If we were speaking about Persians that would be relevant. But you still can’t come up with a neighboring Arab country that would allow 1.6 million Jews to live within its borders.

VTKillarney wrote:

If we were speaking about Persians that would be relevant. But you still can’t come up with a neighboring Arab country that would allow 1.6 million Jews to live within its borders.

But you are not comparing apples to apples here. The state of Israel was founded against the will of the local population, its founding created long-lasting chaos. That is why there are 1.6 million Jews in Israel, they are not there because the state of Israel invited them to settle there. If anything, Israel is one of the worst countries when it comes to granting asylum. How many Palestinians fled their homes because of Israeli policies? Why are there millions of them in places like Jordan? Is it because Tel Aviv wants a compromise with locals or because they want to get to their goal no matter what?

Let's not forget about this gem: https://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseknuts ... 92b7e267b8

Furthermore, prior to 1948 and the founding of Israel, Arab countries in the region warned about the consequences of establishing Israel. The West, backed by Jewish communities throughout the world, still went ahead despite knowing what it would entail.

May I remind you to keep this thread on topic, otherwise it will be locked? Topic is Iran sanctions and the new EU statment.

President Trump has won a victory. Germany’s central bank has just terminated a $400 million cash delivery to Iran.

VTKillarney wrote:

President Trump has won a victory. Germany’s central bank has just terminated a $400 million cash delivery to Iran.

I petitioned with ambassador Grenell to stop this transfer as soon as I heard of it. Glad he managed. Richard Grenell is turning out to be the best ambassador to anywhere this country has had in quite a while. A welcome change to the pay-for-play appointments of the Obama era (sadly Trump has a portion as well, but mainly unimportant ones).

VTKillarney wrote:

President Trump has won a victory. Germany’s central bank has just terminated a $400 million cash delivery to Iran.

Do you have a reliable source for this claim ?

Mortyman wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

President Trump has won a victory. Germany’s central bank has just terminated a $400 million cash delivery to Iran.

Do you have a reliable source for this claim ?

latest news i can find is this: https://de.reuters.com/article/deutschl ... EKBN1KT0K8

Reuters wrote:

No action against Iranian cash transfer

Pretty pointless since it is not a loan or gift, it is an Iran Bank´s money. So Iran can spend that money anyways.....

News the day before: https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/de ... 87052.html

was that the German government doesn´t see any reason to stop the transfer.

best regards
Thomas

As an European I find pathetic Germany and France trying to make business against the will of the free world and forward-thinking Middle Eastern countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia with an evil theocracy like Iran. Just for sake of selling some Peugeots or Siemens stuff to the regime of Iran.

No matter who is on charge of the US, at least we still have and we will always have the United States ruling above us.

SCQ83 wrote:

As an European I find pathetic Germany and France trying to make business against the will of the free world and forward-thinking Middle Eastern countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia with an evil theocracy like Iran. Just for sake of selling some Peugeots or Siemens stuff to the regime of Iran.

No matter who is on charge of the US, at least we still have and we will always have the United States ruling above us.

Did you just put the words 'forward thinking' and 'Saudi Arabia' in the same sentence. Pardon me whilst I pick myself up from the floor.

B777LRF wrote:

Did you just put the words 'forward thinking' and 'Saudi Arabia' in the same sentence. Pardon me whilst I pick myself up from the floor.

MBS is a progressive leader trying to improve the lives of Saudi people and moving the country in the right direction. Of course in both the cases of Israel and Saudi Arabia (like in many other countries) there are conservative forces (call it haredim or wahhabists) reluctant to change. But overall most people in both countries just want to progress and live in a peaceful environment. On the other hand, it seems Iran can only think about destruction (whether it is destroying Israel directly or Saudi from Yemen).

SCQ83 wrote:

As an European I find pathetic Germany and France trying to make business against the will of the free world and forward-thinking Middle Eastern countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia with an evil theocracy like Iran. Just for sake of selling some Peugeots or Siemens stuff to the regime of Iran.

No matter who is on charge of the US, at least we still have and we will always have the United States ruling above us.

Yes well, the US needs to be put on a leash. A very short one...

