Iranian Football Page - Since 1996
Since 1996
Football News & Highlights
<<< Post Message >>>
<<< پیام بنویسید >>>>
19,669 Entries
Comments: Zinsky, voting is not totally senseless. It was designed to make naive people feel good. Make them feel like they have a voice. Farzad, from Obama to Trump and now to Biden. Their policies are done in line with the book and the guidelines that's been given to them from the sources I mentioned yesterday. you're right, during the campaign Biden literally said that he will reverse most of trump's policies in day one. They all lie. They also know that they must follow the book.
Comments: Exactly. Taxes, healthcare and abortion are the only things to focus on. In terms of Environment, that is selective too.
Comments: Honestly, kAmkAr might not be the only one who has given up on voting. Unfortunately, most smart people are leaving the voting boots. That is a bad thing for D and a great deal for R. Based on the conversation we are having, voting is meaningless. When it comes to foreign policies, it's almost worthless. If one is voting for smaller issues (not small in everyday life of people but less aggressive ones), then we need to look at the history and platform of the parties & individuals. Social issues & taxes might be the only ones that D/R could differ. Enviromint is also a Biggy. Guns, Immigration, military budget, foreign policies are more or less nonissues. Both sides talk a lot but do nothing different.
Comments: You have establishment Republicans and Democrats and then outside of that spectrum you have likes of Trump or Bernie Sanders who have absolutely no loyalty to these two parties. Bernie ran under the umbrella of democrats and Trump ran under the umbrella of Republicans. DNC cannot put up with Bernie, RNC cannot put up with Trump. DNC takes advantage of Bernie’s base, RNC takes advantage of Trump’s over 80 million base. They are pain in the ass for both parties. You can’t be a Republican and talk sit about the outmost respected Republican hero, John McCain. These two do not want to just play within that framework you are talking about. And that is why we witness they are forced out one way or the other. In 2024, whoever is elected within one of the two parties continues this same foreign policy. Democrat or Republican. At the end credibility of a leader/candidate is based on what they do and not what they preach or say to do. From immigration to return to JCPOA to forfeiting student loan to Paris accord, none came to fruition. Or he criticized republicans spending on military budget but then his $866 Billion budget was the highest.
Comments: I think we are saying the same thing but one of us trying to make a point of it and another one just painting a picture of reality! I’m saying that R or D have and will follow a basic framework when it comes to foreign policies. There is a threshold for them (party or individual president) to move within. Obama was pushing the limits a little over acceptable for majority. Trump went on the opposite side. Biden seems to be sticking to the middle. He is playing it safe. These days, playing it safe (in the middle) is not as safe as it used to be. Both parties and the voters have moved way to the edges. I also remember Biden voting for the war in Iraq and being grilled for it too. He used the excuse below. I can’t be sure if he is telling the truth but … “I got a commitment from President Bush he was not going to go to war in Iraq. He looked me in the eye in the Oval Office; he said he needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program. He got them in, and before we know it, we had a shock and awe. Immediately, the moment it started, I came out against the war at that moment. Now, the judgment of my trusting the president to keep his word on something like that, that was a mistake. And I apologize for that.”
Comments: Zinsky. Here are some of the little details which we also have to pay attention to which discredits party affiliation. Yes Obama tried to open the doors to Cuba. But here is what you don't want to understand. The Obama administration lifted the designation of Cuba being sponsor of terrorism in 2015, along with relaxing some restrictions, including on American travel to the country. The change meant Americans could legally bring home Cuban cigars and rum. It also permitted Cuban pharmaceutical companies to do business in the U.S. The Trump administration reimposed sanctions on Cuba and increased financial and banking restrictions on the country. On Jan. 11, 2021, days before Joe Biden’s presidential inauguration, the Trump administration put Cuba back on the list of state sponsors of terror. Biden could have easily reversed it with a snap of finger with his executive power, or he could still do it with a Democrat House and Senate in his admin. The question you have to answer is why Biden did not and does not do that. What is the difference between Biden Democrat versus an Obama Democrat? Keep in mind that Biden was Obama's VP with a view 180 degrees from Trump. But why is it that Biden continues Trump's route on Cuba versus do what Obama did. Or in case of GWB era, it was Biden who was convincing all the democrats in the senate to approve the war against Iraq. He was successful to convince all democratic senators except Bernie Sanders. Anyways Once you answer this or dig in to this that how could two democrats have opposing views of 180 degrees then you will understand US foreign policy better. That the US foreign policy is strategic set by both parties but has tactical variations conducted by various admins. That simple. Democrats and Republicans have a lot more in common than differences. You look at the Democrats and Republicans too black and white. They form the United States establishment.
Comments: We can all agree that each and every country has a set of rules and any leader will follow the rules within the framework with small variations. It’s true here as it is in most other countries. Unless there is a revolution or a total collapse of the existing system, the chances are negligible. D and R do stay within the system. Still, Obama tries to open the doors to Cuba and Iran. Let’s not argue if that was a good idea or not but he wanted basic relationships. Iran and Cuba also agreed to the deals made. Also, when it comes to wars and who want what. There is a big difference between full blown engagement and pushing the right/wrong buttons. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were foot on the ground and full engagement. Ukraine, no so much. I hate wars of all kinds but if that is the plan, I would prefer not sending your own soldiers to fight!
Comments: https://youtu.be/4ISLrMq9SPE
Comments: https://youtu.be/4al6L9G38V0
Comments: With respect to Shahnghai Cooperation Organization iran is just being used as a vasileh with not much to offer as trade between iran and many of the countries listed is minimal. China - USA trade is near $700 billion a year vs with iran which is about 1% of it. The only benefit for China is that they are enjoying buying Iranian oil at 40% discount. Saudis sells their oil to China at full price. Buying Iranian oil is still illegal and at 40% discount it does not make it legal. Biden does not mind Xi to enjoy the discount.
Comments: Yeah. I don't think it is a democrat / Republican thing. Maybe in terms of slogans the two parties want to show differentiation and all by saying things just like they do with gun control or immigration. Many think democrats are softer when it comes to immigration or gun control but nothing changed. Americans (democrats and republicans) love their guns and none want their guns taken away. Or on immigration Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any other President. Or for example The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986—(The so called green card through Amnesty) signed into law by President Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to about 3 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The two parties are part of the broader capitalist system and largely decide everything as shahin said based on risk / reward analysis. They have more in common than differences. Let's always remember that. Or war for that matter. GWB started a war in Middle East and Biden started the one Ukraine. I don't think party affiliation is religiously followed in this country as much as it is in a parliamentary countries like Europe or Israel. One interesting thing about Cuba is that unlike iran or North Korea it's only sanctioned by USA but other superpowers do not take any steps to come to Cuba's rescue. Why? Same reason, risk versus reward. What we have learned recently is that neoconservatism has nothing to do with the party line anymore. Sure it started and put in execution by GWB but we see it supported and continuing by the likes of Hillary or Biden.
Comments: Iran’s trajectory went the wrong way in 1979. Iranian people are namak nashnas farts by default. It will not change in foreseeable future. Best scenario is it will be like today for 20 more years. Chances are greater it will get worse and famine will turn it into North Korea 2.
Comments: Done zilch Typo
Comments: Biden has been President for 2 years and has font zilch in domestic amd intl scene.
Comments: Aren’t Dems and Reps the two end of the same stick. Specially more so in foreign policy. I change that. Not more so, exactly the same. They both get their foreign policy guideline book from the same source. MIC/Corporations and Israel. |
| < Previous 15 | Next 15 > |
Back to Iranian Football Page