Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
49 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

Other than the fact that it is clear that some of you still interact with way too many MAGA.

yep … you can pick your friends, but you can’t pick family.  😬

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

Two things jump out from reading the updates this morning:

1) I'm not so sure that "drag us into a war in the ME" is the automatic result of every scenario where US could plausably engage. I can see a very limited engagement that deploys and then backs off, whehter it's us missle striking the Houthis or acting as Israel's last mile to finish off the nuclear program by firing off some GBU-57 bunker busters for the first time in history and then letting Israel and the ME deal with the fall out of a decapitated Iran.

2) Israel is showing us how non-nuke adversaries and yappers are being shown to be paper tigers. On one hand, if you are an underdeveloped sovereign nation you see the absolute value in getting a nuke for yourself. On the other hand, all our enemies (save China) are being exposed militarily. In fact, Russia had signed a much ballyhooed security pact with Iran 6 months ago that they are conveniently trying to forget about in light of their workload and instead are hilariously offering to be the peace-talking mediators. Yea, that's what they meant by security pact haha

Posted
2 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

letting Israel and the ME deal with the fall out of a decapitated Iran.

There is a zero percent chance Israel won't come scurrying under our skirts when "the fall out" happens. In for a penny, in for a pound. We straight up cannot afford this.

4 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Israel is showing us how non-nuke adversaries and yappers are being shown to be paper tigers.

Iran is a paper tiger because it still wants to avoid a military conflict with the US? Let's give it more than one week to judge this. People felt like we prevailed when Saddam was captured, people felt much differently when we had to spend a decade "nation building." This is a large, hostile, mountainous territory with an enormous population. We lost the war in Iraq, and not only does the strength of that opponent pales in comparison to the strength of Iran, but also the justification for the Iraq invasion while still incredibly weak at the very least was based on a consensus belief that they had WMDs. Yes, it was built on a lie, but it was a commonly held belief at the time. There is no consensus that Iran is "weeks away" from building nukes, not even within Trump's cabinet.

More to your point, all this would do is incentivize everyone else to get nukes. "This is what happens if you don't have nukes."

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

I don't think the US does anything different than in the past including no direct military intervention. Just more rage tweets and nonsense while Israel and Iran continue talking tough while lobbing a few pew pews at each other for the next few years. Iran is nowhere near a nuclear weapon, they've been super duper close for like 30 years, it's all bullshit. If they were really that close we would have gone full Team America on them a long time ago.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
46 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Israel is showing us how non-nuke adversaries and yappers are being shown to be paper tigers. 

This has been known for decades. Iraq and Iran have both been mocked for my entire life for talking a big game and playing a small one.

Nobody except our idiotic government and media seem to think they are actually a real threat to anybody outside of Kuwait.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
28 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

…but also the justification for the Iraq invasion while still incredibly weak at the very least was based on a consensus belief that they had WMDs. Yes, it was built on a lie, but it was a commonly held belief at the time.

It was not a commonly held belief at the time.

Our allies were willing partners in the afghanistan war. When iraq came around, key partners were unwilling to approve of it.

Key examples are france, hence the freedom fries thing, and israel. We had to load 10 billion to israel to secure their vote at the UN. 

  • Like 3
Posted
1 minute ago, GenXer said:

It was not a commonly held belief at the time.

Our allies were willing partners in the afghanistan war. When iraq came around, key partners were unwilling to approve of it.

Key examples are france, hence the freedom fries thing, and israel. We had to load 10 billion to israel to secure their vote at the UN. 

I should have been clearer. Domestically people were less skeptical after Colin Powell said "trust me bro"

Posted
54 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Israel is showing us how non-nuke adversaries and yappers are being shown to be paper tigers.

