Althouse: "I don’t give a fuck. I mean, everybody had to choose for themselves, according to their own conscience, who they felt was the lesser of two evils."

May 1, 2018

"I don’t give a fuck. I mean, everybody had to choose for themselves, according to their own conscience, who they felt was the lesser of two evils."

"This is America, it’s a free country, and you know, when you weigh it all together, you know, I just felt like we needed a whole new thing. All the way. Bottom to top."

Said Roseanne last night when Jimmy Fallon asked her about supporting Trump. Video:

ADDED: Since we're talking about female comics on TV yesterday, here was Kathy Griffin on "The View" (saying, among other things, that she's sorry she said she was sorry for posing with a fake severed Trump head):

304 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 304 of 304

Birkel said...: Smug,

So the nuclear weapons program does not violate the terms of the agreement?

If you day so. But then you further have to say Obama's deal is good and allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons technology.

Smug and impressed with yourself, is it as fun as you make it look?; 5/1/18, 7:53 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: saying, among other things, that she's a lying cocksucker.

FIFY - assuming she would ever do anything so unselfish.; 5/1/18, 7:57 PM
buwaya said...: PR fortifications were "caught up" during WWII, but that does not reflect the situation before then, pre-world war, according to perceived strategic needs.

Pre-WWII, back in the post-1898 strategic situation, the Phils was given the "Gibraltar of the Pacific" - in truth the Manila defenses were far greater than Gibraltars.

Manila Bay Defenses

These were the most powerful coast defense works in the world when built- by the time construction stopped in 1914. The further development of these between the wars was also restricted by the Washington Naval treaty.; 5/1/18, 7:57 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: The idea of her touring with Julio Iglesias is the oddest idea I've ever heard of.

"To all the old ladies I've never loved, before..."

It probably worked for him to get a fanbase of frumpy chicks to see a fellow frumpster they could identify with to open the show telling jokes, before their fantasy dreamboat started singing.; 5/1/18, 8:04 PM
Roughcoat said...: langford peel is right.

For example, concerning the Iranian threat to the Strait of Hormuz: it is scarcely a threat at all. The Iranian could close the strait if they made a determined effort to do so. But the closure would be only temporary. And by temporary, I mean a few hours or days at most. The fact is, a strategy of point defense, which the Iranians would be forced to undertake in the event of their seizing the Strait, is simply not viable in this day and age. It was not viable in World War II either. In the whole course of that war there is only one instance in which a force conducting a point defense against a major seaborne assault was able to repel the enemy at the water’s edge or in the water approaches to the landing zone.

Extra point go to anyone who can identify that operation.

As well, only a very few seaborne assaults were actually turned out of their lodgments after successfully landing and establishing a beachhead on a hostile shore. Examples include the Japanese landing at Milne Bay; the Allied assault on Dakar; Britain’s Dodecanese Campaign; and, most notably, the Soviet attempt to recapture the Kerch Peninsula. Dieppe doesn’t count because it was never meant to be permanent.

An Iranian move against the Strait would disrupt traffic for only a very brief spell. The way to interdict the flow of oil to an enemy is to intercept and sink oil tankers on the high seas, via air power and submarine attack. The Chinese recognize this and are terrified at the vulnerability of the Indian Ocean sea lanes and the LOC through the Straits of Malacca. That is why they are taking over Burma and working hand-in-glove with the Myanmar government to build oil reception and installation facilities on Myanmar’s west coast, in the Arakan.

The Chinese are also building a pipe line from Arakan ports north to the Chinese border. But in doing so they are ethnically cleansing the region of the non-Bamar (Burmese) peoples such as the Shan, Kachin, Karen, and Naga peoples who have dwelt in the area concerned since time immemorial. These peoples hate the Bamar who run the country and now they growing to hate the Chinese as well. The pipeline will be vulnerable to their attacks and I believe it is only a matter of time before a nasty guerilla conflict breaks out between government forces guarding the pipeline and the ethnic minorities displaced by its construction. The Chinese will be forced by strategic concerns to maintain the flow of oil to intervene militarily, and when that happens there will be hell for the Chinese to pay and endure.

The Japanese in World War II faced a similar situation in World War II. Shan, Kachin, and Karen forces, led by American OSS operatives, waged a successful guerilla war against the Japanese.

Should the Chinese get involved in a big-scale shooting war with the Western powers, the shipment of oil from the ME to Myanmar, or through the Malacca Straits, would very quickly be terminated.; 5/1/18, 8:04 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/1/18, 8:15 PM
buwaya said...: "Did the Navy have much at Subic at that time?"

The harbor defenses were poor, and its facilities had also been kept from expansion by the Washington Naval Treaty. Still, it was more than adequate for the fleet the US maintained there - a destroyer squadron and several cruisers. The floating drydock could handle heavy cruisers at least.; 5/1/18, 8:15 PM
buwaya said...: "An Iranian move against the Strait would disrupt traffic for only a very brief spell."

That is assuming that the USN and the US Marines are around to unblock it.
Who else there could?; 5/1/18, 8:18 PM
n.n said...: There was always Obama's protege: Clinton, who was his right-hand "man" in reopening and creating a world war across three continents from Africa to the Middle East to Eastern Europe. The Libya-ISIS Affair. The abortion fields and trails of tears, followed by a cover-up by the UN, secular for-profit charities, reformed "religious" Churches, and the Press that must still prevent a full investigation. And, of course, Democrat's collusion to gerrymander the vote.; 5/1/18, 8:23 PM
Roughcoat said...: Both Singapore and Corregidor with its satellite forts in Manila Bay were referred to as "Gibraltar of the East" in prewar media coverage. But it was Singapore that actually seemed to deserve the title. In the run-up to war the term "impregnable" was frequently bandied in prewar discussions concerning the defense of Singapore and Malaya, even by British military commanders who should have known better. When "impregnable Singapore" fell to the Japanese after a campaign lasting just over two months, the only ones more surprised than British at this turn of events were the Japanese themselves, who were astonished at the speed of their conquest.

