(01-10-2020, 10:35 AM)Gabe Wrote:

(01-09-2020, 07:47 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: There is a big difference and a problem between "releasing frozen assets" and delivering pallets of cash in foreign currency in secret.  Iran may have "committed to restrain from nuclear development" according to their words at the time, but their actions indicate otherwise.

I kind of anticipate another "Stuxnet" kind of thing happening real soon.

Perhaps it's part of the libertarian leanings I have, but I'm a proponent of paying one's debts. If Iran was "walking the talk" (at the time), then I'm all for agreements that are progessive toward peace. Personally, I would have substantially benchmarked such an agreement - We'll release X% every 6 months with P5+1 oversight and acceptable reporting/findings.   

Nonetheless, they've halted any restraints to their nuclear program as of this week. Logically, this is due to Soleimani's assassination - the one where Pompeo chuckilishly can't/won't provide evidence for what imminent threat/attack Soleimani posed. 

(01-10-2020, 07:08 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: Oh, yeah. I forgot about that. 

There's a blurry line in saying that the $400m that we previously owed Iran was used specifically to maim and kill US military members. Serious question to consider: Would they have done what they did without the $400m IOU plus 45 years' interest?

---

(01-10-2020, 09:05 AM)Predator Wrote: Really?

I don't think the Irish have the right to call anyone out on terrorism.

The ends always justify the means. Right?

You throw a lot of rocks from your glass house.

Europeans and their hypocrisy.

Glass house question: what countries off the top of anyone's heads have any right to call anyone out on (domestic or international) terrorism?