The linked article is "Iran's president warns America to 'stay away' as it unveils long range missiles that could strike US bases" (Yahoo News), and that photo is there, with the caption, "Iranian Turkmen Basij militia members marching during the annual." The annual what, I don't know. But who are the Turkmen in Iran? I look it up. Wikipedia says:
Turkmen rulers, successively of the Black Sheep Turkomans and White Sheep Turkomans, ruled much of Persia and surrounding countries before Shah Ismail I defeated them to begin the Safavid dynasty in 1501. Tabriz was their usual capital. There remains a relatively small population identifying as Turkmen in modern Iran.So it makes zero sense for Yahoo to use that photograph for the article, which has nothing about the Turkmen other than that caption. Jesus said "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed." In fact, I was not alarmed. My reaction was to look up Tabriz in Google maps and take a look around. I caught this wonderful sight:
Posts
261 comments:
1 – 200 of 261 Newer› Newest»Apparently, Phyllis Diller is still popular over there.
It was a good photo. No other reason.
They look like extras from Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy cover shoot, ca. 1973.
Ah. The armed cotton ball regiment.
I’m guessing that isn’t their battledress. Though it would be awesome if it was. Interesting that Iran has regionally-formed military units, though. That says something about the backwardness of their military thinking.
If you listen, you can hear them singing: "O-lee-um, O-O lee-um ..."
I see Obama (bottom right) has decided to show his true allegiance to Iran.
It's all part of the ongoing American propaganda effort to foment war against Iran.
"Thing One" thru "Thing Thousand "
"So it makes zero sense for Yahoo to use that photograph for the article,"
Yet another example of the unserious press. You'd think their own apparent unprofessionalism would concern them, but there is no evidence of that.
Ah regionally formed military units! The British Army had that for a long period of time. Can you say Welch Fusiliers or Coldstream Guards? And of course the Austro Hungarian empire had regional units of all kinds---speaking a plethora of languages. Many units fighting under the Double Eagle could not communicate with each other. And of course the USA has the National Guard.
As for the Turkmen or Turkomen--look up Turkmenistan. I knew a young San Francisco based lawyer in the late 90s who had to travel to Turkmenistan several times on business. As Joe Willie Namath sagely observed, "Better him than me."
> It's all part of the ongoing American propaganda effort to foment war against Iran.
I'd say Iran is trying to foment war against Iran, but it isn't working.
Islam and its practices are a great source for comedy, if only Muslims in following the written rules of Islam were so frapping dangerous.
I can understand George Costanza's desire to convert to Latvian Orthodoxy.
chuck you have to understand that Florida's favorite dissident Cookie has his one dimension and he's sticking with it.
Drudge has become dreadfully click-baity. Even more than he used to I mean, he used to often have substantial ledes. Not so much any more.
"regionally-formed military units, though. That says something about the backwardness of their military thinking."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Minnesota_Volunteer_Infantry
At a pivotal moment in the 1863 struggle at Gettysburg, Major General Winfield Scott Hancock, commander of II Corps, ordered the First Minnesota to charge into a situation where it would be outnumbered by at least 5 to 1. The general's purpose was to buy minutes of delay with human lives, and one survivor spoke afterward that he expected the advance to result in "death or wounds to [every single one of the attackers]."[2] The regiment fully and instantly obeyed the order, suffering at least 82% casualties among those making the attack; this action contributed significantly to the preservation of a key Union defensive position on the heights of Cemetery Ridge.
When given the opportunity to speak about the regiment after the war, both General Hancock and U.S. President Calvin Coolidge were unrestrained in their praise. Hancock placed its heroism highest in the known annals of war[3] and ascribed unsurpassed gallantry to the famed attack.[4] Emphasizing the critical nature of the circumstances on July 2 at Gettysburg, President Coolidge considered, "Colonel Colvill and those eight companies of the First Minnesota are entitled to rank as the saviors of their country."[5]
Drudge has become dreadfully click-baity. Even more than he used to I mean, he used to often have substantial ledes. Not so much any more.
Uniforms by Dr. Seuss.
You will not fight us in a box.
You will not fight us with a fox.
Cookie almost has a point. The photo does downplay the threat, it is underplayed. Which is the reverse of what the press usually does.
Cook has something going on here.
Brain tumor ?
Iran's been spoiling for a war with America for years. The mullahs aren't stupid: they know they're not too popular with the masses, especially young people who are quite tired of being ruled by theocratic buttheads. So, what better way to distract the people than a war with the Great Satan?
Of course, such a war would kill most or all of the mullahs, but...hey, 72 virgins! Win-win!
Some key player wore out his Spies Like Us VCR tape when they were a kid.
Turkmenistan: Where men are men and sheep are scared.
The basij shot neda sultan, from a motor bike, during the green revolution.
Robert Cook said...It's all part of the ongoing American propaganda effort to foment war against Iran.
Not until they bring back the Ayatollah Assahola T-shirts
I'm with Ken B. Drudge has lost my interest. So many of his links get me very little of interest or consequence, compared to the hype in his lead.
Dr Seuss: Thing 1 and Thing 2.
Althouse's erect shadow points at the heart of opportunity except that she has Clinton's disease.
Peyronic, isn't it?
They are like the faes colectivos that go around murdering for maduro, or the fedayeen under saddam
So, Robert Cook; I'm STILL WAITING your answer...
Was the Soviet Union under Stalin a Communist entity, or not?
Come on, just say it!
Cook has something going on here.
Brain tumor ?
The hilarious need to be the lockstep predictable Chomsky-like dissident that goes along with his constant name dropping references to his NYC residence? The "look at me I live in New York" posturing is always amusing and almost always comes loudest from transplants insecure about their origins. The punk rock politics that are as nuanced as a Dead Kennedys lyric are also telling.
But they look *fabulous*!
"Althouse's erect shadow points at the heart of opportunity"
Stop it with the straight lines already.
Or shmert spionem in the soviet system
"Iran's been spoiling for a war with America for years."
The U.S. has been spoiling for a fight with Iran for decades.