Mortyman wrote:

Yes well, the US needs to be put on a leash. A very short one...

I don't understand your message.

Hieratically speaking, Europe is a colony of the United States. How would you call a place where another country has hundreds of thousands of soldiers and army bases (like it is the case of the United States all over Europe today)?

As I say, fortunately we are a colony of the US. Better be ruled from DC than from Brussels or Berlin.

SCQ83 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Yes well, the US needs to be put on a leash. A very short one...

I don't understand your message.

Hieratically speaking, Europe is a colony of the United States. How would you call a place where another country has hundreds of thousands of soldiers and army bases (like it is the case of the United States all over Europe today)?

As I say, fortunately we are a colony of the US. Better be ruled from DC than from Brussels or Berlin.

Then move to the US and study the spectacle up close ...

Mortyman wrote:

Then move to the US and study the spectacle up close ...

I have already lived in America; no need to live there. Fortunately Europe is and will always be dominated by America. So it works fine for me. Recent history has shown us that when an European country tries to dominate other European countries... things end up very badly. And many of the things happening today (from Brexit to Salvini in Italy) are a consequence of Germany trying to impose their views in Europe. So that is why we always need to be ultimately ruled from DC.

SCQ83 wrote:

As an European I find pathetic Germany and France trying to make business against the will of the free world and forward-thinking Middle Eastern countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia with an evil theocracy like Iran. Just for sake of selling some Peugeots or Siemens stuff to the regime of Iran.

No matter who is on charge of the US, at least we still have and we will always have the United States ruling above us.

SCQ83 wrote:

I have already lived in America; no need to live there. Fortunately Europe is and will always be dominated by America. So it works fine for me. Recent history has shown us that when an European country tries to dominate other European countries... things end up very badly. And many of the things happening today (from Brexit to Salvini in Italy) are a consequence of Germany trying to impose their views in Europe. So that is why we always need to be ultimately ruled from DC.

SCQ83 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Then move to the US and study the spectacle up close ...

I have already lived in America; no need to live there. Fortunately Europe is and will always be dominated by America. So it works fine for me. Recent history has shown us that when an European country tries to dominate other European countries... things end up very badly. And many of the things happening today (from Brexit to Salvini in Italy) are a consequence of Germany trying to impose their views in Europe. So that is why we always need to be ultimately ruled from DC.

So you think that it's better that Washington impose it's views, financial, political and millitary agenda on Europe ?

SCQ83 wrote:

As an European I find pathetic Germany and France trying to make business against the will of the free world .

The Free world supports the Iran Deal. The EU should exclude any Bank from using SWIFT that refuses to carry out Iran transfers as long as those transfers are legal in Europe.

SCQ83 wrote:

How would you call a place where another country has hundreds of thousands of soldiers and army bases (like it is the case of the United States all over Europe today)? .

"hospitable". The only time i can recall the US trying to do anything with its soldiers in Europe that wasn´t ok´ed by the host government let to US soldiers being surrounded by armed troops, making very clear that they better change their mind and leave in peace (or bodybags). Thank you for that Italy.

best regards
Thomas

Mortyman wrote:

So you think that it's better that Washington impose it's views, financial, political and millitary agenda on Europe ?

The simple fact that the Euro these days basically doesn´t even twitch as reaction to US policy changes, it would appear that have gotten fairly irrelevant when global things are concerned.

best regards
Thomase

Mortyman wrote:

So you think that it's better that Washington impose it's views, financial, political and millitary agenda on Europe ?

Of course, the US is still the only guarantor of freedom in the world.

As this Iran thing has shown, European politicians are only moved by economic interests of DAX 30 or CAC 40 companies.

SCQ83 wrote:

Of course, the US is still the only guarantor of freedom in the world.

do you need a list of all the dictators US governments have installed and supported or can you look that up yourself? Heck, even Trump disagrees with you.

As this Iran thing has shown, European politicians are only moved by economic interests of DAX 30 or CAC 40 companies.

Nah, it shows that the Europeans don´t want Iran to have nuklear weapons and the US only want a reason to fight a war of aggression.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Nah, it shows that the Europeans don´t want Iran to have nuklear weapons and the US only want a reason to fight a war of aggression.

