U.S. Foreign Policy

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:.


What are you afraid of AZ ? THe same thing all those Iranian Generals that refuse to go to Syria are afraid of ?

.

FYI , General Hossein Hamedani was killed in a road accident when his car was overtaking a truck and collided head on with a coming truck.

And

Iranian advisers done their job, now Syrian Army and Russian bombing will finish the job

.
That is an evasion the Iranian generals refused to follow orders and go to Syria.

.

Pls paste a link to a reputable source saying such

IRGC generals are their own boss, they themselves make the rules and issue orders .. they not under military rule.

IRGC has no government budget, is a "Private military force" .. theoretically, they take order only from Khamnei, in reality probably Khamnei takes order from them :lol:

No such thing as IRGC generals refusing order to go to Syria, neither order nor refusing.

And, regular Iranian military was never engaged in Syria, all in the hand of IRGC

.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... -in-syria/
IRGC Brings Mutiny Charges Against Senior Commanders Refusing to Fight in Syria
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Irania ... ort-432035
Iranian commanders refuse orders to fight in Syria, report says
http://en.reporter-ua.ru/iranian-genera ... assad.html
Iranian generals one after the other refuse to fight for Assad

The losses suffered by Iranian troops in battle with jihadists-Sunnis in Syria, caused demoralization, and touched the high command staff. As reported November 5, 2015 NEWSru.co.il with reference to the London newspaper «al-Sharq al-Awsat», panic succumbed to even the generals of the Islamic revolutionary guard Corps (IRGC).

A source close to the IRGC, told the newspaper that several generals and officers of the guard of the regime of the ayatollahs will be brought before a military Tribunal for refusing to go to war. They will be charged with treason and sedition.

The authorities ‘ attention was attracted by the wave of resignations among the military commanders in the General’s rank. According to the publication, they are also under investigation. The generals suspected that their resignation is actually a form of desertion.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

http://strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/art ... 51210.aspx
Leadership: Arabs Ditch Palestinians For Israel

December 10, 2015: For the first time Israel is opening an officially recognized trade office in a Persian Gulf country. The UAE (United Arab Emirates) will host the office in Abu Dhabi. The Gulf Arabs are growing bolder in admitting their diplomatic, intelligence and economic relationships with Israel. In part this is because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Israel is the official “worst enemy” of Iran which most Arab Gulf states as their most dangerous foe officially or unofficially.
What a disaster AZ!!! What a Disaster !!!
Last edited by Doc on Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Doc wrote:.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... -in-syria/
IRGC Brings Mutiny Charges Against Senior Commanders Refusing to Fight in Syria
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Irania ... ort-432035
Iranian commanders refuse orders to fight in Syria, report says
http://en.reporter-ua.ru/iranian-genera ... assad.html

.

Doc , pls dont waste your and our time with pasting stuff from Mujahedin, or some 2bit Arab media reposting from Jerusalem or Ukraine

These are all rubbish

Pls post a link from NYT, FT, WSJ, Time of London, RT, PressTV :)

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Doc wrote:Leadership: Arabs Ditch Palestinians For Israel
December 10, 2015: For the first time Israel is opening an officially recognized trade office in a Persian Gulf country. The UAE (United Arab Emirates) will host the office in Abu Dhabi. The Gulf Arabs are growing bolder in admitting their diplomatic, intelligence and economic relationships with Israel. In part this is because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Israel is the official “worst enemy” of Iran which most Arab Gulf states as their most dangerous foe officially or unofficially.
What a disaster AZ!!! What a Disaster ! ! !

.

Don't mistake Arabs with your cronies .. Amirs, Sheikhs and Kings do not constitute ARABS.

Good news is, those cronies packed and ready to move to London.

And

Azari and our beloved Persia, a friend of Mosche since long long time, 2600 yrs.

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


Naming Our Middle East Enemy

Shiites certainly had nothing to do with 9/11 or Paris or Syria or the recent attacks in Europe or America.