Ah regionally formed military units! The British Army had that for a long period of time. Can you say Welch Fusiliers or Coldstream Guards? And of course the Austro Hungarian empire had regional units of all kinds---speaking a plethora of languages. Many units fighting under the Double Eagle could not communicate with each other. And of course the USA has the National Guard.
Don't have a link, but I saw a heartbreaking pair of photos once of a Scot's regiment forming up before & after WWI. I would say 95% of the men in the first shot were gone.
Not only did the AH units have a language problem, but probably the majority of the drafted men actively wanted the empire gone.
Wait a minute!
We are going to be attacked by the Q-Tip battalion?
Seizing our embassy, bombing our marines murdering jews in argentina, yes were the one at fault, oh twa 847 hijacking
Gilly,
It's so cute that you feel I have any obligation to respond to your dumb "challenge" questions. You'll just have to assume whatever you wish--as you will do, in any case.
That arose out a fight between fatah and hezbollah.
Robert Cook:
"It's all part of the ongoing American propaganda effort to foment war against Iran."
You mean like when they march in the streets shouting "Death to America"?
I would at least consider this: Trump is no bigger a fan of the Iraq war than you are. He's just not going to lead us into war against a country four times larger, with three times the population, and a hell of a lot stronger sense of national unity, if he can help it.
Whether we blunder into one is another question, but there's a fairly high bar for this one on both sides. I could see even limited military action leading to deescalation, and a resumption of bloodcurdling rhetoric, rather than escalating.
The big kerfluffle they are going to hit a missile boat in the gulf, after warming the crew, that would teach them a lesson
The pasdaran notably the late mustafa chamran created hezbollah out of remnants of nabih berris amal militia.
Now there are some people like terry andersons foolish daughter who put more trust in her fathers captors then say israel.
"Not until they bring back the Ayatollah Assahola T-shirts"
I always liked the Hey Iran! with Mickey Mouse flipping the bird.
Does anyone have any idea what those red hands are supposed to represent or memorialize? I heart brown, barren hills? There seems to be an element of whimsicality or maybe even surrealism in the Turkomen national character. Perhaps, based on a misunderstanding, they wanted their fighting men to look like Dandy Lions.
It's all part of the ongoing American propaganda effort to foment war against Iran.
No Cookie. It is the other way around.
Why do you think Trump fired Bolton?
Wake up dude. It is 2019.
Trump has no interest in a straight out war with Iran,
Instead he’s hitting them in the pocket book with economic and psychological warfare.
Iran is hitting back with actual physical attacks.
Trumps goals is denuclearization of Iran.
Iranian government goals is stay in power, and some Religious.
Iraq taught everyone the best way to deter the US, is by having nukes.
Libya / Khadafy taught everyone the us can’t be trusted to keep an agreement.
Shhh...Francisco we can't ruin Cookie's persona as edgy New York dissident guy!
I think the one spoiling for a war is Cookie, to confirm his disdain for our country.
RMc, 1:01:
"So, what better way to distract the people than a war with the Great Satan?
"Of course, such a war would kill most or all of the mullahs, but...hey, 72 virgins!"
Which is a big part of why it hasn't happened yet. If they really wanted war with us they'd have had it before now. (And, pace Cook, if we really wanted war with them, we could have had it.) Rhetoric notwithstanding, the mullahs are not in any big hurry for martyrdom. It's not their sincerity I question, it's their follow-through.
In the meantime, psyching their people up for a war with the Great Satan really is win-win. You get all the rallying-around-the-flag, with almost none of the death and destruction.
I can see Iran doing something crazy that we have to respond to militarily.....They fought that long war with Iraq and finally settled on terms that Iraq had offered years before.....I wonder if the generals in Iran ponder the fact that their war with Iraq was a long, bloody stalemate. Based on our experience in Iraq, we have reason to be inhibited in our response. Based on our experience in Iraq, Iran should have reason to be inhibited in their provocations.
"Why do you think Trump fired Bolton?"
Trump, to his credit, seems to be the only person of prominence in the government who is not slavering at the mouth to attack Iran. All around him are, I believe, trying to maneuver events, propaganda and rhetoric such that he will have (they hope) no choice but to strike Iran. This is a case where his obstinacy may save us from a disastrous action. On the other hand, his inconstancy may plunge us into that disastrous action.
I never watch the Sunday morning political chat shows, but I did happen to have FACE THE NATION on this morning, as it followed immediately behind CBS SUNDAY MORNING, which I do try to see every week. Mike Pompousass was on as first guest. The man is a walking atrocity, a disgrace to America. He is taking over Bolton's mission without pause.
Had Hillary won, the Iran War would be well underway. We know her history.
I guess Cookie has realized that if he wanted a real peace president, that would be Trump, that being unacceptable he has entered a bizzarro world where any opposition to Iran’s ambition of rebuilding their lost empire is a provocation. He felt the same way about opposition to Soviet empire building. It is aggression to oppose an authentic empire!
The Telegraph used the same picture here. View it full-size and you can see the "Bang" flags that pop out of their guns.
The caption that yahoo screwed up is:
Iranian Turkmen Basij militia members marching during the annual "Sacred Defence Week" military parade Credit: AFP
The rest of the article doesn't mention "Turkmen".
Thanks God for Cheney’s much maligned meeting with oil executives that has led to the US being self reliant enough regarding oil that we aren’t forced by the prospect of economic disaster to rush in.
William,
"I can see Iran doing something crazy that we have to respond to militarily"
I keep wondering about that. Miscalculation is always a danger, and I've always laughed at the reassurance, "No one would be so stupid as to...."
Still - and I don't want this to sound like some deep faith in Trump, just an estimate of his intentions and disinclinations - my bet would be on some very short-duration, high-intensity military action setting the stage for coercive diplomacy. See also Operation Praying Mantis of April 1988.
Drudge must've lost a lot of traffic once Obama left office, they've gone full tabloid the past couple of years or so.
"Trump has no interest in a straight out war with Iran,
"Instead he’s hitting them in the pocket book with economic and psychological warfare."
Economic sanctions is direct war with Iran (or with any country against which they're applied).
"Iran is hitting back with actual physical attacks."
Alleged, but not proved. Perhaps they did it, or sponsored it, but the U.S. has lied so often about matters of grave importance that nothing our government says can be accepted without proof. So far, none is to be seen.
