Jump to content

MagicSoccerSpray

Full Members
  • Posts

    1120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MagicSoccerSpray

  1. 19 minutes ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

    Yes because the GOP has shown itself to be leakproof right

     

    It absolutely has not, however... only GOP senators were briefed, and nothing specific leaked. Relative to past congressional leaks, it was a pretty tight ship.

  2. 2 hours ago, Captainant said:

    Notably, Intel is being withheld internally from those who are statutorily supposed to be seeing and advising based on it. If you're not in the Party, then your elected office means nothing

    Withhding Intel from the gang of eight is just further dissolving the checks and balances, as we are flying full speed towards a shooting war without the consent of the governed. Wonderful.

     

     

    I think they were trying to avoid leaks

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Fuck You 4
  3. 1 hour ago, Hellraiser97 said:

    don't get the scene with Perrin at the end - After her speech, Mon Mothma is a fugitive, public enemy #1.  Yet a year later, Perrin is just partying around Corusant at the end, banging the crime dude's wife?  They would have locked him up 5 seconds after that speech and probably exectured him shortly thereafter.  Am I missing something?  A shot of him in a jail cell makes more sense

    There was a deleted scene that explains it all. Basically Perrin always knew what Mon was up to, and covered for her to the ISB. Sculden owned a broadcast channel that, when ordered, refused to cut the feed to Mothma's speech to the senate, which is why the imperials were scrambling to cut power to the senate chamber. Perrin and Sculden's wife both lost their spouses to the rebellion, which better explains them being together later.


    There are videos and interviews on yt and the net, from the episode writer, and Gilroy, talking about it. Some were linked a couple of pages back in this thread. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. On 9/22/2021 at 10:24 PM, Surly Bevo said:

    Should have left this scene in 1

     

     

    No, it was a good cut. The roof jump scene, and the shooting range scene, established the "crazy and good a shot" traits, and were better scenes. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 59 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

    There's always a reason. Capturing control of their natural resources is a strategically +EV play for the US and it would make a bunch of shitty rich assholes even richer. That's the point, that's always been the point of our Middle East policy and Israel serves its purpose as our attack dog to that point.

    I don't disagree with the points about Iran and I'd love to see the mullahs fuck off and die, like I've said many times, but we all know how it will end up in the end if the West facilitates regime change. Maybe it'll buy us another decade or two of relative stability before history inevitably repeats itself.

     

    This logic is as wrong as it is facile.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/south-texas-el-paso/news/2025/06/17/owner-of-famed-texas-chili-restaurant-dies

     

    Quote

    The owner of a popular chili restaurant in Central Texas has died. Scott Zublin, who owned the famed hole-in-the-wall Texas Chili Parlor, died on June 7. He was 67.

    Zublin, who was often referred to as “Zoob”, purchased the Texas Chili Parlor in 2002 after the state comptroller seized it because of unpaid taxes and debt. The Texas Chili Parlor has been featured in countless publications for its captivating chili recipes. It was also featured in the Quentin Tarantino movie “Death Proof” and is mentioned in the Guy Clark song “Dublin Blues.”

    Located near the Texas Capitol on Lavaca Street, the 49-year-old restaurant’s future remains uncertain.

    Family of Zublin told the Austin Business Journal his passing was unexpected. He is survived by his siblings, their spouses and his nieces and nephews. 

    Zublin's cause of death is unknown at this time.

     

    https://www.kvue.com/article/money/business/texas-chili-parlor-owner-death-scott-zublin

     

    Quote

    The man credited with saving a long-time Austin business more than 20 years ago has died.

    Scott Zublin, owner of Texas Chili Parlor, died on June 7 at age 67, according to the Austin Business Journal (ABJ). "Zoob," as he was known, purchased the now-49-year-old restaurant back in 2002 after the state comptroller seized it over unpaid taxes and debt, according to the ABJ.

     

    “[Texas Chili Parlor is] still here because of him. No doubt about it," said William Holmes, the restaurant's bartender.

    Though Zublin didn't open Texas Chili Parlor, the ABJ said he was a regular patron since the late 1970s and he reinforced the restaurant's "original vibe" when he took over more than two decades ago.