The current enemy from the West’s perspective cannot be Shiites or even all Sunnis but is—and must be clearly labeled—Salafi Jihadism or Wahhabi Jihadism, sects which unfortunately are embedded in the Sunni world, making U.S. alliances with Sunnis difficult.

..

No Syrians were invited to the discussions of their own fate.

In fact, other than the Syrian Kurds, Assad and his Iranian surrogates are the only troops on the ground fighting effectively against ISIL.

Expecting Sunni Turkey or especially Wahhabi Saudi Arabia to send troops against their fellow sectarians is naïve.

At best the latter might be convinced to stop arming al-Nusra and the former from attacking the Kurds.

All of the participants on both sides are less than perfect and Europe does not have the firepower to be effective. Twenty French bombs as a first response to the attack on their capitol city was a pathetic admission of weakness, and even that required U.S. assistance. At least Russia has real air power. But as the deep underground tunnels in liberated Sinjar demonstrated, air is not enough.

.

Must read

Excellent analysis from :

Donald Devine is senior scholar at the Fund for American Studies, the author of America’s Way Back: Reclaiming Freedom, Tradition, and Constitution, and was Ronald Reagan’s director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management during his first term and one of his campaign strategists.


.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... -in-syria/
IRGC Brings Mutiny Charges Against Senior Commanders Refusing to Fight in Syria
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Irania ... ort-432035
Iranian commanders refuse orders to fight in Syria, report says
http://en.reporter-ua.ru/iranian-genera ... assad.html

.

Doc , pls dont waste your and our time with pasting stuff from Mujahedin, or some 2bit Arab media reposting from Jerusalem or Ukraine

These are all rubbish

Pls post a link from NYT, FT, WSJ, Time of London, RT, PressTV :)

.
That's why I posted from three different sites AZ Seems you can't handle the truth :D
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:.


Naming Our Middle East Enemy

Shiites certainly had nothing to do with 9/11 or Paris or Syria or the recent attacks in Europe or America.

The current enemy from the West’s perspective cannot be Shiites or even all Sunnis but is—and must be clearly labeled—Salafi Jihadism or Wahhabi Jihadism, sects which unfortunately are embedded in the Sunni world, making U.S. alliances with Sunnis difficult.

..

No Syrians were invited to the discussions of their own fate.

In fact, other than the Syrian Kurds, Assad and his Iranian surrogates are the only troops on the ground fighting effectively against ISIL.

Expecting Sunni Turkey or especially Wahhabi Saudi Arabia to send troops against their fellow sectarians is naïve.

At best the latter might be convinced to stop arming al-Nusra and the former from attacking the Kurds.

All of the participants on both sides are less than perfect and Europe does not have the firepower to be effective. Twenty French bombs as a first response to the attack on their capitol city was a pathetic admission of weakness, and even that required U.S. assistance. At least Russia has real air power. But as the deep underground tunnels in liberated Sinjar demonstrated, air is not enough.

.

Must read

Excellent analysis from :

Donald Devine is senior scholar at the Fund for American Studies, the author of America’s Way Back: Reclaiming Freedom, Tradition, and Constitution, and was Ronald Reagan’s director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management during his first term and one of his campaign strategists.


.
No not a single Iranian general in Syria !! :lol:
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., demanded Sunday that the U.S. immediately initiate a program that would check the social media sites of those admitted on visas."

"Had they checked out Tashfeen Malik," the senator said, "maybe those people in San Bernardino would be alive."

There it is the San Bernardino shootings were ultimately Obama's fault.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/secret-us-poli ... d=35749325
Secret US Policy Blocks Agents From Looking at Social Media of Visa Applicants, Former Official Says
Fearing a civil liberties backlash and "bad public relations" for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end a secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, a former senior department official said.

"During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process," John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis. Cohen is now a national security consultant for ABC News.

