Let's go to war or not: Iran Edition

[Cellist]

Oh, shit, you and AOC have good info.

[Skander]

attacking civilian cultural sites

Oh, shit, you and AOC have good info.

This still just sounds like disingenuous BS. There's dozens of articles with basically the same fucking analysis as AOC from a variety of sources. Trumps stupid tweet sounded basically like he was planning to attack "cultural sites" - there wasn't a lot of nuance in what was probably his literal shit post. He said "important to Iran & the Iranian culture" - doesn't sound like military sites to me.

If you want to do the extra work to pretend that maybe he meant when sites had both military and cultural meaning, go ahead. Seems like BS. And zeroing in on AOC just smacks of stupid fox crap, rather than the dozens of different people saying basically the same thing. Though of course there's no threat to democracy greater than a freshman representative from a safe Dem district...

[Hanley]

Oh, shit, you and AOC have good info.

Look at that smooth spin!

[Savs]

Hey Skander? Knock it off, okay? You're ruining it. We're about to get our war on!

[Savs]

Look at that smooth spin!

Have you seen the clip of her dancing when she was at BU? I think you'd probably like it.

[JonA]

And zeroing in on AOC

I dunno. Maybe it was the accusations of deliberately targeting the women and children that seemed a bit over the top.

And a bit sexist. Why doesn't she care about Iranian civilian men?

[Hanley]

I think you'd probably like it.

I did. Quite a bit.

*momentarily freed from concerns of death and suffering*

[Hanley]

There's dozens of articles

Oh gosh, I feel like an idiot. There were actual...articles?

If you want to do the extra work to pretend that maybe he meant when sites had both military and cultural meaning

Wait, who's doing the extra work? We're talking about a state that literally parades ballistic missiles during cultural events.

stupid fox crap

He who Smacks of Stupid Fox Crap.

I like it.

[JonA]

Honestly, I don't think Trump could have come up with 52 sites altogether in Iran on his own, much less military or cultural ones. I think it's most likely he asked his military planners to come up with a list of military targets. In order to CYA, the planners marked a few with a "*" with a footnote at the bottom of list: "* Has some cultural significance".

IIRC anything from Woodward's books on Obama and Bush, this is pretty typical SOP.

[aurelius]

Whatever happens, moving forward, DO NOT let Aurelius read that article. He will swallow his own tongue like Miggs.

I find articles like that funny. Mostly written by very mediocre and weak people that really spend an inordinate time trying to convince people how tough they are.

Notice the Hawks in politics. Almost entirely made up of people that never served in the military and actively avoided military service when there was draft. We got the "bone spurs" President right now. The same fuckers that made the rounds for Iraq 2 are making the rounds now. And saying basically exactly the same thing. Worked out great for us then, probably go even better now!

[aurelius]

It was 1988.

I'd put Iran Contra up there as well. As well as arming Saddam Hussein with nasty weapons in order to fight Iran.

The Iran nuclear agreement wasn't all that great either.

You seem intent to quibble with me. Shooting down the airliner was not a policy decision. It was an error made by the US military.

Training and arming Iraq and the Iran Contra scandal all fall under the terrible US policy towards Iran since I have been alive. We will have to disagree about the Nuclear deal.

IMO the reason NOW is so much worse than the 80's: Iran is a legitimate regional power with global strike capability. Iran can hurt us at home. The US is weak abroad with very few willing allies (if any) to join in on military action or even support US actions politically (giving them legitimacy). The US's enemies have been strengthened abroad and especially emboldened in this region with the US's surrender in Syria. Turkey cannot be counted on to provide a buffer between the Middle East and Russia if a conflict occurs. Saudi Arabia would love to help but can't. As aiding the US in a direct conflict against other Muslims would risk all out civil war. All of this was not true in the 80's.

Iran will most likely use this as justification to 'pull of the gloves' in their other conflicts (Syria, Yemen) and ramp up its covert take over of Iraq.

[Bcharles123]

Whatever happens, moving forward, DO NOT let Aurelius read that article. He will swallow his own tongue like Miggs.

I find articles like that funny. Mostly written by very mediocre and weak people that really spend an inordinate time trying to convince people how tough they are.

Notice the Hawks in politics. Almost entirely made up of people that never served in the military and actively avoided military service when there was draft. We got the "bone spurs" President right now. The same fuckers that made the rounds for Iraq 2 are making the rounds now. And saying basically exactly the same thing. Worked out great for us then, probably go even better now!

No argument from me.

The “AOC” phenomena is funny though. People who gush over her, invariably hate Trump, and the other way around.

In reality, she is very similar to Trump. Say any dumb thing that pops into your head and never look back. Maximally use social media for attention. No reason to consult experts, no reason to be correct. They both share the ability to not be embarrassed.Am I wrong?

[aurelius]

The “AOC” phenomena is funny though. People who gush over her, invariably hate Trump, and the other way around.

In reality, she is very similar to Trump. Say any dumb thing that pops into your head and never look back. Maximally use social media for attention. No reason to consult experts, no reason to be correct. They both share the ability to not be embarrassed.Am I wrong?

