• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Featured Iran Strikes back at the USA

Discussion in 'Current News & Events' started by ArmenianJohn, Jan 7, 2020.

  1. SoldierOfTheKing

    SoldierOfTheKing Christian Spenglerian

    +2,339
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Married
    Was or was not the shah the ruler of Iran when the money was placed in US hands? Why give the shah’s money to those who overthrew him and exiled him from his country?
     
  2. FreeinChrist

    FreeinChrist CF Advisory team Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,884
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Was it the Shah's money? Any support you can provide for that?

    If it was, why shouldn't it go back to the country from which it was taken?

    Are folks aware that the US helped overthrow a democracy in order to help the Shah get into power back in the 50's and that his power was not appreciated by the people ?

    My point is that I don't know if the money was the Shah's or belonged to the government.

    However, a court decision was made that it belonged to Iran and that it was to go back to them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2020
  3. FreeinChrist

    FreeinChrist CF Advisory team Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,884
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Why the U.S. Owed Iran That $400 Million

    But still at issue as Obama began his second term was $400 million that Iran in the late 1970s had paid for U.S. fighter jets, while Tehran was still a U.S. ally. After it turned into an enemy in 1979, Washington was not about to deliver the jets. But, all these years later, Iran wanted its money back—and with interest.

    All told, Tehran was asking The Hague arbitrators (comprising equal numbers of U.S., Iranian and neutral judges) for $10 billion. Fearing they might actually be awarded that much, or something like it, the Obama administration negotiated privately with Tehran, which agreed to settle for $1.7 billion. The $400 million stacked on pallets was the first installment.

    The day it arrived, however, a great deal else was going on. January 17 was the day the international compact rolling back Iran’s nuclear program was set to take formal effect. It was also the day that Iran had, privately, agreed to release five Americans it had imprisoned on spurious charges. At the same time, the Obama administration would release seven Iranians the U.S. had held for violating sanctions—the same sanctions that had brought Iran to the negotiating table, and indeed had necessitated doing business in cash, Iran’s banks having been cut off from the international banking system.

     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  4. parousia70

    parousia70 I'm livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +3,128
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Why are american Republicans standing on the side of known terrorists and knows state sponsors?
    Why are US Republicans standing on the side of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, known to have ordered the brutal killing and dismemberment of a Journalist and US legal resident? why are US Republicans standing on the side of Kim Jong Un, who send a us citizen he had tortured to death back to the US in a vegetative state to die...and US republicans are on the side of sending Kim "love Letters" why?

    The US Republican party needs to stop playing the politics of personal enrichment and power, and support the free world over terrorists.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2020
  5. HannahT

    HannahT Newbie Supporter

    +2,011
    Christian
    Married
    You aren't making much sense. There were plenty of opposition to the administrations stand on Khashoggi on the GOP side.

    I'm not sure anyone is standing on the side of Kim Jong-un (-Il was the father whom is dead), or how one is supposed to stand aside love letters. lol How do you do that anyway? I doubt anything will change on the NK issue anytime soon. I guess we can put them on ignore like we have for years prior, and hope we can stop the threat he can pose. I don't think there is any good answers on that country IMO.

    Soleimani was a known terrorist, and he killed many Americans. Yes, and even more Iranians - and to many others as well. So, killing him after he has killed is supporting terrorism?
     
  6. parousia70

    parousia70 I'm livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +3,128
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Why not Putin then?
    Why don't we drone strike Him?

    Whats the argument against it?
    If assassination of adversarial gov't leaders, preemptive or in response to years of killing of innocents, in the United States' morally superior, geo political defensive strategy moving forward, where is the valid argument against taking Putin out tomorrow?

    Or Kim Jong Un... or any of the Sauds?

    Or any world leader we choose?

    I'm willing to jump on board and support the strategy if it can be demonstrated we apply it equally across the board... but when we explode one monster, and send love letters to another, based solely on the Political aspirations of whoever is the Commander in Chief at the time, I'm challenged to throw my support behind the policy.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2020
  7. HannahT

    HannahT Newbie Supporter

    +2,011
    Christian
    Married
    Our government has been droning people, groups within countries since they made the silly things. They use them - as they say - instead of risking American lives. People were having a hissy with Obama doing it to, but just not as loud. Yet, he did it alot.

    I honestly am not sure what I feel about drones, but I do understand they don't put our soldiers life's at risk.

    Is Putin taking out our soldiers? He is evil no doubt, and I wouldn't trust him. At this point they do have to work with his country in some aspects, but because he is politically unpopular in America right now you feel it's perfectly acceptable to just take him out?

    Or are you saying you don't understand the difference between him and Soleimani - and the difference circumstances between the two?

    I'm not sure where you are going.

