Excuse my tinfoil hat, but I would even argue the CIA or at least the State Department had its hand in the Ukraine revolution of 2014. So I worry they would be more protective of what went on there than otherwise. — NOS4A2

Actually, it was the State Department that was most successful in overthrowing Serbia's Milosevic. CIA didn't have much part in that. And thanks to that Milosevic died in a prison cell in the Hague and Serbia... is a close and loyal friend of Russia!

Of all the factors bearing on the demise of the Milosevic regime, direct democracy promotion assistance in the form of financial support, training and contact with other regional activists was the most influential.

Democracy-promotion assistance from all sources totaled nearly $150 million in the period between 1988 and 2000. Nearly two-thirds of this amount was expended in 1999 and 2000 alone. Some of the largest providers of democracy assistance were the Open Society Fund based in Belgrade, the United States Agency for International Development, the European Union, bi-lateral European donors and a host of other quasi-governmental and private institutions. After 1998, assistance broadened and deepened to include initiatives designed to bolster the survivability of the resistance and engage in confrontation with the regime. There was less of a focus on sustainable development and more on short-term political change in Milosevic's last two years in office.

One thing is to get angry people to the streets. Other is to influence local political actors... as we have seen from the example of Serbia. And also Ukraine, actually.

Yet agent Trumpov has done his utmost to utterly parayize the State Department, in which he has been extremely successful in doing! And Putin is happy! (Fixing my own tinfoil hat here)

Yeah, of course you can change sex. I do it all the time.

Sometimes on top, sometimes on the bottom, face to face or...uhhh, the other way. Kama Sutra comes up with some dandies.

And of course there's...uhhh...uhhh...

...jeez, just occurred to me that I may have misunderstood where you were going with this.

So...never mind. — Frank Apisa

No.

You understood it totally and this is the correct answer. :ok:

I stopped reading comments after that.

I maintain that Zionism is implicitly racist as its factual implementation requires you to treat one group of people different than others; no matter how historically understandable it is, it is still racist — Benkei

There was a time and place for Zionism, just as there has been a time and place for romantic nationalism to many people when acquiring a nation-state of their own (including my own). These kind of ideologies do have also positive aspects like creating social cohesion, but now days typically are just seen as inherently bad things that only promote racism, intolerance and hatred. Basically something evil.

Yet just look around the World and one should notice that those people that don't have an own state are typically repressed and looked down upon. If it's difficult to understand for affluent Westerners just why would something like an own homeland be a positive thing, then just ask the Kurds how they feel about not having an own country. And how Kurds are treated in the World stage.

Yet just how Zionist is Israel today? From meeting Israelis and what I gather from reading I think they are quite the same as everybody else, quite critical about the politics in their own country and perhaps not as polarized as the Americans, but still. A bunch of religious zealots may have gotten into a position where they operate and have influence above their own weight class, but so it's in the US too. Are there Jews who think that they are better than others as God's chosen people? Sure, but then you find those annoying people everywhere who think they are somehow better than others.

Hence I wouldn't call it Zionism, it's not so relevant as it was let's say after ww2 and during the Israeli war of independence. I would say that the state of Israel has basically adapted to a perpetual low intensity conflict. Hamas or Hezbollah lob some rockets into Israel, Iron Dome works (if it's just your typica variant of al Katyusha-rocket) and then Israel responds with air strikes. Tit for tat. And life goes on. It's the new normal of a conflict becoming the ordinary way of things.

Again. Appealing to what autocratic regimes do to make Israel look good is not the argument you want to be making here. — Benkei

Benkei, you got me confused here. Palestine was under the control of the British. Was the UK autocratic by your standards?

If he's "rabid", we've run out of adjectives to describe the alt-right, Trump and so on. — Baden

Leave it to Maw and NOS4A2 to fight about it.

I fully agree. It likely has gone just like that.

Hey ssu, I just want to point out before I really respond that I don't consider us in a "debate" here. A debate implies that we're both fixed in opposing positions and we're trying our best to convince the other person that we're right. I don't really see that here.