I honestly don't have any opinion on AOC. I don't consume televised news. And avoid articles that are opinions of XYZ's twitted opinion. All I know of her is she is a young Congress critter that I don't vote for who leans further left of center than what is normal. She managed to beat out an established Democrat in his own district to win the seat. From a political perspective, that is impressive.

The only thing I can say, is judging by the quality of the content of what ANY politician tweets from the snippets that I have seen: it is all pretty bad. So it would seem that anyone that chooses to complain about someone like AOC or Cruz specifically is communicating their political beliefs. Trump is a bit different because as President, foreign entities and even domestic entities may view his tweets' content as official US policy.

[Bcharles123]

She managed to beat out an established Democrat in his own district to win the seat. From a political perspective, that is impressive.

(I’m bored sitting in hospitals. Not obsessing over minutia in forums)

Your example is ironic. Trump also won against all odds. See what I’m saying? (Yes presidents are not the same as congress people)

Or compare and contrast:

“I’ll build a wall and have Mexico pay for it” to the “Green New Deal”. Both based in deeply polarizing ideology. Both void of reality. Big picture they seem like identical strategies. I think it’s useful to consider them as “the same”, where common wisdom is they couldn’t be any more “different”.

[Mkgillman]

Is it bad when Israel comes out saying that they had nothing to do with this and leave them alone? Because it seems bad to me.

[Hiphopapotamus]

Is it bad when Israel comes out saying that they had nothing to do with this and leave them alone? Because it seems bad to me.

When it's Netanyahu giving you the back-off boogaloo? Uh, yeah, that's not a good sign..

[aurelius]

@Bcharles123AOC, an average Joe, ran a grass roots campaign against her own party's incumbent and won. Trump, a billionaire, used his celebrity against a VERY lack luster field and hijacked the clown show that was the 2016 Republican Nomination Process. Once Trump won the nomination process, he had the full backing of the RNC and Fox News. I am hard pressed to believe a billionaire celebrity with the backing of the Republican Party and the most watched propaganda network in the world was an 'underdog'.

I don't really get what you are driving at with AOC. Seems you have a bone to pick with her. From my very narrow perspective: I don't see how she is similar to Trump other than Fox News watchers like to jerk off to pictures of both of them.

[Bcharles123]

@Aurelius

You can’t see the forest for the trees.

The AOC upset was in her primaries. Not her general election. Trumps upset was in the primaries (sure a field of fools) and in the general. How soon we forget?

I’m sure the statisticians can quantify which upset is bigger, AOC v. Crowley or Trump v. Clinton. Big upset, big stories, both obnoxious social media users, both say extreme things.

They are exactly the same. You idiot.

[aurelius]

No one has thrown this out yet: Is this a Wag the Dog tactic by Team Trump?

Let me spin my conspiracy yarn:

The only time the Republicans have won the majority of the Presidential vote since 1996 is the election of 2004: a wartime George Bush.

Capture.JPG

The Republicans have never gotten more than 63,000,000 votes. The Democrats seem to be able to produce 66,000,000 with an average turnout. If the Democratic turnout is great (69,000,000), the election is a landslide. The only way the Republicans win is to have a high turnout that coincides with a low Democratic turnout.

Pelosi has all but assured that the impeachment trial will happen when she wants it to. Meaning during a critical time period at the end of the 2020 Presidential election. Team Trump has found the perfect counter: war. War stokes the Republican base like none other. From the West Coast to the East coast, every conservative household will put an American flag in their front yard. A country music star will write a song about kicking the A-rabs asses. the whole time the Trump team can 'take the high road' and complain about the Democrats 'being political' during a time of war. Add to that Trump has never been Presidential. Nothing more Presidential than going to war. Get to make speeches on aircraft carriers wearing bomber jackets.

[aurelius]

@Bcharles123 I am aware it was the primary. The Democrats do not face serious Republican challenger in that District. Wresting the the party's nomination away from the incumbent is very rare in American politics. I already admitted that Trump winning the Republican nomination was politically a great accomplishment. He did so with the advantage of being a celebrity billionaire who get free press and able to self fund initially. Not so much the underdog as many would make him out to be IMO. The Democratic primaries with their lack luster candidates may see a similar result this year. See Bloomberg.

I think you are trying to create equivalencies between AOC and Trump where there are none. They both have at least one X chromosome. LOTS of Congress Critters are prolific Tweeters. Fox News has decided to focus on AOC because they are scared of her. The Republican Party has a real problem with gaining support from younger, women voters. And AOC represents that so they try to tear her down. Which is very tone deaf in 2020, in turn givers her more press, and has only increased her popularity nationally. I'm not defending AOC, I don't know enough about AOC to like her as a politician or not. I simply fail to see how she has done anything different that 99% of the other Congress Critters have done except look good dancing.

Seems to have touched a nerve with you today. At least far more than our interaction warrants. You seem emotional. Hope all is well.