Exodus Strength

aurelius wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:37 am What is your reasoning for Iran being weaker after this? I see Iran coming out of this in a much better position of strength both regionally and globally. While the US looks erratic and painted into a corner.

Hmm...the US assassinated a top official in Iran. Iran blew up some seemingly empty military houses in retaliation.

Until more information comes out, I'd say that the US exchanged a weak pawn for a queen. Not even 3D chess, just the regular kind.

JonA wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:01 pm Because it's about money, not "news"

Right.

Media orgs like Fox News or CNN are not endorsing a political philosophy. They've simply identified markets and doing whatever they can to sell advertising to them.

Wrong.

These companies are owned by extremely rich people. Seeing as they have such hugely influential platforms do you really think they would pass up the opportunity to try to influence public opinion in a direction which would make it more likely for candidates for office who are more friendly to them maintaining their riches and amassing more to become elected rather than more populist ones?

Sure their business is selling clicks, but government policy or lack thereof affects every aspect of their business, how much money they can make and how much they can keep. The people in charge are acting in the way they feel is best for them overall.

With Fox news for example the incentives to pander to a market and endorsing a political philosophy are not even at odds. The market for Fox news already supports a political philosophy that is good for their business so they pander to them but also attempt to expand that market by propagandizing any fence sitters who stumble upon them and keeping their core viewers brainwashed so they don't wander away to CNN or something.

CNN has a trickier balancing act to pull off. They try to be the go to news source for all "liberals" (anybody to the left of the Fox New demographic) but they take great pains to ignore or smear any candidate to the left of someone like Pete Buttigieg (while Bernie is surging in the polls they run the headline "Pete is in 4th, but a strong 4th"). Sure a lot of their market is made up of moderate liberal types who don't particularly care for Bernie Sanders and would prefer Joe Biden, but it's not like a huge pack of Biden loving Bernie haters who need to be appeased. They act as if they are desperate for the moderate voters to not defect to Sanders and as if they are desperate for more left leaning voters to favor a moderate candidate. Look how desperately they tried to puff up Amy Klobuchar after a recent debate. How many people even know who she is? They made similar pushes for Kamela Harris and Mayor Pete in the past that didn't pan out and if nothing sticks and Biden doesn't hold strong then they will be forced to pump up Elizabeth Warren because they feel a Bernie Sanders presidency will be bad for their bottom line.

omaniphil wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:09 amArab governments have long been skeptical of Iran's imperial tendencies. Arab street was more blasé. There has been a growing appreciation however that Iran, and Soleimani in particular have been responsible for a huge number of deaths in the Arab world - Aleppo in particular, but also the PMF militias have killed scores of Iraqi protesters in the last few months.

Agreed. But many ME governments are occupying governments. And do not have the support of their populace. The US (for good reasons) has been a popular scapegoat. Iran is now front in center as the de facto Arabic (even though they are Persian) leader against the US. And what did Iran lose from this? One general...they will continue their war through their proxies and are now justified in even more direct methods. And what credibility does the US have? We just unconditionally surrendered in Syria. How many times has the US betrayed the Kurds? Why would any ME ally to the US believe the US would stand by them?

And if SA had killed him, it might have been celebrated. But the US killed him, labeled him a terrorist (he was not. he was Iran's Imperialist thug), and made him a martyr. The Iraqi Parliament, cowing to popular pressure, just passed a resolution for the removal of US soldiers from Iraq. I'm not seeing the celebration for Soleimani's death.

omaniphil wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:09 amIraqis are not happy that Iran attacks last night only seemed to kill other Iraqis. Iraqis are starting to come around to the idea that Iran might care less about civilian casualties than the US does.

I hope so. Is that what is being reported in the Middle East? Because I read Iran was controlling the narrative and reporting huge US casualties. US claims to the otherwise are likely to be seen as lies. Also, Tehran was not popular with Iranians due to the lagging economy. This has given Tehran a huge boost locally.

omaniphil wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:09 amIts really early, and probably will take months or years before we know how it will play out.

I agree with this. But, the US will have to overcome this action in the Middle East. Not move forward based on it.

To be somewhat fair to Trump, Suleiman was looked at by both W. Bush and Obama for assassination. In the end they both decided it was more trouble than it was worth. Because Iran is not a terrorist organization where taking out leadership will cause a major disruption to operations. So deal with the enemy you know so to speak. Soleimani was not a terrorist running a terrorist organization. He was implementing Iranian policy. The Iranians will simply put a different guy in charge.

JonA wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:24 amHmm...the US assassinated a top official in Iran. Iran blew up some seemingly empty military houses in retaliation.

Until more information comes out, I'd say that the US exchanged a weak pawn for a queen. Not even 3D chess, just the regular kind.

