 when the deal was being finalized, were Iran and Russia negotiating the sunset clause in ‘bad faith’ because they knew Putin would militarily intervene in Syria three months later?

    If so, then I fully understand the frustration coming from Israel and the U.S., particularly Trump. It’s a bad deal because the sunset clause solves nothing permanently. The return of Iranian capital has allowed them to support winning the war in Syria.

    But, at the end of the day, that’s Monday morning quarterbacking. The Obama administration and the entire geopolitical sphere didn’t expect Russia to intervene militarily, and if they did they would be bogged down in a nightmarish quagmire.

    That was the thinking in 2015.

    Trump’s analysis of this situation is that the JCPOA got the U.S. nothing but heartache and Iran won the deal. But, this was an outcome no one expected. No one expected Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and China to stand up to the U.S. in Syria.

    Maybe Netanyahu, but I doubt it.

    And if you think that Iran’s money has been the game changer I say nonsense. The real financial backer of Assad has been the silent partner, China.

    China threatened to send troops into Syria in an uncharacteristic display of partisanship. They ultimately didn’t, but don’t take that to mean they haven’t provided a lot of soft support to those fighting in Syria.

    The rest, after that, is history. And the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia have been scrambling ever since.

    This Syrian Cross
    Syria is the U.S.’s Rubicon.

    It’s the line we should have never crossed. To win we engaged in tactics and strategies that laid bare to the world the depth of our foreign policy depravity.

    Moreover, it exposed us as far weaker than was previously thought. Iran’s successful resistance to the 2012 sanctions, no matter how painful, created responses that today have changed the game completely.

    The emperor is only powerful as long as no one challenges his authority. First the mullahs, then Putin, then Xi and now Kim. They have all defied the U.S. and won to some extent and each small victory exposes a little bit more of the emperor’s nudity.

    The Syrian Operation has failed in any geopolitical sense of the term. The basic goal of removing Assad and isolating Iran and Hezbollah were not achieved. Russia is stronger, with operational experience for its troops using some of its best weapons against U.S.-backed forces.

    When an operation like this fails those that instigated it wind up losing the most. Qatar and Turkey cut bait in 2016. Any support from Egypt is also gone.

    But the U.S., Israel and the Saudis are pot-committed. And so now they have to salvage what they can. And that means getting rid of the deal to regain some control over the situation.

    But, Syria and Afghanistan will be the U.S. empire’s graveyard. I only hope that Trump gets past his blind hatred of Iran to see this clearly after he pulls out of the JCPOA.

    What Can Trump Salvage?
    By tearing up the JCPOA Trump is trying to force the situation back to 2012 to gain some leverage. But, it’s 2018. Oil prices are $70 a barrel, which the Saudis desperately need. The EU is teetering on the edge of political and financial collapse.

    Russia survived the ruble crisis and China is the world’s largest economy from a purchasing-power-parity perspective (the only perspective with any validity). Both have SWIFT-compliant internal financial communications networks that can assist Iran if sanctions are put back on.

    Hell, there are blockchains out there that can help Iran get paid for its oil.

    The EU signatories want to continue the deal and could very well defy Trump on this, not adhering to new sanctions.

    Today, Trump tries to force wins on trade policy that will only destroy global trade and harm U.S. producers in the long run. He wants a guarantee from Iran that they will remain without nukes to threaten Israel or Saudi Arabia with.

    It’s a noble goal.

    He won’t get that without giving up something substantial. Obama traded Iran’s money back to them, which he stole, for a moratorium on nuclear development at a time when he felt the U.S. was winning on every front. He gave up little to get what looked like a lot at the time.

    Again, was this a classic Russian cauldron? Invite your enemy in, let them 0ver-extend themselves and then encircle? Possibly. We’ll only know after Putin retires and writes his memoirs.

    Today the deal looks like the reverse. Obama gave up everything for nothing solid. But, given what he was willing to put on the table that was all he was going to get.

    When Trump tears up this deal to negotiate a new one he’s going to sell Iran and Russia the same false value that Obama did in 2015. The U.S. will give up trying to oust Assad if you guarantee to never develop nukes.

    But, that deal is a non-starter. Because the U.S. will eventually be routed from Syria lest we move to a hot war with Russia, which no one wants.

    The U.S. has to swear off regime change by removing its troops from both Syria and Afghanistan as a starting point and guaranteeing that the Saudis never get nuclear weapons. Iran may also demand Israel finally sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I’m sure that deal is a non-starter as well.

    But, our military commitments in these places is gutting the U.S. budget. Trump thinks that he can pull a Reagan and grow his way out of the deficits he’s encumbering us with. But, he can’t. The situation is too dire. We’re not at the beginning of the dollar reserve standard, we’re at the end of it.

    So, Russia, China and Iran will all hold their water and negotiate knowing that the war of financial attrition is theirs to win.