By the same token, few believed that the American and Filipino defenders of Corregidor and its forts would hold out for six months against the Japanese onslaught.; 5/1/18, 8:24 PM
buwaya said...: "The way to interdict the flow of oil to an enemy ... "

That is, to an enemy.
The way to interdict the flow of oil to the world, or a great deal of it, is a different thing.
The Iranian strategic play is global blackmail.
I.e., let us take over the oil (fields), and revenues thereof, or nobody gets any.; 5/1/18, 8:28 PM
Birkel said...: Thank you, Roughcoat.

Very interesting.; 5/1/18, 8:31 PM
Roughcoat said...: "Who else there could?"

A coalition of Sunni states in the region led by Saudi, and assisted by the Western powers. India, China, and Japan might also take part. An old-fashioned amphibious assault by the marines, which you seem to be envisaging, would be merely the application of the coup d'grace in such a conflict. Air bombardment would pretty much destroy the defenders in advance of a seaborne assault. And by air bombardment I mean everything up to an possibly including nuclear weapons.

Bear in mind that Saudi and Iran already fighting an undeclared war in the region.; 5/1/18, 8:31 PM
Michael K said...: I wonder the consequences of the Deep State successfully overthrowing Trump..

There would be a stack market crash as Wall Street would assume the left was triumphant,

Venezuela comes to mind.

Than Israel and Iran. I don't see how war would be avoided once Israel was convinced that the Obama team was back in the saddle.

What would be the result ? I have plenty of ammunition but maybe I should buy some more.; 5/1/18, 8:35 PM
buwaya said...: Singapore was relatively indefensible from the land side, in truth.
Singapore island is rather large, the frontage across the straits is very long.
Only a mobile counterattack force, a well-trained division say, ready to crush a beachhead would have worked.

But the British did not have one organized and the road network would not have helped.

And it could not have been held for very long anyway, against an enemy who could blockade Singapore, as there was a large civilian population to feed.; 5/1/18, 8:37 PM
buwaya said...: "Bear in mind that Saudi and Iran already fighting an undeclared war in the region. "

This is true, and the Saudis aren't doing that well.

The Iranians have a few hundred miles of hill and mountain there from which they can launch anti-ship missiles.; 5/1/18, 8:40 PM
buwaya said...: " few believed that the American and Filipino defenders of Corregidor and its forts would hold out for six months against the Japanese onslaught."

If you are on Corregidor (was there last year), or on the shore at Mariveles, the strait between seems awfully narrow. It is in range of howitzers even of the sort the Japanese used at Port Arthur in 1905.; 5/1/18, 8:43 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Michael K just adjusted his Trump Troll Tinfoil Hat setting to "maximum overdrive."

Disregard the law defend the president at all costs disregard the law defend the president at all costs disregard the law defend the president at all costs the world will end ...

His faulty programming needs a patch.; 5/1/18, 8:45 PM
Roughcoat said...: Buwaya @8:28:

I've stated my case and will say no more. Except this: ME oil, including Iranian oil, is becoming increasingly less important to the first world economy even as continues to grow in importance to the economy of China. Because of the way the Chinese economy is structured their hunger for fossil fuels -- coal as well as oil -- is insatiable and growing. This circumstance constitutes a enormous strategic vulnerability for the Chinese and well do they know it.

The Saudi king has also seen the proverbial handwriting on the wall for ME oil and that is why he laboring feverishly to diversity the Saudi economy and modern Saudi society. One cannot overstate the importance of what's going on in Saudi. Just two weeks ago Saudi announced that Israel had a right to exist and last week the Saudi chastised the Palestinians for their obstinance. That's huge. The geopolitical tectonic plates are shifting, and they are moving in favor of the West. Meanwhile, Iran is circling the drain. The current regime will be gone within five years, probably less.

Things are looking up, overall.; 5/1/18, 8:47 PM
Roughcoat said...: And it could not have been held for very long anyway, against an enemy who could blockade Singapore, as there was a large civilian population to feed.

Which reinforces the point I was making about the general futility point defense -- in the past, at Singapore, or in the future, in the Strait of Hormuz.; 5/1/18, 8:49 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Secret pallets of cash ... was legit. right.; 5/1/18, 8:53 PM
buwaya said...: "I wonder the consequences of the Deep State successfully overthrowing Trump."

Forget Iran, NK, Russia, China, anything else.
This is the biggest danger to the world today.; 5/1/18, 8:54 PM
Roughcoat said...: Concerning the conflict between Saudi and Iran, I can tell you this much, and in doing so I am not telling tales out of school, the basics are widely known: namely, Israel and Saudi are working together as members of a de facto alliance to defeat the common foe and their relationship is multifaceted and substantive. It is true that Saudis are having a hard go of it, but that really does not matter. The Saudis are not out to conquer territory. Iran is as house resting on a rotten foundation and that state of rottenness is the center of gravity in this struggle. The Iran "Bazaar," i.e. the middle class, hates the mullahs and the people in the countryside, traditionally the wellspring of support for the mullahs, are wavering.; 5/1/18, 9:03 PM
JackWayne said...: Pretty gloomy around the altHouse tonight. Does it help that we are $28T in debt? With another $5T in pension debt looming? At some point you get so far down it looks like up. Our Empire will fall one day. Probably about the time we run out of money....; 5/1/18, 9:04 PM
Roughcoat said...: This is the biggest danger to the world today.

No. To paraphrase a popular saying: "The dark night of dissolution is always threatening to descend on America, but if it descends anywhere it will land in China."

America will hold together and grow stronger in the near-term and long-term as well, and for reasons alluded to in my previous posts. But China will not last in its present form. China will blow. And THAT is the biggest danger to the world today.; 5/1/18, 9:05 PM
Roughcoat said...: Pretty gloomy around the altHouse tonight.

I'm not gloomy. I'm very upbeat. Read my posts again.; 5/1/18, 9:06 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Michael K:

Yes, just like France and Germany in 1914. Do you read books ?

Prior to 1914, France and Germany were not enemies. Once they became enemies, the trade stopped. That is the point. An enemy is a country you are in a state of open hostility with. No such hostility exists between the US and China, and part of the important work of diplomacy is for not allowing the natural competitive and adversarial nature of great powers to escalate into open hostilities and become enemies.

