That Soleimani killing shook up the regularly scheduled break from the news, but the break provided a space within which to be unpredictable, and I read it in Bloomberg News: "U.S. Killing of Soleimani Leaves Trump 'Totally Unpredictable.'"
That is, I observe, a prediction. That gives Trump the power to be unpredictable by being predictable. If he does the most obvious thing now, it should take people by surprise — if it's actually true that he's totally unpredictable.
The quote at Bloomberg is:
“The Americans are now totally unpredictable,” Gerard Araud, a former French ambassador to the U.S. and the United Nations, said in an interview. “There was no response to Iranian attacks against oil tankers, a U.S. drone and Saudi oil fields, but out of the blue comes this surprising hit on Soleimani. We are depending on the unpredictable reaction of one man.”Is that bad in war? I can't even tell whether Araud thinks it's bad. I certainly hope that the threat to hit Iranian cultural sites is merely a bluff. At first, I wanted to think he didn't really say that, but here's Maggie Haberman at the NYT:
Aboard Air Force One on his way back from his holiday trip to Florida, Mr. Trump reiterated to reporters the spirit of a Twitter post on Saturday, when he said the United States government had identified 52 sites for retaliation against Iran if there were a response to Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani’s death. Some, he tweeted, were of “cultural” significance....
“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” the president said. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”
Posts
469 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 469 Newer› Newest»We destroyed one of the greatest cultural sites in Italy, the Monte Cassino Abbey in 1943. It was completely unnecessary, but no one in the press complained. No Democratic Pol attacked FDR for doing it. Like today, the D's marched in lock-step and supported their leader.
Unpredictably is a tried and true tactic in any competition, including military conflicts. Opponents prepare for what they predict you will do.
What is with the fetish about World Heritage sites? The Iranians are using them to protect their military assets from attack; any damage done to them is all on them.
Wibble: "I prefer Darmok at Tanagra."
Same historical impact as Trump at Escalator.
stevew: "What is with the fetish about World Heritage sites? The Iranians are using them to protect their military assets from attack...."
This is the vibe I'm getting.
Kyoto was never bombed, either conventionally or atomically.
right, there were 6 sites that were off the list
Emperor's house
Kyoto
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
the city the the Nagasaki raid was Supposed to target
another one, that i've Totally forgotten about
Every other (major) city in Japan was gone by the time the a-bombs were ready
'when the walls fell' they say it took two years to right that episode,
"Blowing up a mosque that's being used as a military headquarters by terrorists because they think the minarets make them invulnerable wouldn't necessarily be bad."
The Parthenon comes to mind - though that explosion was self inflicted. Monte Casino also. Though that was more an act of frustration than true tactical necessity.
@hombre:
Farmer joins the cheese-eating surrender monkeys in failing to understand that “enough is enough” signifies changed circumstances.
Enough is enough? We've been trying to economically sabotage the country and overthrow its leadership. You think that might invite reprisal?
"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.” Sun-Tzu, The Art of War
Trump is not going to put "Boots on the ground". If we have a "war" with Iran, it will be a cruise missile, drone war. We don't even have to risk our pilots. Iran is never going to attack us, because they will get massacred. We can easily sink every ship in the Iranian navy. We can strike their oil fields, refineries, and cultural sites.
And they can't do much to us, except sink a few tankers in the Persian gulf. The Mullahs are smarter than Sadaam, who was an idiot. He had no weapons of mass destruction, but decided to die rather than admit it.
Don’t we have a bomb that leaves buildings in tact?
@gilbar:
We might be talking about different wars, i'm talking about Iraq; are you talking about Afghanistan?
This was your comment:
"J Farmer replied to me (thanx J), saying...
Trump's Afghanistan Troop Surge is Complete, Raising Total Number of US Servicemen to 14,000
Looks like that was 2017, Wikipedia says that they're back down to 5,200"
Do you know what’s interesting about this?
We are running the same experiment in blue cities.
So there is less incarceration, criminals aren’t being charged.
Have you gone out to steal your $1000 worth of merchandise today?
I would have said sho koshugi, but it was toshiro mifune,
@Drago:
Wasn't that a magnificent series? Amazing story, amazing scope, colors, cultural insight, etc.
Plus: Richard Chamberlain pretending to like women? Now that cat could act!
Yes, I am a big fan of the series. Much prefer it to Chamberlain's more popular mini series, The Thorn Birds.
Except that...Maduro now completely runs Venezuela. And I swear I read back around 2010, Chavez signed an agreement with the black turbans they could put missiles there.
1800 miles is FLA.
It should be noted that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both easier to bomb, being in Southern japan. Dropping an A-bomb on "The Emperor's Palace" would've been a tricky thing - a crap shoot - requiring a degree of accuracy that was impossible.
Groves was a real dunce. A "pragmatic scientist/engineer" type who suffered from tunnel vision and a lack of wisdom. Whether it was championing the bombing of Kyoto or protecting Openheimer from the FBI, he made bad decisions.
narciso: "I would have said sho koshugi, but it was toshiro mifune,"
Admiral Yamamoto. Exactly.
I prefer Darmok at Tanagra.
At least nobody has brought up Lepanto.
and his vice president sold hundreds of passports to al queda and Hezbollah operatives,
I am aware of no accounts from February 1943 that the bombing and shelling of Monte Casino was militarily unnecessary. Post-war inquiry revealed that.
No shortage of targets in Iran that are not cultural heritage sites. Remember, world cultural heritage sites are considered part of all of our heritage.
p.s. Look for Ashley Judd in Darmok. It was her first acting role.
We are depending on the unpredictable reaction of one man.”
Is that bad in war?
No, it is not. In war, the ultimate sin is to be predictable
Tarik aissami, half Syrian half Iraqi, general cabello's sun cartel was the first leg of the smuggling network to prague, run by ali antar, that operation Cassandra, tried to dismantle, his day job was for Ukrainian military export division,
readering said...
No shortage of targets in Iran that are not cultural heritage sites. Remember, world cultural heritage sites are considered part of all of our heritage.
That's rather colonialist of you. "Hey, Iranians, those aren't YOUR 'heritage' sites, they're OURS!"
You've got some serious white privilege going there, readering.
Those are Iranian heritage sites. If they want to keep them, they'll refrain from attacking the US
The whole "unpredictability" bit is just a rehash of Nixon's "madman theory." Trump has been employing it, most prominently with North Korea, to very little effect.
You have to ask yourself, why do Democrats always side with the enemy?
One of the common lines from the Islamic fundamentalists like the people running Iran is "your weakness is you want to live, and we want to die."
They've told us we can't deter them just by threatening to kill them. Fine. That means we have to look for different ways to deter them.
Good for President Trump to be willing to think outside the box
"I am aware of no accounts from February 1943 that the bombing and shelling of Monte Casino was militarily unnecessary."
Then, you need to read more.
@Greg the class traitor:
If they want to keep them, they'll refrain from attacking the US.
Why can't Iran just let us economically sabotage them for fuck's sake? When we talk about overthrowing their government, why can't they just accept it? Why do they insist on retaliating against our "maximum pressure" campaign? They are such meanies!
J. Farmer said...
The whole "unpredictability" bit is just a rehash of Nixon's "madman theory." Trump has been employing it, most prominently with North Korea, to very little effect.
Wrong. He's been employing it against North Korea to great effect.
Unlike Clinton and Obama, Trump hasn't been giving the North Koreans danegeld. But they've stopped their missile tests anyway, because they don't want Trump to kill them
Farmer “Enough is enough? We've been trying to economically sabotage the country and overthrow its leadership. You think that might invite reprisal?”
Oh, sorry, Farmer. I just keep thinking of our blown up soldiers, the terrorists they sponsor, etc. For a moment I forgot Iran is the victim. I must renew my subscription to the NYT, or can I just trust you to remind me?
J. Farmer:
Why are you so desperate for the mad Islamic Theocratic dictators of Iran to win?
What is the mental and moral sickness that you suffer, such that you side with the dictators of Iran, not just against the US, but against their own people?
What is it that has made you so sick and twisted?
Men, all this stuff you hear about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big-league ball players and the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. The very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Battle is the most significant competition in which a man can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base.
J. Farmer: "The whole "unpredictability" bit is just a rehash of Nixon's "madman theory." Trump has been employing it, most prominently with North Korea, to very little effect."
There is no "North Korea" discussion worth having without the China discussion which subsumes it.
Farmer: "Yes, I am a big fan of the series. Much prefer it to Chamberlain's more popular mini series, The Thorn Birds."
The Thorn Birds is fine as long as you leave it on mute and pause on Rachel Ward.
In 1945, Dresden was no more or less a legitimate military target than any other city in Germany. I've been to Dresden and numerous other German and European cities, and most of them suffered damage in the world wars. But all the big city-bustings then were in the context of declared total war between states.
If Europeans in general are less eager to fight than USAians, well, that's learned behavior.
It's not even debatable that deliberate targeting of cultural sites is a crime under international law, but IL is just an aspect of the passing phase of Western dominance and the Iranians have long since made it clear that they don't consider themselves bound by foreign infidel practices based on 1648.
Which of course is merely an aspect of Persian cultural arrogance coupled with Islam's pragmatic (not to say utterly cynical) approach to lying to kaffirs.
