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 401 – 469 of 469@Roughcoat:
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.
Anyone that wants to argue with me about the issues, I'm all for. I love a good argument. But perhaps the ones who have impugned my character and referred to me as evil, a hater of my country, a lover of my country's enemies, yada yada yada. Maybe they need to "tone it down a bit," too. Otherwise, I will happily let them know what pieces of shit I think they are.
But I can't vouch for what my friends might do. Hard men, they are.
Guess it's a good thing I conceal carry.
But seriously. I get frustrated and angry too. In the threads I try to adhere to a self-imposed rule to write as if I were standing in a Southside pub having face-to-face arguments/concevasations with your typical hard cases who frequent those joints. In real life the circumstances impose a kind of decorum on those involved. Nobody wants to fight -- well, some do, but that's another story -- but there certainly will be fisticuffs if one of the participants steps out of line with his behavior and comments. I think it's a good rule thumb to behave in blog threads as if you're in the pub. Admittedly I'm not always successful at this.
Donald Trump helped build a hotel in Azerbaijan that appears to be a corrupt operation engineered by oligarchs tied to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.
It was going to be called 'The Big Cunt'.
Guess it's a good thing I conceal carry.
So do they.
And yours truly as well.
But only a real son-of-bitch would go for the gun in an argument that should and could rightly be settled with fists.
So that's why the Sunni and Kurd lawmakers didn't show up for the vote. Understandable.
"Kataib Hezbollah, the militia allied with Iran's Quds Force that stormed the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad last week, issued threats against lawmakers who voted against the resolution."
Unwavering support from our greatest ally in the middle east.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Security Cabinet ministers Monday that the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani was carried out solely by the U.S. and that Israel was not involved in any way and must not be dragged into the escalating conflict
It's interesting, what conceal/carry has done for pub manners. I think I have noticed a big drop in the frequency and intensity of pub fights, and I think that's a consequence of CC. As Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
This only applies to white blue collar pubs. In the inner city neighborhoods, the blacks and the Mexicans are shooting the shit out of each other regardless.
Roughcoat, I'd say Farmer and many others are well aware of the advantages of stand-off disputation; we all know that we can be more provocative here than in meatspace, which is OK with me. This is a libertarian space (within the limits of technology and ownership) and the only sanction for speech is more speech.
"wholelottasplainin" thinks it's too early for Islam Delenda Est.
What, 1500 years isn't long enough to judge them?
Narr
OK, can we agree to start with Parthia Delenda Est?
Well, thing is, there's a country out there that leads their people in chanting "Death to America!". And killing Americans.
A person who wants America to not die will take them at their word. Or at least not denigrate those who do.
Someone who wanted Iran to succeed in their goals would say things like "Iran doesn't really mean it. They're harmless. Just goofing off. Let's just leave them alone to do their thing. Drop sanctions. Trade with them. Treat them like an ordinary upstanding member of the international community."
Now, maybe you don't want Iran to succeed, Farmer. Maybe you're a shiny loyal patriot. But at least acknowledge that what you're saying is straight out of the same hymnal as those that do hate America and want Iran to kill as many Americans as possible.
After all, if Iran only chants "Death to America!" to distract their populations as you claim, and we leave, what comes next? You've said nothing internal can topple them. Will they find a new distraction, a new Great Satan? Seems unlikely. More likely they will attack us again, to force us to retaliate to keep that distraction going.
And you have no plan for that, beyond "retaliate after it happens".
Which is also what an enemy of America would want and say.
So keep singing from the same enemy hymnal without apology, and keep thinking it's everyone else that's an idiot for confusing you with them.
"appears to be corrupt"
there is it - the mealy mouthed reporting from wish-fact dossier crowd.
@Roughcoat:
I think it's a good rule thumb to behave in blog threads as if you're in the pub. Admittedly I'm not always successful at this.
For whatever reason, on questions of war and interventionism, "conservatives" or those on "the right" have this weird SJW playbook thing they do. So if you're talking to a lefty and you say something about women or racial minorities or gays, instead of concerning themselves with what you said, will immediately try to divine some hidden, nasty motive for making the statement. They'll say you must have some irrational problem with women or with blacks or with gays. You're a sexist, a racist, a homophobe, blah blah blah.