@Bad Lieutenant:

I don't have a verbatim quote handy, but often enough you've questioned why we disfavor Iran and favor Saudi Arabia when Saudi Arabia is, apparently, according to you, morally equivalent, unless of course you think Saudi Arabia is worse than Iran.

Well that was not the "moral equivalence" Achilles was referring to. He was claiming I was making a moral equivalence between the US and countries like China and Iran. As for the comparison between Saudi Arabia and Iran, I think it is clearly obvious Saudi Arabia is worse, overall. Take a crude measure like the Freedom House index, and Saudi Arabia ranks below Iran. Saudi Arabia is also carrying out a destructive war in Yemen, trying to isolate a key regional client in the region, has empowered Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, and helped fund and arm radical Sunni jihadists in Syria that became the incubator for ISIS.

Also it ill behooves you to solicit replies when you don't respond to the remarks you do receive. Of course, when you have contradicted yourself in the space of a paragraph, Tace is the Latin for a candlestick.

Surprised to hear the accusation that I don't respond to remarks I receive. I try to make as much effort as possible to respond to anyone who responds to me. As for contradicting myself within a paragraph, point it out when I do it.

BTW, how do you figure?

See Charles Brower's The Iran - United States Claims Tribunal Chapter 18, "The Tribunal's Practice of Awarding Interest"; 5/1/18, 9:08 PM
Birkel said...: If we can grow at 3% and if the debt only grew at 2%, we could be fine.

The trick is restricting spending to 2% which nobody is willing to do.

Sleep well Jack Wayne, you pessimist, you.; 5/1/18, 9:08 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: "Deep State" spent it, Birkel Clavin.

LOL!

Birkel, if you don't want the Deep State spending so much on you, send the money back.; 5/1/18, 9:15 PM
buwaya said...: "Prior to 1914, France and Germany were not enemies.'

They were most concerned about war with each other, strategically. They were explicitly each others prime strategic problem.

The Franco-German tit-for-tat development of their respective armies was the (longer running) complement of the British-German naval race.

Both knew that the next war was going to be between them, and their mobilization plans were designed around that, down to the placement of their railroads.; 5/1/18, 9:20 PM
Roughcoat said...: Farmer @9:08:

Your assessment of the situation in the ME, especially pertaining to Saudi, is out-of-date. A year ago you might have been right, but not really. Things are moving very fast over there. The tectonic plates are shifting. Your assessment of the Yemen conflict is really quite wrong. You need to investigate new and better sources of information.; 5/1/18, 9:21 PM
Achilles said...: buwaya said...
"I wonder the consequences of the Deep State successfully overthrowing Trump."

Forget Iran, NK, Russia, China, anything else.
This is the biggest danger to the world today.

The only reason it hasn't happened is because the Deep State knows what would happen.

The Mueller investigation was about turning the American people against Trump so they could overthrow him.

They failed.

If they did anything now it would be over in a month at most. The federal government would be massively scaled back. It would be much better for the country in the long run to have that parasite removed and destroyed.; 5/1/18, 9:21 PM
Michael K said...: An enemy is a country you are in a state of open hostility with. No such hostility exists between the US and China

You sound incredibly naive. I suspect this is part of some philosophical opposition to war, no matter what the circumstances.

Germany and France were trading partners right up to the day Germany invaded. If you want to know more read, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Sleepwalkers-How-Europe-Went-1914/dp/0061146668". "the Sleepwalkers, "</s\a. But please don't try to bullshit me.

If you keep this up, you go into the Inga file. Not worth a response.; 5/1/18, 9:23 PM
buwaya said...: "No such hostility exists between the US and China"

No hostility existed between Germany and Britain in 1900.
That year however the Germans began to build a fleet designed to challenge the Royal Navy. Hostility ensued.

The Chinese have begun such a fleet, designed to challenge the USN, currently building at 3X the rate of US naval building, albeit with on average less capable vessels.

And of course technology advances - their other weapons are masses of ballistic missiles tasked for anti-ship strikes and large numbers of naval strike aircraft ditto, intended to clear the USN off the coast of East Asia.; 5/1/18, 9:26 PM
Roughcoat said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/1/18, 9:37 PM
Achilles said...: J. Farmer said...

Well that was not the "moral equivalence" Achilles was referring to. He was claiming I was making a moral equivalence between the US and countries like China and Iran. As for the comparison between Saudi Arabia and Iran, I think it is clearly obvious Saudi Arabia is worse, overall. Take a crude measure like the Freedom House index, and Saudi Arabia ranks below Iran. Saudi Arabia is also carrying out a destructive war in Yemen, trying to isolate a key regional client in the region, has empowered Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, and helped fund and arm radical Sunni jihadists in Syria that became the incubator for ISIS.

The moral equivalence I refer to is comparing Israel to any other country in the ME. It is repulsive.

The Saudi Leadership is making real efforts to reform their barbarous and nasty culture. This is going to be nasty and brutish.

Don't make fun of fat people at the gym.

And saying Saudi Arabia is carrying out a destructive war in Yemen without citing the cause of that war is completely disingenuous and a marker of bad faith. There would be no war in Yemen if Iran didn't start the war in Yemen.

When Iran falls the war in Yemen will end. So will 90% of all the instability in the ME. Helping Saudi Arabia and Israel take the Mullahs down is absolutely in our best interests.; 5/1/18, 9:42 PM
Roughcoat said...: "Prior to 1914, France and Germany were not enemies."

That's absurd. Since France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War the French military was obsessed beyond the point of fanaticism with fighting a "war of revenge" against the Germans to regain their lost territories of Alsace and Lorraine and not incidentally to erase the humiliation of their 1871 defeat. Hence the development of the so-called "ideology of the offensive," of "offensive à outrance" and "attaque à outrance", of Plan XVII, of building up Verdun into what did in fact prove to be an impregnable fortress, etc. The Germans were equally obsessed with getting their place in the sun, an undertaking that would see them complete the job that was left only half-finished in the previous war, of destroying French power once and for all and establishing a Prussian-led German confederacy as the European hegemon. When the Germans spoke, as they did, incessantly, about "der Tag" (e.g., "wann kommt der Tag...") everyone knew what they meant, and what they meant was not that they were friends of France.; 5/1/18, 9:43 PM
Achilles said...: buwaya said...