Buddy we are just at the beginning and we’re talking about a region that has been warring for centuries. Take a seat bc you have no fucking clue what you are talking about 

Posted

Rant/I’ve had to spend pretty much my whole life giving head space to these fucking “I”places. Why can’t these bitches be more like Idaho. I hardly ever think of Idaho except every now and then when I am eating a delicious potato or when there was that weird murder that Nicole was probably somehow involved in. Be more like Idaho you fucking fucks./Rant Over

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

Rant/I’ve had to spend pretty much my whole life giving head space to these fucking “I”places. Why can’t these bitches be more like Idaho. I hardly ever think of Idaho except every now and then when I am eating a delicious potato or when there was that weird murder that Nicole was probably somehow involved in. Be more like Idaho you fucking fucks./Rant Over

Oil is more valuable than potatoes.

  • Like 3
Posted
17 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

Rant/I’ve had to spend pretty much my whole life giving head space to these fucking “I”places. Why can’t these bitches be more like Idaho. I hardly ever think of Idaho except every now and then when I am eating a delicious potato or when there was that weird murder that Nicole was probably somehow involved in. Be more like Idaho you fucking fucks./Rant Over

YARN | Trying to get that oil... oh, ho! | Chappelle's Show (2003) - S02E13  Music | Video clips by quotes | ab28a6cf | 紗

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Buddy we are just at the beginning and we’re talking about a region that has been warring for centuries. Take a seat bc you have no fucking clue what you are talking about 

Okay. Maybe you are a modern Middle East studies expert, but it appears to most pundits and reporting that the rest of ME has evolved past mullahs into hardened late stage capitlists looking to diversify their incomes from outside of oil, and as such, are letting Iran hang out to dry with barely even any lip service being paid to the situation. They are still hardcore autocrats of course (KSA just executed a citizen journalist who was critical of MBS on twitter using the Iran headlines to mute the coverage of course).

I'm not saying this is you, but it's interesting that a lot of folks who might have had first hand or even very high secondand opinions in the gulf and ME during their times in the service or agency employment but have rolled off into industry as they aged up seem to all have this static idea of KSA, UAE, Oman, Jordan, even a more Western-friendly Iraq etc. as being close brothers with the Arab Brotherhood still.

In a couple of weeks we will be closer to 2050 than the year 2000. Things change.

Edited by Vegas64
Posted
35 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

Rant/I’ve had to spend pretty much my whole life giving head space to these fucking “I”places. Why can’t these bitches be more like Idaho. I hardly ever think of Idaho except every now and then when I am eating a delicious potato or when there was that weird murder that Nicole was probably somehow involved in. Be more like Idaho you fucking fucks./Rant Over

Yeah, Idaho isn’t that great as of late.

https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/08/11/hate-makes-a-comeback-in-idaho-this-time-with-political-support/
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, mdmost said:

So we have the concept of a strike?

Trump has to figure out which masturbation dance he wants to set to this when he announces the strike.  Dude loves him a jack off dance to late 70s/early 80s classics

 

Edited by Surly Bevo
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, GenXer said:

We had to load 10 billion to israel to secure their vote at the UN. 

Huh? I recall Israel being an enthusiastic supporter of the invasion. Their prime minister, at least.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Huh? I recall Israel being an enthusiastic supporter of the invasion. Their prime minister, at least.

 

I saw straight through the Iraq WMD bullshit in spring of 2003, and remember this clearly.

This loan secured israel’s vote. They were not on board until they got money.


IMG_3832.thumb.jpeg.06ee818129a94e12f119630cd7fd2437.jpeg

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, GenXer said:

I saw straight through the Iraq WMD bullshit in spring of 2003, and remember this clearly.

This loan secured israel’s vote. They were not on board until they got money.


IMG_3832.thumb.jpeg.06ee818129a94e12f119630cd7fd2437.jpeg

 

 

In the first Gulf War, George HW Bush convinced Israel not to respond to SCUD missile attacks launched by Saddam, trying to draw them into the conflict, for fear that it would fracture the coalition that included other Muslim countries. Israel complied. They were never, ever opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Not really a forgive and forget culture over there. (Anywhere in the region.)

