Iran Attacks US Forces at Al Assad

The mullocracy of Iran, not the rest of the place. Iran could have been nurtured to a point that it flipped. We've ignited nationalism there now too. Yay! Nationalism and populism will be the death of this planet.

 

No, globalism will, if we continue to allow it to fester.

 

So let them continue to kill us via proxies day after day year after year and hope that one day diplomacy wins out?

 

I’m trying to find the Constitutional requirement for the Commander In Chief to have been in the military. Having trouble finding that.
W served. He listened to all the Intelligence. No WMDs found. But Trump should blindly follow.

Hard to keep up with the liberal flip flopping.

 

yes he did. He LOATHED the military back in the day ...

and (perhaps because of #HisSilentinBengHazi) ... was dismissive of the joint chiefs ... frequently. He's the reason we were on the wrong side of Bosnia. Because he knew more than the Generals did. That was when we had a few Generals who were actually operations experts and not "shoe clerks."

 

WOW.

longer between launches than I would have expected. Of course, the target wasn't flying "tactically" ... but "straight ahead" in a climb out.

terrible tragedy which should not have happened ...

Still, a nice find, Joe Fan. Thanks.

 

play stupid games ... win stupid prizes.

It's their own fault they have such proximity to US military bases.. AFA the so called "reverse?" Talk to Russia/USSR about doing that to us. non starter ... and non sequitur.

 

gee
who has credibility here?
Maybe someone who served us so well and honorably in the face of harms way and would know
or someone who is a Dem Trump hating poster?

IMO tho Hillary hated our military even more.

 

VERY true.

I am real close to a guy who flew in the 89th at Andrews during her SOS term. I'd break my own rule about profanity to accurately relay the estimation of that person.

Interestingly, Pelosi evidently treats the military with respect ... even if she is a dingbat and 99.99% wrong on policy.

 

She is old enough that she likely had a family member in the armed services.

 

To be fair, Hillary almost surely had family in WWII. However, she is a product of the 1960s political radicalism, which had contempt for the US military.

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with diplomacy. The problem with your mindset is that it ignores the fact that diplomacy has to be backed up with the credible use of force to be effective. Diplomacy just for diplomacy's sake doesn't do anything.

Economic sanctions can help give some strength to diplomacy, but even that will only work if the sanctions can truly bring the regime to its knees. What we impose on Iran is nowhere near enough to do that, because they can find other buyers for their products. Hell, we have a friggin' embargo on Cuba, and it's certainly an annoyance and inconvenience to them, but it hasn't ended the regime or even threatened it.

You can't admit it because you can concede anything to Trump, but Trump is basically following your mentality on North Korea. He does it sloppily, because he isn't a professional, but in substance, he largely follows your model. He has some strong words for Kim Jong Un from time to time. He has imposed some sanctions. However, he's cautious, respectful, licks his balls from time to time, etc. And sure enough, it isn't very effective. We haven't reached a lasting peace with North Korea or gotten any kind of major concessions from them, because at the end of the day, our threat of force isn't credible. We won't send hundreds of thousands of troops to Korea or risk an atomic bomb hitting Seoul and killing several million civilians.

And of course, the most famous example of your mentality in action was the Munich Agreement. We all **** on that now, but in 1938, guys like you thought it was great, and you should have. It was textbook, flawlessly executed liberal foreign policy. Chamberlain did absolutely everything guys like you would have had him do. He was very dignified and professional, very respectful of Hitler (who seemed like a nice and honest guy at the time) and of German customs and beliefs. He didn't deploy troops to the German border or do anything to intimidate Hitler. All the professional diplomats got their way in how it was handled. They just talked it out, and they reached an agreement, which on paper was great (unless you're a Czech, then it sucked, but nobody cared about them).