Richard Overy's The Bombers and the Bombed, and Robin Neilland's The Bomber War are good recent books on the topic of strategic bombing in Europe, and it wouldn't surprise me if there was some modern convenience nearby where one can search for and perhaps purchase books.
Narr
BTW the Turks have been in Libya before, and not that long ago, so relax
but we have not been nearly as effective, certainly on the shia side of the equation going back to 1983, it took 25 years to take out mugniyeh, in that time he helped build this Iranian puppet state, was a middle man to the karine A, probably even trained some of the badr and sadr militias, al bagdadi was the third contestant for the office of caliph,
If only the martyr had focused his interests on ESPN and Netflix.
’Why can't Iran just let us economically sabotage them for fuck's sake? When we talk about overthrowing their government, why can't they just accept it?’
You should share this with Pelosi...
@Greg the class traitor:
Unlike Clinton and Obama, Trump hasn't been giving the North Koreans danegeld. But they've stopped their missile tests anyway, because they don't want Trump to kill them
"On May 4, under the watchful eye of Kim Jong Un, North Korea launched a series of projectiles featuring two types of large-caliber, multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) and a new short-range ballistic missile." - North Korea’s Newest Ballistic Missile: A Preliminary Assessment 08 May 2019
"The North Koreans did not describe what was tested, but prior open-source imagery suggests it was a static (ground) test of a large liquid-propellant rocket engine.[2] It remains to be seen what rocket system the engine was associated with: a previously launched intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), intermediate-range ballistic missile, space launch vehicle, or a new system." -Resumed North Korean ICBM Testing: Possible Technical Objectives 09 Dec 2019
@Greg the class traitor:
Why are you so desperate for the mad Islamic Theocratic dictators of Iran to win?
What is the mental and moral sickness that you suffer, such that you side with the dictators of Iran, not just against the US, but against their own people?
What is it that has made you so sick and twisted?
Oh spare me your lame moral preening. Are you possibly naive enough to believe this? You actually think the US gives a shit about dictators? Supporting dictators in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain is the cornerstone of US middle eastern geostrategy and has been for nearly a century.
@hombre:
Oh, sorry, Farmer. I just keep thinking of our blown up soldiers, the terrorists they sponsor, etc. For a moment I forgot Iran is the victim. I must renew my subscription to the NYT, or can I just trust you to remind me?
The Saudis supported Sunni insurgents in western Iraq that got lots of American soldiers killed. The Saudis support radical Salafist terrorists in Syria and Yemen.
So when do you want to bomb the Saudis?
just give them a comfy chair, because as you say, no dissident can ever tell the truth about a Marxist or islamist regime, they are entirely in their rights to kill, to kidnap, to extort the world,
I was at a party last night where most of the attendees were lefties and progs.
Very late into it the host asked myself and one of the other guests our opinions about taking out Soleimani, knowing that we were mostly on opposite sides politically.
I said for me it wasn't political but personal, given my military career, Iraqi theater service and Iranian involvement that has gone unanswered for 15 years. The prog fellow say's "so for you, it's fuck that guy?" I said yea. He then said "I agree. Fuck that guy. He deserved to die, Karma."
as to the other kerfluffle,
https://twitter.com/Occidentaljihad/status/1214153369021034496
The Middle East conflicts are really the aftermath and extension of the Cold War, when the USSR and the US competed for influence in the region once oil was discovered there.
@SGT Ted:
I said for me it wasn't political but personal, given my military career, Iraqi theater service and Iranian involvement that has gone unanswered for 15 years.
And what answer have we given to the Saudis for their financial support of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq?
Standard lefty tactic: If you're not willing to commit to attacking ALL dictatorships, simultaneously, then you cannot attack any of them.
that's partially true, the Russians backed Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, the US backed the kingdom the emirates and Pakistan, india stood somewhat in the middle,
Annie C. said...
Feast of the Epiphany.
Quite right. I don't know why I typed Feast of the Assumption.
Farmer, seriously, if you want to get into why we should at some point take out the Saudis too, I have no problem with that. I have no love for them. Sure thing.
What you don't get to do is say "You can't blow up one set of guys who attack us regularly until you blow up everyone who ever has at the same time." The Iranians don't get a pass because the Saudis also suck.
"Farmer: "It's always WWII somewhere! Someone's always the Japanese, something is always Pearl Harbor. Or if you prefer less Pacific metaphors, it's always Munich, someone's always Chamberlain, someone's always Hitler."
Actually, its almost NEVER the Japanese. Its almost ALWAYS Chamberlain, Appeasement, Nazis, Hitler, and...wait for it...Munich. The Reason they always use Hitler/Munich is because everyone has Nazi/Hitler burned into their brains by years of media/education brainwashing.
Plus, we did NOT appease the Japanese, that's why they attacked us! You can't say, "appeasing Iran - that's just like Pearl harbor"! Pearl Harbor came about because FDR listened to the 1941 war-hawks who advocated we stop "appeasing" Japan and cut off their oil/bauxite/steel.
Here's another aspect of the Iranian situation. If tomorrow, Trump gave Iranians "Pallets of cash" and signed a treaty of friendship, who would applaud? Not the Democrats, they'd cry Appeasement. Not the Republicans establishment, they're all war-hawks. Not the neo-cons or Israelis. Not the Saudis - they hate Iran.
So what about the great unwashed American Public? Well, they don't care. Conflict seems to have a lot of friends, while peace doesn't.
I have a helpful suggestion for the Iranians. Instead of responding with some act of wanton slaughter, they should be more focused and measured in their response. They should use their sleeper agents to blow up statues of Robert E. Lee in America. That would really flummox Trump and energize their base in the Democratic Party. Divide and conquer.
@Qwinn:
Standard lefty tactic: If you're not willing to commit to attacking ALL dictatorships, simultaneously, then you cannot attack any of them.
I am not a lefty, and you've misread my critique. I don't give a shit about dictators. It sucks for the people they have to live under, but that's not my business. What I am opposed to is people using "dictator" as an excuse to get America involved in more dumb, pointless wars.
And supporting, empowering, protecting, and giving money and guns to is not the same thing as "not willing to commit to attacking ALL dictatorships."
What you don't get to do is say "You can't blow up one set of guys who attack us regularly until you blow up everyone who ever has at the same time." The Iranians don't get a pass because the Saudis also suck.
Accepting that line of logic, why prioritize the Iranians? The entire point of our current deployment to Iraq is to battle ISIS, which was created by Saudi Arabia in Syria. What exactly has Iran done in the region that has been as disruptive and consequential as the Saudi and Emirati creation of ISIS as an attempt to bring down Assad?
princes salman's roundup at the ritz carlton, involved many of the figures of the golden chain that financed al queda, except the young bin Mahfouz which is some kind of model in Europe, he's trying safer al hawali, and sheikh awda for death, they issued the fatwa against coalition forces, 'leaky leahy' took up for him,
say we went after one of those dyspeptic princes, how quickly would the press turn on a dime and call him a martyr, like Qatari agent khashoggi,
@rcocean:
Plus, we did NOT appease the Japanese, that's why they attacked us! You can't say, "appeasing Iran - that's just like Pearl harbor"! Pearl Harbor came about because FDR listened to the 1941 war-hawks who advocated we stop "appeasing" Japan and cut off their oil/bauxite/steel.
Agree wholeheartedly.
Read the Seven Pillars of Wisdom (or re-watch Laurence of Arabia), SGT Ted. It's really about the West taking over the region from the Ottoman Turks after The Great War. Then, in the 30's oil fueled the West's industrial expansion and cemented Anglo-American interest in keeping the taps open.
Farmer:
There are literally thousands of veterans maimed by IEDs that were placed under Soiledremains' program that I'm sure would be happy to answer that for you. Never mind all the dead.
You know who else didn't discuss the napalming of Tokyo? The Japanese general staff when they discussed how to defend against the coming American invasion. They were prepared for twenty-five percent civilian casualties in order to keep the reputation of the Japanese army intact. There was no amount of bombing that would induce them to surrender. The way of Bushido....We get a lot of flak for the A-bombs, but those were the only bombs that worked on Japan.....I wonder if the mullahs ever discuss the examples of Iraq, Libya, Syria in their discussions about how to respond to American provocations. If not, why not?
i.e. Sanctions
If only Japan had been left alone.
@Qwinn:
There are literally thousands of veterans maimed by IEDs that were placed under Soiledremains' program that I'm sure would be happy to answer that for you. Never mind all the dead.
And there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and millions more maimed and displaced under America's program in Iraq. But I guess that's okay since they got killed by freedom bombs and freedom bullets.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Greg the class traitor:
Why are you so desperate for the mad Islamic Theocratic dictators of Iran to win?
What is the mental and moral sickness that you suffer, such that you side with the dictators of Iran, not just against the US, but against their own people?
What is it that has made you so sick and twisted?
Oh spare me your lame moral preening. Are you possibly naive enough to believe this? You actually think the US gives a shit about dictators? Supporting dictators in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain is the cornerstone of US middle eastern geostrategy and has been for nearly a century.
You didn't answer the question. You didn't even respond to the question.
Yes, there are less dangerous dictatorships were ally with, in order to defeat more dangerous ones. Which is why we allied with Stalin against Hitler.
Because the world is an imperfect place.
The question remains: why do you side with Iran against the US? Why do you side with the country that murders homosexuals for the "crime" of being homosexual? Why do you side with the country that throws women in jail, to suffer beatings and rapes, for the "crime" of not being submissive Islamic women?