Check your facts right.

Iran wants to destroy Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United States and ultimately the Western civilisation. Naturally, the US wants to keep peace in the region and is trying to kick the evil Ayatollahs out of the Iranian rule. So those companies like Peugeot or Airbus doing business with the ayatollahs are financing their own destruction. Crazy isn't it?

SCQ83 wrote:

Naturally, the US wants to keep peace in the region

They have a very funny way of showing it.

scbriml wrote:

SCQ83 wrote:

As an European I find pathetic Germany and France trying to make business against the will of the free world and forward-thinking Middle Eastern countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia with an evil theocracy like Iran. Just for sake of selling some Peugeots or Siemens stuff to the regime of Iran.

No matter who is on charge of the US, at least we still have and we will always have the United States ruling above us.

SCQ83 wrote:

I have already lived in America; no need to live there. Fortunately Europe is and will always be dominated by America. So it works fine for me. Recent history has shown us that when an European country tries to dominate other European countries... things end up very badly. And many of the things happening today (from Brexit to Salvini in Italy) are a consequence of Germany trying to impose their views in Europe. So that is why we always need to be ultimately ruled from DC.

I genuinely thought he was pulling our legs (and being rather clever about it) at first...

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

I genuinely thought he was pulling our legs (and being rather clever about it) at first...

I am objective, analytical and unbiased.

Since you seem to be based in TLS and are in this aviation forum, I wouldn't be surprised you are linked to some major aviation company that cannot do further business with Iran because of President Trump. While your frustration is understandable, it is for our own good.

SCQ83 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Nah, it shows that the Europeans don´t want Iran to have nuklear weapons and the US only want a reason to fight a war of aggression.

Check your facts right.

Seems I am the only one in this conversation that knows any facts...

Iran wants to destroy Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United States and ultimately the Western civilisation

Funny how they are fighting ISIS then.... you know, the guys that have proven they want to destroy us and get money from Saudi Arabia....

Got any proof for those accusations? Probably not, or the UN security council would be talking about it.
And why exactly did Iran give up enough weapons grade uranium to build a dozen nukes or so? Building a nuke ain't hard after all, getting the Uranium/Plutonium after all is.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Funny how they are fighting ISIS then.... you know, the guys that have proven they want to destroy us and get money from Saudi Arabia....

ISIS getting money from KSA? ISIS is subsidised by Qatar. That is why progressive countries like KSA, UAE and Bahrain have cut links with Qatar. You got your facts completely wrong.

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-new ... -1.5484124

Fact Check: Is Qatar Supporting Terrorism? A Look at Its Ties to Iran, ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood

U.S. President Donald Trump echoed the accusations against Qatar in various tweets and statements since the diplmoatic crisis erupted between the Gulf monarchies. During a press conference with the Romanian president at the White House, Trump said Qatar is funding terror "on very high level." A statement he had made after tweeting, "During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!"

SCQ83 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Funny how they are fighting ISIS then.... you know, the guys that have proven they want to destroy us and get money from Saudi Arabia....

ISIS getting money from KSA? ISIS is subsidised by Qatar. That is why progressive countries like KSA, UAE and Bahrain have cut links with Qatar. You got your facts completely wrong.

And because Qatar may or may not give money to ISIS does logically mean Saudi Arabia doesn't how exactly?
We know from leaked US state department cables that Saudi Arabia and Qatar finance ISIS, and that Saudi Arabia supports Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hamas, al-Qaeda, Al Nusra and the Taliban.

And Trump isn't a reliable source given his record of making up shit as he goes.

So, it would appear you got no facts on Iran then...

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

SCQ83 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Nah, it shows that the Europeans don´t want Iran to have nuklear weapons and the US only want a reason to fight a war of aggression.

Check your facts right.

Seems I am the only one in this conversation that knows any facts...

Facts don't live on this thread, and pointing that out gets posts deleted...

A lot of biased replies in this thread... and I read an anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-Arab feeling. Sad.