One current and one former senior counter-terrorism official confirmed Cohen's account about the refusal of DHS to change its policy about the public social media posts of all foreign applicants.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by kmich »

The Unbearable Lightness of America’s War Against the Islamic State

by Stephen Walt
In the classic World War II novel The Caine Mutiny, author Herman Wouk quoted an “ancient adage” about the typical bureaucratic response to a crisis:

“When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout.”

That couplet summarizes the prevailing U.S. response to global terrorism perfectly. All one has to do is read the panicky, narrow-minded, and irresponsible ravings of the current GOP presidential aspirants, as well as look at the latest poll numbers, and it’s clear that a good portion of the U.S. electorate is prepared to follow them off the deep end.

Yet the unhinged nature of the current discourse on terrorism also reveals how profoundly unserious U.S. counterterrorism efforts really are. To say this sounds odd, given the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been thrown at the problem, and the tens of thousands of lives (both American and foreign) that have been lost waging the “global war on terror” (or if you prefer, the “campaign against violent extremism”), is an understatement. It sounds even odder when one considers the vast army of people who are now employed to protect us from terrorism, not to mention the countries we’ve invaded, the drone strikes and targeted assassinations we’ve performed, and the mountains of metadata we’ve collected. Surely all this effort shows that Washington is deeply engaged in the challenge of thwarting al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and other violent radicals.

If only. For starters, consider what we have to show for all this effort and expense. We now have a vast counterterrorism industry, much bigger intelligence budgets, and more energetic government surveillance, but the basic counterterrorist playbook has evolved little over the past 20 years. In particular, our national security establishment is still convinced that the main way to defeat extremist groups is U.S. military intervention, despite the nagging suspicion that it just creates more ungoverned spaces and makes it easier for groups like the Islamic State to recruit new members. The New York Times reported this week that the Pentagon is now seeking a new set of military bases in or around the Arab and Islamic world so that it can prosecute the military campaign against the Islamic State et al. more effectively.

Excuse me, but isn’t that exactly what we’ve been doing since the 1990s and with greater energy and effort over time? Yet there are more al Qaeda affiliates now than there were back in 2001, and organizations like the Islamic State didn’t even exist back then. Is it possible that our entire approach here has been ill-conceived and has been making the problem worse instead of better? And what would a more serious approach to terrorism look like?

If the United States were truly serious about terrorism, it would start by gauging the level of threat properly and communicating that appraisal to the American people.

As numerous scholarly studies have shown, the actual risk of terrorism to the average American is remarkably low. In their new book Chasing Ghosts, John Mueller and Mark Stewart estimate the odds that an American will be killed by a terrorist are about one in 4 million each year. Compared with more prosaic dangers that we accept on a daily basis, this level of risk is absurdly small. Yet instead of using logic and evidence to reassure the American people, leaders from both parties have encouraged, since 9/11, the irrational fear of terrorism to drive a host of counterproductive policies. Even President Barack Obama, who seems to have a more measured view than many of his counterparts, did a rather limp job of reassuring the public in his Oval Office speech last Sunday.

What is needed is not a single presidential speech, but rather a sustained, all-out effort by top U.S. officials to remind their fellow citizens how safe they actually are. One often hears that fear is inherently irrational and that such a campaign would never work, but how do we know until someone tries? By refusing to tell the truth about the actual (very low) level of risk, presidents and other officials cede the ground to threat-mongers and guarantee that the public will overreact to the rare but dramatic events that do occur.

So why haven’t we seen a serious and sustained effort to put the terrorist threat in perspective? The answer is, in part, because people and institutions with a vested interest in hyping the danger tend to dominate public discourse on this topic. Do you really expect the CIA, NSA, FBI, or the vast array of well-paid “counterterrorism” experts to offer reassuring testimony about these risks, when their own budgets, bureaucratic clout, autonomy, and prominence depend on keeping us trembling in our socks? As long as we have an unserious understanding of the danger, we’re going to have unsuccessful policies and a country that reacts from fear instead of common sense.

If the United States were truly serious about terrorism, we would also have a more honest and open discussion about our own role in generating it.