"Trumps goals is denuclearization of Iran."
Uh...they'd have to become nuclearized before than can denuclearize. In fact, they ended their nuclear weapons program years ago, and the last administration, (certainly not one to be admired on most matters, including its feckless surrender to and facilitation of the prerogatives of the wealthy elites who run this country for their own benefit), forged an international agreement that saw Iran formally agree they would not try to renuclearize.
Trump abrogated the U.S. being a party to the agreement unilaterally, for no good reason. This is where Trump's truculence and inconstancy is dangerous.
"All around him are, I believe, trying to maneuver events, propaganda and rhetoric such that he will have (they hope) no choice but to strike Iran."
Such as our false flag attack on the Saudi oil fields, right?
"Had Hillary won, the Iran War would be well underway. We know her history."
Possibly so. A good reason she's not the President.
Here the Turkmen have culturally appropriated traditional European fighting garments:
A Turkmen soldier with a machine gun is seen as taking aim in the Bayirbucak region in northern Latakia province of Syria
Does anyone in America really think Sleepy Joe is up to the rigors of acting as Commander-in-Chief and conducting US foreign policy? I see him as a buffoon on the level of Marianne Williamson.
The politically correct term is "Turkpersons".
Old Empires like Iran cleverly use diversity in enforcing their rule. Want someone to beat up Persians, a Turkmen is your man. Want to beat up Turkmens, call on the Persians. It all works out.
"I can see Iran doing something crazy that we have to respond to militarily"
So what? Sink their navy and walk. Eradicate their Air Force and walk. Damage infrastructure and walk. So long as occupation and regime change aren’t goals, we can torment Iran until the crack of doom. They’ll get the idea eventually.
"Such as our false flag attack on the Saudi oil fields, right?"
No. Such as our insistence on repeatedly declaring without proof that the attack on the Saudi oil fields was launched (or sponsored) by Iran.
Again, perhaps Iran is complicit in the attack in some way, but the US Government saying so is not proof. The rush to make such declarations, designed to create urgency to take action, is always immediately suspect. In fact, whenever our government so insistently declares without proof that "x is doing y," (whatever "y" may be), any alert citizen must immediately assume they're lying. Such evidence-free declarations are the opposite of proof.
> The rush to make such declarations, designed to create urgency to take action
Well, that's true. It is how we got Obama Care and the same scam is being run for climate change.
Robert Cook,
"In fact, they ended their nuclear weapons program years ago,"
I am curious how you know, or can know, this "fact". Have you developed a sudden and highly selective trust in the CIA?
More like the claims of Saddam's WMD and the impending "smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud."
"I am curious how you know, or can know, this 'fact.' Have you developed a sudden and highly selective trust in the CIA?"
No, the IAEA.
"the U.S. being a party to the agreement"
Well, O was a party. "The U.S." was not a party to "the agreement," considering that formal international agreements, like, with a treaty and all, require the approval of Congress. O got the Security Council to sign off. The "deal," the "plan," would not have passed Congress. Nor would Congress have approved the shoveling of billions of dollars on pallets to the Iranians.
I myself could have lived with a full discussion and Congressional support, if that had been the result. The worst part of the deal, that it is a temporary fix with a sunset clause, we could readdress later. But the process exposed the illegitimacy of the "agreement."
Iran has clear motive. Those who would absolve them have a responsibility to do more than shrug their shoulders. What evidence is there that someone else did it?
First Trump was itching to invade Venezuela, so much so that his Generals were worried. Now Trump is itching to start a war with Iran. Isn’t Iran saying “stay away”, so why is Trump itching to help the Saudis? Oh BTW, what nationality were the majority of the 9/11 terrorists? What happened to all the people who were so sure Trump wasn’t interested in invading countries and foreign wars? Why is Trump helping the Saudis against Yemen?
"I am curious how you know, or can know, this "fact". Have you developed a sudden and highly selective trust in the CIA?"
HUMINT expert Cookie once spotted a celebrity walking by Trash Vaudeville in '79 while he was thumbing through his copy of Manufacturing Consent. Trust him. He knows.
"It's all part of the ongoing American propaganda effort to foment war against Iran."
I sincerely think the media wants a shooting war as something else to try to pile on Trump. They are bigger instigators than the U.S. or Iran.
This is a case where his obstinacy may save us from a disastrous action. On the other hand, his inconstancy may plunge us into that disastrous action.
Cookie,
So, you are saying that he has some good qualities?
Yeah, a war, a recession, whatever it takes to save America from its duly elected president!
Yeah, the media would love a war. Maybe they bombed the Saudis.
that passage (matthew 24) is often misinterpreted, Jesus is saying don't look on any one even a cluster of signs, for his coming, wars, plagues, et al, for 'it will be as in the time of noah,' everything will seem ordinary, people will be doing the usual things, that's when you should take heed, of course if people start disappearing in mass, 'the rapture' that may indicate things are moving ahead,
Facts:
Hussein / Iraq, Libya, and Syria that did not have nukes were physically attacked by the us.
Pakistan and North Korea have nukes and are in no danger of being attacked military by the us.
Conclusion:
Based on these facts, Iran would be stupid not to pursue nukes ASAP.
Because having nukes means you don’t need to fear being attacked by the us.
And the Iranian leadership is not stupid.
Oh look, there's Justin Trudeau front and center!
"Original Mike said...
Yeah, the media would love a war. Maybe they bombed the Saudis”
“You furnish the pictures, I will furnish the war.” - William Randolph Hearst
I'm sorry, either Justin Trudeau or David Hogg.
but the Iranians have been pursuing their nuclear program since 1989, on express orders of the ayatollah, aq khan came into the matter in the mid 90s, the program began with areva and siemens providing the basics of the civilian nuclear program, under the shah, yes the same parties who who blanch at imposing sanctions,
"Well, O was a party. 'The U.S.' was not a party to "the agreement," considering that formal international agreements, like, with a treaty and all, require the approval of Congress. O got the Security Council to sign off. The 'deal,' the 'plan,' would not have passed Congress. Nor would Congress have approved the shoveling of billions of dollars on pallets to the Iranians."
