Unreal...Hmmm, I wonder what the White House’s motivation for removing them was? Obama continues his appeasement of Iran.

Quote:An annual report delivered recently to the US Senate by James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, removed Iran and Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats, after years in which they featured in similar reports.

The unclassified version of the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Communities, dated February 26, 2015 (PDF), noted Iran’s efforts to combat Sunni extremists, including those of the ultra-radical Islamic State group, who were perceived to constitute the preeminent terrorist threat to American interests worldwide.

In describing Iran’s regional role, the report noted the Islamic Republic’s “intentions to dampen sectarianism, build responsive partners, and deescalate tensions with Saudi Arabia,” but cautioned that “Iranian leaders—particularly within the security services—are pursuing policies with negative secondary consequences for regional stability and potentially for Iran.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-report-s...r-threats/

In the short term, it may be best to have Iran as an ally esp when it comes to fighting ISIS. Who would you rather have on your side, Iran or Iraq (whose soldiers are prone to run from a battle)? They may not be an idea ally, by any means, but it's sadly the best option we have. I humbly support this move; however, I'm no fan of Obama's foreign policy.

(03-16-2015 11:18 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  In the short term, it may be best to have Iran as an ally esp when it comes to fighting ISIS. Who would you rather have on your side, Iran or Iraq (whose soldiers are prone to run from a battle)? They may not be an idea ally, by any means, but it's sadly the best option we have. I humbly support this move; however, I'm no fan of Obama's foreign policy.

So the Next question is, what happens after Iran helps kill off ISIS but then They refuse to leave Iraq and Syria, but then decide They want take control of those States and We are asked to help remove Iran ?

(03-16-2015 12:11 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:18 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  In the short term, it may be best to have Iran as an ally esp when it comes to fighting ISIS. Who would you rather have on your side, Iran or Iraq (whose soldiers are prone to run from a battle)? They may not be an idea ally, by any means, but it's sadly the best option we have. I humbly support this move; however, I'm no fan of Obama's foreign policy.

So the Next question is, what happens after Iran helps kill off ISIS but then They refuse to leave Iraq and Syria, but then decide They want take control of those States and We are asked to help remove Iran ?

with a nuke, no less......

(03-16-2015 11:18 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  In the short term, it may be best to have Iran as an ally esp when it comes to fighting ISIS.

Iran and Syria have contributed to creating the ISIS problem. If we concede anything on that basis, we are chumps.

I can understand removing one of the charter members of the Axis of Evil as a negotiating ploy to gain a piece of paper for Obama's legacy. Removing Hezbollah is outrageous and pure foolishness. We may as well toss in a Humanitarian of the year award for Bashar al Assad.

(03-16-2015 12:26 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:18 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  In the short term, it may be best to have Iran as an ally esp when it comes to fighting ISIS.

Iran and Syria have contributed to creating the ISIS problem. If we concede anything on that basis, we are chumps.

I can understand removing one of the charter members of the Axis of Evil as a negotiating ploy to gain a piece of paper for Obama's legacy. Removing Hezbollah is outrageous and pure foolishness. The more naive of our former posters here is doing a happy dance that one of his favorite collection of murderers is blessed by this administration. We may as well toss in a Humanitarian of the year award for Bashar al Assad.

The thing is, I have a feeling we will do all the capitulating while Iran just keeps on keeping on.

(03-16-2015 12:31 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 12:26 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I can understand removing one of the charter members of the Axis of Evil as a negotiating ploy to gain a piece of paper for Obama's legacy.

The thing is, I have a feeling we will do all the capitulating while Iran just keeps on keeping on.

They have lied time and time again and hidden undeclared programs for over 20 years. The way this is playing out, the first steps of implementing the agreement are a point of no return, and they will likely wantonly violate it with impunity.

Just remember Obama's quote about standing with thw Muslims. He didn't mean just here in the US.