SCQ83 wrote:

As an European I find pathetic Germany and France trying to make business against the will of the free world and forward-thinking Middle Eastern countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia with an evil theocracy like Iran. Just for sake of selling some Peugeots or Siemens stuff to the regime of Iran.

No matter who is on charge of the US, at least we still have and we will always have the United States ruling above us.

SCQ83 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Then move to the US and study the spectacle up close ...

I have already lived in America; no need to live there. Fortunately Europe is and will always be dominated by America. So it works fine for me. Recent history has shown us that when an European country tries to dominate other European countries... things end up very badly. And many of the things happening today (from Brexit to Salvini in Italy) are a consequence of Germany trying to impose their views in Europe. So that is why we always need to be ultimately ruled from DC.

SCQ83 wrote:

A lot of biased replies in this thread... and I read an anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-Arab feeling. Sad.

You forgot anti European ...

Qatar may or may have in the past financed radicals, however the ideology comes from Saudi Arabia (and plenty of funding too). But since you called Saudi Arabia a progressive country, there is no doubt you're talking out of your ass.

williaminsd wrote:

WIederling wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Worked beautifully with the Germans.

More thanks going to the Brits there than the US IMHO.
And Germany had a proto democracy going before Hitler,
the required for democracy strong middle class ...

... and a long standing solution to religious faction strife.

Really a stupid statement. Following WW2, Britain, like most of Europe, was a disaster with with few, actionable, financial assets and little industrial capability. Only one nation on Earth was in a position to restart Westen Civilization at this time. That nation was The United States of America. To claim otherwise shows a stunning ignorance of history.

No it wasn't. In 1945 the UK was bankrupted by war true, had been since around 1941. But despite some bomb damage in major cities, leading to a housing shortage too, most industry was running, the UK had run an efficient war economy since 1940. The downsides were obvious, all of industry geared to military production which would take time to switch, on the plus side up there with the US in aerospace and other higher tech areas, the science base intact. Tech transfer in WW2 was a two way street.

So when the US broke wartime agreements on atomic technology, smugly thinking that'll stop the Brits from building them, despite the tough times post war, the Attlee Government basically said 'screw them, we'll build it ourselves'. A busted nation like those European ones, which unlike the UK, had suffered land wars being fought across them, been occupied, and were as you described, certainly could not have done that.

However, while Imperial commitments were shed, (Attlee had believed in Indian independence for 20 years when he became PM), others took their place, the big German garrison, other areas of Europe, in SE Asia as well, not including the Empire (becoming Commonwealth) nations. With the Cold War now starting to figure in policy making around them.
Hence the unprecedented in peacetime adoption of conscription, from 1947 to the end of the 50's.

But just when the economy was coming right, the Korean War breaks out and the UK is in a political spot. Since the year before, after several years of diplomatic effort, the UK, leading the other European nations, finally persuaded the US to go against a core policy since it's independence, when the US signed up for NATO. Being the largest and most powerful nation in it no doubt helped but NATO was Ernie Bevin's baby.
Now with the Communist aggression in Korea, the UK, with others, was expected to contribute. The US wanted the UK to increase it's already heavy defence spending by a factor of four, three at minimum, both would wreck the recently hard fought economic recovery.
In the end, it was doubled, which split the government, later fatally undermining it, the economic effects were still bad.
And the UK became the second largest foreign contributor after the US itself in the Korean War.

The above probably rather dull bit of history illustrates a wider point, the American people are truly lucky in historical terms, to live in such a huge, diverse and so self sustaining nation. With 3000 mile moats either side, away from potential enemies. Only ever becoming threatened when ICBM's appeared in the late 50's, even then a weapon of choice only if the user wants to commit suicide by using them on the US.

But most nations are not like that, even vast Russia, no matter what we think of their government, had a land border that caused invasion after invasion, the final and worst being in 1941.
I really believe there is a disconnect in the US body politic here, since all nations are defined by their previous experiences.
So maybe unsurprising that successive US governments really thought, this one still thinks all the more, that smaller nations can be bullied into economic submission.
Forget what we think of the Cuban regime, over nearly 6 decades did US sanction achieve their aim? No.
Forget what we think of the Iranian regime, has nearly 40 years of US sanctions brought them to heel? Clearly not.