The agreement wasn't a treaty, but a "non-binding political committment," so didn't require Congressional approval. However, this means any nation was free to stop complying with the deal at any time, as Trump did. It was still more than we had in place previously or now, in short, better than nothing.
As for the return of money to Iran, that was their money to begin with.
"The nuclear agreement included China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, so Obama didn’t carry out any part of it on his own. The deal did lift some sanctions, which lifted a freeze on Iran’s assets that were held largely in foreign, not U.S., banks. And, to be clear, the money that was unfrozen belonged to Iran. It had only been made inaccessible by sanctions aimed at crippling the country’s nuclear program."
same countries and companies that built up the Iraqi nuclear program,
Interesting that Iran has regionally-formed military units, though. That says something about the backwardness of their military thinking.
Not at all, a big way for totalitarian states to suppress regional unrest is to employ troops from out of area, so they don't share language, culture and sympathies with the dissidents. Both the USSR and PRC have relied on this strategy. Oh, it may suck for fighting wars, but most of the time suppressing its own people is the main role of the military in a dictatorship.
that's not surprising, Khamenei, is azeri after all, but the point applies, during the student uprising in 99, they imported Hezbollah and Palestinians, to crush the revolt, that was under that other moderate 'khatami'
if areva sounds familiar, it's the company that was stockpiling yellowcake in niger, who joe Wilson assured us, they had accounted for all shipments,
"HUMINT expert Cookie once spotted a celebrity walking by Trash Vaudeville in '79 while he was thumbing through his copy of Manufacturing Consent. Trust him. He knows."
Well, no: I didn't live in NYC in 1979, so didn't walk by Trash and Vaudeville in that year. I don't claim to be a HUMINT expert. I've also never read MANUFACTURING CONSENT. And, as I said above, the IAEA has repeatedly certified Iran as being in compliance with the restrictions on their developing nuclear weapons, (though they had and have legal right to develop nuclear power for electricity).
Wrong on all counts, Klompus!
the iaea also thought Libya was in compliance in 2003, until tinner turned up evidence of the aq khan network,
I remember larry Collins fifth horseman (written by a newsweek correspondent) talked about how easy it was to trick the iaea,
That is the coolest picture - for a Glee production.
Prideful and gay. An uncomfortable ensemble.
in the earlier example, they were piggy backing on elements of the extant south African nuclear program, which brings us to uranium one's transport partner, rod fisk's translogistics,
Is Cook about ready to register with the FARA?
About time for a visit, Cook. You could join the Australian couple who were just as certain as you are that Iran is benign.
A blogger couple who traveled from Australia to Asia and the Middle East in an attempt to “break the stigma” surrounding developing countries was reportedly arrested in Iran.
The duo were recently identified as Jolie King and Mark Firkin, the BBC reported on Thursday. Although the couple was arrested 10 weeks ago near Tehran, it wasn’t until Wednesday that the news became known.
I'm sure the mullahs would let you share.
of course those were monies and contracts that held over from the shah's regime, now there was an indecent interval where many European parties from france to Sweden to the uk did arm one or both conflicts, re timmerman's fanning the flames, or the sepri report,
work from this chapter backwards,
http://www.iran.org/tib/krt/fanning_ch8.htm
Some people don't seem to take the possibility of war with Iran seriously. We could easily lose, or involve the whole region in an conflagration. Iran has 81 million people, the same number Germany had in 1939. Its cruise missiles flew hundreds of miles and hit their targets within a few feet. If Iran is able to target a moving ship like it did the Saudi Arabian oil refinery we could lose a carrier in the blink of an eye. Iran considers Trump a paper tiger because it shot down a drone with impunity a couple months ago. And Iran seized an oil tanker too. It thinks of the American people the way Japan thought of us before Pearl Harbor--soft, selfish, decadent, divided and feckless. Listening to some Americans these days I can't say I really disagree.
an overall view,
http://www.iran.org/tib/krt/fanning_ch7.htm
so you want a missile boat, a naval installation, a battery of missile launchers, what do you suggest Paul, because like Malone (paraphrasing) when you hit them, you have to go all the way ,
War with Iran has been inevitable since Obama kneeled before them in the form of pallets of cash on his way out the door.
"About time for a visit, Cook. You could join the Australian couple who were just as certain as you are that Iran is benign."
I don't assume Iran is benign. I also don't assume the U.S. is benign, (as we are manifestly not). I do assume Iran is a rational actor and would not act in a way that could bring about an attack on them by the U.S. (and any nations we could drag in with us).
If we are going to assert other nations have committed violent actions, especially when in service to ramping up our going to war against that country, hard proof must be presented, and Congress must decide what actions to take. (Absent UN Security Council approval, however, we have no legal basis to mount military action against another nation, except in self-defense of ourselves or of an ally. As Saudi Arabia is an ally of ours, albeit a thuggish one, Congress could vote to go to war against Iran if it were proved they had attacked the SA oil fields. The president cannot unilaterally order attacks, not constitutionally, in any case. But we have long been a post-constitutional nation. The constitution is a dead letter.)
Given our long history of lies to support our geopolitical aims and actions, we must assume declarations of Iran attacking Saudi Arabia to be false...until proven true.
For a former doctor, you engage in surprisingly childish argument.
and when we had one with Iraq, it still didn't matter,
we've gotten a taste of what they can dish out with the efp's targeted at our forces, in Afghanistan and Iraq, one of the pasdaran commanders active in the second theatre was behind the attempted attack on café milan0
general mattis, in his memoir didn't think the Obama administration showed enough concern over that incident, he was replaced the following year as centcom commander, now Hezbollah has been bloodied in it's fight in Syria against salafi militia funded by turkey Qatar and the kingdom,
"we must assume declarations of Iran attacking Saudi Arabia to be false...until proven true."
I'm curious. How do you propose to do that?
I mentioned the amal militia, being the base of Hezbollah, qaddafi was very helpful in providing Mustafa sadr, a 'hotel california' experience, he disappeared in 1978, right before the revolution,
now I could have mentioned the attack on el Descanso restaurant inside torrejon airbase in 1985, but that act attributed to Hezbollah, was carried out by Mustafa setmarian, the one who would direct the madrid and London bombings,
"I'm curious. How do you propose to (prove Iran's guilt)?"