And of course technology advances - their other weapons are masses of ballistic missiles tasked for anti-ship strikes and large numbers of naval strike aircraft ditto, intended to clear the USN off the coast of East Asia.

It would take at least 2 more Obama's before China could reasonably do anything like that.; 5/1/18, 9:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Roseanne Barr is not entirely sane. She's like a broken clock that's right twice a day.; 5/1/18, 10:07 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Michael K:

You sound incredibly naive. I suspect this is part of some philosophical opposition to war, no matter what the circumstances.

I haven no "philosophical opposition to war." I believe war is an essential component to protecting a nation's vital interests. It's those last two words that are problematic. I am much more likely to do define our interest much narrower than you would.

Germany and France were trading partners right up to the day Germany invaded. If you want to know more read, "the Sleepwalkers, ". But please don't try to bullshit me.

I have read Clark's book, was impressed with about the first third of it, and pretty much hated it after that. Clark's sleepwalker thesis was untenable at least as early as 1953 when Luigi Albertini's three-volume The Origins of the War of 1914 was first published in English.; 5/1/18, 10:07 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Roughcoat:

Your analysis relies on the notion that prior to 1914, war between Germany and France was somehow inevitable. This is not true. Any number of choices made by any number of actors at any number of times could have precluded war. There is a reason that "enemies" is defined in international terms fairly narrowly as open hostilities.; 5/1/18, 10:11 PM
Birkel said...: There is no un-Smugging process.; 5/1/18, 10:15 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Achilles:

The moral equivalence I refer to is comparing Israel to any other country in the ME. It is repulsive.

Quote a single time I have done that. I haven't typed the word "Israel" once in this thread.

The Saudi Leadership is making real efforts to reform their barbarous and nasty culture. This is going to be nasty and brutish.

Cite a single piece of evidence for these "real efforts" outside of Mohammad bin Salman's words.

And saying Saudi Arabia is carrying out a destructive war in Yemen without citing the cause of that war is completely disingenuous and a marker of bad faith. There would be no war in Yemen if Iran didn't start the war in Yemen.

With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. Iran does not control the Houthis, or the support for them has been minimal. The Saudi efforts in Yemen were driven primarily by the desire to keep Ali Abdullah Saleh as president, since Saleh was essentially a puppet of the Saudis. Conflicts were mostly prompted by the Sana'a mosque bombings by radical Sunni forces, aligned with ISIS and Al Qaeda. Please cite a single piece of evidence that Iran "start[ed] the war in Yemen."; 5/1/18, 10:20 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Prior to 1914, France and Germany were not enemies. Once they became enemies, the trade stopped. That is the point.

I should think rather that the point was that being big trade partners does not prevent you from being or becoming enemies. (A more modern version of the fallacy was that countries with McDonalds do not war on one another. I believe Yugoslavia first broke that dream.)

I was making a moral equivalence between the US and countries like China and Iran.

Well don't you? I admit that you like us better than them, but supposed that's because you live here.

I think it is clearly obvious Saudi Arabia is worse, overall.

I don't. My work unlike yours does not involve the regular perusal of Freedom House indices, but aside from the fine points of chador vs burqa, hand-chopping vs wall-pushing and beheading vs hanging from cranes, KSA gets points from me for such things as not taking over our embassy, and contributing to instability in the region and beyond-whoever it was that corrected you on Iran's foreign adventures forgot to include the 1994 Buenos Aires bombing:

The AMIA bombing was an attack on the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA; Argentine Israelite Mutual Association) building. It occurred in Buenos Aires on 18 July 1994, killing 85 people and injuring hundreds. It was Argentina's deadliest bombing ever.
AMIA bombing - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › AMI...

Now, there may be the venal root-for-the-home-team thing, but yes, I admit that I like us better than them for any value of them. "Our SOB" is, after all, "ours."

Also, as has been pointed out to you, KSA is showing signs of positive change.

As for contradicting myself within a paragraph, point it out when I do it.

Well, that's my point; I recently did so, and you ignored it. Of course to be fair, one can't watch every sparrow fall. Ah yes, it was, again, to paraphrase-apologies for fallible memory-the paragraph began suggesting that you saw that President Trump was our "hail marry" pass, a sentence or so that escapes me, then the conclusion, IIRC, that why would anyone of sense give a good goddamn about the fate of some politician.

I mean, do you need me to flesh this out, to explain the contradiction, or are we up to speed? I know that you use playing dumb as an effective tactic, but wrong or wrong-headed, you're not dumb. Maybe I'm dumb. Maybe I misunderstood you. ?

...; 5/1/18, 10:21 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: ...

BTW, how do you figure?

See Charles Brower's The Iran - United States Claims Tribunal Chapter 18, "The Tribunal's Practice of Awarding Interest"

Justice, don't tell me about justice-quasi pannus menstruate, that's justice these days. Lacking a copy of Browne, my point is that we can achieve any result we like in any tribunal if we set our minds to it.

Who's running the tribunal? Judges? Like that smirking chimp, Baltasar Garzon? Ordinarily I wouldn't expect much justice from him. But then, if John Roberts may be subject to blackmail (such was suggested for his flip on the ACA), why not a Garzon?

If he's guilty of anything, as apparently Garzon was, surely NSA can find out. Or his clerks, friends, lovers...

If he's innocent... Well, such a handsome man, surely he has a family. Beautiful, unsullied children and grandchildren. In the words of Angel Eyes, "Nice family!" Even if they're not corruptly adopted.

And if he resists that kind of pressure, you can always just kill him. Or lean on his masters.

Russia never gets held accountable for anything, whether for crimes of failures. They know how it's done. Viz., Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Viz., Skripal, Litvinenko, Lebed, Yuschenko, Ryazan; Kursk, Beslan, Nord-Ost.

So yeah, I think we can deal with a tribunal if we take the gloves off. What's some tribunal going to do? Invade Washington DC and overthrow the government? Sue? Issue an arrest warrant? What's NATO, the UN, Russia or China going to do? Not like us anymore?

