IRAN / USA

[Papillon + 485]

24 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Yes it does beg the question on who is going senile if that is “thinking”!

maybe the accuser is the one who should try some self reflection on this.

Indeed sir, although self reflection is an unknown dynamic here, and the removal of his ego an impossibility I fear. 

I would assume if America were to fly all that way then they would maybe attack the guilty, rather than fly halfway round the planet to parachute drop a few guns and ammunition to some of the locals. 

You mention that this would only lead to an escalation of the tensions there sir. It is little wonder there is tension at all, if this deluded thinking highlighted above is indicative of American military strategy. 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Papillon

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

9 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Significant.  Trumps tweet is the most "liked" Persian language tweet in the history of Twitter.

Waiting to see what the like count is tomorrow.  Will it break 200k "likes" 

Current status.  Trump breaking records again.  More "likes" for the 2 Persian tweets than the English tweets.  Both Persian tweets broke 200k "likes"  and still climbing.   

Will MSM continue to ignore this?  Or like remake it did, simply criticize Trump for talking directly to Iranian people, without his words being twisted by the Mainstream Media which loathes him and wants Trump gone (or dead) ?

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Jan I presume this statement is a joke?

Or are you seriously advocating thousands get slaughtered?

Trump is rightly trying to stabilise the situation which I think he deserves some credit for, however you seem to be actively wanting a civil war that could escalate into something far worse in the region.

Rob,

I get your point, but at the end of the day, if the Iranian people do NOT rise up against the theocratic regime, then they are condemned to live under it in perpetuity.

When this happens, which at some point I believe it will, it will be bloody, but what choice do the people have?

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

3 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Rob,

I get your point, but at the end of the day, if the Iranian people do NOT rise up against the theocratic regime, then they are condemned to live under it in perpetuity.

When this happens, which at some point I believe it will, it will be bloody, but what choice do the people have?

Douglas I am a massive advocate for democracy and freedom of speech, in fact freedom full stop. However what most Americans and Europeans don’t get is that these countries have been theocracies for millennia rules by dictators. It’s what they are used to and don’t have the first clue what to do with democracy frankly.

we intervene because we believe we are helping when in actual fact we are probably making things worse. Just my opinion of course.

however if Jan’s suggestion is USA foreign policy then the ME and the rest of the world is doomed to WWIII. I rather think it’s not fortunately.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I do not think that the present theocracy in Iran can be compared to what came before. The Shah was not a good guy, but look at the photos from back in his day, the standard of living and the quality of life. The difference is astounding. I am not saying that the Iranian people want, or need, democracy. What I am saying is the need ‘a life’.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

10 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

 

Trump Is Masterfully Using Democrats' Opposition against Them

... Currently, Democrats are working hard to ensure that they all are identified as (D-Iran).  Do you think this new pro-Iranian image will help them in the November 2020 elections?

 

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

10 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I do not think that the present theocracy in Iran can be compared to what came before. The Shah was not a good guy, but look at the photos from back in his day, the standard of living and the quality of life. The difference is astounding. I am not saying that the Iranian people want, or need, democracy. What I am saying is the need ‘a life’.

I don’t disagree at all, but do you really think parachuting weapons into the country is the answer for these people?

if that happened they would end up In the wrong hands anyway.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

7 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I don’t disagree at all, but do you really think parachuting weapons into the country is the answer for these people?

if that happened they would end up In the wrong hands anyway.

Keep in mind that I never suggested or agreed with dropping arms to the citizens, you’ll have to take that up with those who did.

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

15 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Keep in mind that I never suggested or agreed with dropping arms to the citizens, you’ll have to take that up with those who did.

Sorry Douglas never meant to suggest you did, I think you’re smarter than that!

[Papillon + 485]

Indeed sir, it's almost worth unblocking him to see phase two of this marvellous strategy. 

Maybe larger planes dropping cannons and tanks with instruction manuals in Farsi?

Edited January 12, 2020 by Papillon

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

6 minutes ago, Papillon said:

Indeed sir, it's almost worth unblocking him to see phase two of the strategy. Almost.

Please, DO NOT unblock me.

As an aside, it was not I who suggested ‘phase one’, perhaps you can pull your self-righteous head out of your overly polite ass. Just a thought....

[Papillon + 485]

I know it wasn't sir. Maybe if you had read the thread properly in the first place and removed your head from your ass you would know that. Take another look at what we were discussing sir perhaps? Not everything is about you as difficult as that may be to believe. 

Your use of language rather explains the notion that someone can be 'overly polite' also sir. If you like I will come down to your level?

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Papillon

[Papillon + 485]

Also sir, if you were under the impression that I had blocked you, then how could you possibly think the phase one part was referring to you?

Again, the head in ass problem needs solving clearly?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

An overly polite ass, is just that,

I thought you had blocked me, please do,

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

If you look at the chronology of the messages, it appears as if you are replying to what I had responded to Rob.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

In any event, I would appreciate it if you did block me.

[Papillon + 485]

52 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Keep in mind that I never suggested or agreed with dropping arms to the citizens, you’ll have to take that up with those who did.

You said this sir and I gave it a green arrow, suggesting I appreciated the fact between yourself and Mr Plant that this was not for you to answer.