Our reluctance to consider whether certain aspects of U.S. foreign and defense policy inspire anti-American extremism began as early as the 9/11 Commission. As the late Ernest May, a distinguished historian who worked with the commission, later acknowledged:

“[T]he report skirts the question of whether American policies and actions fed the anger that manifested itself on September 11…. [it] is weak in laying out evidence for the alternative argument that the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Capitol might not have been targeted absent America’s identification with Israel, support for regimes such as those in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, and insensitivity to Muslims’ feelings about their holy places. The commissioners believed that American foreign policy was too controversial to be discussed except in recommendations written in the future tense. Here we compromised our commitment to set forth the full story.”

Wow.

Even now, there is a widespread tendency to believe extremist violence comes out of nowhere or that it occurs because some unfortunate individuals are frustrated by their inability to find meaningful lives and thus vulnerable to fantasies of various sorts. To be sure, people alienated from the societies in which they dwell are sometimes drawn to acts of mass violence, but that fact hardly means U.S. foreign policy is irrelevant. As I pointed out back in 2009, the United States is directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims over the past three decades, a sum vastly greater than the number of Americans killed by Muslims. It would be remarkable indeed if our actions had not led a small fraction of their co-religionists to want to retaliate in some way.

To say this does not justify the slaughter of innocents or suggest even remotely that what groups like the Islamic State are doing is justified. Nor does this imply that U.S. policy is solely responsible for this problem. Rather, my point is that any serious effort to address this problem has to begin by understanding its origins. If we ignore any of the key underlying causes, we are likely to keep doing things that nurture and sustain the very behavior we are trying to prevent.

If the United States were truly serious about terrorism, we would now be having a frank discussion about the role of the media.


I’m positive organizations like Fox News and CNN do not intend to help al Qaeda or the Islamic State, but that is in fact precisely what they are doing. Whenever a terrorist incident occurs, TV and radio outlets immediately offer up a frenzy of overheated reportage, most of it intended to keep people scared and their eyeballs glued to the screen or their ears glued to the radio. (It’s the nature of modern media; the Weather Channel does the same thing with every major storm.) Yet this Pavlovian response is precisely what groups like the Islamic State are hoping for: It gives them more free publicity; convinces people who are in little to no danger that they should be really, really scared; and makes a comparatively weak movement like the Islamic State seem like a vast multi-headed hydra that is penetrating our society and threatening every one of us. Frankly, the media couldn’t be doing more to help these movements if they were being paid by them directly.

I’m no fan of government censorship, and I don’t think the American people would be better off if they were even less informed about these issues. But we need to have a serious national conversation about a more responsible way to cover such incidents. For starters, Obama could invite the presidents of major news organizations to an all-day summit at the White House to discuss a “code of conduct” for covering events like the Paris or San Bernardino attacks. Media watchdogs need to devote more effort to calling out major news organizations when they indulge in disaster porn or when they give most of the airtime to commentators who have a direct interest in hyping the threat. Similarly, public officials should not hesitate to press news organizations to adopt a more sober and less market-driven approach, and use their bully pulpits to call out media outlets that act irresponsibly.
Imagine how much trouble it would cause the Islamic State if its best efforts ended up on page A-17 of the newspaper or if an attack got only 30 seconds worth of coverage on Wolf Blitzer’s The Situation Room. If terrorists staged an attack and nobody paid that much attention, their entire strategy might collapse.

If the United States were truly serious about terrorism, we’d also see more creative efforts to discredit, marginalize, spoof, and embarrass the groups we oppose.

The Islamic State has a pretty sophisticated social media operation, designed to convince recruits that they are joining a movement that is exciting, visionary, dedicated, and that will change the world. There are many ways to combat this message, but let’s not leave out the role of humor and ridicule.

One of the best ways to discredit extremist movements is to make them look ridiculous, so that joining or backing them is seen as stupid, uncool, or embarrassing. Instead of constantly portraying the Islamic State and its ilk as cruel, cunning, fanatical, dedicated, dangerous, etc., we should spend at least as much time depicting them as ignorant, backward, inept, misguided, and absurd.