What is the sickness, the hatred, that drives you to align with every country that's against the US, no matter how evil that country is?
"Hey, Saudi Arabia's a dictatorship, too!" Yes it is. So, let's destroy the evil government of Iran, and thus move SA up on the "to be dealt with" list.
Of course, teh sad reality is that, if President Trump gets to go against SA, you'd do a 180, and start supporting them.
WOW!!!
Trump by killing an Iranian Directly made the hidden war, that Iran has been conducting against the US since 1979, public. Which will probably reduce the chance of more Iranian actions. Very insightful! Very Trump, to show the Emperor Had No Clothes, again. The Low Chance of War with Iran
And from the Babylon Bee:
Trump Blamed For Causing Violence In Typically Peaceful Middle East
@Howard:
Read the Seven Pillars of Wisdom (or re-watch Laurence of Arabia), SGT Ted. It's really about the West taking over the region from the Ottoman Turks after The Great War. Then, in the 30's oil fueled the West's industrial expansion and cemented Anglo-American interest in keeping the taps open.
Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace is also illustrative.
I prefer Darmok at Tanagra.
I just don't like that episode.
not exactly, now Lawrence did lead the arab revolt, against the ottomans, but ibn saud was a spectator, to the whole scene, the bin shaalans who were originally Syrian, married into the sauds subsequently,
I think it's a 'question of dates' when the Japanese would attack, they would certainly have continued with the assault on Malaya, which general yamashita commanded, same with the phillipines, it was all in keeping with the greater Asian co prosperity sphere,
Appeasement wasn't such a bad word during the thirties. It meant making peace. In defense of Baldwin and Chamberlain, they didn't know Hitler was Hitler. They thought that some conciliatory gesture was possible that would ease his resentments and sate his need for territory. Well, you live and learn....What are the conciliatory gestures that we could make to the mullahs that would cause them to think better of us? More pallets? Reparations? Conversion to Islam, but only the Shiite version? There must be some gesture that will make things right.....I note in passing that the utter destruction of Germany helped the Germans to understand that militarism was not the way out of their problems. Perhaps there will be a similar way of moderating support for religious fanaticism in the Middle East. Anyway, the future will happen.
@Ray - SoCal:
The Low Chance of War with Iran
My favorite line from your link: "Iran, for its part, is heavily engaged in proxy war with Saudi Arabia in far-flung theaters including Syria, Yemen, Iraq, the Bahrain uprising, Lebanon and even Afghanistan."
Apparently "far-flung theaters" include countries right on Iran's borders.
Iman wonders: You have to ask yourself, why do Democrats always side with the enemy?
I did ask myself and my unwavering reply was, "Because they are traitorous scum".
there is one side he doesn't criticize, yes there are elements of the Saudi apparat, revealed in the 28 pages that were responsible for providing the support network for the hijackers, note how everyone lost interest after they were published,
New Secret Service rule. Accept no gifts of IED golf balls made in QUDs factory.
Farmer: Why prioritize Iran over Saudis?
Me: Well, thousands dead and maimed from IEDs to start with.
Farmer: OH YEAH WELL AMERICA SUX MORE FREEDOM BULLETS HUR HUR
So spectacularly lame.
we got out of there, just in time, huh
http://patterico.com/2020/01/03/a-pretty-good-distillation-of-yesterdays-momentous-decision/#comment-2292027
@Qwinn:
Farmer: Why prioritize Iran over Saudis?
Me: Well, thousands dead and maimed from IEDs to start with.
Farmer: OH YEAH WELL AMERICA SUX MORE FREEDOM BULLETS HUR HUR
So spectacularly lame.
No, "lame" describes the "literally thousands of veterans maimed" who got that way because of being sent off to a stupid war in Iraq that dipshits like you supported. And even if you may support some kind of vendetta against the Saudis for their support for Sunni jihadists in Iraq that got lots of Americans killed, the administration's position is to give them lots of military equipment and a blank check for their activities in the region, which hitherto have included creating ISIS and empowering Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
p.s. If a hostile foreign power invaded and occupied Mexico, you think American security services might work against them?
@mockturtle:
I did ask myself and my unwavering reply was, "Because they are traitorous scum".
Oh, how original. Never heard that one before. Apparently "traitorous scum" means not wanting more young American soldiers to die in yet another stupid, pointless war.
It was "spectacularly lame" because you asked for a reason to prioritize Iran over the Saudis. I answered it. Your reply had literally nothing to do with the question or the answer at hand. If anything it seems like you're arguing that we should prioritize bombing the US over bombing the Iranians.
"You think American security services might work against them?"
By planting IEDs that are as or more likely to kill innocent Mexicans than agents of your "hostile foreign power"? No, I don't think so. Funny how the term "war crimes" never gets introduced when talking about what Iranians do.
The administration's own argument?
So we are now to believe US diplomats are the only ones bound to tell the full and absolute truth?
That seems dumb!
Lebanon has the Sunni's now outnumbering the Shia, due to all the Sunni Refugees. 3 countries over. Iranian power in Lebanon is amazing, but it is a cash drain.
Yemen - Low cost effort.
Afghanistan - Another low cost effort.
Iraq - seems to be a major investment, but seems to becoming more Anti Iranian, and more Pro Iraqi Nationalist due to the corruption and incompetence of the government.
>Syria, Yemen, Iraq, the Bahrain uprising, Lebanon and even Afghanistan
@Greg the class traitor:
What is the sickness, the hatred, that drives you to align with every country that's against the US, no matter how evil that country is?
Greg, with all due respect, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Wanting to get the US out of dumb, endless wars that have cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives is not being "against the US," you cunt. I was arguing against endless war, immigration, and "free" trade back when the Bush-supporting GOP was enthusiastic for all of it. So I am not going to be lectured by some asshole whose catching up with me 15 years later. Fuck off.
@Qwinn:
If anything it seems like you're arguing that we should prioritize bombing the US over bombing the Iranians.
America withdrew from Iraq. The Saudis launched a covert war against Syria to bring down Assad and it transmogrified into ISIS. American troops went back to Iraq in 2014 and have been there since to assist Iraqi security forces (including Shia militia) to attack ISIS. The entire reason we even have troops in Iraq in the first place is to clean up a mess our main security partners created. But the number one problem in the region: Iran.
We killed the Sunni insurgents that appeared later in the war, including their generals and leaders in theater. Why should the Shiite Iranians get a pass?
Something very exciting is the railway and port that is linking Afghanistan through Iran. Railway still seems to be worked on. It's nice to be given more options for Afghanistan.
Railways of Afghanistan
And Iran over the last 20 years has put in a major effort to build more railways in Iran.
Something else major that is happening, is refugees are returning from Iran and Pakistan to Afghanistan, in the millions, over the last couple of years. This feels very important, but it seems to be ignored. May be about 20% of the population.
Problems with the Reintegration of Afghan Refugees
And in Iran, there are major minorities. Arabs in the oil area, Kurks in the North East, and Baluchi's in the South.
We don't attack Saudi Arabia because of oil. It's there get out of jail free card, similar to the nuke version of that card Iran is working on.
Farmer:
Ok, so besides the war crime of IEDs, add in the embassy attack and hostage taking of 1979, the embassy attack of 2012 (4 dead) and the embassy attack of 2019.
What other country seems to think attacking our embassies is akin to ordering takeout?
As for the Saudis, I haven't been following extremely closely, but last time I did I thought that there had been a shuffling of the princes in charge and that the last guy who was on top was significantly better than those who came before and, while not everything we could hope for, had the willingness and plenty to do to improve things before we needed to ask for someone else who would improve things even further. A reformist who was open to westernization and was even willing to let women drive. Apologies if this info is outdated, but "was moving significantly in the right direction" is in fact a reason to deprioritize them over the Iranians who have only gotten worse and worse in 40 years.
"Can you imagine how many EU leaders and minions have received direct payoffs from the Iranian regime?
I'll bet in numbers in the thousands over the years.
And I'll also bet that there are lots and lots of American politicians, lobbyists and "helpers" that have gotten their share of cash from the Iranians to keep US policy where the Mullahs want it."
The European nations were all on the take from Iraq prior to the US liberation, using the "Oil for Food" program to send Iraq military gear, arms and ammunition in trade for below market oil. It's why France, Germany and other UN members opposed taking out Saddam Hussein and didn't want us to liberate Iraq. It would end their sweet, sweet deal.
Because when we did liberate Iraq, we found all the documents and the military gear from those nations that proved their collusion with Iraq to violate all the UN Sanctions that they voted for.
J Farmer exclaims: Oh, how original. Never heard that one before. Apparently "traitorous scum" means not wanting more young American soldiers to die in yet another stupid, pointless war.
They don't give a shit about American soldiers. And I have been steadfastly against our involvement in the Middle East. The Dems are traitorous scum because they have worked to weaken, rather than strengthen, our country and have placed vicious terrorists into a victim status, falling into the same lame mousetrap to which Europe has succumbed. Because, to them, America is always bad and those who hate us are always good.
@SGT Ted:
We killed the Sunni insurgents that appeared later in the war, including their generals and leaders in theater. Why should the Shiite Iranians get a pass?
The Islamic Army in Iraq is not still active in Iraq, particularly in Diyala? What's become of Jihad and Reform Front groups like the Jaish al-Mujahideen or the Islamic Army in Iraq, the former having been supported by former Vice President al-Hashimi?