Similarly, there is a subset of people who when they hear you are anti-intervention or opposed to some military adventurism, immediately jump to saying you hate America, you side with the enemy, you have a fondness for murderers, or some other such similar nonsense.
It's all variations on the ad hominem fallacy. You attack someone's motives or you impugn their character, and you think you've won an argument. Even though you haven't actually addressed the arguments. And they don't seem to be able to connect the dots when you point this fallacy out to them. It really isn't any more nuanced than me saying, "I oppose this action for X, Y, and Z," and someone replying, "Well you're ugly." Brilliant riposte!
How to write an article that makes doing business... building hotels... into a crime.
All while the collective left still excuse the crimes on one Hillary Clinton.
@Qwinn:
For someone who claims not to be a hawk, you sure do a good job regurgitating the most stale, cliche hawkish talking points I've heard. The paleocon/nationalist right has been advocating against interventionism for years. The American Conservative was founded by Taki Theodoracopulos and Pat Buchanan to provide anti-war commentary from the right. The fact that you're unaware of this literature and that every anti-war voice sounds to you like some kind of leftists blame America first routine is not my problem. Try reading some more and expanding your horizons. If you wanted conventional Republican hawkishness, there was plenty to choose from in 2016. Trump distinguished himself from the group by saying that we needed to get out of the middle east and stop endless war.
Here's a fun game, Qwinn. See if you can guess who wrote this: "Yet, a new Mideast war — ignited by Trump’s sanctions, which would break his pledge to extricate us from the forever wars of the Middle East, and could cripple the U.S. and world economy — might produce a President Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg in 2020."
It was Pat Buchanan. So tell me, does this passage mean that you thing Buchanan too harbors shadowy, sinister motives. Maybe he too hates America and wants Iranians to kill as many Americans as possible.
This is tomfoolery on your part.
Buchanan has been a consistent non-interventionist. He ran against HW Bush in 1992.
Tucker Carlson is the updated version of Buchanan as far as non-intervention goes.
Control the border and immigration. Worthy goals.
@mccullough:
Buchanan has been a consistent non-interventionist. He ran against HW Bush in 1992.
Tucker Carlson is the updated version of Buchanan as far as non-intervention goes.
Control the border and immigration. Worthy goals.
Oh no no. According to Qwinn, Buchanan and Carlson are "singing from the same enemy hymnal without apology." By not wanting war with Iran, Buchanan and Carlson (and me) just want Americans to die. Apparently Qwinn has never read a single thing from a conservative anti-interventionist perspective, so his brain his short circuiting. Noam Chomsky and Pat Buchanan don't want war with Iran, so obviously they're indistinguishable.
I used to be a big fan of Pat Buchanan, actually. But after a while he started blaming "the Jews" for everything so consistently (not just once in a while, but he ascribed every single bad action to them) that I had enough. I still think he's a smart guy, just blinded by his prejudices in many important respects.
So maybe I tuned him out before I ever heard him say "Just ignore those 'Death to America!' chants, they don't really mean it (even as thousands of IEDs explode and several embassies burn). Drop all sanctions. Completely normalize the mullahs. Sing kumbaya with the followers of the pedophile prophet. Completely ignore all of their crimes, past present and future. We pretty much deserved it all anyway."
Nope, never heard Buchanan or any other paleocon go quite that far. You're the first I've met to be quite that blatantly in the tank for the mullahs.
I promise it's not personal. Next time I meet someone who is that utterly forgiving of the murders of Americans whenever an Iranian commits it, I'll consider them to be singing from the same hymnal as any other enemy of America as well.
OK, can we agree to start with Parthia Delenda Est?
How about "Achaemenids Deledna Est?
Oh, wait, Alexander took care of that ...
Re we all know that we can be more provocative here than in meatspace, which is OK with me.
It's neither okay nor not okay with me. It is what it is. People can (and will) say what they want. I know how I want to conduct myself, and that's what I'm striving for.
Buchanan is one of those dumb smart guys. Or smart dumb guys. Not sure which. It's a mystery to me. I can't figure it out.