Frankly, it was a lot like the Iran Nuclear Agreement, except the Munich Agreement actually got a much bigger concession from aggressor, but the process and tactics were about the same. A regime with an expansionist foreign policy wanted to do something that the civilized and more powerful world didn't want them to do. However, the civilized world lacked will and was unwilling to use force, which the expansionist regime knew. So the expansionist regime made promises that they knew the civilized would not and could not hold them to in exchange for something from the civilized world that they would be held to. And like the Iran deal, the Munich Agreement had guys like Ben Rhodes getting the media to ******** for them and cheer them on. Of course, guys like you ate it up and thought it was fuckin' beautiful, and it was - until it wasn't.

You guys love this righteous condemnation of nationalism and populism. The nationalism and populism you're seeing all over the Western world didn't happen in a vacuum. You all think it did, because you have no capability for introspection. However, it was a response to something whether you see it or not. It's a response to elite leaders crapping on Western culture and values and sovereignty or calling people racists if they care about their culture or want their laws enforced or their borders secured.

You can only do that crap for so long before people lose patience with it, and sure enough, many of them have reached that point. That's how you got Brexit. It's how the AfD started gaining ground in Germany. It's why kooks like Marinne Le Pen and her sexy, smokin' hot niece became relevant in France. It's how Viktor Orban keeps winning Hungary. It's how the Law and Justice Party took over Poland. And of course, it's how you got Trump. You guys brought it on - by spending the last 30 years acting like self-righteous, smug, douches. And if Trump wins again, it will be the reason why.

 

That depends on what you mean by globalism.

Global free trade will not destroy anything. It has lead and will lead to greater and greater prosperity.

 

Iran is killing Americans via proxies, which means other groups who are not Iran but receiving money and some planning from their military, in what countries?

In the US? In the UK? Who are the Americans? Shoe salesmen? Garbage collectors? Rough necks in the oil field? Plumbers?

 

Has there ever been a case in history where economic sanctions have led to the populace overthrowing the government? Or is there a case where economic sanctions have given us foreign policy results that help the US?

I am not saying they haven't. I just can't think any off the top of my head.

What sanctions obviously do though is hurt the populace. The government officials still lead wealthy lives. But the middle class disappears. Everybody shifts into the lower class and suffers.

Maybe that is okay if it accomplishes some long term, maybe, but if we aren't sure that it does all we are doing is harming civilians.

 

About Iran. You brought in Europe appeasing Hitler as a parallel to how not to treat Iran now. I don't disagree fully, but it is unclear to me how this parallels.

Iran is attempting to exert influence and power in their region of the world. But are they trying to expand their national borders? The US also tries to exert influence and power where ever we can. We aren't trying to expand our national borders either.

Do we get a right and they don't? Because the US is good and Iran is bad? Or am I misunderstanding Iran's intentions in the ME. Iraq seems to like them more than us. They have chosen to align with Iran more than the US politically and militarily. Does that mean they did something bad to the US? Or something inherently bad? I don't include military action in this comparison, just foreign policy goals. Plus, neither country rules out violence in accomplishing our foreign policy objectives.

 

On this I totally agree. Nationalism of the flavor we are seeing in the US and EU is a reaction to government elites not considering the needs of the working class. The Left now ignores broad working class interests in order to push for Political Correctness, Critical Theory, Climate Alarmism, and Radical Environmentalism. All those things are an attack on normal people. The Left (Tim Cook has a speech where he mentions this too) now focuses on giving power to those on the margins. They won't give up their power for everybody else, those in the majority culture are to be excluded if they don't promise to be an advocate for LGBTQ, Muslim, immigrants including illegal, transgender, etc.

The middle and working class has sensed this shift and are fighting back to protect themselves.

The sad thing is that these populist movements have lumped in free trade with illegal immigration and leftist multiculturalism. The funny thing is that the Left is against free trade, so there is still alignment there and not many people realize it.

 

I mean the impetus to cede more and more of our national sovereignty to multi-national, unelected bureaucratic organizations like the UN or the EU.

 

Overthrowing the government? No. Giving us foreign policy results that help the US? I can think of some situations in which it's at least arguable that they helped. But your point has a lot of merit. Sanctions are generally not particularly powerful tools.