Why don't you block me sir instead? You can join Mr van Eck in that regard then and hear his military musings. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

And a surprisingly thoughtful opinion piece from the New York Times:

Trump Has Made Us All Stupid

Donald Trump is impulse-driven, ignorant, narcissistic and intellectually dishonest. So you’d think that those of us in the anti-Trump camp would go out of our way to show we’re not like him — that we are judicious, informed, mature and reasonable.

But the events of the past week have shown that the anti-Trump echo chamber is becoming a mirror image of Trump himself — overwrought, uncalibrated and incapable of having an intelligent conversation about any complex policy problem.

For example, there’s a complex policy problem at the heart of this week’s Iran episode. Iran is not powerful because it has a strong economy or military. It is powerful because it sponsors militias across the Middle East, destabilizing regimes and spreading genocide and sectarian cleansing. Over the past few years those militias, orchestrated by Qassim Suleimani, have felt free to operate more in the open with greater destructive effect.

We’re not going to go in and destroy the militias. So how can we keep them in check so they don’t destabilize the region? That’s the hard problem — one that stymied past administrations.

In the Middle East, and wherever there are protracted conflicts, nations have a way to address this problem. They use violence as a form of communication. A nation trying to maintain order will assassinate a terrorism leader or destroy a terrorism facility. The attack says: “Hey, we know we’re in a long-term conflict, but let’s not let it get out of hand. That’s not in either of our interests.”

The attack is a way to seize control of the escalation process and set a boundary marker.

These sorts of operations have risks and rewards. A risk is that it won’t cease the escalation, just accelerate it. The radicals on the other side will get enraged and take to the streets. Their leaders will have to appease that rage. 

A reward is that maybe you do halt the escalation. The other side implicitly says: “Message received. We’ll do some face-saving things to appease the streets, but we don’t want this to get out of hand, either.” Another reward is that you’ve managed to eliminate an effective terrorist like Soleimani. Talent doesn’t grow on trees.

The decision to undertake this sort of operation is a matter of weighing risk and reward. And after the Soleimani killing, you saw American security professionals talk in the language of balancing risk and reward. Stanley McChrystal, a retired general, and Michael Mullen, a retired admiral, thought it was worth the risk. Susan Rice, a former national security adviser, thought it wasn’t.

But in the anti-Trump echo chamber, that’s not how most people were thinking. Led by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, they avoided the hard, complex problem of how to set boundaries around militias. Instead, they pontificated on the easy question not actually on the table: Should we have a massive invasion of Iran?

A great cry went up from the echo chamber. We’re on the brink of war! Trump is leading us to more endless wars in the Middle East! We’re on the precipice of total chaos! This was not the calibrated language of risk and reward. It was fear-stoking apocalyptic language. By being so overwrought and exaggerated, the echo chamber drowned out any practical conversation about how to stabilize the Middle East so we could have another righteous chorus of “Donald Trump is a monster!”

This is Trump’s ultimate victory. Every argument on every topic is now all about him. Hating Trump together has become the ultimate bonding, attention-grabbing and profit-maximization mechanism for those of us in anti-Trump world. So you get a series of exaggerated fervors — the Mueller report! Impeachment! The Steele dossier! — that lead ultimately nowhere.

Most of this week’s argument about the Middle East wasn’t really about the Middle East. It was all narcissistically about ourselves! Democrats defend terrorists! Republicans are warmongers! Actual Iranians are just bit players in our imperialistic soap opera, the passive recipients of our greatness or perfidy.

The world is more complicated than this cartoon. Love him or hate him, Trump has used military force less than any other president since Jimmy Carter. When it comes to foreign policy, he is not like recent Republicans. He is, as my colleague Ross Douthat put it, a Jacksonian figure, wanting to get America out of foreign entanglements while lobbing a few long-distance attacks to ensure the crazy foreigners stick to killing one another and not us.  ...

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

9 minutes ago, Papillon said:

You said this sir and I gave it a green arrow, suggesting I appreciated the fact between yourself and Mr Plant that this was not for you to answer.

Why don't you block me sir instead? You can join Mr van Eck in that regard then and hear his military musings. 

For some reason you can’t block on the handphone app or I assure you that I would have.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Just now, Douglas Buckland said:

For some reason you can’t block on the handphone app or I assure you that I would have.

Yes, the "ignore user" function does not work on hand phones / mobile version of the forum.  There does not appear to be a fix for this on mobile version.

[Papillon + 485]

Leave it to Remake It and I sir. Our technological expertise knows no bounds, although I fear Huawei may insist on a small fee. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Yes, the "ignore user" function does not work on hand phones / mobile version of the forum.  There does not appear to be a fix for this on mobile version.

Darn, no easy way to disengage from this nonsense unless a total retreat...😂

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Just now, Papillon said:

Leave it to Remake It and I sir. Our technological expertise knows no bounds, although I fear Huawei may insist on a small fee. 

You two couldn’t find your respective asses with both hands! I won’t be holding my breath for this technological feat.

[Papillon + 485]

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Darn, no easy way to disengage from this nonsense unless a total retreat..

Is this the infamous phase two?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Just now, Douglas Buckland said:

Darn, no easy way to disengage from this nonsense unless a total retreat...😂

The last user I blocked was Red, before he got banned by Rodent for being a recalcitrant pain in the butt despite repeated warnings.   But I gave up trying to block anyone quite a while ago because I primarily use my handphone, where filtering doesn't work anyway.