The same way crimes are solved...finding evidence, witnesses, etc., that proves the guilt of a given party (or parties). If we can find no evidence to support our assertions Iran bombed the SA oilfields, we have no valid basis to mount a military strike against them.
Any more category error, you want to engage in, the Iranians have gripes over Syrian, yemen, Iraq, western Afghanistan, (Baloch) now you tell me they aren't engaging in anything they consider payback
"I do assume Iran is a rational actor and would not act in a way that could bring about an attack on them by the U.S.”
They wouldn’t be the first nation "called by God" to fight a war. Shutting down the Saudi oil spigot would make sanctions impossible to maintain, and with plausible deniability, that is certainly a rational course.
I have no idea what to do. All our options are bad ones. So far sanctions hasn't done much but hurt the average Iranian. People say all the time that sanctions don't work, but they did work in South Africa. It just took an incredibly long long time. And it is not clear the conclusion was a happy one. They just changed oppressors is all. We have tremendous disadvantages fighting a war with a country on its own border. Our supply train is 6500 miles long. Our carriers will have to stay so far away to avoid swarms of cruise or ballistic missiles our planes might not be very effective. We can't fight a land war. They have all the troops right on the spot. Most wars are won on the ground. Iran has the overwhelming advantage there. What to do? I don't have a clue. The whole subject is both depressing and serious.
of course the canary in the minefield, was the attack on shaybah in the south east corner, that also came from drones northeast, not southwest,
The fact that Iran still exists makes a joke of every "Human Rights" campaign ever. Any decent, peace-loving world would have removed that tumor long ago. But they remain, enslaving people, murdering with impunity, and receiving the support of the Leftwing war-mongers who pretend to desire Peace.
the mismanagement of the regime, has caused that, just as has in Venezuela, the basij the pasdaran are the enforcers of the regime, there have been protests for the better part of a year, but they aren't talked about, twitter tried to deplatform heshmat alavi, who actually did cover the protests,
langford peel said...
"Wait a minute!
We are going to be attacked by the Q-Tip battalion?"
No, sir. that is the elite tampon regiment. The Q tips have black uniforms. It's easy to con fuse the two. They are both part of the Personal Hygiene Division.
How does Bob know that the US is lying? What is his source? Or is ," we're lying, just his default position? Saves on doubt and the actual effort to ,ya know, investigate. Or maybe the counter point supplied talking point.
Saudi Arabia is not just an ally; more like a stepchild with its own ideas though still in the family.
Striking Saudi Arabia with a highly sophisticated coordinated drone and cruise missile attack and then blaming the whole thing on the Houthi "rebels" was genius, but smacks more of Putin and his people than the ayatollahs or the Revolutionary Guard brass. Ironic humor is not their strong suite.
As it is, Iran inflicted real damage on the Saudi oil industry and, probably more importantly, caused the U.S. and the House of Saud to lose face bigtime, so something is going to have to be done about it and preferably something equally damaging and devious.
I don't know. Trump may have the temper, but not the knowledge, and irony and a sense of humor has never been a hallmark among our generals either.
their economy is hurting, and we're not going to fall for another 'oil for food' gambit, as in 20 years ago,
"How does Bob know that the US is lying?"
I said, if you bothered to read carefully, that we must assume the US is lying as long as they continue making assertions without providing proof, or even compelling evidence. If such compelling evidence or proof can be produced, we can agree that US allegations are factual. If not, then not.
Plus, there's our past history of lying.
Tabriz was the capital of quite a few states. The one that comes to mind is the Ilkhanate, one of the successor states of the Mongol Empire.
the huntress pushed enemy independence, as a strategy to obviate disruptions like abquaiq, 11 years ago, it's this policy, that caused china to catch a spate of the flu, whereas we caught a little sniffle, of course this attack came right before the house pushed a bill that restricted oil exploration, so the mullahs are slobbering over the prospects of the democrats back in power,
50 years of Iran waging war on the West, and some dolts still aren't sure they really mean it.
'oil for food’ = ‘money for cronies."
Is there anybody besides Iran or their proxies that are even a possibility?
"but smacks more of Putin and his people “
Putin is at the top of the list in a 'cui bono’ type of analysis. Fracking has him over a barrel. Hillary had promised to end it, but you know, Vlad doesn’t care about his largest source of hard currency, right? He would rather have a “Drill baby drill” Republican in place, so he defeated the lady who would have helped his economy the most!
money for palaces, but that's essentially correct, remember alqua qua, the gotcha that kofi annan pulled at the end of the 2004 campaign, they didn't tell you it was the white sands or Aberdeen proving grounds,
it wasn't a repository for small arms and ammunition, putin actually lost seats in his kabuki regional elections, wait that wasn't supposed to happen,
"50 years of Iran waging war on the West, and some dolts still aren't sure they really mean it."
Really? How? Where? When? What?
The oil field attack did not just cause physical damage, it made the U.S. and the Saudis look incompetent and rather silly with no idea of how to respond, and that is dangerous.
The 1982-1983 Tyre headquarters bombings
The blowing up of a van filled with explosives in front of the U.S. embassy in Beirut killing 58 Americans and Lebanese in 1983.