Great. The U.S. gave a bunch of money to Israel. That’s business as usual. Israel was never opposed to the war but they’re always happy to take our money. In 2003 the U.S. was more than happy to go it alone. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld didn’t care much about coalition building. Even if Israel wanted to prevent the invasion, which I think the video I posted of Netanyahu addressing the U.S. congress and explicitly supporting it should pretty conclusively demonstrate that they never did, it wouldn’t have changed anything. They didn’t need to be bought off in order for the invasion to proceed.  

Posted
1 minute ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

They just like being bought off

Can’t blame them for milking the U.S. for whatever they can get, especially when an unqualified evangelical dumbfuck like George W. Bush was president. But they never had the power to stop the invasion. And Netanyahu openly campaigned for it. Israel having to be bought off in order for the invasion to proceed wasn’t a thing. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
This has been known for decades. Iraq and Iran have both been mocked for my entire life for talking a big game and playing a small one.
Nobody except our idiotic government and media seem to think they are actually a real threat to anybody outside of Kuwait.

Their real threats are funding and training terrorist actors and indirect assaults on civilians through cyberattacks. No one really thinks they are winning a conventional war by punching up.
Posted
5 minutes ago, GenXer said:

Agree to disagree

Your AI overview doesn’t support your assertion. It just says we gave them money. When don’t we? It doesn’t say anything about Israel needing to be persuaded to support the invasion. Can you find any evidence to support that claim? I posted a video of Benjamin Netanyahu addressing congress and enthusiastically advocating the Bush administration’s position that Iraq had WMD’s and was on the verge of producing nuclear weapons. Sound familiar? (And Jesus, how the fuck is Netanyahu still around? He’s like Putin.)

Posted
27 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Now I’ll make sure to watch the next episode!

You jest, but this probably better describes the ongoing reality tv show that Trump imagines he’s hosting in the Oval than anything else.  
 

I had lunch with a former VERY senior intelligence official (retired) yesterday and, while this isn’t news, was a good reminder of how predictions based on any particular foreign policy are doomed.  “Trump has no policy preferences, he’s going to do whatever makes sure he remains the star of the show.”

Also, it seems like the board’s consensus is that Israel shouldn’t have attacked Iran and we should definitely not get involved, right?  Am I alone in applauding the Israelis and that I’m very torn (but certainly wouldn’t rule out) supplementing their air campaign if needed?

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Also, it seems like the board’s consensus is that Israel shouldn’t have attacked Iran and we should definitely not get involved, right?  Am I alone in applauding the Israelis and that I’m very torn (but certainly wouldn’t rule out) supplementing their air campaign if needed?

 

I don't think that is correct. It feels (very scientific, I know) pretty 50/50 and "reasonable minds can disagree" in tone. I think that is because regardless of evertying, fundamentally everyone from all sides agrees with this precept: "Iran cannot get a nuclear bomb".

The United States, Republicans, Democrats, Independents-- just about nobody seems comfortable with a nuclear-armed Iran. The debate is more around how close they are (if they are at all), and what to do about it today now that shoes have dropped.

Edited by Vegas64
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

  Am I alone in applauding the Israelis and that I’m very torn (but certainly wouldn’t rule out) supplementing their air campaign if needed?

 

I usually stay out of discussions about international politics. However, recent reports about the civil divisions within Iran make me think that supporting dissenters is the most promising, least damaging, course of action. I’ll leave it to experts to detail how best to enable Iranian citizenry.

Edited by Willfully Horn
Posted

I’m on vacation in LA visiting some Persian relatives. My uncle is up to date and connected within the large Iranian community here. They want this to go all the way. Supreme Leader dead with Shah’s son taking over as that is the only somewhat organized plan right now. Anything less than removing Supreme Leader will be considered a tactical failure. The anti-regime Iranian news stations in DC and London are basically saying the same thing. 
 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

agree with hermanator

 

"The organizing principle of any society, Mr. Garrison, is for war. The authority of the state over its people resides in its war powers."