I consider this more of a discussion. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. English isn't my first language, hence I didn't notice the difference between a debate and discussion. Note taken.

I did pose a question that last time that I would have liked you to answer. There's not really a right or wrong answer to it, I'm just curious where you'd fall here. — BitconnectCarlos

Discussing nuclear war is a very problematic topic, but interesting. They are not ordinary weapons or basically have become something else than just potent weapons.

The first thing to notice is the scare that it creates. Let's think about nuclear radiation first. Nuclear radiation and it's effects are something that people cannot understand and what the effects (unfortunately) differ in estimations wildly. Hence when a deadly Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami hit Japan, the tsunami itself which killed nearly 16 000 people was brushed off as the focus was totally on the Fukushima nuclear plant, which killed by radiation...nobody. The only deaths that happen were during the evacuation of 170 000 people. If we get so scared of an accident in a nuclear power plant, how afraid do we got from the use of nuclear weapons.

There's the image of "Nuclear armageddon", and nuclear winter. There is the assumption that once nuclear weapons are started to be used, it escalates to all out use of the weapons. And then all life on the World is at peril. This all makes nuclear weapons something totally different from other weapons: Nuclear weapons aren't just a weapon system, they are a belief system.

Just think about it: let's say as an example that tactical nuclear weapons are used in a conflict in the Middle East towards military targets, air bases or tank formations on the field. The actual casualties wouldn't be huge, perhaps several thousand at worst, as armies understand to spread their forces not to create obvious targets, yet think of the impact it would have even on people here and everywhere else. How would people react to news that there's a nuclear war going on the Middle East? I bet MANY people would feel uncomfortable about it and have anxiety over it, even if none of their relatives or friends would be in danger. Would you think the politicians of World, starting from the Pope to your local prime minister or president, would stay silent? Would you think that the media would cover the issue with cool objecivity? No. The media would milk the panic the most it can and try to glue us to follow the coverage. Many people would assume that WW3 has started, even if we are talking about a regional war.

Hence the use of nuclear weapons is a huge political issue.

So it's more than about probabilities. In fact, I would argue that a continuing slow pace civil war kills as many as a nuclear strike would, and we are blissfully ignorant about it. Syrian civil war has killed over 100 000 people, and the Yugoslav civil war killed 130 000 - 140 000 people. Estimates of the Iraq war (after 2003) differ wildly (from 110 000 - 600 000). The way how people are killed matters.

Sorry to hear that, too bad he passed away.

Conservatism needs intellectuals like Scruton, not simpletons.

Racism is the issue being discussed in the OP. — frank

Then the question ought to discussed seriously than from the viewpoint of "Megxit".

Are you saying the woman CBS interviewed is a liar? — frank

Did you ever watch yourself the media frenzy when the Meghan - Harry relationship was revealed and when their wedding was announced? Ever noticed it?

Sorry, but I don't read some obscure alt-right news and the media coverage what I remember, the so-called "MSM", was full of rejoice and overt happiness that the Royal family was so progressive and was open to Meghan to join. Ever heard the line that Meghan and Harry were the new face of the crown? No????

Megxit-drama is one of the worthless issues that the British tabloid press comes up with. We (and the Royal family) would be better off without it, but the press has to make money somehow. Linking it up racism to it is a cynical way to try to capture the public discussion for some to push their own agendas.

At least you said the fact that this isn't a news-worthy issue.

I think the race card is just desperately raised here to get some importance to a non-issue.

US doesn't have an illustrious past — frank

The US hasn't a past. The past it has is illustrious.

The US started it's Monroe Doctrine in 1823, only 47 years after the Declaration of Independence. Hence we can say that only for a few decades was the US just minding it's own business (or just quarreling with it's former masters).