Wow. What a bad take. So bad. Just read more.

mbasic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:06 amWe are still going to have to 'meddle' there:
- Humanitarian presence.
- 'those people' have a preponderance for killing each other even when left alone. 'It is the Way'
- Israel, etc
- China
- North Korea

I disagree. Plenty of places in the world the US chooses not to meddle. And those places have yet to create terrorist organizations. The only reason the US meddles in the ME dates back to the 1950's and the desire of the US to control the world's oil supply.

I'm not advocating for isolationism. US foreign policy regarding the ME is simply an abject failure. Yet we continue to follow that imperialist playbook. Which has now created an endless war on terror our grandchildren will be fighting.

*Side note: If the ME region chooses to have a battle royale, that is their choice. Why is it the responsibility of the US to intervene?

aurelius wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:33 am Wow. What a bad take. So bad. Just read more.

Read more stuff like this?

aurelius wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:33 am Because I read Iran was controlling the narrative and reporting huge US casualties

Where'd you pick that up? Twitter?

aurelius wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:33 am And what did Iran lose from this? One general...they will continue their war through their proxies and are now justified in even more direct methods
...
He was implementing Iranian policy. The Iranians will simply put a different guy in charge.

I'm not quite sure this is right. Soleimani was more than just a general. He was as close to an indispensable leader as you can get. Have you read the New Yorker's 2013 profile of him? Also, you should read the article in the Atlantic by Andrew Exum, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for ME Policy: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... an/604375/ Yes, he was carrying out Iranian policy - but that policy was largely of his own making and there are few who have the skill or expertise to take up his mantle.

The Iraqi Parliament, cowing to popular pressure, just passed a resolution for the removal of US soldiers from Iraq.

The pressure was more from the Shia militia groups than from popular appeal. Also, only 170 members of the Iraqi parliament were present. All of the Kurdish and Sunni members abstained.

omaniphil wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:09 am I'm not quite sure this is right. Soleimani was more than just a general. He was as close to an indispensable leader as you can get. Have you read the New Yorker's 2013 profile of him? Also, you should read the article in the Atlantic by Andrew Exum, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for ME Policy: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... an/604375/ Yes, he was carrying out Iranian policy - but that policy was largely of his own making and there are few who have the skill or expertise to take up his mantle.

Thanks for the articles. I will take a look. I hope you are correct that his assassination will have a positive impact on Iranian policy simply by his removal.

Iran has shown too much sophistication and operational capability for me to believe the removal of one top general would blunt their capabilities.

Iran DID show their hand. They understand that any full scale direct confrontation with the US would leave the hobbled and incapable of defending itself. Their threatened response to being attacked in such a manner would be launching a barrage of missiles at any US ally in the region and terrorist attacks on US soil.

omaniphil wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:09 amThe pressure was more from the Shia militia groups than from popular appeal. Also, only 170 members of the Iraqi parliament were present. All of the Kurdish and Sunni members abstained.

True.

The Shia population accounts for 65% of the population in Iraq. The Shia militias are a powerful political element. The Kurdish and Sunni members are a minority (as they are in the population). The resolution would have passed even if they voted. And they chose to abstain versus voting against the resolution.

@JonA From Iran: https://en.mehrnews.com/tag/IRGC
“An informed source at the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps said over 80 American troops were killed and some 200 wounded in the IRGC’s missile strikes on the US airbase of Ain al-Assad in Anbar province in western Iraq,” Mehr News reported on Wednesday.

aurelius wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:53 am I disagree. Plenty of places in the world the US chooses not to meddle. And those places have yet to create terrorist organizations. The only reason the US meddles in the ME dates back to the 1950's and the desire of the US to control the world's oil supply.

Spot on. The US and UK willfully derailed Iran's nascent democracy, apparently all for the price of oil back then.

JonA wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:03 am

aurelius wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:33 am Wow. What a bad take. So bad. Just read more.

Read more stuff like this?

aurelius wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:33 am Because I read Iran was controlling the narrative and reporting huge US casualties

Where'd you pick that up? Twitter?

I think Jon kinda missed your point @aurelius .

but yeah Iranian State TV saying there were massive American causalities when everyone else, including al jaazeria is saying 'none'.
... isn't a good look for Iran (well, from their fanatical part of their populace).
So they tried to "take the higher ground" and blow up some buildings or equipment and spare human life?
But then said they spilt a sea of American blood, and cut off our Imperialist feet?
I don't think Iran/Tehran is completely cut off from the rest of the world like North Korea is .... could be wrong.

And far as a threat-see-what-we-can-do, or a distractionary strike, or probe ... IMO that was a lot missiles to expend for 0 American-killed-result.

And Iran just violated Iraqi sovereignty/air space, like the US did, or maybe even moreso (I think the US is there under agreement with the Iraqis....I think). Maybe put Iraqis at risk.

mbasic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:31 am I think Jon kinda missed your point @aurelius .

but yeah Iranian State TV saying there were massive American causalities when everyone else, including al jaazeria is saying 'none'.
... isn't a good look for Iran (well, from their fanatical part of their populace).
So they tried to "take the higher ground" and blow up some buildings or equipment and spare human life?
But then said they spilt a sea of American blood, and cut off our Imperialist feet?
I don't think Iran/Tehran is completely cut off from the rest of the world like North Korea is .... could be wrong.