To be sure, there is nothing silly about a group that relies on beheadings, rape, and suicide attacks to advance its cause, and efforts to lampoon such groups have to be done in a sophisticated way. It is also a tricky matter for Hollywood or other Western media organizations to make fun of fanatical Muslims, for doing so can play into the latter’s sense of moral outrage. Among other things, this suggests that other Muslims should be actively involved in the effort to portray the Islamic State et al. as a bunch of fools. (For some examples of what I have in mind, see here and here.)

The broader point is that humor and satire are potent weapons that should be in our counterterrorism arsenal to cut these groups down to size, encourage morale, and discredit their message. It is worth remembering that we’ve done similar things in the past, with groups every bit as heinous as today’s extremists. On the eve of World War II, for example, Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator brilliantly lampooned fascist leaders like Adolf Hitler, using satire and comedy instead of chest-thumping rhetoric. Hollywood got into the act, too, producing cartoons that brilliantly portrayed Hitler and the Nazis as buffoons. As the brilliant Mel Brooks told an interviewer, regarding his own portrayals of Hitler over the years, “You can’t get on a soapbox with these orators, because they’re very good at convincing the masses that they’re right. But if you can make them look ridiculous, you can win over the people.” Precisely.

If the United States were truly serious about terrorism, you’d see a more hardnosed approach to the various American “allies” who are part of the problem rather than being part of the solution.

U.S. officials would be calling out Turkey publicly for its actions against the Kurdish forces battling the Islamic State, for the porosity of its border with Islamic State-controlled territory, and for its blind eye toward smuggling and other actions that are keeping the militant group in business. Instead of going overboard to reassure Saudi Arabia in the wake of the deal with Iran, we’d be having some unpleasant conversations about the Saudi role in promoting Wahhabism and its connection to extremist movements like the Islamic State. And, by the way, putting that issue at the top of the agenda is not an unfriendly act, given that al Qaeda and the Islamic State are themselves potential threats to the House of Saud. We would also make it clear to the Israeli government that its treatment of the Palestinians is a national security issue for us, and we would make our “special relationship” conditional on the creation of Palestinian state and not just the usual empty promises (I know, I’m dreaming here, but our failure to take this obvious step just shows how unserious our policy still is).

So why don’t we adopt a more serious approach to this issue? To some extent, for the same reasons serious gun control efforts are a non-starter despite the epidemic of gun violence and shocking events like the Columbine or Newtown massacres. In fact, terrorism just isn’t a serious threat to American security or prosperity, especially compared to other dangers, and at some level the American people know that no matter what they tell pollsters. They get excited and fearful after an attack here at home, or after some tragic carnage overseas, but they don’t want government officials to do anything that might inconvenience them or force them to abandon some cherished special interest. They don’t demand fundamental shifts in U.S. Middle East policy (in part because the connection between that policy and the terrorist problem is obscured), and they don’t want to pay more taxes, register their guns, or go through any more security checkpoints. It’s easier just to target some minority population, blow smoke about “sealing the border,” and believe you can solve the problem by “banning Muslims” or electing an unqualified blowhard president.

All of which goes to underscore a theme I’ve made clear many times before: The United States is a very lucky country. It is rich enough that it can throw large sums of money at minor problems. It is secure enough that it can interfere all over the world and experience painful but endurable moments of backlash here at home. Indeed, it is so well-off that it can even afford a political class that is increasingly an embarrassment on a wide array of important issues. With this good fortune comes the luxury of being able to do the same dumb things over and over, which is a pretty fair summary of our entire approach to contemporary terrorism.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.