You say the sanctions, the holding back of the $150 bil, could not be sustained. You think the UK or France is going to trade a few pistachios with Iran and be shut out of SWIFT? Maybe their negotiators will take Iran Air Flight 655. You think if say the Bank of Japan is holding the actual Iranian dosh, that we can't have a quiet word with Honorable Somebody-san, and then there's a mix-up in the records and So sorry, your account balance is $15.04, here is your check?

No, we can't lean on Russia like that, but the fuck if we can't do it to Iran.

So it really doesn't matter what their case is. We didn't have to give them anything but buckets of instant sunshine.

A cold-eyed realist such as yourself should learn the uses of power.; 5/1/18, 10:22 PM
buwaya said...: France and Germany spent 43 years (since 1871) explicitly preparing for another war against each other.
So, true, war was not inevitable in any given year - heck, they had something of either a Cold War or suspicious peace for four decades, with the occasional war-scare. But the odds were very very good that they would have a war eventually.; 5/1/18, 10:26 PM
Birkel said...: I would now like to read the fairy tale in which the South voluntarily gave up slavery since I am led to believe the Civil War was not inevitable.

Perhaps Smug/Newt co-authors?; 5/1/18, 10:30 PM
Birkel said...: Not inevitable means a butterfly didn't flap its wings, one supposes.; 5/1/18, 10:33 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Bad Lieutenants:

I should think rather that the point was that being big trade partners does not prevent you from being or becoming enemies.

The "or" is important. No, it obviously does not prevent you from "becoming enemies." But it typically precludes you from "being" enemies, because countries in open hostility with each other rarely continued to trade with each other. To say that a country is an adversary or competitor is not the same thing as saying that a country is an enemy, since that would require pretty much every country to be an enemy of every other country.

Well don't you? I admit that you like us better than them, but supposed that's because you live here.

No. In fact, I almost never discuss these issues from a "moral" point of view but one of strategic and national interests. It also does not make much sense to talk about the morality of "China" or the morality of "Iran." They are not monolithic entities, and there are important distinctions between a people and a state.

KSA gets points from me for such things as not taking over our embassy, and contributing to instability in the region and beyond-whoever it was that corrected you on Iran's foreign adventures forgot to include the 1994 Buenos Aires bombing:

Empowering Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to fight a war in Yemen, funding and army jihadists to make war against the Syrian government, and attempting to isolate and dominate an important regional client state is a very fascinating definition of "not...contributing to instability."

h yes, it was, again, to paraphrase-apologies for fallible memory-the paragraph began suggesting that you saw that President Trump was our "hail marry" pass, a sentence or so that escapes me, then the conclusion, IIRC, that why would anyone of sense give a good goddamn about the fate of some politician.

Let's hope this is a product of poor memory and is not indicative of your reading comprehension skills. I have the made remark about Trump being a "hail marry" pass because I believe that the US is basically demographically doomed and that Trump's anti-immigration efforts, if he achieved maximally, could possibly forestall this demise. That is the context. I have never asked "why would anyone of sense give a good goddamn about the fate of some politician." What I have said is that I care nothing about Trump personal. I don't know his personal life, and I don't care about his personal life. I voted for him to get a particular thing accomplished. If it gets accomplished, he's a success. If it doesn't, he's a failure. That's how I judge Trump. As for his personal attributes, I could not care less.; 5/1/18, 10:36 PM
Birkel said...: The South and North, by some definition, were not enemies until actual shots were fired. And that definition requires a denial of reality.; 5/1/18, 10:41 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Bad Lieutenants:

Justice, don't tell me about justice-quasi pannus menstruate, that's justice these days. Lacking a copy of Browne, my point is that we can achieve any result we like in any tribunal if we set our minds to it.

Who's running the tribunal? Judges? Like that smirking chimp, Baltasar Garzon? Ordinarily I wouldn't expect much justice from him. But then, if John Roberts may be subject to blackmail (such was suggested for his flip on the ACA), why not a Garzon?

If you want to make pronouncements about the tribunal, I won't alleviate you of the responsibility of having a minimal amount of knowledge about it.

A cold-eyed realist such as yourself should learn the uses of power.

Oh but I am. Which is why I find to so odd that so many are so convinced that a backwards, relatively insignificant power like Iran poses any significant challenge to the United States or its citizens. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to which of your liberties or livelihoods are threatened by Iran?; 5/1/18, 10:41 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Birkel:

I would now like to read the fairy tale in which the South voluntarily gave up slavery since I am led to believe the Civil War was not inevitable.

Well, for starters, slavery in the South could have been further accommodated until the North's absolute economic domination proved the inefficiencies of slavery in an industrializing world. Another potential outcome is that the nation could have countenanced division. It makes no sense to say in hindsight that any particular war is "inevitable," because it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.; 5/1/18, 10:43 PM
Birkel said...: My theory:
The Stalinists were enemies of the Ukranians even if the Ukranians were not enemies of the Stalinists.

This is a fun game.; 5/1/18, 10:47 PM
Birkel said...: Smug:
I have already admitted the butterfly did not flap its wings. What more could I concede about inevitability by your definition.

(At this point I am making fun of your useless definition.); 5/1/18, 10:49 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Birkel:

The Stalinists were enemies of the Ukranians even if the Ukranians were not enemies of the Stalinists

So the relationship between Russia and Ukraine during the Soviet-Ukraine War is comparable to our current relationship with Russia or China? Okay...; 5/1/18, 10:52 PM
Birkel said...: al Queda was at war with the United States even as the United States was not at war with al Queda.

It was insignificant and nobody in New York could name a liberty or livelihood was threatened.

Events, dear boy. Events.; 5/1/18, 10:53 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Birkel:

Simple question, chief: what makes one country an "enemy" of another?; 5/1/18, 10:54 PM
Birkel said...: Smug,
I am applying your definition to Stalin's Purges.

Do you not like the application? Ok, change the definition.

The power to unSmug is available.; 5/1/18, 10:55 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: J. Farmer said...
@Bad Lieutenants:

First: It's Bad Lieutenant, singular. I try to overlook a lapsus lingae here and there but as you used the plural twice in two posts, at least - if you're throwing shade, I would hate to miss it. Are you? Have I mangled or abused your nick? I may have shortened it but you are simply getting it wrong. I want to do you the courtesy of perceiving an insult if you intend one.