All I ask of our leaders is to never pick fights they can't win.
Yergin's old The Prize is still worth a read, for the background to current oil politics.
It's ironic that just when the commodity that makes anyone care about the Shithole Region is starting to be LESS important to the world economy, the geopolitics (with plenty of religious fervor in the usual quarters--Muzzies there, Human Righties here, the easily-propagandized everywhere) becomes MORE important.
Narr
Lots of people gonna be spectacled all over the place before it's done
Trump is working to get the US out of the Middle East as much as possible. The killing of Suleiman may actually help that goal. The US is exhausted from the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures, 18 years and what do we have to show for it? And there is little interest in a new adventure in Iran.
What there is popular support for in the US, is deterrence, and retaliation to stop further bad actions. Trump is channeling that with his actions in Syria and Iraq. I'm surprised at all the push back Trump got in Syria, about reducing the US presence. Thinking about it, gut feeling, no proof, may be due to a lot of money flowing from the Gulf to US politicians, that wants to keep the US involved in that area. Michael K.'s comment on Iranian and Chinese influence in the US got me thinking...
Trump has had 5 major actions in the Middle East:
1. Destruction of the Russian Mercenary Group that was attacking US positions.
2. Destruction of Isis as a significant force in Syria/Iraq.
3. Withdrawal from most of Syrian Territory.
4. Attack on Syrian Airbase that supposedly launched a chemical attack
5. Assassination of QUDS Leader/General Soleimani.
Note how all of them have not led to increased US Military casualties.
Good article:
What Is the Middle East In the Middle Of Anymore?
The United States is trying to square a circle, remaining strong and deterring dangerous elements, but to do so for U.S. interests—interests that increasingly seem to be fewer and fewer in the Middle East. - Victor Davis Hanson
Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Greg the class traitor:
What is the sickness, the hatred, that drives you to align with every country that's against the US, no matter how evil that country is?
Greg, with all due respect, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Wanting to get the US out of dumb, endless wars that have cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives is not being "against the US," you cunt.
You don't want "to get the US out of endless wars", you want Iran to win, and the US to lose.
That is the driving point behind your arguments. you want Iran to be a regional hegemon, and you want the US to lose.
The way to "get the US out of endless wars" is to win the damn wars, and destroy our enemies. but that is the one thing you absolutely don't want done.
Save the lies for someone who's gullible. I'm not
I particularly enjoy reading Farmer telling us over and over at how the mullahs are completely secure in their positions and nothing we can do will ever get them out of power.
I heard the exact same things about the USSR all through the 80's, and that's why Reagan's belligerence at them could only lead to death and tears.
Blogger Howard said...
We don't attack Saudi Arabia because of oil. It's there get out of jail free card, similar to the nuke version of that card Iran is working on.
Wong again, Howard. We don't attack Saudi Arabia because we are using them against bigger enemies, like Iran, and, back in the day, the USSR.
Thanks to fracking (which you leftists oppose), we don't need their oil. But we do want their counter-weight against Iran.
if you actually wanted SA to lose US support, you'd support the destruction of the current gov't of Iran. Because once they're gone, we can turn on the Saudis.
But your driving issue is your hatred of the US, so you, like J Farmer, put everything else to the side.
Sick, twisted, and evil
Haven't read all the comments. As far as cultural sites- one of the problems during WWII with coordination between American and other units was targeting. If Americans were being fired on from a building - they would, if artillery was available - destroy it without thinking. Our allies would react with horror at our total disregard for the historical value of the building. Americans don't care - something else can be built there! Europeans are '"But it won't be the same!" Tough.
Cultural and historical sites? In sharialand? They've demonstrated they don't care about Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or any other mon-muslim sites. Why should we care about theirs? Respect is a two way street. They want it, don't give it.
@Qwinn:
Ok, so besides the war crime of IEDs, add in the embassy attack and hostage taking of 1979, the embassy attack of 2012 (4 dead) and the embassy attack of 2019.
What other country seems to think attacking our embassies is akin to ordering takeout?
The notion that Iran was behind the Benghazi attack is a pet conspiracy theory promulgated by a single person, Kenneth R. Timmerman, and they only evidence he has ever provided for it was that he claimed to have spoken with two unnamed "Iranian sources."
A reformist who was open to westernization and was even willing to let women drive. Apologies if this info is outdated, but "was moving significantly in the right direction" is in fact a reason to deprioritize them over the Iranians who have only gotten worse and worse in 40 years.
You're right about not having paid close attention, obviously. MBS has been an impulsive, and incompetent leader who has gotten his country bogged down in a quagmire in Yemen. But Saudis pay a lot of money to sell the image of MBS as a westernizing reformer to credulous western audiences.
Last night I was reading at length about the Iranian government completely dismantling all the cultural sites of some culture that *only* had roots in Iran, and have thus been driven to near extinction. I'll post the link when I get home.
@Greg the class traitor:
But your driving issue is your hatred of the US, so you, like J Farmer, put everything else to the side.
Sick, twisted, and evil
I think sending young American men to die in a stupid, pointless war in Iraq is a lot more "sick, twisted, and evil" than anything I've ever supported. But that's the problem with goddamn idiots like you; you're incapable of realizing how goddamn stupid you are.
Smug.
It's what's for dinner.
@Qwinn:
I particularly enjoy reading Farmer telling us over and over at how the mullahs are completely secure in their positions and nothing we can do will ever get them out of power.
Stop making shit up, Qwinn. I've never said anything remotely close to that.
I heard the exact same things about the USSR all through the 80's, and that's why Reagan's belligerence at them could only lead to death and tears.
And just as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have shown, once a central government collapses, peace and prosperity are right around the corner. It takes a special kind of asshole to take a look at US involvement in the middle east for the last 20 years and think, "This has been great. Let's do more!"
"Men, all this stuff you hear about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big-league ball players and the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. The very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Battle is the most significant competition in which a man can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base."
I assume this comment by rcocean is meant to be darkly ironic.
"Why can't Iran just let us economically sabotage them for fuck's sake? When we talk about overthrowing their government, why can't they just accept it? Why do they insist on retaliating against our "maximum pressure" campaign? They are such meanies!"
The United States can never be the aggressor; we can only be aggressed against.
Greg the class traitor says: once the current gov't of Iran is gone, we can turn on the Saudis.
What will "turning on the Saudis" look like, roughly? And now that the geopolitical cat is out of the bag (it's a good thing nobody important reads Althouse) what's to prevent the Saudis from beating us to the punch?
Now, if you want to propose something like boycotting Saudi products and making a proper investigation of the enormous criminal enterprise that is the Saudi mob-state and its friends across the spectrum here, I'm game and would consider that a good start. I'd even favor carefully targeted strikes on Saudi individuals and locales, but I have the feeling
other, closer, players will take care of that.
Narr
If it wasn't for the environmental impact I'd suggest nukes
@Robert Cook:
The United States can never be the aggressor; we can only be aggressed against.
Right. Overthrowing the Taliban, overthrowing Hussein, overthrowing Gaddafi, trying to overthrow Assad. We can't keep letting the Iranians cause so much instability in the region.
Cook, rcocean is quoting George C Scott quoting George Smith Patton.
His grandpa Smith (Patton's I mean) had been a Confederate general. In other words, a loser. Either that, or not an American. Patton never clarified.
Narr
He had soldiers to motivate
"There are literally thousands of veterans maimed by IEDs that were placed under Soiledremains' program that I'm sure would be happy to answer that for you. Never mind all the dead."
None of those veterans would have been in place to be killed or maimed if we had not illegally invaded Iraq on false pretenses.
Farmer: I could swear I'd read you argue that the Iranian govt wasn't going anywhere just yesterday. If I misattributed, I will apologize. Unfortunately I'm not in the position to go searching threads or posting links until tonight.
"Cook, rcocean is quoting George C Scott quoting George Smith Patton."
Quoted to what effect: ironic or literal? If meant literally, it is psychotic.
@Qwinn:
Farmer: I could swear I'd read you argue that the Iranian govt wasn't going anywhere just yesterday. If I misattributed, I will apologize. Unfortunately I'm not in the position to go searching threads or posting links until tonight.
The closest I can recall coming to saying anything to that effect is pointing out, "Iran hawks have been predicting the imminent implosion of the Islamic Republic for decades now. Any day day now."
Daniel Larison expounded on this point last year in The American Conservative: "Now they’re fantasizing about regime collapse, and their analysis is just as bad as before. Iran hawks will always overstate Iranian power for the sake of fear-mongering, and then they will make equally unfounded claims about Iran’s internal weaknesses to lend support to their plans for regime change. The same people will insist that Iran is “on the march” and then in the next breath pretend that their government is a shaky house of cards that just needs a nudge to come tumbling down. They invariably sound the alarm about Iranian “expansionism” when Iran has relatively less regional influence and then boast about Iranian isolation when most other countries are happy to do business with them. The reality is that Iran hawks are always missing the mark in both directions: they exaggerate the threat from Iran because it makes it easier to sell aggressive policies against them, and they exaggerate the fragility of the regime because it makes regime change seem relatively easy to achieve."
Well, no apology for you, Farmer. Your post yesterday at 5:41pm on the "impossible to overstate the importance" thread says EXACTLY what I said you said. That the chances of the mullahs being overthrown or replaced by a new system is "infinitesimal". It sounds EXACTLY like what I heard said about the USSR in the 80's. Certainly qualifies as "remotely close" to what I said, doesn't it?