    Since we took out the terrorist Soleimani what's to stop us from taking out your list of others? Is that what you are asking?

    The media scared people to death - once again - about how war was immitant due to this action. No one knew why it happened, what the reasoning behind it was, etc. Yet, the media and the politicians that joined them just KNEW World War III was going to happen. They pushed that to the hilt, and I found that irresponsible myself. It was a no-brainer Iran would respond. That's what they do. They did respond, and for their most part - minus the plane - it was pretty lame. I was expecting more myself.

    Can you imagine the response if they took out your list? There was a reason they took the terrorist out. I mean he killed thousands of people - including some of his own and our people - and it's an overreaction to kill him before he continues to murder? I don't get it why you knock off one evil person off the list has to turn into taking out EVERYONE you listed.

    Okay then. You wish to out the entire list you have in mind, or don't kill anyone evil at all.

    Your all or nobody strategy huh? I can't see anyone including people running that would be willing to do that approach.

    You do realize the love letters in question only go in one direction right? Trump loves to speak about them, but he isn't returning his own love letters. In the past they ignored the leaders of that country, and wouldn't speak about them at all. The world threw goodies at them here and there to calm them down, and yes that did work to calm the waters. It was either that they would take out missiles on South Korea and other neighbors. Trump's approach hasn't done much, but neither did the approaches of the past. I feel terrible about their population. They will continue to be starved, tortured and just hope for existence for many years to come.
     
  8. ArmenianJohn

    ArmenianJohn Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist

    +2,958
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Democrat
    He did? Where's your source for this? Thousands including his own?

    Had you even heard of this guy before they killed him? I hadn't and I'm sure almost nobody else had either. But they kill him first then provide the back story. And after this government has lied to us (e.g. Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq) people still blindly believe what they say. The administration still is not providing answers to Congressmen who are asking questions about the reasons for this killing.
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +3,440
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    Obama said of his own 500+ drone strike assassinations "I am pretty good at killing people"

    President Obama's Controversial Legacy as Counterterrorism-in-Chief
    "As Obama has said, “I am pretty good at killing people.”"

    Obama kills 41 at a funeral??
     
  10. ArmenianJohn

    ArmenianJohn Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist

    +2,958
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Reagan consults the stars and astrologists to make his presidential decisions:
    Ronald Reagan actually used this San Francisco astrologist to make presidential decisions

    The Olsen twins have shed their squeaky clean image:
    Olsen Twins' Partying Ways Shouldn't Be That Surprising After All

    New Hilton opens in Guiyang, China:
    Hilton Guiyang Hotel Opens
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +3,440
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    Obama said of his own 500+ drone strike assassinations "I am pretty good at killing people"

    President Obama's Controversial Legacy as Counterterrorism-in-Chief
    "As Obama has said, “I am pretty good at killing people.”"

    Obama kills 41 at a funeral??

    ============================================

    ???
    Staying on the topic of drone strikes and media reaction to it -- can be "really tough at times" apparently. Or were you posting at random on threads ?
     
  12. ArmenianJohn

    ArmenianJohn Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist

    +2,958
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Democrat
    ???

    The topic of this thread which I created is "Iran Strikes back at the USA" and is about the escalation of the conflict between USA and Iran.

    I thought you were starting a game of "random stuff unrelated to this thread" when you posted about Obama who has nothing to do with this thread.

    So, staying on the topic of "Iran strikes back at the USA" (which is also the title of the thread) -- can be "really tough at time" apparently. Or were you just posting at random on threads?
     
  13. parousia70

    parousia70 I'm livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +3,128
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    How can the exact same thing not be said about Putin or Kim?

    I understand you don't get it.
    Consistency.
    If those are the official united states governments REASONS for taking him out, what are the reasons for NOT taking Putin and Kim out? Because the reasons you mentioned without question apply just as well to Putin and Kim, and many others.

    Unless we took Soleimani out for DIFFERENT reasons than the ones you mentioned?

    Trump said it was because he was ABOUT to strike at 4 of our embassies... yet no one has come up with any intelligence that this was the case, in fact those in the know have publicly said they saw no such intelligence...even you aren't claiming there was some sort of Imminent attack in the wings... it's simply "he was a bad guy so he needed to be taken out"

    So which it?

    I get it may not bother you that the Reasons given change every day, but it doesn't sit right with me.

    False Dichotomy
    If we have credible evidence that anyone is is orchestrating an IMMINENT attack upon US, then sure take em out... duh..
    But in the case of Soleimani there was no such evidence.. and again I get that you are not bothered by that at all.

    But, if our new "defensive" strategy is to preemptively assinate world leaders simply because they are notorious bad actors on the world stage, then by gummit, lets load up the drones and get going... sooner the better!

    What's the downside to a wholesale cleansing of evil at the highest levels across the globe?