    Texas Chili Parlor – located on Lavaca Street, just a short distance from the Texas State Capitol – has been featured in a variety of media, including Southern Living magazine and the Food Network show "The Grill Dads." It was also featured in Quentin Tarantino's 2007 movie "Death Proof" and is referenced in the Guy Clark song "Dublin Blues."

    Those close to Zublin told the ABJ his death was unexpected. He is survived by his siblings and their spouses and his nieces and nephews. 

    What's next for Texas Chili Parlor?

    With Zublin's passing, the future of the restaurant is unclear. The ABJ noted that some people on social media have shared concerns that Texas Chili Parlor will be redeveloped into an upscale business, in opposition to its reputation of maintaining affordable prices.

    An employee who wished to remain anonymous told the ABJ that it has not yet been determined who will run the restaurant moving forward. However, Holmes said the intent is for Texas Chili Parlor to carry on.

    Pepe Lozano, a man "who describes himself as Zoob's brother, sounding board, punching bag and drinking buddy," echoed that sentiment, saying no one knows yet what's next for Texas Chili Parlor, but the intent is to keep Zublin's dream alive.

     

  7. 4 hours ago, bolverk said:

    He was pretty vocal over the weekend about a governor and former VP candidate suggesting that China might be a good mediator but was utterly silent when the current president suggested Putin, as were a couple of other posters.

     

    It's impossible to keep up with the dumb shit spewing from his mouth, so it got past me. Your creepy fixation is duly noted. 

  8. 2 hours ago, mdmost said:

    It's dancing in a galaxy far, far away. 

    And grown men using cringe is cringe. 

     

    Does it give you the Ick?

  9. 1 hour ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

    I’m sure the Persian people loved SAVAK.  The Shah was just another brutal dictator propped up by the US

     

    Name one decently sized ME autocracy that doesn't/didn't have a brutal secret police.

     

    1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

    Lol. If you think we would ever allow a free and secular Iran I have a bridge to sell you. The best we can hope for is we use our attack dog to decapitate the current regime and they fly Pahlavi's ass back over there and reinstall the monarchy, and then this all happens again in a couple decades.

     

    Persians are not Arab and are not historically fundamentalist. Under the Shah they had a history of personal freedom and religious tolerance relative to the rest of the ME.

    • Hook 'Em 7
  10. 12 hours ago, Duane Moore said:

    The value of preventing them from going nuclear means we don’t have to pay attention to them any longer and can focus limited military assets in the Indo-Pacific countering China. 

     

    It also mostly clears the way in the Middle East. Iraq stabilizes further, Shia/Muslim international terrorism and extremism takes a big hit, the Abraham accords continue and accelerate, Syria and Lebanon continue to stabilize and turn towards the West, Hezbollah/Houthis/Hamas are largely neutered, and a friendlier Iran turns on the taps for Europe to continue diversifying away from Russian crude. The only downside is Turkey has a much free-er hand in the region and will work to further align Libya, Syria, Lebanon, and Sunni extremism towards their worldview.

    If the Mullahs actually fall, it will be awesome. A western friendly Iran will help western goals worldwide, including the Pacific. Fingers crossed

     

    12 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

    The shah's reign was many things but stable is certainly not one of them.

     

    Relative to the neighborhood, the Shas's reign was peaceful and stable.

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 6
  11. 39 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

    It's the exact same delusion that the powers that be counted on vis a vis Iraq. A government amenable to us plundering their natural resources (and keeping them from flowing into China) is the only acceptable option. And we aren't the only interested parties, the Saudis are very interested in this as well.

     

    Iraq's biggest customers for it's oil, at market prices, are India and China. Iraq is also a (poorly) functioning democracy, which is far better than the totalitarian menace it was before. I think you need to work on your definition of "plundering", and I don't think your statements support your argument.

  12. 3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

    That doesn't mean that they are developing WMDs, even the US intelligence community doesn't think this is the case.

     

    You don't think the Iranians have a nuclear weapons program? Where/when, exactly, did the the "US intelligence community" say that?