Now think about the Native Americans who fed the starving Pilgrims (supposed Christians) who had invaded their native and sacred land (truly a Garden of Eden). “When I was hungry, you fed me.” They treated the Pilgrims like brothers and sisters (neighbors). Native Americans weren’t materially wealthy and were probably bewildered by the childlike Pilgrims who thought they could and should tame nature.

Who is more Christian? The contemporary Christians or the Native Americans? — Noah Te Stroete

I live near a tribe that once attacked neighboring tribes so as to make slaves of their women and children. — NOS4A2

Yawn — Noah Te Stroete

The noble (Christian?) savage is a myth. — NOS4A2

That’s like saying all white men are pseudo-Christian Trump supporters who own AR-15s is a truth. — Noah Te Stroete

Is this a parody?

Sorry, but the two of you are sooo stereotypical here that it's actually funny. :snicker:

As it is, Israel is never going to be a "safe space" - and the fate of the Palestinian people is an ongoing tragedy with no end in sight. — EricH

A lot of those who have been there, like many blue berets that have been in Lebanon, share your pessimistic view. I see no easy way out here at all.

You see, the ugly truth is that in order for this to change, just to look at Europe. Just ask yourself, how did the French and the Germans forget about Alsace-Lorraine (or Elsass Lothringen in German)? How did these bitter rivals get so friendly? Simple answer: they fought two extremely bloody World Wars that afterward made it impossible to anyone getting hyped in a jingoistic fashion about some stupid geographical area. Europeans learned something only after millions of dead. Not before.

(The Black Stain. French schoolboys being taught about the lost provinces. Jingoism Pre-WW I.


The fact is that even if the conventional wars fought by Israel and the Arabs have been (nearly) all out wars, the losses haven't been catastrophic. It never has been a fight to the other one's destruction. They wars haven't bred war weariness at all. Just look at how religious people get all hyped up about the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Somewhere else it would be considered utter stupidity.

I would question this; members of the Iranian government or groups close to and funded by Iran have repeatedly supported the destruction of Israel. The destruction of a Jewish state and its replacement by an Islamic one would be a HUGE win on a religious front for nearly the entire Islamic world including Iran. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok this is an answer to your remark on the Trump thread.

There's three counterarguments to your opinion.

First, there is no unified Islamic front. In fact, there is a bitter fight ongoing between the Sunni states and the Shia Iran. Typically the allies (and the US would call them proxies) of Iran are Shiite or non-Sunni Muslims like the Alawite family ruling Syria. Yemen and Syria and also Iraq are battlefields of this inter-Muslim rivalry, which has caused a lot of bloodshed already.

In the case of Palestine this is blurred because Palestinians are Sunni Muslims hence Iran being supportive of Hamas is simply realpolitik for Hamas (as Hamas is not in good terms with the Palestinian Authorities on the West Bank).

Secondly, culture of over-the-top ranting is a really a trademark of the Middle East. In Europe and the West, it's totally the other way around: here ranting sounds like basically being Hitler, and every however populist a politician is, they will not want to be like him. To "strongly oppose" should send alarm bells here, in the Middle East it would be hardly noticed.

Thirdly, the Islamic Republic of Iran is an theocracy. Funding might be important in the US, but how the Iranian coffers are filled by oil money doesn't matter so much to the mullahs in power. Iran can fund organizations that lob few rockets into Israel here and there, because it knows that Israel won't retaliate by destroying Tehran with a nuke. Use of nuclear weapons truly has it's own logic and don't think that either side would take their use lightly. The last time nuclear weapons were thought as just more powerful weapons than conventional weapons ready to be used if necessary was by the US before the Soviet Union detonated it's first nuclear bomb. Then the whole concept changed.

I'll respond in another thread about Iran. This is a wrong thread for this interesting debate.

Does One Million Moms not have anything better to do than invite ridicule on themselves? — Teller

Do Christian fundamentalists in the US have?

Btw better discuss the American Family Association, who created the websites "One Million Moms" and also "One Million Dads". Should we be also worried about bestiality in the ad with Maxwell the Pig?

