I am not being obtuse, I am being optimistic. Trump took a terrible gamble in using military force, most likely in a politically opportunistic way to distract from his impeachment.Don't be obtuse. The assassination solidified support behind the regime. Iraq? Fuck them. We'll do any fucking thing we want in their country. Kill their militamen. Assassinate the personal diplomatic representative of the Ayatollah. Threaten them with retaliation if they make us leave. Because we be thugs. That's right, motherfuckers. Don't make us thug out on your junkie asses again.
I am not being obtuse, I am being optimistic. Trump took a terrible gamble in using military force, most likely in a politically opportunistic way to distract from his impeachment.
The worst case scenario was that this would escalate.
It seems the exact opppsite is happening. A female Iranian gold medalist just defected to Europe.
I am not giving credit to Trump for any of this. But shouldn’t we all hope for a favorable outcome?
In case anybody really wondered if Trump would lie relentlessly about the reasons for the strike:
so how long until he gets fired/resigns? anyone taking bets?
They had 3 hours, that is more than enough time to evacuate, but rather they chose to put them in hardened bunkers. Do you know ANYTHING about Hardened Military Bunkers? They take special munitions to penetrate. Normal Missiles won't touch them. You need to quiet drinking the Propaganda cool-aid from Fox news.
Revolution and social unrest is like dominoes. It took the election of Trump to solidify the #metoo movement. Had Clinton won, I bet Weinstein would still be on the prowl. Who knows where this goes, but it appears someone’s taken Trump’s devices away from him.Fair points.
It does absolutely seem as if the Iranian regime has, with their military ineptitude, done a great job at undermining themselves and snatching a propaganda defeat from a potential victory. Blowing your own citizens out of the sky (and then trying to cover it up and then botching that attempted cover-up) isn't a great way to garner public support.
( I remember reading about the Crimean war and the charge of the light brigade, and what struck me about that was how much war sometimes seems like just a competition to see who can be the most incompetent, with each side taking turns to make errors that mean missing the chance to exploit the other side's previous error.)
I just am not convinced the current protests will come to anything more than previous ones. The media, especially the BBC, seems to have been telling me that the regime is deeply unpopular with the young, and on its last legs, since at least the early 90's (I remember taking part in arguments on usenet about it back then).
I am sure it will eventually crumble. People become more educated over time, and I don't see they can keep that initial burst of religious fervour going forever, in the absence of a Western-backed despot to fuel it. But I just suspect it's always the usual suspects the media talk to, the educated urban people, and feel a bit skeptical of claims that this is 'the beginning of the end'. For all those protesting about the murderous incompetence of Iranian air-defence, there are bound to be plenty of others getting worked up with nationalist anger over the US killing a popular military figure.
Revolution and social unrest is like dominoes. It took the election of Trump to solidify the #metoo movement. Had Clinton won, I bet Weinstein would still be on the prowl. Who knows where this goes, but it appears someone’s taken Trump’s devices away from him.
You’re just going to have to accept that she is going to come up, and you shouldn’t feel compelled to correct the record every time it happens...my comment was in no way critical of her...are they still writing checks?Never fail to slime Clinton in every thread. Like she has anything to do with the topic of this one.
Only if it is overwhelming in numbers. A few 1000 here are there, a defector now and then, arent going to make a difference in Irans case. The biggest protests in Irans post revolution history occurred last November, across many cities and up to 200,000 protesters. It was put down by force and fizzled out. Numerous other protests have occurred since the 1979 revolution. What makes this one any different?Revolution and social unrest is like dominoes....
You’re just going to have to accept that she is going to come up, and you shouldn’t feel compelled to correct the record every time it happens...my comment was in no way critical of her...are they still writing checks?
How about Ronald Reagan, since you like to bring him up all the time.It's funny how you're usually the one to introduce her name to unrelated topics, because reasons, I suppose. And Weinstein, of course. Anybody else while we're on the topic of distractional bullshit?
Revolution and social unrest is like dominoes. It took the election of Trump to solidify the #metoo movement. Had Clinton won, I bet Weinstein would still be on the prowl. Who knows where this goes, but it appears someone’s taken Trump’s devices away from him.
There hasn’t been a meaningful or influential feminist wave since the 60s, and the political movement that emerged in response to Trump speaks for itself.Not at all convinced at the connection between Trump's election and #metoo (you haven't really provided a narrative to support one), but impossible to prove that either way.