    Just like it was in 2012. And, deal or no deal, the bigger threat to the U.S. is the further deterioration of diplomatic respect we have with the rest of the world.

    Since taking office all Trump’s done is betray his base by doubling down in Afghanistan, striking Syria over false flags, selling weapons to Ukraine and further entrenching us in a nightmarish war in Yemen.

    None of these things screams ‘no regime change.’

    They all scream war with Iran which has been his position since day one. The Koreas are forcing his hand on peace there over the objections of his foreign policy team.

    So, if this is his way of keeping a foreign policy promise to his base, to satisfy them politically before the mid-terms, he has only himself to blame. No matter how much he tries to blame Obama.

    This whole affair highlights the most important axiom about war, ‘the only way to win is not to play.’​
     
    Statalyzer likes this.
  2. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

    Did Musberger just fart?
     
  3. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    Right in your face.
     
  4. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    I would imagine you'd be conflicted on this. Obviously the Iran deal is the work of Obama and the self-justifying diplomat class, both of whom you tend to oppose though for different reasons than the Right does. However, it's also an unmitigated victory for Iran, who is a loyal ally of Russia (at least for now) and a defeat (albeit a wildly exaggerated defeat) for the West.
     
    Statalyzer likes this.
  5. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    I don’t see how pulling out of the deal is a victory for anyone.

    For Iran, it means dealing with crushing sanctions. It solidifies the population against both Israel and the US as these parties are responsible for blowing up the deal.

    For the US, it further undermines credibility as a nation you can deal with. How do trust a country that doesn’t abide to agreements, ignores international law and sovereignty of other countries as evidenced by the illegal occupation in Syria, the missile strikes without proof, the bombing of Libya, etc.

    For Europe it means potential economic benefits down the drain and threats from the US if their country chooses to pursue its own course of action.

    With the deal in place, its fairly certain Iran would not have nukes for at least a decade. And if things went well, it’s possible they would have extended the moratorium at that time. Now, at least the hardliners in Iran, are threatening to accelerate a nuclear program and the Saudis threaten to respond in kind. Wonderful.

    Finally, upon cessation of the agreement, Israel and both Iran and Syria are stepping up hostilities. If this continues, oil prices will go through the roof hurting the global economy, and the US could get drawn in further in the Mideast quagmire. How is there any winner here?
     
    Statalyzer likes this.
  6. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 1,000+ Posts

    This is HS. It's not like this was a treaty that was ratified by the Congress. This was an agreement that Obama made unilaterally. It can be rescinded just like all his other executive actions. So Iran hates us. Boo hoo. In other news, water is wet. Israel loves us for this, and that is most important to me.
     
    Statalyzer and I35 like this.
  7. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    The Iran deal is just one of many examples of the US unilaterally changing course from agreements. You can look at pulling out of the ABM treaty which initiated the next Cold War, the illegal invasion of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, the illegal occupation on Syrian territory for recent examples.

    When other nations conform to US policy because they choose to, this is an example of US strength. When other nations conform to US policy because of force, this is an example of US weakness.

    The US increasingly must rely on force as diplomacy is no longer part of the arsenal. The US government acts primarily out of desperation now.
     
  8. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 5,000+ Posts

    This is the truth.
     
  9. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    The important point isn’t whether or not the agreement is a treaty. The important point is that multiple countries signed on to it, but only one country failed to abide by the terms. So
    again, tell me why any country should “make a deal” with a US President, if the track record is that the deal will be broken?
     
  10. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    It's a move that has John Bolton written all over it. My guess is that McMaster didn't favor pulling out of it, not because he thought it was a good deal but because there isn't a big upside to pulling out. It's obviously pissing off our European allies, and sometimes that's warranted. However, it doesn't make a lot of sense to do that when there's so little to gain.

    It's not politically smart either. Unless the US is willing to go to war with Iran, it's not going to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon. It's going to happen just as it would have had we remained in the deal. However, when it happens Trump is going to get slapped around with "I told you so"s, and he's going to get blamed for it. That's nonsense, but it's going to happen, and he's going to have a hard time explaining why it isn't his fault.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2018
  11. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 5,000+ Posts

    They shouldn't make a deal with a President who is acting extra-constitutionally. Had Barry Hussein tried to get this deal ratified as a treaty (as he should have), it would never have been approved.
     
    Statalyzer likes this.
  12. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    To be fair, Obama certainly wasn't the first President to make an arms deal that didn't meet the legal definition of a treaty.
     
    Statalyzer likes this.
  13. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    Since when has a US acted constitutionally? How many countries are the government bombing and how many countries are we occupying illegally without a declaration of war by Congress?
    Go to the post on Assad, follow the link to his interview and tell me if he doesn’t nail US policy and the lawlessness with which it’s implemented.
     