    Surely you are in full agreement that the United States Government and it's proxys possess the moral superiority and infallible judgment to pick and choose which world leader gets to live and which must die without any due process, day in court, ability to face their accuser and mount a defense, etc... right?

    It'll make too many liberals and news outlets whimper in fright? is that your best argument against it?
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2020
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +3,440
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    'Strikes back' -- "for what"??

    I thought there was as drone strike in there at some point against a muslim terrorist.
    Did I miss it?

    Disassociation can also be a problem.


    "strikes back"... "for what"?? -- drone strike against a muslim terrorist?

    Does this really look like a "random thought" to you given the wording in your own thread title??

    Your article linked in the OP references the President regarding the drone strike on a muslim terrorist ... and now you say that the topic has nothing to do with an American President ordering drone strikes against a muslim terrorist if that President is not Trump??? (As if Muslims don't care all that much about getting killed by a President that is not Trump?)

    I found this at your link
    Iran protests: Crowds in Tehran refuse to walk on U.S. and Israeli flags

    Interesting that they gauge the missile attack to not create casualties and they don't want to walk on the US flag that was put on the ground specifically for the purpose of showing it disrespect and walking on it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
  15. ArmenianJohn

    ArmenianJohn Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist

    +2,958
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Democrat
    There was nothing to miss - there was no drone strike against a muslim terrorist. There was a drone strike against an Iranian military General. Do you know what the difference is between terrorists and military Generals of one of the largest armies in the world?

    And again, this thread is not about "drone strikes". This is about the escalating conflict between Iran and the USA. That may include drone strikes but it's more than that. Furthermore, of all the drone strikes in this conflict not a one of them is by Obama, so again you're off-topic.

    Here's a thought.... You want to talk about a different topic from this thread, i.e. Obama drone strikes, so why not start your own thread about that? Why try to hijack this thread with your irrelevant, random thoughts?

    Absolutely. So you're saying that disassociation is the reason you interjected with random thoughts unrelated to this thread's topic? OK, if you say so.

    Is the needless repetition here also from the disassociation?

    Absolutely. Obama drone strikes on Syria are not related to Trump's murdering of a military General from Iran.

    Wrong again. Not on a terrorist. I don't know his religion either, but it's irrelevant also.

    Again, not a terrorist. Again, Trump is not Obama. Again, this was against Iran, not against Syria. Again, that they're muslims is irrelevant; you apparently know little to nothing about Muslims.

    So you believe the article? So you understand now that Iranians don't chant "death to America" and "death to Israel"? I look forward to your answer. Hopefully it will be relevant and not random.
     
  16. Kalevalatar

    Kalevalatar Veteran

    +772
    Christian
    Private
    Iran "struck back" all right -- and not just at the United States, but against Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Lithuania, Norway and Poland, all of whom have troops in Iraq and were targeted by Iranian missiles. The Iranian attack was a political and diplomatic suicide mission for Tehran and shooting down the Ukrainian plane with Iranian, Canadian, Ukrainian, Swedes, Afghans, British and German victims certainly won't help the regime in Tehran one bit.
     
  17. Mountainmanbob

    Mountainmanbob Goat Whisperer Supporter

    +9,440
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Got your answer for you.
    Straight from Trump -------------- zero.
    M-Bob
     
  18. ArmenianJohn

    ArmenianJohn Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist

    +2,958
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    US-Democrat
    He did the wise thing and backed off. He knows he has no business retaliating. He let Iran fire at our bases with no consequence. Maybe he's learning something?

    Of course, people in the know are aware that Trump escalated at least the covert war...


    Best part of Video:
    TRUMP: "The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!"
    [Iran attacks American Base]
    ALSO TRUMP: "All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning."

    How do you keep up with this schizophrenia? The guy says one thing and then the next day says and does the opposite. Crazy!
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2020
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +3,440
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    The fall of the Berlin wall, the fall of the Soviet Union, the fall of ISIS, the fall of NKorea as Obama's biggest problem that he said could not be solved so he handed off to Trump... and so many other examples... and all because both presidents Reagan and Trump refused to be "predictably docile" when negotiating with those who oppose America.

    Some folks think that is an accident. Other folks have done negotiation with someone who is not inclined to behave favorably.
     
  20. Sistrin

    Sistrin We are such stuff as dreams are made on... Supporter

    +3,143
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Because they hate President Trump with a level of passion which overrides all other concerns. Therefore known terrorist with American blood on their hands will be embraced, defended, and hailed as magnificent champions of humanity comparable to George Washington and MLK all in the pursuit of defaming both America and its current President.

    This entire affair also serves to prove something I stated on these forums years ago. In any armed conflict the US enters into at any level, the American left will always, always, side with the enemy.
     
Loading...