Henry Kissinger: Iran 'A Bigger Problem Than ISIS'

[Rodmantheman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/06/henry-kissinger-iran-isis_n_5777706.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

http://i.gyazo.com/1aaec7db67421cd2e4136108ab18c6ef.png


:facepalm

[Rodmantheman]

:biggums:

[Godzuki]

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.

[Rodmantheman]

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.

:biggums:

[SpecialQue]

Lots of women finger themselves when they hear Kissinger speak. It's fvcking weird.

[Godzuki]

Kill yourself.


REALLY hope u get blown up in a carpet bomb after your sorry, mentally weak ass joins ISIS :cheers:

[Rodmantheman]

Wtf are you talking about?
ISIS isn't a threat to anyone in the west unless you just let it fester for years. Iran is a big country with lots of resources. Obviously they're much more dangerous if they want to be.

Iran's military is built for defense not to occupy other countries, they have every right to defend themselves.

[Godzuki]

ISIS? Bro Im joining the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and invading USA so I can steal all your oil. Oh wait.....


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

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 :lol

[Dresta]

That scumbag still alive? geez...

[The_Yearning]

The legend has spoken :bowdown:

[Godzuki]

This.


Oh and not surprised Godzuki would side with a lunatic war criminal.


i swear ISH has terrorist elements, or just really weak minded mf'ers who are very prone to joining those causes. hope Jeff lets Homeland Security investigate some of u retards :cheers:

[Cactus-Sack]

Fvck the droopy mouthed sack of shit war criminal.

[Inactive]

I can't imagine Iran being a direct physical threat to anyone in the U.S. But I think it's safe to assume ISIS aspires to be.

Iran is mostly a threat to stability, and U.S control of the region. If they set off an arms race with the Sunni countries, it's a problem for U.S energy interests, and Israel.

If your primary concern is U.S domestic security, i.e avoiding a terrorist attack, then ISIS is a bigger threat.

If your primary concern is U.S political and economic interests in the Middle East, then Iran is a bigger threat.

[32jazz]

Iran's military is built for defense not to occupy other countries, they have every right to defend themselves.

And I don't remember the last time Iran has invaded another country(unlike The United States),but after Iran has offered to help with ISIS the Israel firsters must remind us how evil /dangerous Iran is:rolleyes:

Shocked Kissinger didn't whip out the Looney tunes carrtoonish bomb like Netanyahu did at the UN.

[Godzuki]

And I don't remember the last time Iran has invaded another country(unlike The United States),but after Iran has offered to help with ISIS the Israel firsters must remind us how evil /dangerous Iran is:rolleyes:

Shocked Kissinger didn't whip out the Looney tunes carrtoonish bomb like Netanyahu did at the UN.


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 :cheers:

[Hittin_Shots]

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 :cheers:

Lol go invade all the countries ya dirty foreigner.

[Godzuki]

^ like i said this place has some of the dumbest foreigners, or far left retards, on the planet.

its pitiful how fukking dumb a lot of u are with so little realistic awareness :facepalm

hate me for being straight up. but i swear this place has some weak minded beta mf'ers :cheers:

[KingBeasley08]

Iran has invaded shit in like 1000 years or some shit. They're no threat at all

[RidonKs]

people are aware that iran and isis are in direct competition with one another; the former seeking leadership of the persian gulf and the latter seeking to control the same territory through its relationship with saudi arabia and the arab emirates. iran has its own proxy militants of course who are much more moderate than isis though they do still champion the american list of terrorists.

saudi arabia is the united states' strongest ally in the region. qatar and the emirates also have very strong ties to us companies.

sanctions against saudi arabia are the most blatantly obvious tactic if stemming the rising tide of isis is truly the objective we all agree to. why aren't sanctions against countries and industries funding the islamic state of iraq and syria being discussed?

an even better question: why were sanctions the go to move in the current conflict on the ukrainian/russian border? why not military strikes?

if you really believe the difference between these two courses of action simply boils down to "how bad each group is" so you attack one militarily and attack the other economically... i don't know what to say.

[NumberSix]

Iran obviously supports terrorism on quite a large scale, but you have to actually be insane to believe Iran is more of a danger than ISIS.

Iran has no interest in empire. Unlike Iran, ISIS is actively trying to conquer land.

[B-hoop]

Dumb****s saying ISIS is no threat google what them declaring themselves a new caliphate means.

[KevinNYC]

Iran obviously supports terrorism on quite a large scale, but you have to actually be insane to believe Iran is more of a danger than ISIS.

Iran has no interest in empire. Unlike Iran, ISIS is actively trying to conquer land.

I think the reason that Kissinger is speaking up, is that we are about to partner with Iran and others to fight ISIS and he wants to fight against that or make the political price of that partnership very high. Obama's giving a speech Wednesday about a regional approach to ISIS. Fighting against ISIS is going to be Iranian forces, Iraqi forces, Kurds, Probably Turkey, perhaps Syrian Rebels, perhaps Syrian government forces. The US is not going to be the ground troops but will be using Air Power.