It's true that Trump's motives are all about re-election, but he does have the US legacy in the Middle East to attend to — Punshhh

And that was already a huge mess.

Older Bush still made sense. He put up together a surprising alliance and got the green light both from the Soviet Union and the UN and listened to wisdom from his Arab allies. Afterwards the neocons made everything an utter disaster. It truly was the 'crossing of the Rubicon' and a huge turnaround for US foreign policy. Without any need to think about a response from a Soviet Union, the US policy simply turned blatantly stupid: nevermind other nations, just do what looks good for the voters back home. Iraq was handled in a totally care-free way especially with the utterly disasterous Paul Bremer at the helm of the CPA. The war profiteering was truly out of portions with this war.

Dubya went on the first US true invasion outside America's back yard since the Spanish-American War. And Obama just continued with the cards given and with him the US snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with Al Qaeda, that morphed into ISIS:

In a way Trump has the opportunity to snatch defeat again.

Let's see what happens.

Those mortgages were going to be defaulted on, and everyone involved on the lending side knew it...

Here, you call them "irresponsible". I find the exact opposite to be true. — creativesoul

No. What I mean that the behaved irresponsibly, didn't care much about possible credit losses because the loans were packaged together and were thought to be then OK. The financial system had evolved and improved, you know. People genuinely talked about self regulation of the capital markets.

I could go on detail on this subject because it comes close to my Masters thesis. I've personally been in the 90's in the university arguing that 'speculative bubble could happen even today' and been given an answer that your idea is bullshit, that the international financial markets work just fine and such market disasters as speculative bubbles simply cannot happen. Perhaps people were crazy in the 17th Century Netherlands with Tulips, but such manias are of the past. Economists truly believed so.

Simply put it: enough people truly believed in the "New Economy" to make a speculative bubble to appear and you simply do not need behind it a conspiracy. And the conspiracy buffs like Alex Jones were busy talking about the 9/11 conspiracies back then to take ANY note of what was happening in the real estate market. And betting on the bubble to collapse will make you poor if and when the bubble goes longer than you have anticipated.

So, the label "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation such that calling an explanation of events/history by the name implies that it just ought not be believed. — creativesoul

There's also the actual definition of a conspiracy. The definition you refer to, basically making and/or believing wild assumptions on the cause of some event is another thing, actually.

What counts as evidence, and is it adequate and/or relevant to the explanation, and in what way? — creativesoul

With time there emerges a historical agreement, which very likely is at least close to the truth (even if details become unknown and forgotten). This takes many years, even decades.

True conspiracies or false conspiracies, which emerge either from disinformation (false information which is intended to mislead) or misinformation (incorrect or misleading information), do tend to be exposed once:

a) The matter is not anymore of political importance
b) the conspirators are around anymore
c) the archieves and data are open for historians to work on them.

So much of our involvement in Vietnam was based upon lying to not only the American public, but the world as well, including the puppet government we put in place in the south. — creativesoul

Yet was believing the Domino theory a conspiracy or simply an error of judgement? Communists looked quite the same (or at least their rhetoric was the same) and I think no Western analyst would forecast in the sixties or even in the early 70's that China and Vietnam would fight a border war in 1979.

And how much of a puppet state is South Korea? I like it that there's South Korean gadgets and cars and pop videos. And not more people that have starved to death under North Korean dictatorship. At hindsight we can spot the differecence. Knowing that Vietnam would be different could perhaps been anticipated, but still it would have been a long shot.

The crash of 08...

Well, that looks remarkably like it was not an unforeseen accident. — creativesoul

Yet a speculative bubbles bursting is something that truly isn't a conspiracy. Many saw this coming, and remember that a lot of the most irresponsible culprits got their millions and didn't go to jail.

I realise that his vision for Iran is a liberated country returning to how it was before the 1979 revolution and that he would like to see the population rise up and restore the country. — Punshhh

His vision? Trump has a vision on Iran, really? I think Trump surely has visions of his own grandeur and success, but I wouldn't think that he has really visions for Iran.