Can I come up with a scenario in which they could be? I think I can, but it would take a pretty radical approach. We have an embargo on Cuba, and it does very little, because Cuba has a lot of other trading partners. However, what if we decided to impose an embargo on any nation that doesn't honor our embargo with Cuba? How many countries would completely give up trade with the United States just so they could trade with Cuba? Not many, if any. Iran? North Korea? That's about it. Would that break the regime? Quite possibly.

By the way, I don't honor the embargo on Cuba.

 

Totally agree.

 

I have that t-shirt (Havana Club)

 

This is Tehran -- police v. protestors

 

The plane had turned around and was heading back to Tehran

Thread by @trbrtc: Here's some detail on how we determined that Flight #PS752 had turned around and was heading back toward Tehran's International Airport. The…

 

What about India? Myammar? It’s not just the US and Europe.

 

What about them?

 

Long term, who knows? They might be. Whether they do or don't isn't really the point. Even if they don't expand their borders (and I don't see why they wouldn't if they could), they do seek to exert influence over oil and threaten American allies.

Yeah, the moral equivalence argument doesn't cut ice with me. I'll readily admit that I hold Iran to a different standard (at least if you look at it in a vacuum) than I hold other nations (including but definitely not limited to the United States).

It's for the same reason I hold all kinds of people do different standards. I don't mind if you carry a gun. I kinda do mind if OJ Simpson carries a gun. I don't mind if you drive a car. I do mind if a guy who just slammed a case of beer drives a car. I don't mind if you get on a plane. I do mind if a guy who just left ISIS, took a flight class, and carries a box cutter wants to get on a plane. If I owned a bank, I wouldn't mind if you worked there. I would mind if a guy who just got out of prison for bank robbery worked there. Yes, there are inconsistencies here in one sense (though not really), but I think they are fair. How we behave, what our ambitions are, and what we claim they are do make a difference in what rules apply to us and what freedoms and liberties we can have.

The same is true in foreign policy. I don't mind if the United Kingdom has nuclear weapons and makes a lot of money off of oil. I do mind if a nation that says Americans and Jews should be killed has nuclear weapons and makes a lot of money off of oil. Call me crazy, but I think stuff like that makes a difference.

 

DITTO!

@Monahorns .... IDK if you're playing devil's advocate (which IS 'islam advocate') or what, but the moral equivalence argument is based upon faulty thinking/feeling/believing.

I 'amen' the remainder of Mr. Deez' post ... but doubling down, italicizing, bold, bigger, underline ... the statement above.

 

That was the whole point of your Nazi example of why the US has to fight Iran in Iraq. Good to know that the example no longer applies.

That is a bit dishonest to say I am claiming moral equivalence. What I am doing is using the same moral standard. Should we apply a consistent moral standard to determine "good" and "bad". Or do we judge nations "good" and "bad" using separate standards based on our like or affinity for that nation. I understand having some level of partiality towards the US as our home country. Partiality though is a form of injustice when it causes separate moral standards to be used.

Notice for my comment that you labeled "moral equivalence" I specifically say I am not comparing military action because I consider Iran to be "the bad guy" in that they are involved in terrorism. The statement is just about a nation's right to pursue influence and power in the world.

You wrote a lot about something I didn't say as I stated above. I agree with what you say here. I never said I want Iran to have nuclear weapons are coordinate terrorism in the ME. But when they have a tighter bond with a foreign country, and that country wants to ally with them over us, that doesn't justify us attacking them. If we do, then we are morally equivalent. Using violence not to defend per se, but to gain control.

 

If I go don't like it when Jerk impresses Girl by punching Victim A in the face. That doesn't mean I should go punch Victim B in the face or Victim A harder to make the girl like me instead. It justifies me protecting Victim A from Jerk. But if you go back in history it was the US who first punched in Iran back in 1953 when we didn't like the result of an Iranian election and their actions taken to nationalize BP.

Iran didn't do good, but I don't know what is worse a military coup or nationalize a private company? Not that one has to be better than the other, and two wrongs don't make a right.