    Statalyzer likes this.
  14. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    To expand on my own comments, while Trump informed his European vassals of his intention to exit the agreement, his announcement that harsh sanctions would not only be enforced on Iran, but on any country that does business with Iran; this despite the European position that they are willing to stick to the agreement and that even Trump stated Iran had not violated the agreement. It appears Europe was taken by surprise at this.

    The US has at least two weapons of force to get the Europeans to comply. First, by threatening sanctions against European countries, they would grudgingly give in due to more economic loss from the sanctions than from trade with Iran. Secondly, the US can use Israel as a willing attack dog to provoke a confrontation with Iran, Syria, or Lebanon which would make Iran leave any deal should they try to continue working with the EU countries.

    This is an example of imperial force as a means to conduct policy when diplomacy and respect for other countries sovereignty doesn’t exist.

    In summary, the US military and soft power (NGOs, the IMF) have become instruments of perpetual war and are the only tools of persuasion available to what is evolving into a
    tyrannical Empire.
     
  15. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 1,000+ Posts

    It is my understanding that Iran did not sign it. As well, Israel proved to me that Iran was not abiding by the terms, so it's not correct to say we are the only ones here not going along.
     
    Horn6721 likes this.
  16. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    Netanyahu’s presentation was pure theatrics. He tried to make you believe the program abandoned more than a decade ago was a current event. No knowledgeable expert took his presentation seriously. He also jumped on the Saddam yellowcake nonsense with Bush and Blair back in 2003. Netanyahu has zero credibility and in fact has corruption charges against him in Israel. He’s as corrupt as they come.
     
  17. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

    And the stench grows....
     
  18. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    A brief case for dumping the Iran deal in a liberal publication. I still don't see a lot of upside to it, but this is the case.

    Here's another piece with a common tactic of the Left - invoke science (or sorta invoke science) to give yourself a false expertise on the relevant subject matter. It is a good and interesting read about the science of producing nuclear fuel for weapons and for power plants. However, the portions that deal with the science have absolutely no bearing on the case for or against of the Iran deal, even though its title is "Why Science Demands We Keep the Iran Nuclear Deal."
     
  19. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    The US is out. At this point both Iran and the other nations which are part of the agreement indicate they will stick to the deal. The US has two avenues available to blow up the deal:
    1. Use sanctions and the banking system against Europe to force them to pull out.
    2. Goad Iran into attacking Israel in order to persuade the EU to pull out.
    If one of these mechanisms don’t achieve the desired result (desired by Israel and the Neocons), the other most likely will.
     
  20. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    Not likely to happen to any significant extent.


    Definitely won't happen.

    If that's true, then the move is of even less consequence than the original deal was. And it was pretty inconsequential.

    And again, your support of the deal is incredibly revealing.
     
  21. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    There were bad things about the deal. First, it was done in secret and supposedly the details of the deal still have not been made public. Second, unlike a treaty it was never presented to the Senate for ratification. Those facts are troubling. But pulling out now, has unleashed a long list of destabilizing possibilities.

    As far as goading Iran into attacking Israel, one attempt already happened just a few days ago. Were you asleep?

    Trump and Bolton have threatened sanctions against European companies. If they follow through much economic harm results. If they don’t, Trump once again looks foolish by making threats and then walking them back.

    Interesting article here covering a lot of ground in addition to what I’ve said.

    https://russia-insider.com/en/has-donald-j-trump-just-set-global-sovereign-debt-crisis/ri23449
     
  22. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    No, I wasn't asleep. Even though I wouldn't have pulled out of the deal, doing so isn't "goading an attack on Israel."

    As I indicated before, I wasn't a fan of the deal but am not supportive of bailing on it, because I don't see a lot of upside and see significant downside. However, the biggest thing that would make me lean toward bailing on it is that you don't want to bail on it. Basically, you wouldn't support a deal if it didn't damage US interests or diminish US influence. This one does, and of course, it does so by strengthening a US enemy and Russian ally (at least for now). Of course you like it.
     
  23. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    Apparently you have been sleeping. I was referring to the "preemptive" strike on May 10th by Israel into Syria directed toward Iranian assets and Syrian air defense. Did you miss that somehow?

    I try to separate US "deep state/corporate interests" from "American citizen interests" because they often not only do not coincide, but many times are 180 degrees apart. As to whether or not breaking the deal will hurt Iran, it definitely will in the short term, but the long-term effect has several possibilities. For one, breaking the deal will only nudge China as well as Russia toward Iran despite their differences with Iran. If you had read the article I referenced the argument is spelled out there. It has to do with currency flows, and joint projects. In fact, China has announced a rail deal with Iran following Trump's announcement.