Both of those nations, for all their oppressive acts, are not even the worst for that in their respective regions but it's OK, the others are 'friendly'. That alone seriously undermines any moral stance the US tries to put on these sanctions. They also embed the hardliners in those nations.
If a liberal democracy like the UK can sustain often hard rationing, as well as bombing and other privations, for years, you can bet more hard line, illiberal regimes can too, but for decades.
Worse still, being subject to these is a binding force in nations, which acts against any serious attempts to overthrow the regimes, people are too busy trying to get by and most will blame the external enemy.
Being fortunate enough by size and geography, the US has never experienced this, and some limited WW2 petrol rationing does not count! So I just think many in positions of power there just don't get it, so keep on repeating clearly failed policies.

Not just that, did the US ever really figure, while it was happening, that the Vietnamese were fighting a post independence civil war?

Certainly did not bone up on Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion did they? (Tony Blair often defined himself as not like some of his Labour PM predecessors like Harold Wilson, he would have done better had he at least emulated Wilson in one respect, Wilson's refusal despite LBJ's bullying demands, to send UK troops to Vietnam).

You said it yourself, 'no actionable financial assets'. But there is more to the affairs of nations than the $.

VTKillarney wrote:

President Trump has won a victory. Germany’s central bank has just terminated a $400 million cash delivery to Iran.

You know else who has won a victory? Hardliners in Iran.

GDB wrote:

So maybe unsurprising that successive US governments really thought, this one still thinks all the more, that smaller nations can be bullied into economic submission.
Forget what we think of the Cuban regime, over nearly 6 decades did US sanction achieve their aim? No.
Forget what we think of the Iranian regime, has nearly 40 years of US sanctions brought them to heel? Clearly not.
.

It boggles the mind watching the actions of the current administration when it comes to Iran. They want China to stop buying oil from the Iranians. In what fantasy world do they live where they think the Chinese are going to go along with that? Especially after billions of dollars worth of tariffs were levied against Chinese made products entering the US. Even without tariffs no Chinese president is going to want to look like he takes orders from the Americans.

LMP737 wrote:

GDB wrote:

So maybe unsurprising that successive US governments really thought, this one still thinks all the more, that smaller nations can be bullied into economic submission.
Forget what we think of the Cuban regime, over nearly 6 decades did US sanction achieve their aim? No.
Forget what we think of the Iranian regime, has nearly 40 years of US sanctions brought them to heel? Clearly not.
.

It boggles the mind watching the actions of the current administration when it comes to Iran. They want China to stop buying oil from the Iranians. In what fantasy world do they live

They live in a world where low Oil prices hurt Russia a lot, and where taking all or some Iranian oil of the market increases the price for crude oil.
What the administration does makes total sense if you keep Russian interest in mind.

Best regards
Thomas

Mortyman wrote:

SCQ83 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Then move to the US and study the spectacle up close ...

I have already lived in America; no need to live there. Fortunately Europe is and will always be dominated by America. So it works fine for me. Recent history has shown us that when an European country tries to dominate other European countries... things end up very badly. And many of the things happening today (from Brexit to Salvini in Italy) are a consequence of Germany trying to impose their views in Europe. So that is why we always need to be ultimately ruled from DC.

So you think that it's better that Washington impose it's views, financial, political and millitary agenda on Europe ?

Historically speaking the US has a better track record leading europe than other european countries do.

I'd give that a solid yes.

Varsity1 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

SCQ83 wrote:

I have already lived in America; no need to live there. Fortunately Europe is and will always be dominated by America. So it works fine for me. Recent history has shown us that when an European country tries to dominate other European countries... things end up very badly. And many of the things happening today (from Brexit to Salvini in Italy) are a consequence of Germany trying to impose their views in Europe. So that is why we always need to be ultimately ruled from DC.

So you think that it's better that Washington impose it's views, financial, political and millitary agenda on Europe ?

Historically speaking the US has a better track record leading europe than other european countries do.

I'd give that a solid yes.

Of course because unlike the US, Europe overall is not homogenous. We do not know what would have happened if the US didn't ethnically cleanse its lands of Native American tribes.