I'd ask for an apology for saying I should "quit making shit up", since I have never done so, but that's probably too much to ask.
And your Daniel Larison quote ALSO sounds exactly like what we heard about the Soviets. Just replace Iran with USSR. And the "hawks" you're criticizing were right on both counts - the USSR *was* expansionist, aggressive and spreading chaos everywhere it could while also being fragile to the point of imminent collapse internally. Those things are not mutually exclusive as you suggest. It is in fact quite common for totalitarian regimes that can't produce anything but instead keep themselves running on infiltration and plunder.
J. Farmer - I gotta give you props for your persistence in sharing your views about the US in the Middle East (and elsewhere). You're sorta like the character Merrill Hess in the movie "Signs" - "...swing away, Merrill!". But that's all Merrill could do, swing away and so he became the strikeout king of his ball team. Yeah, he got hits and homeruns but was generally ridiculed. Speaking of ridiculed, I don't think it's a good look for you to call another commenter a "cunt". I'd really like to understand your core philosophy. Are you a Lindbergh "America Firster"? Or are you a Libertarian who is perfectly happy to die on a philosophical hill even if that means the "progressives" always win. You see, here in Montana, the reason we elect DEM Governors and Senators and Reps is because the Libertarians suck away 3% of the vote which is commonly their winning margin. And the Libertarians are happy about that! Ecstatic even! I might be persuadable to your viewpoint if you's lay-out in bullet fashion your core beliefs. And stop asking questions like Socrates! Layout it out for me! And because I'm emotionally sensitive, please don't call me a "fucking idiot" even if it may be true.
Another day. Another round of the American left siding with the enemy.
Rinse. Repeat.
The funny thing is, I'm not a hawk. Now that fracking has increased our options, I would be absolutely fine with doing so, especially if they ask us to leave. But when you shrug at Embassy attacks and literally answer lists of Iranian atrocities with "well, it's all the US's fault!", it makes me want to say fuck you and completely disassociate myself from anything you propose, because you sound exactly like the kind of people who always, always side with America's enemies.
"doing so" = "pulling out of the ME" in that last post.
@Qwinn:
I'd ask for an apology for saying I should "quit making shit up", since I have never done so, but that's probably too much to ask.
Qwinn's summation of what he thinks I said: "I particularly enjoy reading Farmer telling us over and over at how the mullahs are completely secure in their positions and nothing we can do will ever get them out of power."
What I actually said: "The chances of the Iranian government collapsing or being overthrown and replaced by a totally new system are infinitesimal."
This is referring to events within Iran. Obviously the US could overthrow the mullahs. We are a nuclear-armed superpower.
So I do apologize for saying you just made shit up. That was a rhetorical flourish. You just misunderstood what I was saying and tried to attribute a claim I never made to me.
I forgive you. Hug and kisses.
@Qwinn:
But when you shrug at Embassy attacks and literally answer lists of Iranian atrocities with "well, it's all the US's fault!", it makes me want to say fuck you and completely disassociate myself from anything you propose, because you sound exactly like the kind of people who always, always side with America's enemies.
Of for the fucking love of christ! Not wanting the US to get sucked into another destructive Middle Eastern war is NOT siding with America's enemies. Are you people really SO FUCKING GODDAMN STUPID you can't wrap your brains around this piece of basic logic?!?
I see. So do your "events within Iran" include our sanctions or not? Could our sanctions cause them to be overthrown from within, or is that "infinitesimal"?
Cause I seem to remember Reagan straining the Soviet economy having a teensy tiny effect in 1991.
Farmer:
You claim to be on the Right. A paleocon. Are you totally blind to the fact that the vast majority of the Left DOES, in fact, always side against America, regardless of the circumstances? We don't base that just on how they react to ME issues or issues of war. We base that on literally every word that comes out of their mouths and every act they are enthused about.
Do you see the Left as a domestic enemy or not?
Cause I hardly ever see you take *them* to task, except about immigration.
How will the Iranians miscalculate this week?
And did the stiffs enjoy the in-flight movie?
https://twitter.com/AAhronheim/status/1214243586197393408
@Sheridan:
Are you a Lindbergh "America Firster"? Or are you a Libertarian who is perfectly happy to die on a philosophical hill even if that means the "progressives" always win.
I have some ideological affinity for some aspects of libertarianism but generally I have nothing but contempt for libertarians. I am much closer to the Charles Lindberg America First movement and identify myself with the paleoconservative movement.
I might be persuadable to your viewpoint if you's lay-out in bullet fashion your core beliefs. And stop asking questions like Socrates! Layout it out for me! And because I'm emotionally sensitive, please don't call me a "fucking idiot" even if it may be true.
I take your point-of-view, but like a lot of others here I have been commenting for a number of years, and my general political disposition is known that way. I can't really repeat my political worldview in every single post for the benefit of someone who may be reading my comments for the very first time.
But generally speaking, I am an ethno-nationalist that believes that the only way for a nation to remain coherent and functioning is if a single ethnic core maintains a supermajority. To that end, I oppose extreme restrictions on immigration. And I believe in economic nationalism and am opposed to most trade arrangement and agreements. Similarly, I am generally opposed to military interventionism and security arrangements that put us on the hook for defending other countries (e.g. NATO). Steve Sailer describes establishment orthodoxy as "invade the world/invite the world." My philosophy is 180 degrees from that. As a nationalist, I believe that the job of the state is to defend and support the nation and not some vague abstract concepts like "liberty" or "human rights." Like John Quincy Adams, I am fine with America being the "well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all" but the "champion and vindicator only of her own."
"rcocean is quoting George C Scott quoting George Smith Patton."
No, that's George Patton. If read it closely you could tell, because it has some awkward phrasing that no screenwriter would write.
You have to ask yourself, why do Democrats always side with the enemy?
A better question would be: If the left is always siding with the enemy, what does that make them?
"the only way for a nation to remain coherent and functioning is if a single ethnic core maintains a supermajority. To that end, I oppose extreme restrictions on immigration."
Say what?
@Qwinn:
I see. So do your "events within Iran" include our sanctions or not? Could our sanctions cause them to be overthrown from within, or is that "infinitesimal"?
Infinitesimal. And that's a good thing. The most basic conservative insight is that revolutionary change is often very bad.
Cause I seem to remember Reagan straining the Soviet economy having a teensy tiny effect in 1991.
And more than 50 years of trying to run a centrally planned economy. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's book Pandaemonium gives an interesting take on his views of the Soviet Union, and I think he was largely correct. It was a failed state heading for implosion. But the Soviet Union was also a transnational, federated state that encompassed a number of nationalities and countries. That is not very comparable to Iran.
Cause I hardly ever see you take *them* to task, except about immigration.
Because I think the left/right dichotomy is a distraction. The establishment controls both parties. Whether it's Clinton, Bush, or Obama, in all three cases we got more immigration, more intervention, and more "free" trade. What do you think we would have gotten if say Gore beat Bush? Yep, more immigration, more intervention, and more "free" trade. What do you think we would've gotten if McCain beat Obama? Yep, more immigration, more intervention, and more "free" trade. What do you think we would've gotten if Romney beat Obama? Yep, more immigration, more intervention, and more "free" trade.
You start to get the idea that whether or not a politician has a "D" or "R" next to his name doesn't really tell you everything you need to know.
@walter:
"the only way for a nation to remain coherent and functioning is if a single ethnic core maintains a supermajority. To that end, I oppose extreme restrictions on immigration."
Say what?
Hahaha. Yeah that typo was a doozy. I had probably originally intended to to type, "To that end, I oppose immigration." But then thought instead to say, "To that end, I support extreme restrictions on immigration." And the two sentences ended up getting jumbled on their way from my brain down to my hands and onto my keyboard.
In any event, just to clarify, that sentence should read: "the only way for a nation to remain coherent and functioning is if a single ethnic core maintains a supermajority. To that end, I support extreme restrictions on immigration."
Thanks for catching that one for me, Walter.
Big news
http://news.trust.org/item/20200106193750-gbx3f
hahaha Trump is always one step ahead.
LOL.
Watch the left have another hypocritical nervous break down in... 3...2...1
Maybe it's prudent to wait for more info on the specifics that led up to this before rendering a judgement from ideology alone.
"Of for the fucking love of christ! Not wanting the US to get sucked into another destructive Middle Eastern war is NOT siding with America's enemies. Are you people really SO FUCKING GODDAMN STUPID you can't wrap your brains around this piece of basic logic?!?"
Americans who accuse other Americans of "supporting our enemies" for criticizing America's bellicose and aggressive "foreign policy" (i.e., aggression against other nations) are either being intellectually dishonest--throwing around such smears to forestall any actual discussion of our actions and their merits or demerits--or are intellectually deficient--astonishingly incapable of understanding that not everything we do is acceptable or legal or must be supported without dissent by all "loyal" (sic) Americans.
In short, they're either liars or morons.
Big news
http://news.trust.org/item/20200106193750-gbx3f
Amen and hallelujah to this! I wish we had done it years ago, so the 50 or so soldiers who have died in Iraq since 2017, would still be alive. But better late than never.