(03-16-2015 12:22 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 12:11 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:18 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  In the short term, it may be best to have Iran as an ally esp when it comes to fighting ISIS. Who would you rather have on your side, Iran or Iraq (whose soldiers are prone to run from a battle)? They may not be an idea ally, by any means, but it's sadly the best option we have. I humbly support this move; however, I'm no fan of Obama's foreign policy.

So the Next question is, what happens after Iran helps kill off ISIS but then They refuse to leave Iraq and Syria, but then decide They want take control of those States and We are asked to help remove Iran ?

with a nuke, no less......

If we tell Iran they can use their nuke but we have enough to wipe them completely off the map......

(03-16-2015 12:31 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 12:26 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:18 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  In the short term, it may be best to have Iran as an ally esp when it comes to fighting ISIS.

Iran and Syria have contributed to creating the ISIS problem. If we concede anything on that basis, we are chumps.

I can understand removing one of the charter members of the Axis of Evil as a negotiating ploy to gain a piece of paper for Obama's legacy. Removing Hezbollah is outrageous and pure foolishness. The more naive of our former posters here is doing a happy dance that one of his favorite collection of murderers is blessed by this administration. We may as well toss in a Humanitarian of the year award for Bashar al Assad.

The thing is, I have a feeling we will do all the capitulating while Iran just keeps on keeping on.

What would the US be giving up?

Clapper should have been removed and indicted 2-3 years ago. What a typical bureaucratic "yes, sir" man.

And I guess in this rush to appease and kiss Iran's ass as we give away the store, they haven't paused for a moment to look at a freaking MAP. Show me more than one or two of these areas fully engulfed that doesn't have Iran's prints ALL over it.

I think we can start with Yemen. That model of success and stability...

Now that we've removed Iran and the hezbollah thugs from the terror sponsor list, will this clear the way for ketchup boy to host a Jame Taylor concert for them?

(03-16-2015 04:49 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 12:22 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 12:11 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:18 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  In the short term, it may be best to have Iran as an ally esp when it comes to fighting ISIS. Who would you rather have on your side, Iran or Iraq (whose soldiers are prone to run from a battle)? They may not be an idea ally, by any means, but it's sadly the best option we have. I humbly support this move; however, I'm no fan of Obama's foreign policy.

So the Next question is, what happens after Iran helps kill off ISIS but then They refuse to leave Iraq and Syria, but then decide They want take control of those States and We are asked to help remove Iran ?

with a nuke, no less......

If we tell Iran they can use their nuke but we have enough to wipe them completely off the map......

Maybe congress should write them a letter.

(03-16-2015 12:26 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:18 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  In the short term, it may be best to have Iran as an ally esp when it comes to fighting ISIS.

Iran and Syria have contributed to creating the ISIS problem. If we concede anything on that basis, we are chumps.


I can understand removing one of the charter members of the Axis of Evil as a negotiating ploy to gain a piece of paper for Obama's legacy. Removing Hezbollah is outrageous and pure foolishness. We may as well toss in a Humanitarian of the year award for Bashar al Assad.

And the United States, Europe, and Saudi Arabia hasn't contributed to the ISIS problem? Everyone's hands are dirty.

I agree, removing Hezbollah is completely absurd.

(03-16-2015 05:31 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 12:26 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:18 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  In the short term, it may be best to have Iran as an ally esp when it comes to fighting ISIS.

Iran and Syria have contributed to creating the ISIS problem. If we concede anything on that basis, we are chumps.


I can understand removing one of the charter members of the Axis of Evil as a negotiating ploy to gain a piece of paper for Obama's legacy. Removing Hezbollah is outrageous and pure foolishness. We may as well toss in a Humanitarian of the year award for Bashar al Assad.

And the United States, Europe, and Saudi Arabia hasn't contributed to the ISIS problem? Everyone's hands are dirty.

I agree, removing Hezbollah is completely absurd.