.

signed by :


European Union's Ambassador to the United States David O'Sullivan;

Austria's Ambassador to the United States Hans Peter Manz;

Belgium's Ambassador to the United States Johan Verbeke;

Bulgaria's Ambassador to the United States Elena Poptodorova;

Croatia's Ambassador to the United States Josko Paro;

Cyprus' Ambassador to the United States Georgios Chacalli;

Czech Republic's Ambassador to the United State Petr Gandalovic;

Denmark's Ambassador to the United States Lars Lose;

Estonia's Ambassador to the United States Eerik Marmei;

Finland's Ambassador to the United States Kirsti Kauppi;

France's Ambassador to the United States Gérard Araud;

Germany's Ambassador to the United States Peter Wittig;

Greece's Ambassador to the United States Christos P. Panagopoulos;

Hungary's Ambassador to the United States Dr. Réka Szemerkényi;

Ireland's Ambassador to the United States Anne Anderson;

Italy's Ambassador to the United States Claudio Bisogniero;

Latvia's Ambassador to the United States Andris Razans;

Lithuania's Ambassador to the United States Rolandas Krisciunas;

Luxembourg's Ambassador to the United States Jean-Louis Wolzfeld;

Malta's Ambassador to the United States Dr. Patricia Borg, Chargé d'Affaires a.i.;

Netherlands' Ambassador to the United States Henne Schuwer;

Poland's Ambassador to the United States Ryszard Schnepf;

Portugal's Ambassador to the United States Domingos Fezas Vital;

Romania's Ambassador to the United States George Maior;

Slovak Republic's Ambassador to the United States Peter Kmec;

Slovenia's Ambassador to the United States Dr. Božo Cerar;

Spain's Ambassador to the United States Ramón Gil-Casares;

Sweden's Ambassador to the United States Björn Lyrvall;

United Kingdom's Ambassador to the United States Sir Peter Westmacott, KCMG, LVO.


.

:lol:


.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.

This will develop to a disaster for American foreign policy

mad mullahs already saying they will defend Iranians who have European or American citizenship too .. Iran seems connecting "visa waver issue" to "nuclear agreement" recently signed, arguing the agreement forbids any hostile laws passed by west discriminating any Iranian or Iran itself.


Things now in pervert situation that mad mullahs now defending American citizen's rights (Iranian American as American citizen as other Americans) .. mad mullahs now saying to those Iranian Americans : look, told you America no friend of you, what Ayatollah Khamnei trying to hammer-in since long long time

There was no necessity to include Iran in the legislation as there is no Iranian terrorist, but the Zionist agents, NEOCONS, pushed for it

A big mistake for American national interest.


Am I Not American Enough ?



and now, Silicon Valley guys, HADI PARTOVI coming forward


The slippery slope of discrimination
HADI PARTOVI - SUNDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2015

Today, if I travel to Europe, South Korea, or Japan, I don't need a visa. I use my U.S. passport. And I intend to travel often on behalf of my nonprofit, Code.org, to promote computer science in schools, to help children everywhere.

I'm about to lose that privilege and become a second-class citizen of the U.S.

This will also impact Andre Agassi. It will impact Dara Khosrowshahi, the CEO of Expedia, Omid Kordestani, the Chairman of Twitter, Arash Ferdowsi, the co-founder of Dropbox, Firouz Naderi, the head of NASA's solar system exploration program, and countless other Americans of Iranian descent who are businessmen and women, doctors, lawyers, or scientists.

The U.S. Senate is 2 days from passing a law (HR 158) that will effectively turn anybody of Iranian ancestry into second-class citizens when traveling abroad. The impact isn’t limited to people born in Iran - it even impacts anybody whose father or grandfather was born in Iran.

This new bill would bar people of Iranian descent from participating in the visa waiver program. To be clear, this U.S. bill only impacts foreign nationals coming to the U.S., but its immediate ripple effect would be for other countries to reciprocally block U.S. citizens traveling internationally.

The stated goal is to reduce the risk of terrorism.

I support smart laws to reduce the risk of terrorism. If it were a good idea to discriminate against people based on their birthplace, then our laws could target those countries whose nationals have committed acts of terror on U.S. soil. Not one of the terrorists behind 9/11 or San Bernardino were Iranian - they were Saudi, Pakistani, Egyptian, and Lebanese. This bill makes no mention against those countries, and instead discriminates against all people of Iranian descent.