Comes to my mind how a previous national security advisor tried to get the Trumpster to focus and get the message about Afghanistan:

One of the ways McMaster tried to persuade Trump to recommit to the effort was by convincing him that Afghanistan was not a hopeless place. He presented Trump with a black-and-white snapshot from 1972 of Afghan women in miniskirts walking through Kabul, to show him that Western norms had existed there before and could return.

Actually a very viral (the picture photo above), which is often used as below to compare the difference between then and now (like here):


Trump is mainly interested in re-electing himself. Period.

I agree. Especially the people who get excited about these issues tend to forget that political leaders aren't so omnipotent as they say they are. Political movements rely on people getting excited, that "this time it's different", and basically from a new generation participating in elections, who don't know that the things have already been tried.

Perhaps the reason is that there isn't any cost for the voter. If you vote and your candidate gets elected and then doesn't deliver, you can just say "Oh well, he tried" or "the opposition prevented him from doing it". Hence people will believe, pin their hopes on things turning rapidly around by the politician promising that "he or she will turn things rapidly around". Those politicians promising modest results (which are obtainable) will seem bland and now days, 'part of the establishment, which is the problem'.

I would say that Western democracy isn't in a crisis as it was during the 1930's, it has just has a headache from populism and political polarization partly (thanks to social media). Yet headaches have a reason.

I think the problem people have with Trump is the way he behaves, period — Baden

And that his supporters simply believe him to be something else as every criticism is just the rant of the democrats/Deep State/MSM/whatever. Everything can be explained by the Trump derangement syndrome.

Trump is a politician. Just with a new flavour. Not being a career politician doesn't make one not to be a politician. Eisenhower as a President was also a politician.

Trump basically doesn't believe that he could win any democrats over so why even bother? He doubles down on the polarization of the American voting population. What would benefit him is if everything is seen as part of a 'culture war'.

Why I think that Trump is a lousy president is because his administration is simply a confused mess and because he is inept in leadership. The talented ones in the Trump administration (yes, I believe there have been those) usually simply quit. It all is genuinely confusing. NATO is brain dead, US allies in the Middle East are either confused or simply play him (or his son-in-law, which is a total disaster), allies in the Far East are quite clueless what the US will do. The Trump-Putin bromance is bizarre. The only thing where Trump is persistent and goes on with a plan is basically appeasing and doing favors to his campaign donors. Their agenda is met indeed. So it's the American system on steroids with Trump. But that doesn't stop people hallucinating that "Trump will drain the swamp". Then
Some people think this is great, some enjoy Trump as being this stampeding elephant in the China shop. Bring out the popcorn! Others simply enjoy that he annoys democrats. Well, if the role of the President is to be annoying...

Basically still after four years many of Trump's supporters pin hopes to him which won't happen. There was a similar (if totally different) hope when Obama got into power.

And then there are the people who don't know or care much about foreign or domestic policy and who would doze off if actual goverment policies would be discussed, for them listening to Trump might be fun. Because, hell, he's one of them!

(Btw. the threads are mixed up, this talk ought to be in the Trump thread and vice versa, as Baden said, so let's talk Trump there.)

Exactly.

The so-called Doves get killed in the Middle East. While basically the ranting hate-speachers (who typically haven't been themselves anywhere near a frontline) prosper there.

Eisenhower's an interesting example. Presumably his war record served him well in that post-war period of uncertainty. — Brett

Eisenhower is a great example of someone coming into politics with a stellar career in another field. And keeping the Western Alliance during WW2 intact did show great leadership qualities. And then look at his policies especially the Interstate Highway System. Few if any infrastructure programs match in scale and importance of this government project. And done by a Republican!

I understand that Israel won in 1948, 1967, and 1973. — BitconnectCarlos

Also 1956. During the Suez crisis Israel performed it's part without any problems.