Farmer: I agree that "R" vs "D" is not useful. That's why I say Right vs. Left. Why, if the former distinction is useless, would you conflate them with Right vs. Left, which only serves to obscure things further? That the Left has successfully infiltrated what is supposed to be the Right's political party should not afford them the additional victory of acting as if the Right no longer exists to oppose them.
Cook:
It's cute of you to act as if people object to you for opposing "anything" the US does. We object to you because you have consistently opposed EVERYTHING the US does.
"Big news
"http://news.trust.org/item/20200106193750-gbx3f
"hahaha Trump is always one step ahead.
"LOL.
"Watch the left have another hypocritical nervous break down in... 3...2...1"
How is "Trump... one step ahead" here? Isn't this what the Iraqi Parliament voted on, to expel our remaining forces from their country, (as acknowledged by General Seely in his letter)? They kicked us out; we're leaving, (unless we don't).
Why would any actual (as opposed to purported) left--which has long objected to our invasion of and continuing presence in Iraq--have a nervous breakdown now that we're apparently leaving?
Narr said...
Greg the class traitor says: once the current gov't of Iran is gone, we can turn on the Saudis.
What will "turning on the Saudis" look like, roughly?
Calling them on their support for Islamic fundamentalists. Letting them know we'll support their internal enemies unless they stop funding the people who keep on creating more Islamic terrorists.
Iran would kill the ruling family, root, stock, and branch. We'll just force them to fight their own nutcases.
They're aligned with us for the same reason we're aligned with them: Iran is worse.
@Qwinn:
Farmer: I agree that "R" vs "D" is not useful. That's why I say Right vs. Left. Why, if the former distinction is useless, would you conflate them with Right vs. Left, which only serves to obscure things further? That the Left has successfully infiltrated what is supposed to be the Right's political party should not afford them the additional victory of acting as if the Right no longer exists to oppose them.
My first sentence in reply to your point was, "Because I think the left/right dichotomy is a distraction." The Democrat/Republican dichotomy is even more of a distraction. I don't see much use in the kind of semantic games where we argue if such-and-such position is on the "right" or on the "left."
I'll give an example by way of immigration. There are many people who oppose mass immigration because for economically populist reason. Sanders, before he was cowed by the party, admit that mass immigration was a Koch brothers scheme to lower wages. I buy that argument, and it is one of the main reasons I oppose mass low-skilled immigration. It hurts our own citizens, and a nation must concern itself primarily with its co-nationals. On the other hand, I also oppose immigration for cultural/social cohesion reasons. To put it bluntly, I don't support policies that make the country less white.
My primary concern is reducing immigration. It doesn't really matter to me if the motivation for reducing it comes from "the left" or "the right," so long as it gets reduced. Even if someone opposed immigration for purely racist, xenophobic reasons, I'd still support opposing immigration, because it's the policy that matters, not what motivates a person to support the policy.
So when it comes to judging Bush or Obama or Trump, I use a pretty simple system. When they do something I support, I support it. When they do something I oppose, I oppose it. I don't really need to tangle myself up in a ball of yarn trying to determine if a position is on "the left" or "the right."
"It's cute of you to act as if people object to you for opposing 'anything' the US does."
My response here today is not about me; I couldn't give a shit about the childish insults about me from the cadre of booboisie who post here. I'm responding to the insults directed at J. Farmer, who is a conservative, and who has expressed views here that I don't agree with, but who is also one of the very few worthwhile and intelligent commenters contributing to this blog. Farmer invariably shows up those here who belittle and insult him to be childish ignoramuses.
J. Farmer said...
@Robert Cook:
The United States can never be the aggressor; we can only be aggressed against.
Right. Overthrowing the Taliban, overthrowing Hussein, overthrowing Gaddafi, trying to overthrow Assad. We can't keep letting the Iranians cause so much instability in the region.
J Farmer in a nutshell: The US going after evil anywhere, even if they just backed a mass casualty event on US soil, is "wrong".
J. Farmer said...
O for the fucking love of christ! Not wanting the US to get sucked into another destructive Middle Eastern war is NOT siding with America's enemies.
Wrong. Wanting Iran to win, is siding with America's enemies. They're not going to stop chanting "Death to America" if we run away and hide, they're just going to follow us here and launch the attacks on our soil.
See 9/11
Either you want Iran's ability to project power outside its borders utterly destroyed, or you're siding with America's enemies.
Either you want to keep America's enemies from getting stronger, and more able to threaten us, or you are siding with America's enemies.
You, J Farmer, are siding with America's enemies. Whether it's because you're so stupid you can't consistently add 1 + 1 and get 2, or because you're a lying evil leftist, is really rather irrelevant. In either case, you want Iran to win, and the US to lose.
And that makes you a sick, twisted, evil, monster
@Greg the class traitor:
Letting them know we'll support their internal enemies unless they stop funding the people who keep on creating more Islamic terrorists.
So we'll support Islamic terrorist ("their internal enemies") until they agree to stop supporting Islamic terrorists? Sounds like a winning strategy.
They're aligned with us for the same reason we're aligned with them: Iran is worse.
The US and Saudi Arabia have been aligned for decades before the Islamic Republic even existed. Internally, Saudi Arabia is a far more closed and oppressive society than Iran. And externally, Saudi Arabia has been far more aggressive and consequential in their actions. We deployed troops to Syria and Iraq to fix a problem the Saudis created.
Here's a much smarter strategy: do business with the Saudis and the Iranians and play them off each other. The Russians and the Chinese do this quite brilliantly. We gain nothing by putting ourselves in the middle of the Saudi-Iran conflict.
There was a bit of back pedaling by the Iraqi's, per The Guardian via MSN:
Iraq scales down threats to expel US forces after Trump reaction - The Guardian
The original vote was non binding, and the Sunni and Kurds did not participate. It was a recommendation to the care taker Iraqi PM.
We will see what actually comes out of it.
The US is ready to leave Iraq, Trump wants it, and he will take any excuse to leave.
Trump is not going to let US troops be sitting ducks in Iraq that are used for target practice.
The Islamic World is used to being hypocritical, and talking out of both sides of their mouth, especially when dealing with the US. Saying one thing in public, while another in private. What was really nice about the Wikileaks US State Dept. Leaks, was what the US said in Public, they also said in Private.
@Greg:
You, J Farmer, are siding with America's enemies. Whether it's because you're so stupid you can't consistently add 1 + 1 and get 2, or because you're a lying evil leftist, is really rather irrelevant. In either case, you want Iran to win, and the US to lose.
Sadly, Greg, you're too dumb to understand how dumb you are. Plus you're not even familiar with the basic facts. All you can do is spurt unhinged nonsense with one idea unconnected to the next. Knuckle-dragging morons just like you used the same "you want the US to lose" to cheerlead us into a war with Iraq. How'd that work out for us, you stupid fuckwit?
@Ray - SoCal:
The US is ready to leave Iraq, Trump wants it, and he will take any excuse to leave.
What's been stopping him hitherto?
Cook-
If the US agrees and leaves - isn't that the desired result?
I thought we all wanted to get out of Iraq?
Farmer:
You insult Greg well, but you don't address his point at all, and his point IS valid.
Let's say you get your way. We completely pull out of the ME. Iran spends a few years licking its wounds, regains its strength now that it is no longer distracted by us being next door, and then they pull off a 9-11 event, or worse.
In other words, we leave, and they follow us home.
What then?
"U.S.-led coalition says it will withdraw from Iraq -letter"
Whack the long-time, number one terrorist in the region on the way out the door. Works for me.
But I suspect this letter is more a threat to leave than an actual declaration of intent. As far as I can tell from the poor media reporting on this topic (what's new?) only the Iranian-aligned Shias in parliament voted on the 'leave' resolution. The Sunnis and Kurds didn't even show up. Also, did the resolution call out the US specifically? Reports I've seen say it called for 'all foreign forces' to leave. The lion's share of those are Iranian (aren't they?) and everybody knows they're not leaving.
@Qwinn:
You insult Greg well,
He did a bit of insulting himself: stupid, evil, sick, twisted, monster.
but you don't address his point at all, and his point IS valid.
No, his point was not valid; it was idiotic. "We're fighting them over here so we don't have to fight them over here."
In other words, we leave, and they follow us home.
What then?
Then retaliate. What was this fanciful scenario of yours supposed to have proven?
@Original Mike:
Whack the long-time, number one terrorist in the region on the way out the door. Works for me.
Interesting how we have troops in Saudi Arabia and Syria to fight an enemy "ISIS" that was created by our Gulf Arab security partners, but we continue to cling to this totem that the Iranians are the number one terrorists in the region.
As far as I can tell from the poor media reporting on this topic (what's new?) only the Iranian-aligned Shias in parliament voted on the 'leave' resolution. The Sunnis and Kurds didn't even show up.
70% of Iraq is Shia.
Reports I've seen say it called for 'all foreign forces' to leave. The lion's share of those are Iranian (aren't they?) and everybody knows they're not leaving.
No, Iraqi Shia militias are not Iranians.
“Whack the long-time, number one terrorist in the region on the way out the door. Works for me.”
Indeed.
THEN retaliate?
Really?
Cause every single time we claim that one of our acts is a retaliation against something they did, like killing Soiledremains, you are first in line to demand due process for him and insist we deserved it by our actions anyway. Any time we argue that our act is a retaliation, suddenly you're Khomeini's lawyer.
Tell me why we should believe that you won't do the same damn thing when Iran's 9-11 comes along?