Iran's Supreme Leader (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29079052) has approved co-operation with the US as part of the fight against Islamic State (IS) in Iraq, sources have told BBC Persian.

The village of Amerli, Iraq turned back ISIS last week. It's believed to have been the first town to do so. And it did so with the following coalition. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-amerli-an-unusual-alliance-defeated-islamic-radicals-dont-count-on-that-lasting/2014/09/05/e51d175c-3523-11e4-a723-fa3895a25d02_story.html)

For weeks, Iraqi Kurdish fighters had joined an unusual alliance to free this dusty highway town besieged by Islamic State fighters. Shiite militias, Iranian trainers and U.S. military pilots had all contributed, finally wresting the city from the Sunni extremists and saving the 15,000 residents from starvation or brutal slayings.

Iran was so involved that Suleimani who is considered the most powerful man in the Mideast supposedly showed up for the battle. (http://observers.france24.com/content/20140904-amerli-iraq-soleimani-video-iran-isis)

http://observers.france24.com/files/imagecache/observers_520_220/article_images/A-Qassem-Suleimani.jpg
This photo is believed to show Iranian military mastermind Qassem Soleimani (right) in Amerli, Iraq

[KevinNYC]

Iran obviously supports terrorism on quite a large scale, but you have to actually be insane to believe Iran is more of a danger than ISIS.

Iran has no interest in empire. Unlike Iran, ISIS is actively trying to conquer land.

I think this is more about tactics/behavior though. Iran is much, much, much more powerful than ISIS and thus is much more a real threat. Even if their behavior (protecting what they have, taking a much longer term view) means they are less likely to be an active threat like ISIS. However, ISIS is still just a guerrilla force and in a full out battle with an strong regional army (like say Iran's) they would be defeated. They have had success in areas where there is a vacuum of power.

ISIS is right now willing to take risks that Iran would not. One of the prices of those risks is that enemies are willing to temporarily align against them

[Inactive]

people are aware that iran and isis are in direct competition with one another; the former seeking leadership of the persian gulf and the latter seeking to control the same territory through its relationship with saudi arabia and the arab emirates. iran has its own proxy militants of course who are much more moderate than isis though they do still champion the american list of terrorists.

saudi arabia is the united states' strongest ally in the region. qatar and the emirates also have very strong ties to us companies.

sanctions against saudi arabia are the most blatantly obvious tactic if stemming the rising tide of isis is truly the objective we all agree to. why aren't sanctions against countries and industries funding the islamic state of iraq and syria being discussed?Wouldn't sanctions against Saudi Arabia be counter-productive? It would raise the cost of oil, the energy sector would fund whatever candidates oppose the sanctions, our European allies would be irritated with us, and it would hurt our relations with the Saudis themselves. Meanwhile ISIS has enough crazy zealots, and commandeered arms to continue doing what they're doing.

Pressuring them behind the scenes to crack down on the individuals who privately fund that stuff would make more sense, and I'm sure we're doing that.


an even better question: why were sanctions the go to move in the current conflict on the ukrainian/russian border? why not military strikesBecause we're afraid that would just escalate Russian military involvement, paving the way for a direct military conflict between Russia and the U.S+EU. We aren't willing to risk a direct military confrontation with Russia over a non-NATO country.

[IamRAMBO24]

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.

You're such an idiot.

[RidonKs]

Pressuring them behind the scenes to crack down on the individuals who privately fund that stuff would make more sense, and I'm sure we're doing that.
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 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29004253)

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.

[eliteballer]

He's wong. ISIS could destabilize the whole region and ignite a Sunni-Shia war from Lebanon through Iraq and Syria to Yemen and Iran.

You think it's bad now just wait if they get down to the gulf states like Saudi.

Iran is a state that just wants to maintain the status quo and isn't a bunch of crazed adventurers from around the world.

[RidonKs]

You think it's bad now just wait if they get down to the gulf states like Saudi.
dude :facepalm

[Godzuki]

You're such an idiot.


like i've always stated, you're the dumbest, pollitically correct, sheep think other than your schizo conspiracy theories mf'er on this forum. lets just say you're the dumbest and most sensitive person here IMO :cheers:

[Godzuki]

Find me a quote where I support terror like you clearly do:
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=353085#4
Could you imagine a poster said this against the US or it's allies? Godzuki is clearly mental and should be investigated without question. Terrorism is not ok.



still waiting Godzuki..
]
lmao so i support terror because i want Putin to get hit directly hard by ISIS instead of Chechnya rebels, and get real on them...ok :lol

i still stand by a lot of u are some really dumb mf'ers tho. ISIS will be wiped out in 2~ years, book it :cheers:

[millwad]

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

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 :lol

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 :cheers:

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.
:banghead:

[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 :facepalm

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 :facepalm

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 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29004253)

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.