Hey. It feels good to jerk ourselves off to this latest dynamiting of yet another mangy mass murderer. No one has any problem with what happened to him personally, or even tactically. Hell, maybe this sort of confounding, unpredictable turmoil punctuated by a little, high-level retributive violence every now and then is just the taste of their own medicine that the silly-ass Iranian government needs. I mean, weren't these Persian bastards the sly fuckers who gave to the English language the word "assassin" in the first place?
What there is a problem with is the assumption that increasing hostilities and ending agreements with them is the best course to take. Especially now that they're back to full speed ahead with the nuclear enrichment program. Thanks for that!
Was it worth it? Maybe it was. I'm just hoping the value was in something more than short-term emotional satisfaction. He was a strategic asset to them and a murderous pain in the ass to us that we took off the table. I just want to know what we got in exchange for it - good and bad.
ANd I also think it's fine to call for the full accounting of facts. "Caught in the act?" Wouldn't that be nice. Nice, clean and maybe even legal.
But is that true? Or is this just the newest toy in Trump's bag of tricks when it comes to pretending that he's owed our trust without really doing what's expected of presidents to prove it?
Questions worth asking. At least for those of us who never took or intended to take a blood-oath to the man, the way everyone in his party does.
@Qwinn:
Chairman Mao killed more Americans by orders of magnitude than the Iranians, and Richard Nixon pursued an opening to China and posed for a photo op with him. Nixon must have been "singing from the same hymnal as any other enemy of America as well."
Remember that little conflict in southeast Asia where tens of thousands of Americans were killed and tens of thousands more disabled because the Communist Party of Vietnam? Well, "President Bush and Vietnam President Nguyen Minh Triet discussed trade and human rights issues at a Friday meeting that marked the first time a Vietnamese president has visited the White House in more than three decades."
Oh, and after the bipartisan Congressional vote for permanent normalized trade relations with Vietnam, "George W. Bush – who last month became only the second US president to visit Vietnam since the end of the war three decades ago – said the development 'marks a significant step forward in the process of normalising relations with Vietnam, and will benefit both our nations'."
Oh, and, "U.S. President Donald Trump met Vietnamese President Nguyen Phu Trong and Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc on February 27, ahead of his meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Hanoi. He also witnessed the signing of various deals between Vietnamese and U.S. companies."
Bush and Trump, "singing from the same hymnal as any other enemy of America." Right, Qwinn?
You've confused me with someone who liked Nixon or Bush or pretty much anything they did. Both were way too left wing for me.
Vietnam is an odd duck though. From what I've been hearing those guys are almost blatantly pro-American these days (and virtually none of them are old enough to remember the war).
The fact that they're not currently chanting "Death to America!" or attacking our embassies makes a big difference to me. It's still striking that that seems to make no difference at all to you.
OK, can we agree to start with Parthia Delenda Est?
Right. You guys couldn't even govern Greater Baghdad so reducing another defiant nuclear power to rubble must be as easy as pie. I mean, look at how well you can constraint Eraserhead's kid in North Korea.
For god's sake. Get a grip.
@Qwinn:
You've confused me with someone who liked Nixon or Bush or pretty much anything they did. Both were way too left wing for me.
Whether you liked them or not, I'm assuming you're not going to suggest Nixon went to China because he had an affinity for Chinese communists and wanted Americans dead. If I'm incorrect in this assumption, by all means correct me.
The fact that they're not currently chanting "Death to America!" or attacking our embassies makes a big difference to me. It's still striking that that seems to make no difference at all to you.
Thousands of Americans travel through Iran every year as tourists. How is this possible in a country that exhibits such psychopathic bloodlust for American lives?
John henry said...
(I feel like grandpa jones)
That’s funny. Earlier today I texted my wife and said, “What’s for dinner?” We had a busy schedule this evening.
As soon as I said it, I thought of that old “What’s for supper, Grandpa?” bit from Hee-Haw. And then I find John Henry answering the question.
Wholelottaspainin',
Your own quoted passage counters your position regarding Monte Cassino. Per the quote, the bombing was a failure AND the Germans moved into the very position from which the bombing was supposed to eject them. The "pinpoint" artilery fire continued as before. All that was accomplished was destroying the abbey. It accomplished nothing militarily except relieving the allies of the most visible symbol of their failure to break the Gustav line.