  13. 3 minutes ago, victory88 said:

    Can you show proof of this?  Because in the other thread, you can see the reports on there that all their facilities were being monitored. 

     

    https://archive.is/mkHnl#selection-2155.0-2167.160

     

    Quote

     

    "Adding to the risks is that Fordow is not the only ultra-secure facility that Iran can fall back on. Tehran has recently been building an even deeper and better protected facility into Kūh-e Kolang Gaz Lā, also known as Pickaxe mountain, a few kilometres south of Natanz. 

    While Fordow is thought to have two tunnel entrances, Pickaxe has at least four, making it harder to seal off entrances by bombing. Its underground halls also have more floorspace.
    Some fear the facility, which Iran has so far barred the IAEA from inspecting, could even be used to assemble a nuclear weapon while Iran was under attack.
    “A key question is whether Iran will, or maybe already has, secreted fissile material into Pickaxe, or some other unknown facility,” said the FDD’s Ben Taleblu."

     

     
     
    3 minutes ago, victory88 said:

    Iran definitely funds Hamas but can you please reference the international terrorism or attacks at US civilians?  Their conflict is regional with Israel.

     

    Are you implying that Iran doesn't participate in international terrorism? That it didn't kidnap and kill US civilians, soldiers, and employees in Lebanon in the 80s, bomb a community center in Argentina in the 90s, kill US soldiers with IEDs in Iraq in the 10s, or try to kill US politicians and Generals on US soil in the teens? Iran has been the largest sponsor of International Terrorism since the Islamic Republic was founded after the fall of the Shah. "Death To America!" is an official regime slogan... and they mean it.

     

    3 minutes ago, victory88 said:

    sorry if I'd like to see proof before we go bomb another country and kill civilians because of weapons of mass destruction that do not exist.

     

    Are you implying that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program? That it hasn't actively been trying to develop nuclear weapons of mass destruction for 20+ years?

     

    4 minutes ago, victory88 said:

    And I like how terrorism is only confined to Muslims/brown people.

     

    What the Fuck are you talking about?

     

    4 minutes ago, victory88 said:

    as if the 25000+ dead kids in Gaza with bullets in their skulls and blown off limbs from US weapons and American tax dollars is any different than a Hamas moron launching a RPG. 

     

    Blame Hamas for using their own people as human shields while they hide underneath schools and Mosques with their kidnapping victims. And where are you getting the 25k+ number from? Hamas?

     

    4 minutes ago, victory88 said:

    They are both equally wrong and it needs to stop.

     

    Define "equally". Are you actually trying to draw an equivalency between the actions of Israel, and Iran? Are you serious?

     

  14. 20 minutes ago, victory88 said:

    The reports from the US intelligence community was that Iran is not close to developing a nuclear weapon.  Netanyahu has been saying for 25 years that Iran is months away from developing a nuclear weapon only for them to never have one.  I'm all for Iran's regime being over thrown so their people can elect a non extremist leadership so they can enjoy basic rights, but we do NOT need to be dragged into this.  There is no reason to involve US resources into a regional conflict.  Let Israel fight their battles.  We have supplied them with enough weapons and bombs to commit one genocide.  We can use diplomacy to monitor Iran like the rest of the world has and like we have previously done. Is there actual evidence of Iran not complying with the monitoring, testing, and surveillance.?  Negotiations were set to start again until Israel went Leeroy Jenkins with their attack.  Stop wasting tax payer dollars on this bullshit.

     

    Good Lord...

     

    4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

    I am not confident at all in the Trump administration's ability to negotiate anything that was even close to as effective as the JCPOA.

     

    Define "Effective"

     

    4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

    The JCPOA was also effectively kicking the can down the road, but it was working and could have been expanded upon later on down the line.

     

    Define "working"

    You seem to be assigning an awful lot of good faith to the world's largest nation-state sponsor of international terrorism. It's already been established that Iran was actively breaking the terms of the deal, hiding facilities, and continuing to develop weapons. Wishing that wasn't so, doesn't change that.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  15. 2 hours ago, troph said:

    whether it is or isn't the current motivation it has been the genesis of the conflict that has remain unresolved for 50+ years. the conflict can migrate to take on a life of its own apart from the original motivations making it just that much more difficult to untangle. no doubt today its about radicalism, proxy wars through terrorism and nuclear capability, but hey if the West could solve those three, I suspect the West would do so AND strong arm their way into a deal for natural resources, say some oil and gas and some rare earths as well.