    You, like most people, tend to limit your analysis to good/bad or yes/no. Putin bad/ US deep state good. There are multiple players involved on the world stage now, each with their own agendas. These agendas overlap, sometimes conflicting with allies and sometimes aligning with enemies. Think about the two major allies the US is working with in the Middle East. You have the US, a nominally Christian country (at least historically so), Israel, a Jewish country headed by a Zionist government, and Saudi Arabia, a Wahhabi Muslim nation. Everyone knows neither Israel nor the Saudis give a hoot about human rights. The Saudis continue to lead the world in decapitations and the Israelis just got through mowing down 50-something Palestinians and injuring 2,000+ just today. Yet the US claims to be intervening in Syria to "save the people" from the brutal dictator Assad. So we've destroyed the country, armed mercenary jihadists, and presided over 400,000 deaths to free the people. Come on. Only an idiot buys that garbage.

    Ditto for Iran. The US deep state doesn't give a damn about Iranian citizens. The goal is to starve the country, destroy the currency, punish the population to the point they overthrow the government so that we can install a puppet, get our hands back on the oil profits, and turn away China. Based on the track record of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and of course Syria, this effort is bound to be just as bad or worse
     
    Monahorns likes this.
  24. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    Maybe I was asleep. My understanding is that Iran launched rockets into Golan Heights prior to the attack. That's not preemptive. Are you talking about some other attack, or are you going to claim that the rocket attacks were staged?



    That was going to happen anyway, especially with Russia. They have a common enemy.

    Lol. Actually, that is exactly what you do. If the US does it, it's bad. If Russia (or its ally) does it, it's good. I frequently acknowledge bad apples involved in US policy. All countries have sleazy elements who exert influence from time to time. Who's right and who's wrong depends on the specifics of reach situation.

    Yep, the prospect of a nuclear Iran creates weird alliances. All three countries know that a nuclear Iran is bad and dangerous for them and others. Of course, issues like that are also how a country that considers itself a fighter of Islamic terrorism and expansion (Russia) ends up aligning with an Islamic theocracy and state sponsor of Islamic terrorism. They're setting aside their fundamental differences to fight a common enemy. Of course, if the West completely retreated from the Middle East as Russia would like, the Russian-Iranian alliance would almost surely fall apart much like the US-Soviet alliance fell apart after WWII. Ditto for Saudi Arabia and Israel. If the Iranian regime collapsed and stopped being a threat to them, it would certainly diminish their alliance. It wouldn't fall apart to the same extent as Russia-Iran, but it will definitely diminish significantly.
     
  25. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    Maybe I was asleep. My understanding is that Iran launched rockets into Golan Heights prior to the attack. That's not preemptive. Are you talking about some other attack, or are you going to claim that the rocket attacks were staged?



    That was going to happen anyway, especially with Russia. They have a common enemy.

    Lol. Actually, that is exactly what you do. If the US does it, it's bad. If Russia (or its ally) does it, it's good. I frequently acknowledge bad apples involved in US policy. All countries have sleazy elements who exert influence from time to time. Who's right and who's wrong depends on the specifics of reach situation.

    Yep, the prospect of a nuclear Iran creates weird alliances. All three countries know that a nuclear Iran is bad and dangerous for them and others. Of course, issues like that are also how a country that considers itself a fighter of Islamic terrorism and expansion (Russia) ends up aligning with an Islamic theocracy and state sponsor of Islamic terrorism. They're setting aside their fundamental differences to fight a common enemy. Of course, if the West completely retreated from the Middle East as Russia would like, the Russian-Iranian alliance would almost surely fall apart much like the US-Soviet alliance fell apart after WWII. Ditto for Saudi Arabia and Israel. If the Iranian regime collapsed and stopped being a threat to them, it would certainly diminish their alliance. It wouldn't fall apart to the same extent as Russia-Iran, but it will definitely diminish significantly.
     
  26. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    The Israeli version was that Iran launched an attack and they responded. This appears to be a lie. More likely, the Israeli’s launched an attack and the Syrians responded. Iran did not participate.
    https://ejmagnier.com/2018/05/10/ir...and-syria-and-iran-impose-the-golan-equation/

    And no, I don’t agree 100% with Putin. Having Netanyahu attend the Victory Day celebration as an honored guest was disgusting.
     
  27. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    What a surprise that you'd make that claim.

    Lol. So you disagree with him when he's being nice to a Western leader.
     
  28. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    Being nice is a response one would expect from a simpleton. Victory Day is a celebration of the defeat of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. If you take a look beyond the propaganda, there is a similarity between how the Nazis treated the Jews and how the Zionists under Netanyahu treat the Palestinians. It is an irony at the least that such a character as Netanyahu attend the celebration, while at the same time he embodies many of the characteristics as the person responsible for persecuting his descendants.
     
  29. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    You do realize if there truly was a close similarity, there would be nothing such as a Palestinian today, right?
     
    Garmel likes this.
  30. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    The better analogy would be to compare the Palestinians with the Native American population forced onto reservations.
     

Share This Page