- Agent X

JFK, 1991

(Fletcher Prouty, portrayed by Donald Sutherland)

 

point 1

for 45 years, during the cold war, the us had a soviet enemy; we had 10 years without an enemy in the 90s, then we tried 'terrorism' (crimes committed by muslims) as an enemy and now we have pivoted to using ourselves as the enemy because our economy is so intertwined with china's as to make that conventional war impossible....

 

point 2

israeli society and the israeli economy are constructed for permanent war - and it's our fault - we created this mess

bibi and the israeli ("zionist") fundamentalists require the iranian (shia) regime to remain as a permanent enemy

this is also why gaza will never be solved - the israeli right need it to not be solved

 

adjusted for inflation, since 1953, the us has given israel $92.7 billion in economic aid and $228 billion in military aid

when searching "how much is the us giving israel in 2025" the answer is "As of April 2025, the United States has 751 active Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases with Israel that are valued at $39.2 billion."

israel's 2024 gnp was $142 billion

thus, the american taxpayer is gifting to the state of israel more than 25% of it's annual gnp at the present time

 

citing any of the above in any media or online venue in any line of argument is viciously attacked as ANTI-SEMITISM

israel's right to exist has nothing to do with the religion of the vast majority of it's people

but this explains the violent reaction when the very idea is floated re: reducing tens of billions of us taxpayer dollars in annual subsidies

 

point 3

and this will be unpopular here in the cr.......

those of us living in the fact-based reality timeline must concede that the insane magaright undercut bibi in this circumstance and somehow we have arrived at the correct, if temporary, outcome.... 

do nothing

 

15 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I’m on vacation in LA visiting some Persian relatives.

pics of hot persian wimmens not loading

Edited by Hagbard Celine
Posted
14 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I’m on vacation in LA visiting some Persian relatives. My uncle is up to date and connected within the large Iranian community here. They want this to go all the way. Supreme Leader dead with Shah’s son taking over as that is the only somewhat organized plan right now. Anything less than removing Supreme Leader will be considered a tactical failure. The anti-regime Iranian news stations in DC and London are basically saying the same thing. 
 

They want Netanyahu and Israel to do it? There's no guarantee Netanyahu stops at eliminating the Ayatollah. Actually, I'd be shocked if he did. You'd be looking at the prospect of an Israeli occupied Iran and all the horrors that would go with that. 

Posted
1 hour ago, GenXer said:

I saw straight through the Iraq WMD bullshit in spring of 2003, and remember this clearly.

This loan secured israel’s vote. They were not on board until they got money.


IMG_3832.thumb.jpeg.06ee818129a94e12f119630cd7fd2437.jpeg

 

 

What vote are you talking about?  Israel has never been on the UN Security Council.  We didn't pay Israel for their vote; we paid them for their restraint.  (Which is one of the many reasons we should stop paying them, seeing how they have chucked that restraint in the bin.) 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
42 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

I think that is because regardless of evertying, fundamentally everyone from all sides agrees with this precept: "Iran cannot get a nuclear bomb".

I’m not sure that’s a settled opinion here.  What say you @chainsaw?
 

28 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Why would Iran be any different?

Iran has two thousand years of history of attempting to exert regional dominance.  In more recent times, they’ve attempted to  lead the region economically and culturally (under the Shah), and more violently with proxies (under the mullahs/IRGC).  In fact, part of the current enmity Iran holds towards Israel is for the simple fact the Shah was friendly to them and they were allies for 30 years until the revolution.  Khomenei basically manufactured a rivalry to help justify his criticisms of the regime (to be fair, he alternatively hated and cozied up to pretty much everyone else in the region during his exile except the Israeli’s, so I’m sure his anti-semitism was at least sincere).  
 

I don’t think North Korea or Pakistan is a great example, but the latter is probably a better comparison, at least in that factions of their government do, in fact, support terrorist activities for regional influence (including, against us).  For me, it’s not the threat of using the nuclear bomb that’s as realistic as their ongoing support for extremist groups that, and let’s be clear about this, aren’t allies in a religious or cultural sense (Hamas and Hezbollah).  The only thing they share is a willingness to kill Jews (and Americans when they get the chance).  
 