Okay, to get on.

If you want to make pronouncements about the tribunal, I won't alleviate you of the responsibility of having a minimal amount of knowledge about it.

I have the minimal knowledge that tribunals are run by judges-or is it a court-martial?-and that my generic opinion of judges is that they are the bottom third of law school, and I don't even like or trust the top third. If you assert that the ruling body in this case is beyond human reach, I would find that very interesting, and I'd like to know how they do it.

...; 5/1/18, 10:56 PM
narciso said...: Well no Stalin saw the Ukraine as the vendee

http://amp.dailycaller.com/2018/05/01/shearer-dossier-steele-trump/?__twitter_impression=true; 5/1/18, 10:56 PM
Birkel said...: Smug,
I am applying your ridiculous definition. I like yours because it is ridiculous.

I choose your definition.; 5/1/18, 10:57 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Birkel:

It was insignificant and nobody in New York could name a liberty or livelihood was threatened.

Events, dear boy. Events.

Except Al Qaeda had been in declared hostilities for more than five years before 9/11. Nothing comparable exists between the US and Russia, China, or Iran. None of those powers has declared their desire to launch attacks against US targets, which Al Qaeda explicitly had.; 5/1/18, 10:58 PM
narciso said...: The problem were unlike the petlurists, the Ukrainian union, Bandera were integralists in the south American sense, fascists in the European, similar with the ustachi after Stephan radic murder; 5/1/18, 10:59 PM
Birkel said...: Ah, but Smug, the U.S. had no enemy because it had not declared war against al Queda.

They had an enemy.
We did not.; 5/1/18, 11:02 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Bad Lieutenant:

If you assert that the ruling body in this case is beyond human reach, I would find that very interesting, and I'd like to know how they do it.

I never asserted anything. The Tribunal has been in existence for nearly 40 years and has overseen the release of several billion dollars from Iran to the US. I am guessing when the US prevailed in the tribunals, you were not there immediately shouting how we can't trust the judgment of judges. The fact is that the tribunal has been covered in detail, and both sides respect its impartiality. Neither side has claimed anything different, and former presidents that have been very hard on Iran have nonetheless participated in the tribunal process.

Are judges fallable? Obviously. But so what? Does that mean that no judges opinion in any matter should be respected ever?; 5/1/18, 11:05 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Birkel:

They had an enemy.
We did not.

Yes, we did. We simply did not know the identity of the enemy. Al Qaeda destroyed two of our embassies. How is that comparable to our relationship with China or Russia?; 5/1/18, 11:07 PM
Birkel said...: My point:
Defining enemy in the way you are is to decide only the final follicle matters when calling one bald. To say that Homer Simpson has three hairs on his head and is therefore not bald is worthy of ridicule.

Yours is an unserious position, Smug.; 5/1/18, 11:08 PM
Birkel said...: You do not have, as an available strategy, alteration of your definition.; 5/1/18, 11:11 PM
Birkel said...: Smug,
All of the objections to your definition are noting that Homer Simpson is bald. You are free to maintain your position that Homer Simpson is not bald.

It's a futile position.; 5/1/18, 11:15 PM
narciso said...: But why they consider us their enemy, because without us, they would have brought the revolution home to the kingdom, this what they struck first at a national guArd training facility then an airbase, the embassies were symbols of our power, (one could
Mogadishu a training run); 5/1/18, 11:15 PM
J. Farmer said...: "The constitutional provision, as you perceive, is divided into two clauses, "levying war against the United States," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. The term 'enemies' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."

-United States vs Greathouse, 1863; 5/1/18, 11:21 PM
J. Farmer said...: p.s. Given that you find my definition of "enemy" wanting, perhaps you could propose one of your own.; 5/1/18, 11:22 PM
narciso said...: Balthazar Garmin, ah yes he proved a regime cannot rely on the promises of a civilian leadership first persecuting the gal for their proactive position re the era then moving on to Pinochet but left wing regimes raise a yawn for him; 5/1/18, 11:22 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: To continue... Apologies, I have lost sequence, being on the phone...

The "or" is important: maybe I should backtrack asked what your original point about this was. Again, the distinction that some pair of parties have relationship does not preclude future hostility. The French and Germans, e.g., had the big trade relationship, but come Der Tag, that didn't stop the war. Nobody in or near power said You can't do this, we'll lose money! Or if they did, found no audience.

You've got your teeth in this like a bulldog so you must think it's full of win, and I just don't see it, so again, do you remember what your original point was?

...

Iran poses any significant challenge: how significant a challenge do you require to act? Iran turned from a linchpin of our Middle East geostrategy into a cancer in it. Losing Iran was a far more significant blow to our material interests than losing Vietnam. A terrible betrayal (from our POV to be sure). If Jimmy Carter had used nuclear weapons on Iran to secure the release of our hostages, Reagan wouldn't have even bothered to run.

...

Let's hope this is a product of poor memory and is not indicative of your reading comprehension skills:

Oh, your choice. I'll blame memory, but I interpreted your words to mean that you saw no point in supporting the President. I particularly believe otherwise: that unrelenting support of this President is crucial to any future I would find remotely acceptable for Western Civilization.

Yes he may fail. Yes he is strange. But, you don't tell James Bond that you'll only back him if he beats Le Chiffre, and then sit behind him and kibitz every hand and maybe show the table a few of his cards. You want to beat Le Chiffre, you pick the best gambler in the Service, you give him the money and some gadgets, you give him some loyal operatives who are hopefully not named Vesper Lynd, and you send him out to return with his shield (the moolah) or on it.

If he loses a hand, even if he throws a hand just to learn how to detect the guy's "tells," it's the essence of a Republic that you are delegating power, delegating control. That's why you must select and keep the best people you can, and trust them, or at least, give them some room. Let 007 play the game! Would you rather send Dolores Rodham Umbridge?

200 years ago an English philosopher could say that the form of government was of no concern to the individual. It's not like that anymore. Everyone must pick a side.; 5/1/18, 11:26 PM
Birkel said...: Smug,
I am suggesting that definitions, period, cannot capture the precise moment a man is bald.