"You guys?" You talking to me?
I had nothing to do with Greater Baghdad (other than paying taxes and watching the tee vee like all normal people). My comments, whether t-i-c, naively sincere, or both, are mine and
meant for advisory and entertainment purposes only.
Since I haven't voted for a D or R in many moons, I don't have to defend any D or R policy. I like to point out the contradictions and lacunae in other people's arguments or proposals, in full knowledge that on the internets there is no last word, and usually I concentrate on matters of historical fact, as you well know.
But this place is rife with people, bless their hearts, who can't see over the little walls they put up in their brains to save themselves from contradiction and complexity.
Narr
You're welcome, guy
*Thousands* of tourists? EVERY YEAR?! NO WAY! Is that, like, 8 or even 9 a day??
Of course, every single one is assigned a "travel guide" by the government, and if they are separated from their "travel guide" for even a moment while in the country, they are frequently brought in for questioning and sometimes incarcerated.
You actually think that's a point in Iran's favor.
Of course, even if they had a million tourists a year, it wouldn't make all the facts that demonstrate Iranian bloodlust for Americans not "possible". They are facts. You can't try to spin some tiny highly monitored tourism as some sign of tolerance that makes all the death chants, IEDs and embassy attacks no longer existent.
“ we got out of there, just in time, huh”
Amen, narciso. The fish rots from the head over there. And the rotter has a school of remora sucking hindquarters...
I honestly can't believe that three quarters of a century later, anyone still tries to justify the bombing of the Monte Cassino abbey as militarily neccessary, much less wise. I understand the allies' frustration, but other than wishcasting motivated by that frustration, there's little evidence that the German's occupied the Abbey prior to its destruction. Indeed, the idea that German artillery effectiveness was evidence that they occupied the abbey is simply absurd when they already occupied ground well outside the abbey with commanding views of the allied positions. Turning the abbey into rubble killed civilians but NO Germans inside the abbey (maybe since they weren't there) and made it the fort and additional observation post that were the supposed reasons to bomb it in the first place.
As for China and Nixon, Nixon earned some anti-Communist cred by going after Alger Hiss. But aside from that, what with instituting wage and price controls, he never seemed that different ideologically. What motivated him to "go to China" I've never really understood or researched. Regardless, the Chinese seemed pretty intent on killing their own people at the time (post Korean War), not Americans. Were the Chinese chanting "Death to Americans" and still laying IEDs and till invading embassies when Nixon went there, I'd have to say, yeah, he probably would have to hate America to do such a thing.
I used to be a big fan of Pat Buchanan, actually. But after a while he started blaming "the Jews" for everything so consistently (not just once in a while, but he ascribed every single bad action to them) that I had enough. I still think he's a smart guy, just blinded by his prejudices in many important respects.
Me too.
I like his books but he gave some anti-Semetic vibes in McLaughlin Group. While I disagree with his concept of history, he has good ideas worth considering.
Nixon earned some anti-Communist cred by going after Alger Hiss. But aside from that, what with instituting wage and price controls, he never seemed that different ideologically. What motivated him to "go to China" I've never really understood or researched.
It was to play them against the Soviets. His domestic policies he put in the hands of people like Moynihan and Ray Price. He was not interested in domestic policy. Buchanan's book, "Nixon's White House Wars" is good on that.
@Qwinn:
Of course, every single one is assigned a "travel guide" by the government, and if they are separated from their "travel guide" for even a moment while in the country, they are frequently brought in for questioning and sometimes incarcerated.
No, you are not, so maybe the next time you don't five seconds of Googling on a subject and become a super expert on a subject, maybe do ten seconds instead.
You can't try to spin some tiny highly monitored tourism as some sign of tolerance that makes all the death chants, IEDs and embassy attacks no longer existent.
No, but I'd thought perhaps the experience of people who had actually been there might be a useful corrective to your cartoonish caricatured view of things. Alas, I was wrong.
Let me ask you a final question, Qwinn. Why is it you think that the Iranians don't want to kill the Russians or the Chinese? Why is it that the Russians and Chinese have diplomatic relations with Iran and trade with Iran and don't seem the slightest bit worried that Iran is going to militarily attack them?
