Henry Kissinger: Iran 'A Bigger Problem Than ISIS'

[millwad]

i'm still trying to figure out whose oil we stole...

some of u foreigners are some of the dumbest mf'ers on earth tbh. its really funny to me how a lot of u think u have a clue at all

His reference was regarding the fact that the US overturned the democratically elected prime minister in Iran who wanted to nationalize the oil.

[millwad]

probably because you're ignorant as fukk, just like a lot of people on ISH.

Iran put out a hit on Solomon Rushdie, google it stupid fgt.

they threatened Fox for South Park depiction of Mohammed.

this is all from their government, their highest power who calls ALL of the shots despite how the dumbass ISH foreigners pretend the Prez is their highest power because they play agendas.

i swear foreign people here are really fukking dumb...but i'd also include black agenda'd in that boat since some of u have a overlap with muslim agendas as well

The poster you replied to wrote about how he can't remember the last time when Iran invaded a country, read what you wrote back.

And the novelist you are referring to is Salman Rushdie and not "Solomon" and that has nothing to do with invading a country, neither does threatening FOX.

Iran is not a threat to the US, the US on other hand is a big threat to Iran and has been a threat for many decades.

- The US overthrew the democratically elected prime minister in Iran due to the fact that he wanted to nationalize the oil.

- The US funded Iraq and Saddam with several billion dollars in their attack and war against Iran. A war that killed around 300 000 iranians.

- In 1988 the US shot down an iranian civilian airplane on Iranian territory which resulted in the death of 290 persons. And the US never formally apologized for it either.

- The sanctions against Iran.

You tell me, who is the real threat?

[fiddy]

he's right. ISIS is not as much of a threat as the media is hyping. they have no permanent state or really a basis of permanent power. They should be much more easily to wipe out albeit with always extremist elements spread that can be a threat, but in theory any permanent state, especially fundamentalist agenda'd is much more of a threat.

Iran, regardless of how retarded their sympathizers on ISH regularly are, are run by fundamentalist doctrine. which in essence means they want a muslim fundamentalist state, and that tends to go beyond their borders, because they see their religion as absolute, not only limited to them. Kissinger has always been rather on point with his take on things, and i give him credit for seeing past popular media.

until Iran dissolves their Aiotollah from absolute power and they stop becoming a religious government they are as much a threat, or more so than any fundamentalist group.

[BoutPractice]

Kissinger knows his stuff.

But the thing about foreign relations is that they're completely unpredictable.

Personally, I wouldn't underestimate a rapidly growing army of fanatics on the move, mixing Mongol-style barbarism with the newest technologies of the day... just like established businesses should never underestimate young hungry startups.

If there's one thing history has proven time and time again, it's that "up-starts" can radically redraw the world map in a matter of years, defying all odds to conquer huge amounts of land at the expense of initially complacent great powers whose reaction is too little, too late. People are stuck in the present and fail to foresee the effect of cumulative growth, but the historical record is there for everyone to see: things change all the time and today's laughing stock is tomorrow's colossus.

A Kissinger figure who thinks he's seen it all is very vulnerable to this sort of blind spot. Kissinger, as clever as he is, is the incarnation of the foreign policy "establishment", and the establishment is typically dismissive of anything "new". It's the diplomatic "devil you know" mindset, you'd rather solve problems by dealing with "legitimate" tyrants sitting on comfy chairs than fighting with barbarians who don't even have embassies that serve tea.

Basic law of history: shit happens, no one is safe

[Godzuki]

The poster you replied to wrote about how he can't remember the last time when Iran invaded a country, read what you wrote back.

And the novelist you are referring to is Salman Rushdie and not "Solomon" and that has nothing to do with invading a country, neither does threatening FOX.

Iran is not a threat to the US, the US on other hand is a big threat to Iran and has been a threat for many decades.

- The US overthrew the democratically elected prime minister in Iran due to the fact that he wanted to nationalize the oil.

- The US funded Iraq and Saddam with several billion dollars in their attack and war against Iran. A war that killed around 300 000 iranians.

- In 1988 the US shot down an iranian civilian airplane on Iranian territory which resulted in the death of 290 persons. And the US never formally apologized for it either.

- The sanctions against Iran.

You tell me, who is the real threat?

still dumb as fukk and using ancient revisionist history to paint your anti US agendas, but never anything recent, because none of u conspiracy idiots can when recent history is too clear to distort

and lol @ name spellling...either way my point stands they are run by extremists and yours always going far back in history which is inapplicable to today's reality shows how retard you are, while always trying to defend Iran/Syria/etc.