     

    The West isn't even the biggest customer for Iran's oil, and using the deposing of some leftist 70+ years ago, is a lazy excuse. The Persians are great people, saddled with a corrupt and incompetent theocracy bent on spreading their version of militant Islam, and threatening the world with nuclear weapons. Lets celebrate their potential downfall, instead of indulging in political self-flagellation.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  16. 5 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium_Agreement_of_1954

    The Consortium Agreement of 1954 (Persian: قرارداد کنسرسیوم) provided Western oil companies with 50% ownership of Iranian oil production after its ratification in 1954 expiring in 1979.[1] According to the consortium agreement, 40% of Iran's oil shares belonged to 5 American companies, the other 40% belonged to Iran-UK oil companies, 14% belonged to a Dutch oil company, and the remaining 6% belonged to a French oil company.[2] In spite of numerous negotiations and offers, Mohammad Reza Shah refused to extend the Agreement which originally and clearly postulated that the Consortium had the right to prolong it 15 years (3 times 5 years).

    A year after the overthrow of Premier Mohammad Mossadegh by the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the British and American governments began pressuring the reinstated Shah of Iran into negotiations with Britain over the ownership of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The British cabinet had imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran that prohibited the export of key commodities to Iran.[3] Britain's boycott had become devastatingly effective, with Iranians "becoming poorer and unhappier by the day".[4

    The dispute was finalized with the incorporation of a 25-year international Oil Consortium Agreement of 1954, dividing the aforementioned 50% ownership to foreign companies as follows. 40% to be divided equally (8% each) among the five major American companies; British Petroleum to have a 40% share; Royal Dutch/Shell to have 14%; and Compagnie française des pétroles, a French Company, to receive 6%. A year later in 1955 US-government ordered the 5 US-companies to each transfer 1% of their 8%, to several smaller companies because these companies had complained that 'they were left out'.[5]

    The agreement further stipulates that the Consortium would take care of 

    • (almost) all production,
    • Refining,
    • transport and
    • (only international) marketing

    of Iranian oil for which purposes two Dutch legal entities were to be created and based in The Netherlands:

    1. Iranian Oil Refining Company
    2. Iranian Oil Exploration and Producing Company.

    Basing these companies in Great Britain was considered politically undesirable, as was the initial wish of BP to get 50%. With English companies and a large 50% stake, was thought not to be acceptable to the Iranians. Furthermore, 50% would materially give BP a majority stake because BP had strong connections with the little (6%) French company CFP. Hence only 40% for the former 100% possessor.

    The agreement, which was heavily pressured by President Eisenhower, gave American oil companies significant influence over how much petroleum Iran pumped and the price it could sell for.[6] Beginning in 1973, the Shah faced increasing tensions with Western nations after announcing he would not renew the consortium agreement upon its expiration and planned to nationalize Iranian oil in 1979. The Shah, speaking to 5,000 farmers and workers, accused the oil companies of mishandling operations under the 1954 agreement. He said he had ordered the National Iranian Oil Company to start hiring foreign experts to work with Iranians so the company could take over the consortium's duties “either immediately or from 1979.”[5]

    Many Iranians accuse Western nations of supporting the overthrow of the Shah due to his failure to renew the consortium agreement in 1979 in what is known as the 1979 Iranian Revolution conspiracy theory.[7] According to the New York Times, the oil companies, through a spokesman, argued that the Shah did not have a legal right to end their contract in 1979, because the Consortium had the right of prolonging it for 15 years.

     

    This is 50+ years ago. The US is the biggest oil producer in the world now, and has good relations with the #2,4,5 producing countries. So the argument is that the US is still trying to take over Iranian oil production? To what end? I think if anything we'd encourage regime change because theocratic Iran has been the number one exporter of worldwide terrorism for fifty years. But hey, wE OvErThRoUgH MoSaDDeGh!!! 

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...