Regardless, the Chinese seemed pretty intent on killing their own people at the time (post Korean War), not Americans. Were the Chinese chanting "Death to Americans" and still laying IEDs and till invading embassies when Nixon went there, I'd have to say, yeah, he probably would have to hate America to do such a thing.
The Chinese were providing military aid to North Vietnam and had their troops in North Vietnam just two years earlier.
Goodnight, everyone. It's been real, it's been fun. Just hasn't been real fun.
Nixon was almost the opposite of Obama: like Michael K says, Nixon didn't care about domestic policy very much, he wanted to do grand geostrategy. Obama wanted to fundamentally transform this country and was only willing to talk big about f.p. and trumpet non-accomplishments.
Narr
I doubt we could have won in Vietnam without the opening to China!
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. But they are potential allies.
When the Taliban destroyed Buddhist statues, the world did nothing.
When Islamics vandalize and destroy Christian and Jewish churches throughout Europe (and now coming to America) the world did nothing.
Inactivity is not the virtue people with no skin in the game make it out to be.
"No, you are not, so maybe the next time you don't five seconds of Googling on a subject and become a super expert on a subject, maybe do ten seconds instead."
I just did a whole 3 minutes.
https://traveltips.usatoday.com/american-travel-iran-11325.html
"Getting In
The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) must approve your complete travel itinerary before issuing you a visa, and a travel guide must accompany you at all times while you are in the country."
https://www.intrepidtravel.com/adventures/travel-iran-usa-citizens/
"For US, UK or Canadian travellers, any time spent in Iran outside of the duration of the tour must be facilitated by the local host (Intrepid’s local operator) and travellers must be accompanied by the leader assigned to the trip. "
https://uncorneredmarket.com/american-travel-iran/
"Can Americans travel independently in Iran?
The Iranian government requires that all American tourists travel with a private guide or group tour."
Narr... Obama dropped over 26,000 bombs around the Middle East in 2016 ALONE.
Qwinn,
That's just so visitors don't miss the good stuff.
Oh, and as promised, a lovely little summary of how Iran treats "cultural sites":
https://www.bic.org/sites/default/files/srculturalrights-0416.pdf
The Destruction of the Cultural Sites of the Bahá'Ãs in Iran
(April 2016)
We would like to provide the following information for the upcoming report by the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a long history of systematically removing the historical and cultural sites of its Bahá’à community. Even prior to the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Bahá’à Community had never been allowed to hold property in their own name. This was problematic, as Iran is the birthplace of the Bahá’à Faith, and the place of many historical and memorial sites. In order to maintain the properties for the Bahá’Ãs of the world, a non-profit holding company was established under the name of Umana or “Trustees”. The first act of the Iranian government in 1979 was to confiscate the Umana company, resulting in holding legal possession of all historical and cultural sites belonging to the Bahá’Ãs. Soon thereafter, numerous Bahá’à religious and cultural monuments were physically seized, desecrated and/or demolished. Further steps were taken to destroy Bahá’à cemeteries in order to erase any historical record of a community. These aggressive tactics have been irrefutably documented and are as follows:
Destruction of Historical and Holy Places
1. The House of the Báb, a place of pilgrimage to Bahá’Ãs all over the world, was confiscated on 26 April 1979 and destroyed five months later. It was initially
confiscated under the guise of “protecting and preventing possible damage.” However, it became evident that it was not the case when on 1 September, 1979 a demolition team, commissioned by the Attorney General of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran, began to destroy the historic site. Ultimately, the building was razed and the Mosque of Mahdi was built over the site, in an attempt to expunge the historical significance of the home.
2. Following the 1979 revolution, the Garden of Badasht, where the early believers of the Bahá'à Faith held their first conference in 1848, was demolished. The House of the Báb in Shiraz, Iran, one of the most holy sites in the Bahá’à world, was destroyed by Revolutionary Guardsmen in 1979 and later razed by the government
3. In addition, the Home of Bahá’u’lláh, the prophet founder of the Bahá’à faith, in Darkula was demolished in 1979.
4. The House of Bahá’u’lláh in Takur, where the Bahá’à founder spent his youth, was
confiscated. In December 1981, it was completely destroyed and the land sold.