[Godzuki]

Kissinger knows his stuff.

But the thing about foreign relations is that they're completely unpredictable.

Personally, I wouldn't underestimate a rapidly growing army of fanatics on the move, mixing Mongol-style barbarism with the newest technologies of the day... just like established businesses should never underestimate young hungry startups.

If there's one thing history has proven time and time again, it's that "up-starts" can radically redraw the world map in a matter of years, defying all odds to conquer huge amounts of land at the expense of initially complacent great powers whose reaction is too little, too late. People are stuck in the present and fail to foresee the effect of cumulative growth, but the historical record is there for everyone to see: things change all the time and today's laughing stock is tomorrow's colossus.

A Kissinger figure who thinks he's seen it all is very vulnerable to this sort of blind spot. Kissinger, as clever as he is, is the incarnation of the foreign policy "establishment", and the establishment is typically dismissive of anything "new". It's the diplomatic "devil you know" mindset, you'd rather solve problems by dealing with "legitimate" tyrants sitting on comfy chairs than fighting with barbarians who don't even have embassies that serve tea.

Basic law of history: shit happens, no one is safe

thing is media and lack of knowledge of our power, or lack of awareness of affairs on a state level, can make the general public buy into the frenzy of hype/danger more than what is realistic.

and none of us are saying ISIS isn't a threat, obviously they are and horrible fukking people, but a state sponsoring agendas against your country run by fundamentalists are bigger threats than a radicalized group.

i think most reasonable people these days do not trust fundamentalist muslims at all....for a reason. one runs a entire country, while one is running a rapidly growing group with no real basis of power. we have barely put any resources into taking them out, i mean we just got started...air power alone should be able to devastate them

[millwad]

still dumb as fukk and using ancient revisionist history to paint your anti US agendas, but never anything recent, because none of u conspiracy idiots can when recent history is too clear to distort

and lol @ name spellling...either way my point stands they are run by extremists and yours always going far back in history which is inapplicable to today's reality shows how retard you are, while always trying to defend Iran/Syria/etc.

I'm not going to get into one of those stupid name calling matches with you, just so you know. How are we conspiracy idiots? Is it a conspiracy that we don't believe that Iran is dangerous or a threat to the US?

The reason why I mentioned the name spelling is because you don't really know what you're talking about. So I am a "retard" for mentioning historical events and actions from the US towards Iran, right?

Then I hope that you realize that the iranian civilian airplane the US shot down took place in 1988 and 290 people died. And the Salman Rushdie incident took place in 1989. So killing 290 innocents civilians on iranian territory is not a valid incident to mention because it's old but at the same time you mention a fatwa on the novelist, Salman Rushdie, a man who's still alive. And I couldn't find anything regarding Iran threatening FOX and it's not even worth commenting really, even if they did it wouldn't make Iran a threat.

So with other words, you call the incidents I mentioned too old to be valid but then you mention a 25 year old threat towards an Indian novelist as a reason why Iran is so dangerous. That is laughable when we know that one year before that incident the US shot down a civilian iranian plane, in Iran, while killing 290 people.

You don't make any sense.

[Horde of Temujin]

Henry Kissinger is an evil bastard

[brownmamba00]

source? is the united states state department cracking down on private wealth in the gulf? in action as opposed to mere words?

who funds isis? does anybody want to do some investigative reporting and come back with a semblance of a budget?

exact figures are tough to come by if you want the truth. these guys aren't just gonna release figures any more than general motors would.

bbc article on the subject

what's more or less been confirmed is that isis has received private and public funding from a number of gulf states and has received a great deal of logistical support from turkey and the united states.

now the article is correct in pointing out that funding has declined sharply in 2014, basically since isis began taking territory. that makes sense. build it up to the point of functional capacity and then let it go and absolve yourself of any liability. that's essentially what has happened here and that's only incorporating the last 4 years in iraq as opposed go the last 14 or better yet 24.

pretty much all of this

I think the plan of the USA backfired maybe because the white house expected ISIS to attack Iran...when ISIS was beheading Shia's in Syria no one was saying shit but the moment they attacked the US allies in Iraq and especially the Kurds, the white house interfered and sended over aerial support.

Just a thought tho...since Iran and the US are working together now.