Well, our single biggest contribution was cutting and running against most sane Generals advice. We created a vacuum and it was darn sure gonna be filled.

Then we showed our skirt in the Syrian red-line international embarrassment and the bad guys were emboldened.

Now we are left with few options, none of them good.

(03-16-2015 05:41 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 05:31 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 12:26 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:18 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  In the short term, it may be best to have Iran as an ally esp when it comes to fighting ISIS.

Iran and Syria have contributed to creating the ISIS problem. If we concede anything on that basis, we are chumps.


I can understand removing one of the charter members of the Axis of Evil as a negotiating ploy to gain a piece of paper for Obama's legacy. Removing Hezbollah is outrageous and pure foolishness. We may as well toss in a Humanitarian of the year award for Bashar al Assad.

And the United States, Europe, and Saudi Arabia hasn't contributed to the ISIS problem? Everyone's hands are dirty.

I agree, removing Hezbollah is completely absurd.

Well, our single biggest contribution was cutting and running against most sane Generals advice. We created a vacuum and it was darn sure gonna be filled.

Then we showed our skirt in the Syrian red-line international embarrassment and the bad guys were emboldened.

Now we are left with few options, none of them good.

Shoot, most of ISIS's leadership was part of Hussein's guard/army. We failed by not eliminating them in 03/04. Then we failed by dropping arms and other equipment to the Syrian rebel forces (which fell right into ISIS's hands). The Saudi's failed by giving ISIS $$$ not knowing ISIS's evil intentions. You're right about the "red-line," Obama should've never issued that bold statement and not back it up. Now I must ask, where TF was the CIA the past 3 years? How/why didn't they know that ISIS was apart of the Syrian rebel forces?

(03-16-2015 06:26 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 05:41 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 05:31 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 12:26 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:18 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  In the short term, it may be best to have Iran as an ally esp when it comes to fighting ISIS.

Iran and Syria have contributed to creating the ISIS problem. If we concede anything on that basis, we are chumps.


I can understand removing one of the charter members of the Axis of Evil as a negotiating ploy to gain a piece of paper for Obama's legacy. Removing Hezbollah is outrageous and pure foolishness. We may as well toss in a Humanitarian of the year award for Bashar al Assad.

And the United States, Europe, and Saudi Arabia hasn't contributed to the ISIS problem? Everyone's hands are dirty.

I agree, removing Hezbollah is completely absurd.

Well, our single biggest contribution was cutting and running against most sane Generals advice. We created a vacuum and it was darn sure gonna be filled.

Then we showed our skirt in the Syrian red-line international embarrassment and the bad guys were emboldened.

Now we are left with few options, none of them good.

Shoot, most of ISIS's leadership was part of Hussein's guard/army. We failed by not eliminating them in 03/04. Then we failed by dropping arms and other equipment to the Syrian rebel forces (which fell right into ISIS's hands). The Saudi's failed by giving ISIS $$$ not knowing ISIS's evil intentions. You're right about the "red-line," Obama should've never issued that bold statement and not back it up. Now I must ask, where TF was the CIA the past 3 years? How/why didn't they know that ISIS was apart of the Syrian rebel forces?

My guess? Cause it's all speculation anyway, is that they were hamstrung. Not allowed to basically DO their jobs or if they did it fell on deaf ears.

Face it (not directed at you- directly) when those yahoots started running rampant over there, didn't you take pause?

It immediately reminded me of the Taliban in Afghanistan running loose destroying centuries old (as in 6th century old) statues of Buddha, and my thinking these guys are going to be real trouble , and soon. Well, that was March of 2001.

All one had to do was watch the news reports on these ISIS a-holes and anyone with an ounce of sense could see these guys were gonna be a problem. What do we get instead? Kobe Bryant guffaw lines about JV basketball.

Great. Real funny. Especially to those getting their heads cut off and watching their 9 year old girls being sold off as sex slaves.

