From the LA Times:
"Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told the nation's president Thursday that some of the six world powers were not to be trusted to implement the nuclear deal they reached this week with Iran..
He did not say which of those nations - the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China -- he was referring to. He has often expressed distrust of the U.S. and its motives."
He has often expressed distrust? Good grief. He's called for
death to America, as recently as a few months ago.What a bunch of
dishonest skunks. Of course if it were the Tea Party or Republicans
that the LA Times was talking about, why then they wouldn't choose
such kind and totally illogical words.
the finger at any nation. Those agitators at the LA Times should not
Since 2005, Khamenei has used his moral authority to oppose Iran's
nuclear weapons program, saying it was against Islam.
In 1980, our friend Saddam attacked Iran, hoping to become the supreme
power in the gulf. Iran bombed a nuclear facility to stop Saddam from
developing a nuclear bomb. France immediately repaired the facility.
Then Israel bombed it.
The UN Security Council called for a ceasefire, but in fact the UK was
the only member that didn't supply arms. The US, Russia, and France
armed Saddam. China, North Korea,Libya, Syria, and Japan, with the
assistance of Oliver North, armed Iran with less significant weapons.
In March of 1986, the Security Council issued a statement that members
were profoundly concerned that Iraq was using chemical weapons, in
violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925. The US was the only member to
vote against it. The US and its allies supplied Saddam with the
chemicals to make the weapons. Besides making gas his main weapon
against Iranian troops, Saddam would gas Iranian civilians as
experiments. He gassed Kurds, and Reagan continued to supply his poison
The one-sided gas war eventually forced the Iranians to accept the terms
of the dictator who had attacked them. The experience must have left
many in Iran with the conviction that a nuclear arsenal was necessary
and justified, but Khamenie was still opposed.
If he said not all those involved in the deal were to be trusted, I
don't hold it against him.
On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 2:01:23 AM UTC-4, J Burns wrote:
The point isn't that the Khamenei said that he doesn't trust some
of the countries involved in the deal. The point is that the libs
at the LA Times characterized Khamenei as having "often expressed
distrust of the US and it's motives. How nice. I mean, what's wrong with
these libs? He's called for "death to America", even while the
nuclear negotiations were going on. Do you hold that against him?
THAT is his real position, the libs are just sugar coating it,
instead of telling the truth.
excited, asking where I was because they were going to kill me. Their
rhetoric and their intentions were two different things.
Khamenie is cut from different cloth than Reagan. Khamenie never helped
malicious people make poison gas.
In the days of the Shah, an Iranian at college repelled me because he
looked bitter and withdrawn. More than once, I heard him mutter,
One day I asked what he meant. He said, "People trying to be somebody
I thought, "These Iranians are okay!" He summed up my own alienation as
a Vietnam veteran. America was all about advertising and education,
instilling the ambition to pretend to be somebody else.
Alienation doesn't necessarily entail malice.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.