And far as a threat-see-what-we-can-do, or a distractionary strike, or probe ... IMO that was a lot missiles to expend for 0 American-killed-result.

And Iran just violated Iraqi sovereignty/air space, like the US did, or maybe even moreso (I think the US is there under agreement with the Iraqis....I think). Maybe put Iraqis at risk.

Mr. JonA and I don't seem to communicate well.

The US knows what Iran is capable of. They showed they can launch precision drones that avoid radar in the SA strike. They have enough missiles to make the entire Middle East burn. This is a map of their current known capabilities. The smaller rings correspond to older, shorter range, and less accurate missiles.
What I read is that Iran purposefully chose to strike with a handful (maybe 5) of older ballistic missiles. The ballistic missiles they used can be picked up by US radar early enough to give US bases warning and time to prepare. The drones (cruise missiles) they used against SA would not have given any warning.

Basically, Iran's message "we can do this and you know it." They simultaneously gave a warning and an 'out' to Trump.

All politics is local. Trump/Iran wants to appear strong on the home front while Trump/Iran playing global politics. Neither wants war. IMO, Iran improved its position globally and regionally. Trump played to his base (which has been his thing. Trump has made zero efforts to do anything else).

mbasic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:31 am I think Jon kinda missed your point @aurelius .

He asked me to read more, so I was just trying to understand what quality news sources he reads to get his expert takes. Now I know.

DoctorWho wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:50 am
I didn't know there was a such a thing as Ibadi. They must not be very good at chopping off heads and blowing themselves up.

(not a criticism!)

Does it take effort on your part to be this obtuse or is it as natural as breathing?

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477 ... g-iran?amp

You know things aren't looking good for Trump when he loses support from the guy with a picture of former President Ronald Reagan firing a machine gun while riding on the back of a dinosaur.

Mkgillman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:34 pm

DoctorWho wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:50 am
I didn't know there was a such a thing as Ibadi. They must not be very good at chopping off heads and blowing themselves up.

(not a criticism!)

Does it take effort on your part to be this obtuse or is it as natural as breathing?

He said “in said all due respect”. It’s in the Geneva convention.

Mkgillman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:34 pm

DoctorWho wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:50 am
I didn't know there was a such a thing as Ibadi. They must not be very good at chopping off heads and blowing themselves up.

(not a criticism!)

Does it take effort on your part to be this obtuse or is it as natural as breathing?

I've heard that there are some people who don't have a sense of humor, but I rarely encounter them.

But maybe I'm being unfair to you. You might just be seeking superficial approval from anonymous people on the internet so much that it just appears to be brittleness and lack of humor.

DoctorWho wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:46 am I've heard that there are some people who don't have a sense of humor, but I rarely encounter them.

But maybe I'm being unfair to you. You might just be seeking superficial approval from anonymous people on the internet so much that it just appears to be brittleness and lack of humor.

Yeah, I guess my sense of humor doesn't include bigoted statements targeted toward religious groups that are put out there as "jokes".

Mkgillman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:11 am

DoctorWho wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:46 am I've heard that there are some people who don't have a sense of humor, but I rarely encounter them.

But maybe I'm being unfair to you. You might just be seeking superficial approval from anonymous people on the internet so much that it just appears to be brittleness and lack of humor.

Yeah, I guess my sense of humor doesn't include bigoted statements targeted toward religious groups that are put out there as "jokes".

Congrats. You told off an anonymous person on the internet on behalf of a third-party group
Your error in equating a group with a small sub-group that brings it infamy is obvious, but I don't want to cast a shadow on your posting bravery.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/politics ... index.html

Just like the US back in '88, Iran apparently shot down the commercial airliner by mistake. I wonder if this factored into the seemingly immediate back down by all parties after the missile strikes.

Is Iran weaker or stronger in its regional and global standing after shooting down the commercial airliner?

well, more stuff to blame to US on. So Iranian leadership will make lemons out of lemonade ...wait!

Or keep lying about it.

The 30 or so people trampled to death at the "general's" funeral ... now this. All 'mercia's fault.

DoctorWho wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:46 am

Mkgillman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:34 pm

DoctorWho wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:50 am
I didn't know there was a such a thing as Ibadi. They must not be very good at chopping off heads and blowing themselves up.

(not a criticism!)

Does it take effort on your part to be this obtuse or is it as natural as breathing?

I've heard that there are some people who don't have a sense of humor, but I rarely encounter them.

But maybe I'm being unfair to you. You might just be seeking superficial approval from anonymous people on the internet so much that it just appears to be brittleness and lack of humor.

I always laugh when I hang with Gillman, and I've never heard him be racist or bigoted, or brittle, fucker is a cube lately.
Please tell me more about how being insulting, dismissive and myopic equates to "no sense of humor" "can't you take a joke"