We did not retaliate against the Saudis after 9/11. We continue to issue them student visas.
Saudi Arabia is the greatest purveyor of terrorism in the world.
If Iran wants to eat up Saudi Arabia, that’s fine with me. Let them deal with the Salafists.
The Moderate Sunnis had their chances.
Interesting Question!
Used to be the threat of ISIS was a reason not to withdraw from Iraq, but that is now taken care of. And Fracking has made the entire Middle East a lot less important to the US. And the EU and China that do depend on the oil, have been getting a free ride on US activities to keep the Oil Flowing.
The Kerfuffle over withdrawal from Syria showed the forces against a withdrawal. I still don't understand their opposition, it was very strange.
Those forces did everything possible to drag their heels on withdrawing.
But, if the Iraqi's request the US Withdrawal, it should checkmate the objections of the forces against withdrawal.
> J. Farmer said...
>
>> @Ray - SoCal:
>>
>> The US is ready to leave Iraq, Trump wants it, and he will take any excuse to
>>leave.
>>
> What's been stopping him hitherto?
@Qwinn:
you are first in line to demand due process for him and insist we deserved it by our actions anyway. Any time we argue that our act is a retaliation, suddenly you're Khomeini's lawyer.
Wrong again, Qwinn. None of my arguments have been legalistic and nowhere I have complained that our actions have been "illegal." I've said they were strategically dumb and counterproductive and have said that's why I oppose. Being "legal" doesn't change that calculus. So, for example, FDR made a series of strategically-dumb decisions that increased the likelihood of a Japanese attack on US interests. You can believe that and still believe that the attack on Pearl Harbor required war against the Empire of Japan.
Tell me why we should believe that you won't do the same damn thing when Iran's 9-11 comes along?
I can't tell you why you should believe what my pretend response to your pretend scenario would be. How about you just pretend you believe me.
Your scenario is just a rehash of Condi Rice's "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." I don't doubt that there are any number of fanciful scenarios you can conjure up in your mind. But what do those thought experiments tell us about our current strategy vis-Ã -vis Iran? Nothing.
Yes. The Middle East is Europe’s problem. And China.
Let China deal with Saudi Arabia and Iran. They have a good handle in the Muslim Problem.
I see Farmer has that dead horse well mutilated.
Meanwhile, the "Get Even Election" is coming.
It is easy to say that 2020 seems to be replaying 2016, complete with the identical insularity of progressives, as if what should never have happened then certainly cannot now. But this time around there is an even greater sense of anger and need for retribution especially among the most unlikely Trump supporters. It reflects a fed-up payback for three years of nonstop efforts to overthrow an elected president, anger at anti-Trump hysteria and weariness at being lectured.
"Cook-
"If the US agrees and leaves - isn't that the desired result?
"I thought we all wanted to get out of Iraq?"
1. If shouldn't be a matter of the US "agreeing" to leave. If the Iraqis want us out, we have to leave...right?
2. Yes, we should leave, and it's good that we leave, however it happens. But, again, how is Trump "one step ahead" in withdrawing according to the Iraqis' desire, and why will the purported "leftists" be upset by this?
If the Iraqis want us out, we have to leave...right?
If. The fact that a bunch of Shiites in parliament voted for a non-binding resolution doesn't mean "Iraqis" on the whole want us out. It wouldn't surprise me if the Iraqi PM said "I want US troops out!" to Trump while blinking SOS in Morse code. He's got to know that if the US leaves, Iraq will be controlled by some combination of Iran and ISIS, and that he's a dead man walking. Not that that means we should stay, but we should understand the implications.
"And Fracking has made the entire Middle East a lot less important to the US."
Not at all. Oil is still of paramount importance to the US.
No, Iraqi Shia militias are not Iranians.
They're run and funded by the Iranians. So yes, they are operationally Iranian assets and have been since 2004. When they were making IEDs to blow up Americans they were also taking orders and funding and equipment and resources from Iran.
After all, that's why Farmer's recently deceased Iranian hero was in Iraq and is no longer of this world. The Hellfire that nailed him also took out the Iraqi militia leader who was taking his orders from Iran.
Just received this week's marching order's from my Assyrian boss concerning our work with the Christian Assyrian community and armed force in Iraq. He's very worried. He says the sheet is going to hit the fan over there and the Assyrians are going to be fighting for their literal survival. They're arming up. My boss told me that what's coming is going to be worse than Syria.
"and why will the purported "leftists" be upset by this?"
If you can't figure out how we know in advance that they will pretend to be upset, it's impossible to communicate it to you.
You'll just have to remain puzzled when they in fact are upset and scream to the heavens about it. And you'll remain puzzles while we yawn.
Cause, you see, the rest of us can't sit around watching leftists being outrageously hypocritical on every single subject every single day since November 2016 as long as it serves the cause of advancing "OrangeManBad" and expect them to behave differently now.
Team KAOS now has a letter saying they are picking up their toys and leaving Iraq as well as a denial that they are leaving. I feel a song coming on:
Should I Stay or Should I Go
Farmer: “The Saudis supported Sunni insurgents in western Iraq that got lots of American soldiers killed. The Saudis support radical Salafist terrorists in Syria and Yemen.
So when do you want to bomb the Saudis?”
I expect their day will come. Meanwhile, you really are confused. Do we have to take on all the assholes at once in order to justify blowing up the chief Iranian asshole? If we did take them all on would the volume of your wailing increase accordingly or is it just Iran for whom you advocate against the USA?
BTW, do you see any strategic issues related to bombing the Saudis, oh geopolitical guru?
I think Farmer's problem is that he seems to think there are other options available than direct conflict with Iran, and that there was some sort of legitimate option to the Second Iraq War. The problem is - there isn't and there wasn't. The choices are binary - either confront Iran or watch Iran run over the Middle East and start wars with everyone (as Persians have done since time immemorial) and extend their war to our interests. Or, historically, invade and depose Saddam or watch him develop nukes with the aid of the Russians, and then attempt to start wars with everyone (and take back Kuwait again). To oppose the Second Iraq War was to side with Saddam; there were no other legitimate options after the breakdown of the "no fly zones", the ongoing failure of economic sanctions, and the defenestration of the IAEA inspectors.
Farmer doesn't have any sort of alternative to our semi-war with Iran, he just wants us all to think that yelling "DON'T GET INVOLVED IN FOREIGN WARS" is some sort of intelligent position. It's not. It's being on the side of America's enemies, wishing that their policy objectives to hurt the US and become regional hegemons are cost-free to the US. They are not, and Farmer wants the US to be hurt by them.
He's not against war, he's on the other side. Just like International ANSWER, just like their proxy Code Pink, just like any number of anti-American "peaceniks" from the 70s and 80s. We've seen his type before, and we will continue to see them. Anti-American to their core, pretending that only the US is a bad actor on the world stage.
@TheOne Who Is Not Obeyed:
They're run and funded by the Iranians. So yes, they are operationally Iranian assets and have been since 2004
That does not make them "foreign forces" as the commenter I was responding to claimed. They are made up of Iraqi nationals.
After all, that's why Farmer's recently deceased Iranian hero was in Iraq and is no longer of this world. The Hellfire that nailed him also took out the Iraqi militia leader who was taking his orders from Iran.
Trump claps, and the monkeys dance. At least as our country goes down the drains, you can take pride in what a good little lemming you were.
@TheOne Who Is Not Obeyed:
To oppose the Second Iraq War was to side with Saddam; there were no other legitimate options after the breakdown of the "no fly zones", the ongoing failure of economic sanctions, and the defenestration of the IAEA inspectors.
"The war in Iraq was a big fat mistake." "We should've never been in Iraq; we have destabilized the middle east."
Donald J. Trump siding with Saddam and demonstrating he is anti-American to his core, or something.
It really is quite shocking how pathetically stupid you people are.
Here Farmer calls those with whom he disagrees monkeys and lemmings.
Recently he called one of them "cunt."
So, he's moderating his views.
Oops, now they're "pathetically stupid." I think that constitutes a ratcheting up from monkeys and lemmings. It hasn't reach the level of cunt, but it's approaching it.
@hombre:
I expect their day will come. Meanwhile, you really are confused. Do we have to take on all the assholes at once in order to justify blowing up the chief Iranian asshole? If we did take them all on would the volume of your wailing increase accordingly or is it just Iran for whom you advocate against the USA?
I am not confused at all. My position is quite coherent. I am not for taking the Iranians on. And I am not for taking the Saudis on. I'm for staying out of their bullshit. It's braindead bozos like you who think we're keeping ourselves safe by sending troops thousands of miles away to fight in countries that we don't understand and that don't like us. I'm sorry your incapable of anything but regurgitating bromides you've been spoon fed by official propaganda sources your whole life.
"Braindead bozos." That falls about in the middle, I think. I always like Bozo the Clown.
Farmer wounds me with his contempt for libertarians! After all the times I've agreed with him, too.
Just kidding, I generally have contempt for libertarians too. Why should they be exempt just because I like their politics? (It's the Libertarians you got to watch out for . . . if they ever get organized they'd pull even more votes from the votes' rightful owners--someone was bitching about that upthread.)
I'm totally cool with most of Farmer's preferences; the sooner we deal with the GME as a source of violent lunacy--and from as great a distance as possible--the better.
Narr
Is it too early for Islam Delenda Est ?
@roughcoat:
Here Farmer calls those with whom he disagrees monkeys and lemmings.