But hey, whatmeworry? There's another fundraiser to get to before we go on jimmy Kimmel again.

(03-16-2015 04:49 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 12:22 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 12:11 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:18 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  In the short term, it may be best to have Iran as an ally esp when it comes to fighting ISIS. Who would you rather have on your side, Iran or Iraq (whose soldiers are prone to run from a battle)? They may not be an idea ally, by any means, but it's sadly the best option we have. I humbly support this move; however, I'm no fan of Obama's foreign policy.

So the Next question is, what happens after Iran helps kill off ISIS but then They refuse to leave Iraq and Syria, but then decide They want take control of those States and We are asked to help remove Iran ?

with a nuke, no less......

If we tell Iran they can use their nuke but we have enough to wipe them completely off the map......

Not sure what that even means? Did you mean "can't" instead of "can"?

(03-16-2015 04:50 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 12:31 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 12:26 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:18 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  In the short term, it may be best to have Iran as an ally esp when it comes to fighting ISIS.

Iran and Syria have contributed to creating the ISIS problem. If we concede anything on that basis, we are chumps.

I can understand removing one of the charter members of the Axis of Evil as a negotiating ploy to gain a piece of paper for Obama's legacy. Removing Hezbollah is outrageous and pure foolishness. The more naive of our former posters here is doing a happy dance that one of his favorite collection of murderers is blessed by this administration. We may as well toss in a Humanitarian of the year award for Bashar al Assad.

The thing is, I have a feeling we will do all the capitulating while Iran just keeps on keeping on.

What would the US be giving up?

It's childrens' future security.

(03-16-2015 05:31 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 12:26 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:18 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  In the short term, it may be best to have Iran as an ally esp when it comes to fighting ISIS.

Iran and Syria have contributed to creating the ISIS problem. If we concede anything on that basis, we are chumps.


I can understand removing one of the charter members of the Axis of Evil as a negotiating ploy to gain a piece of paper for Obama's legacy. Removing Hezbollah is outrageous and pure foolishness. We may as well toss in a Humanitarian of the year award for Bashar al Assad.

And the United States, Europe, and Saudi Arabia hasn't contributed to the ISIS problem? Everyone's hands are dirty.

I agree, removing Hezbollah is completely absurd.

None of those countries held radicals in their jails and purposefully released them in order to divert attention from campaigns to starve, bomb, and poison their own citizens. They focused on factions that may be palatable to US support because ISIS wasn't a very big threat to the regime.

Hezbollah is off of the NSA's terror list precisely because they and Iran are fighting ISIS in Iraq. That's like starving your dog until he's skin and bones, and then getting a humanitarian award for feeding him again.

As for your comments, Saudis and Qataris financed ISIS and/or other Islamists, along with Turkish support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. That is not really relevant to the topic at hand, though, nor are US missteps that allowed ISIS to rise (as if the US had the power to prevent it in a power vacuum... creating the power vacuum to begin with is yet another matter).

(03-16-2015 06:26 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Shoot, most of ISIS's leadership was part of Hussein's guard/army. We failed by not eliminating them in 03/04.

This is a good point, albeit there are ideological leaders that were probably not part of Saddam's regime... the military leaders were.

(03-16-2015 06:26 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Then we failed by dropping arms and other equipment to the Syrian rebel forces (which fell right into ISIS's hands).

Personally, I think that point is overblown with billions of Qatari and Saudi seed money plus ISIS's own revenues probably making US supplies inconsequential. We don't even give enough supplies to our allies to be a factor.

(03-16-2015 06:26 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  The Saudi's failed by giving ISIS $$$ not knowing ISIS's evil intentions.

Officially, the Saudis funded Salafist groups opposed to ISIS. Qataris were funding ISIS and its predecessors. However, there was probably Saudi money going to ISIS, and those sending it were likely fully aware of their evil intentions. I don't think anyone was accidentally funding them...