The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing of the U.S. Marine and French 'Drakkar' barracks which killed 241 American and 58 French peacekeepers. On May 30, 2003, a U.S. federal judge ruled that Hezbollah carried out the attack at the direction of the Iranian government.[22]
The 1983 Kuwait bombings in collaboration with the Iraqi Dawa Party.[23]
The 1984 United States embassy annex bombing, killing 24 people.[24]
The hijacking of TWA flight 847 holding the 39 Americans on board hostage for weeks in 1985 and murder of one U.S. Navy sailor
The Lebanon hostage crisis from 1982 to 1992.[25]
According to Middle East analyst James Philips, an August 1989 bombing in London was a failed Hezbollah assassination attempt on Indian-born British author Salman Rushdie, after the Iranian government put a $2.5 million bounty on his head over the novel The Satanic Verses.[26][27] Iranian officials have repeatedly called for Rushdie's death as recently as 2005.[28]
The bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina killing twenty-nine people in 1992. Hezbollah operatives boasted of involvement.[29]
The bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina killing 85 people in 1994. Hezbollah claimed responsibility.[30] Argentine justice accused Iran of being behind the attacks because of Buenos Aires' decision to suspend a nuclear material delivery and technology transfer.[31]
The 1994 AC Flight 901 attack, killing 21 people, in Panama. Hezbollah claimed responsibility.[32]
The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, killing 19 US servicemen. On December 22, 2006, federal judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Iran was responsible for the attack, stating "The totality of the evidence at trial...firmly establishes that the Khobar Towers bombing was planned, funded, and sponsored by senior leadership in the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The defendants' conduct in facilitating, financing, and providing material support to bring about this attack was intentional, extreme, and outrageous."[33]
yes Saudi Hezbollah which operates in north east corner of the kingdom, the panama bombing was something I recently heard about,
about half of those incidents rouhani as head of their security council, had some imput into, you see how this works,
Hmmm...given that extensive ledger of crimes, why hasn't Iran been taken out before now?
Do we know these were all crimes certainly perpetrated by Iran? Or are some or many of these more alleged crimes that are not proven?
as well liquidations of dissidents in Vienna and berlin, the last under moussavian, now both of these offered a grand bargain, to American diplomats, which was wisely rejected, iran has provided sanctuary to seif al adel, who helped plan attacks on western compounds in Saudi arabia, in 2003-2004, adel was one of the planners behind the ambush in Mogadishu in 93, and an early proponent of the 'planes operation' that would result in 9/11, he also was the one who selected zarquawi, to go to Iraq,
Cook, you can whitewash the vile history of post-Revolutionary Iran all you want. Those of us who know the world as it actually is, know exactly what that regime is all about. You don't or you pretend not to, either way you are a useless contributor to any conversation on the matter.
it's not true they won't work with sunni militants and vice versa,
https://www.longwarjournal.org/tags/saif-al-adel/page/2
OK, Bob. Using those same criteria we'll just assume you're lying.
The parade costumes may be funny-looking, but those are real AKs that they are carrying and I find it reasonable to assume that they know how to use them.
I guess he pleads ignorance or he could be paul pillar, which is about the same speed, he was in charge of counter terror operations for the better part of 20 years, and according to widlanski, was wrong in practically every one of his judgments,
The WikiLeaks US Diplomatic Cables, 250,000+ that Manning released were refreshing.
What the US said in private, matched what was said in public.
This is a good counter argument against the idea the us is lying about the Saudi attack.
Well, again...if their crimes are so extensive and so well-known and well documented, why have they not been dealt with accordingly? As I say, I don't assume they're benign, and I'm sure they have been involved in much bad business, (as have many countries, adversaries and allies alike, e.g., Saudi Arabia), but that does not mean we can accuse them of a criminal action today and mount a military response without anything but the government's assertion, with no proof to support it.
"Hmmm...given that extensive ledger of crimes, why hasn't Iran been taken out before now?"
Maybe the US isn't nearly as blood thirsty as you believe.
"OK, Bob. Using those same criteria we'll just assume you're lying."
You're free to do so, but...about what? I'm not making any assertions that I must prove.
They haven't been dealt with accordingly because they have apologists and enablers who crave perpetual warfare.
Catamites on parade.
there was operation Cassandra, which tried to interdict Hezbollah operatives (one of whom worked for Ukrainian arms export) shipped cocaine through west Africa into Europe, that was shut down,
"Maybe the US isn't nearly as blood thirsty as you believe."
I'm not saying by us. We're not the world's policeman and we don't have the right or obligation to unilaterally attack any country at will. I mean by a coalition of nations who have been harmed by Iran or who will unite to stop their ongoing malfeasance?
that's what they did when they didn't have 150 billion to work with, what happens when they do, as they did for at least two years,
Because a "Coalition of Nations" was tried in the first Gulf War, and it became evident that 90% of the world didn't really mean it. Try to keep up with current events as you age, so you won't need so many remedial lessons.
as pointed by the timmerman links, two many of the countries in the coalition, had major contracts with one or both parties, hence they wanted to make as many waivers as possible,
Hez b'Allah?
You mean the Army of God?
Yep.
That sounds like rational actors.
Not policeman.
And the UN has a veto.
Robert Cook, ladies and gentlemen.
That kind of useful idiot cannot be bought.
It must be learned.
they are a creation of the revolutionary guard, as mentioned above, it is 'the spear of the nation' note where you find them, in the triple frontier, in Syria, et al, the houthis are being built up into this capacity, of course friedman, wright, and Norton, misunderstood Hezbollah from the beginning, including the long line of officials of the former, that rose to the ministry of defense,
I'm sorry - I have nothing intelligible to say about the issues of war, because I'm still distracted by the picture of the Gay Muslim Rifle Brigade.
I didn't know Islamic war-making could be so fab!
If those are AK-47's they're carrying, they better hope Beto doesn't see this photo, or he'll disarm them immediately.
Someone knew those Bed Bath and Beyond coupons would come in handy.
There's a whole chic and kinky side to Persian culture that just can't be kept in the closet. I think they look divine!
Traditional, regional, tribal, and cultural units or affiliations are common in multiethnic empires, as already mentioned. The Brits have the Welsh Guards, Sherwood Foresters, etc.; in WWI the Austrian leaders herded unwilling ethnic minorities from one end of the Empire to the other to be slaughtered using tactics that were out of date in 1815, because that's all they were trusted for. And most of those minorities were only capable of beating Italians from good positions, anyway.
The Indian Army was on paper almost entirely regional; the Brits even had preferred "martial races." They actually were pretty good, being drawn AIUI from families and clans of "mercenary" soldiers. Bengal Lancers, Rajputs, Gurhkas!
Narr
If the Brits can have their King's Own Queens, I say "You go, girls!"
The Brits do a much better job making their bearskins uniform.