Recently he called one of them "cunt."
So, he's moderating his views.So, he's moderating his views.
Some are cuntier than others. The juries still out on you. But after what's been going for the last 18 years, warmongering assholes deserve nothing but contempt.
DJ Trump said ...
"Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He's weak and he's ineffective. So the only way he figures that he's going to get reelected — and as sure as you're sitting there — is to start a war with Iran.”
rcocean said...
"I am aware of no accounts from February 1943 that the bombing and shelling of Monte Casino was militarily unnecessary."
Then, you need to read more.
**************
How about YOU reading THIS:
"At the beginning of 1944, the western half of the Winter Line was being anchored by Germans holding the Rapido-Gari, Liri and Garigliano valleys and some of the surrounding peaks and ridges. Together, these features formed the Gustav Line. Monte Cassino, a historic hilltop abbey founded in AD 529 by Benedict of Nursia, dominated the nearby town of Cassino and the entrances to the Liri and Rapido valleys. Lying in a protected historic zone, it had been left unoccupied by the Germans, although they manned some positions set into the steep slopes below the abbey's walls.
>>>>Repeated pinpoint artillery attacks on Allied assault troops caused their leaders to conclude the abbey was being used by the Germans as an observation post, at the very least.>>> Fears escalated along with casualties and in spite of a lack of clear evidence, it was marked for destruction. On 15 February American bombers dropped 1,400 tons of high explosives, creating widespread damage.[6] The raid failed to achieve its objective, as German paratroopers then occupied the rubble and established excellent defensive positions amid the ruins.
Between 17 January and 18 May, Monte Cassino and the Gustav defences were assaulted four times by Allied troops. On 16 May, soldiers from the Polish II Corps launched one of the final assaults on the German defensive position as part of a twenty-division assault along a twenty-mile front. On 18 May, a Polish flag followed by the British Union Jack were raised over the ruins.[7] Following this Allied victory, the German Senger Line collapsed on 25 May. The German defenders were finally driven from their positions, but at a high cost.[8] The capture of Monte Cassino resulted in 55,000 Allied casualties, with German losses being far fewer, estimated at around 20,000 killed and wounded.[4]" ---wikipedia
************
Now tell what YOU would have done.
Would you have just continue to allow the Abbey to be used to pinpoint artillery attacks, using observers sited just outside the protected zone?
Would you simply have ignored the damage to our personnel and equipment?
Can you name other battles in other wars where taking "the high ground" is NOT considered necessary to hold, lest the enemy hold it to his advantage?
After the shelling, why did the Germans invade it and establish strong defensive positions? Why did the battle to take the site result in such high casualties?
Was it necessary for the Krauts to bomb the Coventry Cathedral?
It's really hard to see your point here, especially if you are claiming that Monet Cassino's destruction was an utterly gratuitous act on the part of the allies.
And that was your original position.
Great thread going. It's nice to see a good back and forth of ideas instead of tiresome ad hominem and trolling.
I have to think Farmer has a point about making Iran into an existential threat when it can only to manage to ship its supreme martyrs back in on a Southwest coach "supersaver"fare. :-P
https://nypost.com/2020/01/06/qassem-soleimanis-dead-body-flies-coach-back-to-iran/
Do you really think there's a chance President Trump would order the destruction of some world heritage site Althouse? Really?? Really??? You're ridiculous.
Ayatollah Mystified That He Is the Only Dictator Trump Dislikes
It's braindead bozos like you who think we're keeping ourselves safe by sending troops thousands of miles away to fight in countries that we don't understand and that don't like us.
**********
Odd, I seem to remember countries thousand of miles away who declared war on us (Germany) or attacked us (Japan). They obviously didn't like us, either.
Can you offer examples of countries who made war against us who liked us?
Can you offer examples of countries we understand and therefore have allowed them to make war against us?
Just what the hell are you saying?
Some are cuntier than others. The juries still out on you.
Where I hang out – Irish working class pubs on Chicago’s Southside – you might find guys who agree with your views in theory and you might find guys who disagree. But if you spoke to either like you speak to Althouhse's commenters they’d see it to it that you’d be eating nothing but soup for the next six months. And using crutches to get around.
Man to man, straight up and in person, you don’t talk to such men like that. You fail the pub conversation protocol test.
It's easy to call another man a cunt when you're talking from behind a keyboard.
It's not your views that bother me. I agree with some of them. It's YOU that bothers me. Your presentation -- your pique and choler and the way you express it. Your personality. Your arrogance and crudity.
See how I did that? Didn't call you any names.
"Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He's weak and he's ineffective. So the only way he figures that he's going to get reelected — and as sure as you're sitting there — is to start a war with Iran.”
Did Trump say that about Obama before or after the Iranians attacked our embassy in Iraq on January 3, 2020?
Try not to be so blindingly stupid.
@Roughcoat:
Man to man, straight up and in person, you don’t talk to such men like that. You fail the pub conversation protocol test.
Thanks for the advice, dad. Now piss off, you drunk mick :)
So, having said all that -- is the jury still out? Or has it returned a verdict.
I'm on tenterhooks here.
Now piss off, you drunk mick.
Flattery will get you nowhere, chief.
It's not your views that bother me. I agree with some of them. It's YOU that bothers me. Your presentation -- your pique and choler and the way you express it. Your personality. Your arrogance and crudity.
Well then let me be clear: I don't give a fuck what you think about me. You don't like what I write, don't read it.
One Who Is Not Obeyed wants us to think he knows what would have happened if American policy had been different, and then wants us to think that the Persians have been invading their neighbors since time immemorial, and that our only choice is to confront them now, and in whatever way Trump thinks fit, or surrender. That's Blinkered Binarism, Historical Ignorance, and Cutrate Prophecy all in one package.
Welcome, One!
There is of course nothing in the historical record to show that Persians/Iranians are somehow more aggressive than their neighbors, especially in the last say 200 years. If anything they were about as sessile and self-absorbed as the Chinese, and continue to pay a price for that.
But do let us know when the last time the Persians attempted to overrun the Middle East was--for history's sake. Good thing I suppose, that the Turks, Russians, and Brits were there to slow the march of conquest.
Narr
Our turn now to keep the eternal Persian monster caged
Depends on what the meaning of imminent is.
The Iranian "general" was a terrorist.
Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terror. We don't want a war. We want to inspire the removal of Khomeini, the bearded Islamic male supremacist dictator for life.
im at said...
Try not to be so blindingly stupid.
Says the guy who elected Trump to stop 'stupid' wars. Boy, you must feel stupid now.
Flattery will get you nowhere, chief.
Haha. I can still try. But I do actually respect your take on this particular issue, and nine times out of ten I would agree with you. Slinging insults isn't generally my think, but I am no saint, and I certainly let frustrations get the better of me.
I would love to have a debate, even a heated one, about what other countries' goals are, what are country's goals should be, what are the security threats we face, and what are the best solutions to those threats. Instead, I have to listen to a bunch of process shit where people who have never met me and know nothing about me nonetheless try to divine what my sinister motives must be to explain why I have the positions I have (as opposed to the reasons I say that I have the positions that I have). Here is a sample:
"But your driving issue is your hatred of the US, so you, like J Farmer, put everything else to the side."
"What is the sickness, the hatred, that drives you to align with every country that's against the US, no matter how evil that country is?"
"After all, that's why Farmer's recently deceased Iranian hero..."
"Whether it's because you're so stupid... or because you're a lying evil leftist, is really rather irrelevant. In either case, you want Iran to win, and the US to lose. And that makes you a sick, twisted, evil, monster."
Compared to this guttersnipe, I think calling someone a "cunt" is relatively tame by comparison.
Narr: "Is it too early for Islam Delenda Est ?"
************
Way too early, given that your pogrom would be aimed at a BILLION people.
Get a grip!
Once upon a trip to Ireland I took the ferry from Larne (County Antrim) to Stranraer (Scotland). After driving off the ferry 2 Scotty cops asked me to pop the boot so's they could inspect what might be inside. This was at the height of the Troubles and they were inspecting all the cars arriving from Ireland -- at the time the IRA and Prot paramilitary gangs were using the Larne-Stranraer ferry to run guns one way and drugs the other. After they inspected the trunk (nothing there, of course) they relaxed and chatted me up, asking where I had been and whatnot. I told them I had driven all through Ireland and was now going to give Scotland a look-see. One of them grinned and said, "well, I'll say this for the Irish, they can take a joke."
That they can. But you got to know how to tell it. If you're not careful you'll be eating a fist.
I liked those Scotty cops. Nice guys, even if the Scots are lackies of the English.
@BleachBit-and-Hammers:
Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terror.
How do you know that Iran sponsors more terror than, say, Saudi Arabia? Or the United Arab Emirates? Or Turkey? Our troops are in Syria and Iraq fighting ISIS. Who sponsored them?
Farmer, if you could just tone it down a bit I might see my way clear to stand you up a pint. Since I do share a number of your views.
But I can't vouch for what my friends might do. Hard men, they are.
And I've eaten a fist or two on occasion myself. A lesson in manners, dontcha know.
“Then look at Saudi Arabia. It is the world’s biggest funder of terrorism. Saudi Arabia funnels our petrodollars – our very own money – to fund the terrorists that seek to destroy our people, while the Saudis rely on us to protect them.”
$5 if anyone can guess who said this. No googling!
Post a Comment