You should try Smugging your way out of my point. Extra Smug might be more convincing than regular Smug levels.; 5/1/18, 11:27 PM
narciso said...: In so far as we ascertain, ubl wasn't as concerned with the Palestinians, although as a,Yemeni kindite he might have felt some sympathy but with the plight in Bosnia (unholy war) and Chechnya; 5/1/18, 11:28 PM
narciso said...: A little more context to my last link:

https://www.unz.com/isteve/whs-cody-shearer/; 5/1/18, 11:30 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: The term 'enemies' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us.

Giving Japan the plans for Fat Man and Little Boy in 1944: treason

Giving Japan the plans for Fat Man and Little Boy in 1924: ?

Giving Japan the plans for Fat Man and Little Boy in 1964: ??; 5/1/18, 11:33 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: I should say that the need for unstinting support of President Trump is magnified if not created entirely by the slow-motion coup attempt that we are still undergoing.; 5/1/18, 11:35 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Bad Lieutenant:

You've got your teeth in this like a bulldog so you must think it's full of win, and I just don't see it, so again, do you remember what your original point was?

The "original point" didn't involve you. You inserted yourself in the conversation.

Oh, your choice. I'll blame memory, but I interpreted your words to mean that you saw no point in supporting the President. I particularly believe otherwise: that unrelenting support of this President is crucial to any future I would find remotely acceptable for Western Civilization.

There is no way to "support" a president except to vote for him. And as I have said, I did vote for Donald Trump. I voted for him for specific reasons and those are the reasons I judge him by. Beyond that, I support actions, not people. If Trump comes out tomorrow and says that there is no reason to build a wall, am I obligated to support that? Obviously not. I would denounced it at the top of my lungs. Put another way, I voted for a wall. I didn't give a shit who gets it built.; 5/1/18, 11:36 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Are judges fallable? Obviously. But so what? Does that mean that no judges opinion in any matter should be respected ever?

It means that we didn't have to give Iran their money back if Obama or his masters did not deeply desire that we do so.; 5/1/18, 11:37 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Birkel:

I am suggesting that definitions, period, cannot capture the precise moment a man is bald.

When do "blue" and "green" differentiate? When does a pile of marbles go from "small" to "huge?" Yes there is the imprecision imbedded any definition of anything. So what?

What is your criteria for applying the label "enemy?"; 5/1/18, 11:39 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: The "original point" didn't involve you. You inserted yourself in the conversation.

If I were a better person I might be abashed, but channeling my inner J-Farm, I will say that is irrelevant, what was your original point? But we can skip it if you like.

There is no way to "support" a president except to vote for him.

This is terribly naive.; 5/1/18, 11:40 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: am I obligated to support that? Obviously not. I would denounced it at the top of my lungs.

Ah, not naive. But perhaps not seeing the connection.; 5/1/18, 11:42 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Bad Lieutenant:

Giving Japan the plans for Fat Man and Little Boy in 1924: ?

Giving Japan the plans for Fat Man and Little Boy in 1964: ??

No and no. Japan was not our enemy in 1924 or 1964. There is an important and obvious distinction between our relationship with Japan in 1944 and our relationship with Japan in 1924 and 1964. I'll leave it to you to figure out.

It means that we didn't have to give Iran their money back if Obama or his masters did not deeply desire that we do so.

In that case, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush all must have all possessed this deep desire, since claims were paid out during all of their tenures.; 5/1/18, 11:43 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Oh f*** it's quarter of 1. Bedtime for Bonzo. Good night.; 5/1/18, 11:44 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Bad Lieutenant:

If I were a better person I might be abashed, but channeling my inner J-Farm, I will say that is irrelevant, what was your original point? But we can skip it if you like.

If you want to respond to an argument, I am not beholden to recount that argument for you. I don't think it is setting the bar too high to expect you to know what you are responding to. But then again, I shouldn't be surprised.

This is terribly naive.

If Trump came out for open borders tomorrow, would you support him? Why not since, according to you, you are obligated to support "him?"

I am obligated to support only my positions. And Trump is only successful, from my perspective, to the degree that he advanced those positions.; 5/1/18, 11:47 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Beholden? Obligated? Er, incredulous stare. Have I said you were either? You just asked me to refresh your memory regarding where I said you contradicted yourself. Was I, then, obliged or beholden to do so?; 5/2/18, 1:30 AM
Big Mike said...: The Chinese have begun such a fleet, designed to challenge the USN, currently building at 3X the rate of US naval building, albeit with on average less capable vessels.

If the Chinese junior naval officers are capable of maneuvering a destroyer out of the way of a slow merchant ship then, less capable vessels or not, we’re in deep trouble.; 5/2/18, 3:36 AM
Birkel said...: Smug continued to Smug and refused any other ideas.

Smug is predictable.; 5/2/18, 5:56 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Bad Lieutenant:

Beholden? Obligated? Er, incredulous stare. Have I said you were either? You just asked me to refresh your memory regarding where I said you contradicted yourself. Was I, then, obliged or beholden to do so?

Beholden? No. But when you accuse someone of something, it is generally good form to actually be able to back it up.

@Birkel:

Smug continued to Smug and refused any other ideas.

Smug is predictable.

So you still have no definition of "enemy," I take it.; 5/2/18, 9:07 AM
Birkel said...: Smug,

Many on this thread objected to your definition of enemy. You did not like their respective objections. I cannot help you to like their offerings.

I tried to get you to see why they were rejecting your definition. You, Smug as you are, cannot be moved from a position that you have Smugged your way into. Far be it from me to attempt to outSmug you and convince you that your Smug does not answer others' objections.

In your eyes, Homer is not yet bald. I get it. I know your position.

Smug away, as you will.; 5/2/18, 11:41 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Birkel:

It isn't my definition. It's the commonly used definition of the word in international affairs.