Anyway, if you let them have it pretty much every “friendly” Arab state that’s close will want a stepped up US security guarantee. I don’t know why that matters in 2025 since basically we don’t give a shit about allies in this country anymore, but it’s ultimately destabilizing and only the most wishful thinker (or our current admin) imagines that the last 70 years of relative peace and prosperity in the world would have been possible without alliances.  

44 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

We had an agreement with Iran that worked and kept us out of this sort of stuff then trump tore it up.

For the record, and I absolutely detest Trump and pretty much every asshole that voted for him, but this was the right call.  It wasn’t working, the Iranians weren’t required to comply with inspections and they were secretly enriching uranium at undeclared sites anyway-I don’t want to get into a source-off, but mine is unimpeachable on this.  If you don’t care to get into a pissing contest about who is right, I’ll just defer to “how do YOU know it was working?”

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

They want Netanyahu and Israel to do it? There's no guarantee Netanyahu stops at eliminating the Ayatollah. Actually, I'd be shocked if he did. You'd be looking at the prospect of an Israeli occupied Iran and all the horrors that would go with that. 

That I doubt.  Israel is not going to try to occupy a country of 80 some million people that is not adjacent to their borders.  Israel would much more likely fuel a prolonged civil war.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
19 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I’m on vacation in LA visiting some Persian relatives. My uncle is up to date and connected within the large Iranian community here. They want this to go all the way. Supreme Leader dead with Shah’s son taking over as that is the only somewhat organized plan right now. Anything less than removing Supreme Leader will be considered a tactical failure. The anti-regime Iranian news stations in DC and London are basically saying the same thing. 
 

the expat persian community needs to form a loud, visible opposition shadow government in exile, based in london, and prepare for a return of the persian diaspora

the iranian military has 340,000 across all branches

open swiss accounts for every one of them and deposit $10000 accessible one year after the opposition government has returned and is in power

total bribe $3.4 billion

ONE TIME COST

thank you for your attention to this matter

  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

You'd be looking at the prospect of an Israeli occupied Iran and all the horrors that would go with that

They don’t have the manpower for that and wouldn’t try to do it.  Khamanei is 86 and probably the IRGC dispenses with the pretense of letting the mullahs think they run things if he’s killed and they are under threat.  Letting him live, somewhat infirm and under duress, is far more helpful to create government confusion.  

Posted
10 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I’m not sure that’s a settled opinion here.  What say you @chainsaw?
 

It's not really an opinion. It's a fact. They can't have a nuclear bomb and are not in a position to get one even if they wanted to. They aren't on the 1 yard line, so we don't have to intervene. If they were even in the red zone, we would have already known about it and wouldn't need to trust the word of people who have an interest in dragging us into another forever war.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Hagbard Celine said:

open swiss accounts for every one of them and deposit $10000 accessible one year after the opposition government has returned and is in power

total bribe $3.4 billion

You’re probably at least half joking, but we didn’t really start to subdue Al Anbar until the Saudi’s funneled money to the sheiks.  I feel like for what we spent over there we could have just bought the whole country, or at least the really shitty parts that ended up becoming part of ISIS.  
 

I’m going to sound like Lobo, but it reminds me of when Michael Clayton says  to Tilda Swinton “I’m not the guy you kill, I’m the guy you buy.”

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

They aren't on the 1 yard line, so we don't have to intervene. If they were even in the red zone, we would have already known about it and wouldn't need to trust the word of people who have an interest in dragging us into another forever war.

I’m in total agreement that Bibi is basically Elon Musk promising self-driving will roll out five minutes from now, but I’m skeptical that WE would have already known about it.  
 

What we might read into Israel’s early success is they have ground assets and presumably far better human intelligence than we do.  Either way, they put their money where their mouth is rather than defer it until later.  



×
×
  • Create New...