5. On 24 July 1979, the holy site known as “the House of the Martyrs” in Arak was destroyed, and the remains of the people buried there were removed by an unknown group.
6. In January 2004, a sacred site in Babul, the resting place of a prominent Bahá'à was destroyed. The destruction was carried out with full cooperation from the
authorities, despite the appeals and intervention by local Bahá’Ãs. The authorities
went so far as to prevent the local Bahá’Ãs from retrieving the sacred remains.
7. In June 2004, despite the historical significance to Iranians in general, the home of Baha’u’llah’s father was ordered to be demolished. This site was associated with an important period in the history of the Bahá’à Faith. On the orders of Ayatollah Kani, the demolition was carried out in the presence of the Ayatollah’s sons and Intelligence Ministry officials.
The Iranian Bahá’Ãs found out that the mayor’s office had received written instructions not to interfere with events pertaining to the building. They also
talked to a few reporters, who discovered that the demolition of this house was included in the list of topics about which they were not permitted to report.
So, yeah, forgive me if I don't *give a rat's ass* if Trump blows away every last Islamic cultural site in Iran.
Oh, and that third link I gave from the Iranian group tours?
"Currently, about 1,000-1,500 Americans visit Iran each year."
So even "thousands" was a lie.
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.
Stripped of the abusive parts, this appears objectively true, Farmer. I'm not sure why you object to this analysis of your posts here. These are your words, this is what you're saying. I mean you didn't say that sentence but that's what the words that you've been saying mean.
Do you think you could answer the question, why do you want Iran to be a regional hegemon, and want the US to lose, with an answer that begins with Because?
You're a bright fellow, maybe you have reasons. Now, maybe you don't want those reasons to see the light of day, but maybe you do. If you could just stop avoiding the question and answer it, that would be great.
Please don't whatabout and digress about other regional or global foes who also deserve ill from us. Unless it's relevant. (Like, you want to kiss Iran's ass in order to use Iran to destroy Saudi Arabia. That would be a reason. Or, you want to use Iran in a grater regional strategy to end all life east of the Jordan River. That would be a reason. Or, of course, you might want to end all life east of Cyprus. That would be a reason.)
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.
This is objectively untrue. I'm not saying you are a liar but you don't appreciate what you're saying. I invite you to think it over and rephrase.
@Qwinn:
I just did a whole 3 minutes.
Good, then now you now know your claim that "every single one is assigned a "travel guide" by the government" was bullshit.
So even "thousands" was a lie.
"Foreign travel to Iran grew to 5.2 million arrivals in 2015, up from 4 million the year before. The number of U.S. tourists reached 5,308 in 2016, up 62% from two years before, according to the U.N. World Tourism Organization." -Iran had courted Western tourists. After sanctions, it’s turning to neighbors
You think those travel tour guides that the government requires follow you around everywhere aren't controlled/assigned by the government?
What kind of a fucking moron are you? Excuse my french.
And your numbers are 2016. My numbers are 2019.
Seriously, I think the answer to your incredulous how-in-the-world-could-thousands-of-American-tourists-SURVIVE-in-Iran is:
Because the dozen or so (in 2016, down to about 5 in 2019) that are allowed in the country each day are kept tightly corralled in a tiny tour group, and only permitted to travel to pre-scfeened locations under constant supervision by government licensed agents masquerading as "tour group guides".
This is what you put up against "Death to America!", MANY MANy thousands of IED mutilations and deaths, and embassy attacks.
One presumes you started with your best argument.
@Nichevo:
You don't want "to get the US out of endless wars", you want Iran to win, and the US to lose.
How does the phrase "the US to lose" even make sense in that context? What exactly do you think I want to see happen to the US?
I'm not sure why you object to this analysis of your posts here.
Uh, because it's wrong. That's a pretty good reason.
These are your words, this is what you're saying. I mean you didn't say that sentence but that's what the words that you've been saying mean.
I applaud your mind reading abilities. I didn't actually say it, but you know that's what I mean, because...reasons.