It is interesting if you talk to an Iranian american or many of the Iranian diaspora that have left they generally have dismissive view of Iranian military prowess. The notion of being a military power in the region when they can barely keep their home grown weapons functioning is laughable to them. The Mullahs are on shaky ground when a bus strike, rising cooking oil prices or a tomato shortage can cause rioting for days so launching a war against Saudi Arabia doesn't make a lot of sense to them. I'm willing to see economic sanctions tightened before starting yet another endless war.
Economic Sanctions are the status quo. Why anyone would want to preserve the status quo vis-a-vis Iran is beyond me. Choosing to not confront Iran is choosing endless War.
Because after Iraq and Afghanistan, it will BE A LONG TIME before the US invades another country.
We are still fighting in Afghanistan, 18 years later.
With no end in site.
The cost of taking out Iran has been deemed higher, than the value, by US Presidents going back to Carter. Reagan did have a covert war against Iran in the gulf, which the Iranians backed down from.
Trump has been very strategic on his use of military force, to my surprise.
Examples:
1. The destruction of the Russian Mercenary company was very well done.
2. The attack on Syria due to the use of Chemical Weapons.
3. Not militarily retaliating for the Iranian downing of the US drone
4. Not militarily retaliating and the attack on Saudi Arabia.
5. Delegating to the military commander on the ground decision making, under Obama it was micro managed by the National Security Advisor.
6. Making the Rules of Engagement more sane.
7. Forcing our so called allies, to do more of the work defending themselves, vs. depending on the US.
8. At least floating the idea about leaving Syria and Afghanistan.
9. Pushing Isis back in Iraq and Syria
>"Hmmm...given that extensive ledger of crimes, why hasn't Iran been taken out before now?"
The perception of the Iranian Government, is the Saudis are in even worse shape militarily than they are.
And that Trump does not want a war with Iran before the election, so anything the Iranians can do to embarrass Trump, or get him into a war, increases the chance of Trump being a one term President. And just as after Pearl Harbor in the US, the Iranian Government believes a US attack against them would solidify the country behind them, and be a great distraction from how bad the Iranian Economy is.
>so launching a war against Saudi Arabia doesn't make a lot of sense to them.
The Mullahs are on shaky ground when a bus strike,
The leader of the bus strike was called "Iran's Wallesa." The mullahs are hated and the regime is on shaky ground.
Women are said to be "voting with their uteruses," as the birth rate is now below Europe.
But, of course, Cook is convinced this is all our fault.
al-Qtip Martyrs... inshallah-lockalocka... why did the Mullah cross the road?
Rusty said...
langford peel said...
"Wait a minute!
We are going to be attacked by the Q-Tip battalion?"
No, sir. that is the elite tampon regiment. The Q tips have black uniforms. It's easy to con fuse the two
***************
Rumor has it that their Spongeworthies are equal to our SEALS.
The fearsome Dandelion Division.
Who is red, exists in a realm including down below, and pretends to heart you?
Robert Cook is intentionally and maliciously confusing "American" with members of the government (including its dual passport holders), political classes, and media, who regularly conduct and promote activities that are squarely to the detriment of Americans and other citizens of the United States, sometimes using trite and stupid phrases, such as, "That is not who we are."
I no longer consider Cook amusing.
He seems to be actively hostile to America and favoring Iran, a Muslim theocracy which killed hundreds during the Green Revolution while Obama stood by.
I know some Iranians, fairly recent refugees. To support the regime, as Cook does, is to defame them.
"Why anyone would want to preserve the status quo vis-a-vis Iran is beyond me" Well, there are other ways to skin a cat. Why does military action always have to be the go to hammer for every problem in the world? Thanks to fracking I couldn't give two shits what happens to those quislings who have shirked their share of the load in protecting the strait of Hormuz. Now that they no longer have Uncle Sucker to pick up the slack I guess they will have to grow the fuck up and "do something" won't they?
Does everyone have to buy their own hat? Why don't they match? (They're all fabulous, but still....)
Well its still a concern, a journal report that it will take longer to bring abquaiq back on line will lead to prices ticking up in the short term.
Because after Iraq and Afghanistan, it will BE A LONG TIME before the US invades another country.
I give Mexico the side eye.
Thanks to fracking I couldn't give two shits what happens to those quislings who have shirked their share of the load in protecting the strait of Hormuz.
Exactly. Think about the Democrats who all want to end fracking. Think about Cuomo whop would rather that upstate New York be a wasteland than allow fracking.
Call me slow.....but I now know that the heart shape is the last thing you see before you bury your face in a woman's pussy.
The North Korean girl army gets shoulder straps for their AKs, it must be a pain to carry them at port arms all day. Should take some of the hat money and buy some tactical gear.
I was told by an expert that you can’t drill your way to energy independence.
God Bless America, the insanity meter is alive n kicking
Laugh all you want. But if you need a home dusted, these dudes git-r-done.
Ray - So Cal gets a lot right in his long list, but if you read Bacevich, Ullman, and some other critics you realize the the US military's problem is largely structural--not only micromanagement by pols and lawyers, but there have been operations involving as few as a hundred people being overseen by four (four!) 4-stars.
We can put a world of hurt on anyone, anywhere, but that's not the same as being able to create and maintain policies and strategies that make war less likely. One thing I've grown to appreciate (grok) about Trump is that he really would rather build stuff--tacky, expensive, Trumpian stuff, maybe--than destroy.
Narr
No approach is without risk, but I give him a +1 on this
Those hats look like albino Beatles wigs to me...
Except bacevich really doesnt want to intervene or even provide support (as a captain he wantes to to cut loose the salvadoran military)
Jsephbleau said...
I was told by an expert that you can’t drill your way to energy independence.
An expert in identity politics with experience in the black politics of voter non-ID in Chicago.
Invaluable experience in vote fraud
Michael K just got a shout-out from Instapundit for his Wareham comment in the Coates article the professor posted this morning.
"I was told by an expert that you can’t drill your way to energy independence."
Was there ever a more inapt slogan than "Yes We Can!"?
Drudge click bait?
This post is 'Farmer bait.
Dont forget the paste eating solon, that voted against the alaskan pipeline.
So the right-wingers are urging the next decades-long war, this time fought for no one's benefit but Mecca's. How unpredictable.