More importantly, since when did we differentiate citizens based on where their parents or grandparents were born? This issue isn't just about Iranians, it's about American ideals.

This is the first legislative battle on the rhetoric of xenophobia. As we watch our country’s foundational ideals debated by Presidential candidates as if they are political footballs, these same ideals are already being eroded in Congress. HR 158 already passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a huge majority, with the support of Republicans and Democrats alike, because our lawmakers were asleep at the wheel. Many of the Democrats who voted for this bill just last week are now realizing their mistake and trying to fix it.

Unless the U.S. Senate and White House negotiate a change in the bill, it will begin the gradual erosion of our nation's freedoms, just like what happened in Germany last century.

Regardless of your background, I hope you agree that it’s against American ideals to discriminate against people based on where their father was born, the color of their skin, or their religion. We’ve started down a very dangerous path with HR 158, and unless Congress acts in the next 2 days, this discrimination will soon be the law of the land.

Please join me to call or write your senator, or sign this petition to the white house, to help stand for America's ideals of freedom and nondiscrimination.

Note: I’m a U.S. citizen. The outcome of this law is discriminatory regardless of your citizenship. It will impact anybody of Iranian ancestry - even if they were born in the West but their father or grandfather was born in Iran.

UPDATE: I’m adding some notes, in response to some of the comments on this post:

The bill doesn’t directly restrict the rights of U.S. citizens. It does so indirectly. As you may learn from reading the text of the bill in question (HR 158), this bill doesn’t directly restrict the rights of U.S. citizens. It restricts the rights of foreigners or “aliens” (citizens of other countries such as European countries, Japan, or South Korea) who want to enter the U.S. Together with the U.S., these countries participate in a reciprocal visa waiver program, which allow citizens of these countries to travel freely between the countries participating in the program without requiring a visa. If we restrict the rights of these other countries’ citizens to travel to the U.S., it is completely expected that they would reciprocate to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens. In fact, the EU has laws specifically designed to expedite reciprocal travel restrictions in this situation.

The bill doesn’t explicitly discriminate based on birthplace, but that’s exactly what it accomplishes. The stated goal of the HR 158 bill is to reduce terrorism, by targeting people who have travelled recently to places like Iraq or Syria.

It also places restrictions on dual nationals of countries such as Iran or Sudan, because those countries are on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terror. Because anybody born in Iran or whose father is born in Iran is technically a dual national of Iran, this means that a child of an Iranian father who has lived their entire life in France would be restricted in their ability to travel to the U.S. without a visa. And U.S. citizens born to an Iranian father can expect the European Union to restrict their travel in return, unless the E.U. chooses to be softer in its own restrictions.

In just the last few days, a lot of people are concerned by this, including some of the people who voted for the bill! Although 90% of the House of Representatives voted for this bill, many of them already have second thoughts and have written a letter to the Senate urging a rewrite. The ACLU and 75 other organizations have also written a letter calling for a rewrite of the discriminatory language in the bill.

.

Each Iranian New Year, Obama makes a video talking Iranian nation and congratulating NowRooz to Iranian (NowRooz celebrated by 300 million people in Iran, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan (KavKaz), Kurds, Mesopotamia, Syria, Uzbek, part of China), to make a point that America's animosity is with the Ayatolah (regime) and not with Iranians .. well, forget the Iranian population, even the American Iranians now do not believe Obama anymore .. a colossal disaster

The Zionist Neocons pushed this, a treason to American national interest


.
Last edited by Heracleum Persicum on Tue Dec 15, 2015 7:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Parodite »

A lot of intelligent nonsense.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.