The term “enemy” means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;

-50 U.S. Code § 2204(2)

Hard not to be smug when you're right.; 5/2/18, 12:20 PM
Bilwick said...: Has Griffin ever explained how Trump "destroyed" her? I know she got hassled by the Secret Service, but that's what you get when you post a photo of yourself holding the president's bloody, severed head. If that's the extent of the "desctruction," she destroys pretty easily.; 5/2/18, 2:30 PM
mandrewa said...: J. Farmer said, The "pallets of cash" had nothing to do with the nuclear deal. That was a payment made through the US-Iran Claims Tribunal, which has been in existence for nearly 40 years. And yes, that settlement was good policy, because had the claim gone to the tribunal instead of being settled, Iran would likely have received a judgment for a much larger amount. The claim boiled down to money owed to Iran by the US from the early 1980s. Iran was originally seeking interest on the original amount from the tribunal.

I question the truth of this assertion on several levels. As I understand it, the issue began when the revolutionary government of Iran confiscated the assets of US companies in Iran and made hostages of Americans at the US embassy in Tehran. The United States, in partial response, confiscated Iranian assets in the United States.

Ronald Reagan was elected and arguably out of fear of what Reagan was going to do, the Iranian government made a deal with the Carter administration about a week before Reagan was sworn in, where Iran released their American hostages, and there was a swap of assets, where the major portion of the Iranian assets in the United States was given to the American companies whose assets had been confiscated in Iran.

Now in the hurry to make a deal, there was a certain amount of money left out. I'm not sure how much it was, but I know it was less than $4 billion, and just guessing it was probably something in the neighborhood of $2 billion dollars of Iranian assets in the United States that were not part of this deal, and that was not later awarded by US courts to American companies. And this was left out because this money was already contested in the US court system, and the Carter administration was not able to extract it in the very short time they had to work with.

Now here's my first point of dispute with J. Farmer's argument. I don't think international law covers this situation. Iran had a committed an act of war against the United States. Given that circumstance there's tremendous latitude for US response, and most countries, historically, would never have given any of this money back to Iran in a similar situation. That's the real truth.

But what actually happened is that the Reagan administration, once the US courts had awarded some of money in question to American companies, took the remainder, whatever amount it was, and put it in an investment fund that at some point in the future would be given to the people of Iran. Now, I reiterate again. This is solely about US ethics, about our perception of right and wrong.

Now my second question. How does $2 billion, approximately, grow to over $100 billion dollars? That's quite an astonishing growth over about 35 years. $2 billion growing at about 4% a year, would be about $8 billion after 35 years. And it's my understanding that the Obama administration gave over $100 billion dollars to the government of Iran. That's a huge amount of money.

So Farmer's implication that Iran was somehow shortchanged in this deal is a bit outrageous in my view. We didn't owe them a dime. This was all a gift, and it was a huge gift.; 5/2/18, 3:06 PM
Birkel said...: I have already ceded the Smug-Off.

Other people use a bad definition too, said the Smug guy, Smug dripping from his every orifice.; 5/2/18, 6:16 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Iran just got hit with a $6bn judgment for 9/11 victims, which surprised me; the Iranians seem to be blowing it off. Why should we pay them, if they don't pay us?; 5/2/18, 6:58 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Beholden? No. But when you accuse someone of something, it is generally good form to actually be able to back it up.

I already did, and kindly indulged you in a repetition instead of telling you to go find it. You still haven't clarified what I asked you.

I'm getting the feeling that you don't care what is actually true or right, you just want to win, for whatever is your definition of "win." Very lawyerlike for the mayor of Boys Town. High school debate team? Or is it just the deformation of being born rich?; 5/2/18, 7:02 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Birkel:

Other people use a bad definition too, said the Smug guy, Smug dripping from his every orifice.

Care to give a better definition?; 5/2/18, 8:22 PM
J. Farmer said...: @mandrewa:

Now my second question. How does $2 billion, approximately, grow to over $100 billion dollars? That's quite an astonishing growth over about 35 years. $2 billion growing at about 4% a year, would be about $8 billion after 35 years. And it's my understanding that the Obama administration gave over $100 billion dollars to the government of Iran. That's a huge amount of money.

No, you care confusing two different things. The $100 billion was Iranian money that was frozen in foreign bank accounts due to sanctions. Lifting these sanctions was part of the concessions of the deal.

The $1.5 billion was part of a claim brought by the US-Iran Claims Tribunal back in the early 1980s. The original claim was for $600 million. The George H.W. Bush administration paid $200 million as part of a Tribunal claim, leaving $400 million. The claim had been negotiated dozens of time and in 2015 Iran was moving to schedule comprehensive hearings to settle the claim. Iran was originally seeking several billion dollars but settled for a lesser amount.; 5/2/18, 8:28 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Bad Lieutenant:

I already did, and kindly indulged you in a repetition instead of telling you to go find it. You still haven't clarified what I asked you.

You backed up another commenter who claims I engage in "moral equivalence." I asked for an example of when I had ever done this, and you had no ready examples but to say that I believe Saudi Arabia is as bad or worse than Iran. That is true, but it is not "moral equivalence," which would be saying that there is no difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I'm getting the feeling that you don't care what is actually true or right, you just want to win, for whatever is your definition of "win." Very lawyerlike for the mayor of Boys Town. High school debate team? Or is it just the deformation of being born rich?

Seems I do what pretty much everyone here does. I have a point and view, and I argue it. Don't you do the same? If you think I've gotten a fact wrong, point it and out and I'll give you a response. Telling me what you think is my personality or what you think motivates me means nothing to me, because (a) you don't know me; and (b) it has nothing to do with whether anything I say is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, valid or invalid.; 5/2/18, 8:35 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: You backed up another commenter who claims I engage in "moral equivalence." I asked for an example of when I had ever done this, and you had no ready examples but to say that I believe Saudi Arabia is as bad or worse than Iran. That is true, but it is not "moral equivalence," which would be saying that there is no difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I'm getting tired of you. You asked for an example. I gave you an example. If you wanted six examples you should have asked for six examples.; 5/2/18, 8:55 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Bad Lieutenant:

I'm getting tired of you. You asked for an example. I gave you an example. If you wanted six examples you should have asked for six examples.

Except your example was that I believe Saudi Arabia is worse than Iran. That is not "moral equivalence." It's exactly the opposite.; 5/2/18, 9:16 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: So? Did you ask me for more examples? You asked me for an example, I gave you an example, we discussed the example briefly, I believe I noticed that it was X in the morning and bid you a good night. You're not infinitely interesting.; 5/2/18, 9:31 PM