True, but Iran’s regime also killed a bunch of their own people in response to the death of a leader who wasn’t exactly a friend to the opposition. It could fizzle out.The thing about revolution, though, is that, not only do I see no reason to believe the Iranian regime is about to fall to one - there have been any number of such protests before - but, even if it did, since when was revolution an instant solution to anything? Look at the Arab Spring, at Iraq, at Libya...hell, look at Russia. It's usually just the start of kicking of a very, very, long period of chaos and misery, which might eventually end up back close to where it started.
The monarchy of the UK seems to be a costly tradition largely in place to feed the tabloids.And recent events with Harry 'the backup copy' Windsor illustrate that the UK still hasn't dealt with the issues around having a monarchy, that were supposed to have been addressed back in the "Glorious Revolution"
True, but Iran’s regime also killed a bunch of their own people in response to the death of a leader who wasn’t exactly a friend to the opposition. It could fizzle out.
I think the central issue in this story regarding the assassination of the Iranian general is the AUMF. This resolution was passed in response to Sept 11 and has mutated to basically giving a president authority to kill pretty much anyone anywhere at anytime with no checks under the notion of protecting the US. Heck he can use this authority to pretty much start wars. It really should be repealed at this time.
He isn’t being obtuse. There are mass protests in Tehran and young people are calling the Ayatollah “untrustworthy” at best and “murderer” at worst.
Some how, some way, Trump lucked out after committing the mother of all diplomatic fuck ups with Iran/Iraq and bringing us to the brink of war, only to have Iran score an own goal in the (hopefully) final minutes.
Worst thing about this will be all the chuds claiming Trump is some kind of genius for “achieving” this outcome.
The Iraq situation is troubling though. China, if you’re listening, now is the time to provide an alternative to the petrodollar for Iraq, and perhaps offshore some of their processing and refining to Belt and Road countries.
Is Iraq About To Become A Chinese Client State? | OilPrice.com
China has taken yet another step towards turning Iraq into a client state as it finalizes more oil-for-infrastructure deals in a vital region for its ambitious silk road projectoilprice.com
I think the central issue in this story regarding the assassination of the Iranian general is the AUMF. This resolution was passed in response to Sept 11 and has mutated to basically giving a president authority to kill pretty much anyone anywhere at anytime with no checks under the notion of protecting the US. Heck he can use this authority to pretty much start wars. It really should be repealed at this time.
I think you missed my sarcasm—this is troubling because Iraq asking us to leave, and US threatening their dollar denominated accounts—this is playing directly into China’s hands. I was mimicking Trump (though I don’t believe he’s enabling China intentionally—just another unintended consequence of bad policy—some of which Trump inherited re: Iraq but he’s made it worse.)
Revolution and social unrest is like dominoes. It took the election of Trump to solidify the #metoo movement. Had Clinton won, I bet Weinstein would still be on the prowl. Who knows where this goes, but it appears someone’s taken Trump’s devices away from him.
You’re just going to have to accept that she is going to come up, and you shouldn’t feel compelled to correct the record every time it happens...my comment was in no way critical of her...are they still writing checks?
How about Ronald Reagan, since you like to bring him up all the time.
Let's see.....you brought up Clinton, no one else did. And then attempted to slime her by trying to link her name with Weinstein's. Nice slime by ignorance laced, dripping-with-stupid association. Guess it works in those whose brains have ceased to function correctly, or at all......
And then you bring up Reagan as a further aside.
I didn't notice anyone else bringing up any of those persons, only you. And your reason for doing it? None I can discern.....only an attempt to slime someone. And you say you did it because others bring up Reagan in other threads.
Here's a hint....Clinton, Reagan, Weinstein are all irrelevant to this thread and discussion. But, I suppose, it makes sense to an idiot that would be the first (and only) person to inject them into this discussion in an attempt to do what....derail or distract? Slime? Don't see any reason for them in this thread.....
I appreciate your disingenuous concern and lame passive aggressive attempt at an ad hominem.Let's see.....you brought up Clinton, no one else did. And then attempted to slime her by trying to link her name with Weinstein's. Nice slime by ignorance laced, dripping-with-stupid association. Guess it works in those whose brains have ceased to function correctly, or at all......
And then you bring up Reagan as a further aside.
I didn't notice anyone else bringing up any of those persons, only you. And your reason for doing it? None I can discern.....only an attempt to slime someone. And you say you did it because others bring up Reagan in other threads.
Here's a hint....Clinton, Reagan, Weinstein are all irrelevant to this thread and discussion. But, I suppose, it makes sense to an idiot that would be the first (and only) person to inject them into this discussion in an attempt to do what....derail or distract? Slime? Don't see any reason for them in this thread.....