Turmoil in American foreign policy, so many wars, threat of new wars against all kind of nations, Russia, Iran, Arabs, China etc etc .. gives a sense of "insecurity" for foreign entrepreneurs thinking what happened to Japanese in WW 11 .. all their assets were confiscated and never returned back

Why work whole life to built a future when on bogus foreign policy (pushed by special interest) ones life and future can be ruined, no security even after generations (as happened with Japanese) .. AmericanChinese asset could be confiscated when hostility brakes out between China and US.

Policy makers don't realize how damaging this is for America.

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

-Y-EtqVYcGs


Seems , American and Russia now aligned .. good so

.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Parodite »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:Seems , American and Russia now aligned .. good so.
Not sure it is good. Either they will clash in the end or they divide the spoils of war when all is over as post-WW2.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Parodite wrote:
A lot of intelligent nonsense.
I would say 8 years behind the curve. These are 8-10 year old talking points. obama ran on this stuff, his supporters voted for him based on it, then both immediately forgot all about it upon inauguration. Because they didn't believe it for a second.

obama didn't do the Milo Doctrine. He fused typical pink underwear liberal foreign policy with meddling neoconservatism and it resulted in the largest terrorist state in who knows how long and the largest attacks on the west post 9-11.

The only MD candidate on the docket is Donald Trump.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.



EU fear US visa restrictions breach Iran nuclear pact

.

The countries that signed the July nuclear deal with Iran — the US, France, Germany, UK, Russia and China, as well as the EU — agreed that they would “refrain from any policy specifically intended to . . . affect the normalisation of trade and economic relations with Iran”.

A senior official at one of the EU countries involved in the Iran talks said Tehran could have a legitimate complaint if the House bill were to become law. “They could argue that European businessmen will be more reluctant to go to Iran if that would then make it harder to visit the US,” the official said.

..

Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, said at the weekend that Iran was reviewing the bill but that it would “take action” if it proved to be against the nuclear deal, according to Iranian media.

EU governments have publicly criticised the proposed restrictions on the visa waiver programme. An article written by the EU ambassador to the US and the ambassadors of the 28 member states on Monday said that “such indiscriminate action against the more than 13 million European citizens who travel to the US each year would be counterproductive”. The bill could also “trigger legally mandated reciprocal measures” by the EU against the US.

.

.
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by YMix »

The new nuclear arms race

[...]

This escalation has been a long time coming, and the U.S. owns much of the blame for the way it has accelerated. During the Clinton administration, the United States pushed hard to expand NATO, breaking a critical promise to Russia not to threaten its sphere of influence. Perry, who played a lead role in this effort, has since acknowledged its folly. “That was the first move down the slippery slope,” he said at an event hosted by the Defense Writers’ Group. “It’s as much our fault as it is the fault of the Russians, at least originally. And it began when I was secretary.”

[...]
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Mr. Perfect »

A new nuclear arms race. Imagine that. You are coming around Ymix.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.

New York Time :

SEAL Team 6:
A Secret History of Quiet Killings and Blurred Lines


Afghan villagers and a British commander accused SEALs of indiscriminately killing men in one hamlet; in 2009, team members joined C.I.A. and Afghan paramilitary forces in a raid that left a group of youths dead and inflamed tensions between Afghan and NATO officials.

An eyeopening NYT article .. a colosal disaster

Approaching "downfall of Rome"

What a disaster, what a disaster


.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

That depends on where you are. Death is where you find it.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by kmich »

Doc wrote:
That depends on where you are. Death is where you find it.
Or where you want to see it.

Our evolutionary heritage programs us to evaluate threats based upon emotional immediacy and not upon deliberative judgment. In an environment where threats are a daily presence, this is quite functional, but in modern, protected, generally safe conditions, threats are not typically faced their urgent presence but heard through our biological alarms opportunistically rung by leaders and assorted interests to their various advantages.
Last edited by kmich on Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Mr. Perfect »

About the same as being killed by a spectacle shooter.

Live by the media hysteria complex die by the media hysteria complex.

Also if risks are so lo what's with the nsa spying, drone programs etc.
Censorship isn't necessary
Post Reply