Do you think you could answer the question, why do you want Iran to be a regional hegemon, and want the US to lose, with an answer that begins with Because?
I have no such desire. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Gulf Arab states all provide a check on Iran's regional ambitions, and all the major regional powers are locked in a balance of power arrangement. The Gulf Arab states outspend Iran militarily at least 10:1 and have much more modern and efficient military power than Iran.
The most salient event to occur in the past 20 years that has increased Iran's regional position was the Iraq War, which I opposed vehemently. And of course if you and I were having this conversation back in 2002, you'd probably be criticizing my opposition to the Iraq War in these same terms. I must've wanted for Saddam to be the regional hegemon them. I mean, there's no other possible way to oppose the Iraq War unless you were on Iraq's side Right, Nichevo? You see, the script never changes, only the characters.
You're a bright fellow, maybe you have reasons. Now, maybe you don't want those reasons to see the light of day, but maybe you do. If you could just stop avoiding the question and answer it, that would be great.
Oh yes, I'm terrified my true reasons will see the light of day. I have to keep them secret from the all powerful anonymoys Althouse commenters. I mean, if some faceless screen name behind an avatar new my "reasons," I'm not sure I could find the strength to go on living.
Alas, I've never avoided the question. I've given my views on what I think a better middle east strategy for the US would be. I've given it over and over and over again. I've answered it several times just in the last couple of days. If you've chosen to either not read them, not remember, or not believe them, it isn't my problem.
I want the US to have diplomatic relations and trade with all the relevant powers. That includes Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Syria and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab Emirates and Qatar and Bahrain and Turkey and Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan and...well, I think you get the point. My model for a middle eastern strategy is China. Trade with them, talk to them, and do business with them. I don't think we should put ourselves in the middle of the Sunni-Shia fight, and I don't think we should have military deployed there, and I don't think we should be trying to overthrow governments.
Now if the only way you can make sense of that position is to claim that I "want Iran to win, and the US to lose," then there's nothing else I can tell you besides you're completely, totally, absolutely, 100% fucking wrong.
Wow. Looks who’s had a Bad Monday.
Is he gone? Drinks are on me.
@Qwinn:
This is what you put up against "Death to America!", MANY MANy thousands of IED mutilations and deaths, and embassy attacks.
One presumes you started with your best argument.
We've been going in circles for a while now. I've already given you examples of the US pursuing rapprochement with regimes that got tens of thousands of Americans killed. If you can't grasp the concept, then there's nothing more really to say. Let's just end it there. Have a good evening, and thanks for the back and forth.
How about the people who bog us down in the Middle East stop letting these people in our country.
50,000 student visas to Saudi Arabia. It’s ridiculous.
Try stamping your feet.
Hold your breath.
Beat your tiny little fists.
Sobbing Smug is best Smug.
Loser.
Anyone getting the impression that J. Farmer is just logorrheic version of Ritmo?
Yes and he suffers from verbal diarrhea, too. 😄
Owen said...
Strategic uncertainty is a force multiplier. The defender cannot defend everything, spreads himself thin, chases shadows and rumors. His followers are disquieted, exhausted. Their own imaginings become a weapon against themselves.
***
I agree, but I think when you have by far the most powerful military in the world consistency and the slow application and increase of pressure is far more effective. The assassination of Soleimaini makes Trump look weak and stupid. It unifies our enemies and drives a wedge between us and our allies. It's only the sheer might of the US military and Trump's reluctance to start a full fledge war that will keep this from becoming a hot war. Right now Iran is putting all its resources into getting a nuke, and I think the unpredictability of Trump will make that more likely to happen, not less.
The assassination of Soleimaini makes Trump look weak and stupid.
Pretty silly assessment. Sending pallets of cash is better ?
I personally like Ieyasu at Sekigahara.
Tip us Nelson at Copenhagen
Pretty silly assessment. Sending pallets of cash is better?
The unpredictability makes Trump look weak.
And yes having a negotiated agreement with all the world powers behind it is a much stronger position.
Good morning.
Yeah, what Farmer said.
Narr
That is all
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
"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."
Which wars has he started?
"The assassination of Soleimaini makes Trump look weak and stupid."
No it doesn't.
Post a Comment