I no longer consider Cook amusing.
It's not that he is amusing or even annoying. He is sincere in his beliefs, neither a troll nor an idiot.
However, he is a stereotypical 60's "intellectual" who truly believes that he has both the moral high ground and all the relevant information. He was convincing to his peers and students many years ago. When he is unsure of his knowledge, he requires absolute proof (i.e., jury trial) for opposing opinions. It's an obvious defensive dodge.
I would much rather deal with Cookie than Inga the Idiot, Ritmo the Maniac or Chuckles the LLR Clown. He is also preferable to Field Marshall Freder, readering and Vicki. I left out a few of the unremarkable ones.
Yes, exactly what I've been thinking as I've skimmed the comments (since I have nothing of any interest to add that hasn't already been written here)-- where is Farmer?
I saw a link to this story in the NYT but it was paywalled so found a version of it here:
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/sep/22/iranian-students-report-sudden-u-s-visa/
When I searched, I found a lot of stories blaming this on President Trump's Muslim ban. You remember, the "Muslim Ban" that banned about 10% of the world's Muslims from entering the US. (Not the 227mm from Indonesia, or the 204mm from India, or the 187mm from Bangladesh or the 95mm from Nigeria or ...)
Anyway, PDJT's latest human rights atrocity. FEEL THE RAGE!!!!!
Iranian students report sudden U.S. visa reversals
by Karen Zraick The New York Times | Today at 3:37 a.m.
At least a dozen Iranian students who were set to begin graduate programs in engineering and computer science say their visas were abruptly canceled and they were barred from their flights to the United States this month.
The article also says:
A law enacted in 2012 under President Barack Obama requires the U.S. government to deny visas to Iranian students whose course work would prepare them to work in the energy or nuclear sectors in their home country.
Sounds like a good idea to me. In the first place I did not know that we were letting any Iranians in to study anything. I don't know why we should.
In the second place, I don't know why the law has not been enforced for 7 years.
Another tidbit from the article: "The student workers in the University of California system are represented by the U.S. Automobile Workers Local 2865. Its president, Kavitha Iyengar, said in a statement that her members "do not deserve to be discriminated against."
What the heck is the US Auto Workers? Is it possible that the reporter means the United Auto Workers but is stupid? I am assuming that to be the case. So why are Iranian students being represented by any union at all?
For a fantastic novel about this, read Cobweb by Neal Stephenson and his uncle George Jewsbury. Jewsbury is an interesting character himself.
The book, written in 1996 is about the runup to a fiction war (like Iraq) and a group of foreign (like Iraqi) students at a mythical midwest ag school. The students are there by order of the government developing a particularly lethal version of anthrax.
Perhaps Stephenson's best novel after Cryptonomicon, IMHO. I've read it a dozen or more times and can never get enough.
Another, very different novel, about a presidential campaign, is also by Stephenson and Jewsbury and is every bit as good.
...he is a stereotypical 60's "intellectual" who truly believes that he has both the moral high ground and all the relevant information.
Said a guy who has neither.
Can anyone point to a single instance when Massage Therapist Frannie D. actually mentioned a fact? I don't think it's ever occurred.
But he sure is certain of his snide opinions and how vituperative he can make them. That's important. A very under-rated skill nowadays.
Ah code something or other, terry hayes
, the producer behind road warrior also has a spy thriller with a pandemic theme i am pilgrim, thats the code name for the medically trained covert operative, who has to stop a pandemic by an equally skilled saudi who is educated elsewhere, but itonocally funded by americans
Think about the Democrats who all want to end fracking.
It's funnier to think about the Republicans who all want to end those carcinogenic windmills and radioactive solar panels.
It atarts as a grialy murder mystery on the lower east side, but then cuts to the back story behind this asset it segues to moscow the kingdom switzerland syria afghanistan turkey and host of other locations to discover how the seemingly perfect crime ties to this plot
It has the scope of a bond film, but the stakes are much greater and more immediate.
We're so lucky to have an allegedly American president who is farsighted enough to realize the threat that some mullahs pose to our sacred Meccan homeland. He also recognizes the threat of Cuban cigars. He's definitely the guy you want looking out for you.
Blogger Birkel said...
That kind of useful idiot cannot be bought.
I mentioned that I had listened to the full 3 hours of Corey Lewendowski's testimony on the plane yesterday. Pure comedy gold and I highly recommend listenind.
Birkel reminded me of one of the funnier incidents. One of the republicans is talking and says something about "Useful idiots". In context, appropriately, recalling Lenin's original usage.
Sheila Jackson Lee exploded! How dare he call another member an "idiot". She cited rules and so on and demanded that Nads do something! A couple of minutes of comedy gold. In the end, Nads ruled, as chairman, that it was OK. Not because it was "useful idiot" but that somehow it was not pejorative. I think he wanted to rule something like "In your case, Sheila, it is an accurate description" but thought he could not get away with it."
https://youtu.be/m-ExWdIkMaA?t=386
Later Lewendowski worked into one of his answers a comment about the phrase and what it means.
John Henry
Interface was the other one about an ohio gov who is fitted with a computer chip.
Ah like churchills rejoinder to lady astor.
I read that one years ago, it had different style than stephenson
Blogger Chief Executive Lawbreaker - Whiny Weasel Trumpkins said...
It's funnier to think about the Republicans who all want to end those carcinogenic windmills and radioactive solar panels.
Wind and solar are the curly lightbulbs of the 21st century.
They were a truly horrible idea but they got people thinking that maybe there really is a better way than incandescents. This ain't it but perhaps we can find something.
Wind and solar are horrible ideas, other than a very few, small scale, applications. But they have gotten people thinking that perhaps there is a better alternative to fossil fuel for electricity generation.
Wind and solar ain't it, but what we need is nuclear.
We should be building 20-30 nuclear plants, in the 1,000MW range, a year. We should start in the year of our Trump 2020 and just keep going till we have enough to eliminate fossil fuel use.
We can even use electric vehicles in the places where they make sense if we build enough extra nukes.
Reserve fossil fuels for the areas where electric motation does not make sense (Most of the US)
John Henry
Post a Comment