And don't forget Operation "Peace for Galilee" in 1982, the swift occupation of Lebanon and the defeat of Syria in that conflict. If in 1973 the Soviet lead ground based air defence had brought some losses to the Israeli Air Force, the dominance of Israeli air power in 1982 was totally clear. The Syrian air force was shot from the sky: 85 shot down vs. no losses to Israel.

(Line up of Israeli F-15 fighters with their kill marks after 1982.)


The 2006 Lebanese-Isreali Border War has been the only example were the Israelis haven't been so extremely successful, but in all it cannot be regarded as a failure.

What do you think about this view of history? — BitconnectCarlos

What you doesn't change the fact that as time has gone on, Israel has achieved dominance over it's neighbours. And let's remember that two of it's four neighbouring states have made peace with it. Two are totally unable to make peace as they don't now control fully their areas, even if Israel wanted to make peace.

(Sharing a cigarette after making peace. Although later an Israeli religious fanatic killed Prime Minister Rabin because of his Peace efforts. Making peace can be deadly for politicians, being a hawk is easier.)


The bottom line is that Israel is part of the First World and it's neighbours are part of Third.

And Iran? There the truth is that for Iran opposing Israel is an ideological issue, not an existential issue, the countries aren't even close to one other. Opposing Israel goes to heart of the revolutionary zeal of the Islamic Republic.

And this is why you see demonstrations in Tehran. Perhaps it's difficult for some to understand that some in the young population of Iran would be themselves tired of their country being involved in conflicts in other countries, just as some Americans are tired of their country being the Global policeman and getting it's nose into every conflict there is. The revolutionary fervour has long since toned down in Iran and been replaced an official line. Many Iranians have a better view of the US than actually people in the West think.

Few dozen cruise missiles can naturally change that, if the neocons get their way.

The Israelis still have reason to be worried because it threatens their entire existence. — BitconnectCarlos

With having a strong nuclear deterrence, total superiority in the air and basically with their own armed forces being superior to other, having their foes in shambles (Syria in civil war, Egypt just barely hanging there), and having the sole Superpower as an obedient ally ready and wiling to rush to their help? It's not a dire situation as you think.

Sure, they might be worried, the US can be worried by North Korean nukes too, but the fact is that Netanyahu has chosen this low intensity conflict as the normal for Israel. Their mistake was after the Cold War to think that the US wouldn't see them as so important and hence started the Peace process. They had no reason to. The US supports them as fiercely as ever.

. Israel has had several wars where, if it had lost, it would have been finished as a state and its people would have been at the mercy of its enemies. — BitconnectCarlos

That indeed in might have happened during their war of Independence. Afterwards, they crushed their enemies quite well. Today is different than 1948.

Even against the "rational" Soviets we came nail-bitingly close to nuclear war and in some cases the choice came down the actual button-pushers. And that was without religion. — BitconnectCarlos

And the ugly truth is that actually WW3 didn't happen. Yes, we came close, but we didn't have it.

Has the actual cause of the downed airliner been confirmed? — creativesoul

Yep. Iran admitted it was an accidental downing. See Iran admits to shooting down plane unintentionally.

It tells actually how they thought that hitting two US bases would cause the US having in just a few hours stealth bombers flying over their capital, actually. I guess that's respect of your enemy, in a way.

Besides, there wasn't any way to hide it. There is a highly routine, standardized and effective method of Investigating aircraft crashes, hence the forensics will show clearly if the jet was downed by a SAM or not. Canada and Ukraine have requested and had already given permission to be briefed on the investigation. Iran won't give the black boxes to the US (why would they?), but if would have tried to deny it, it would have become a farce.

And what will Israel talk about? — Punshhh

Yes, what will Sheldon Adelson and the AIPAC talk and what will they make Trump / the next President / the US do?

With the actual state of Israel the matter is different. Likely Israel cannot make a pre-emptive strike on the nuclear weapons program as it could do with Iraq AND the Syrian WMD project (people who don't know about the hit on the Syrian program, see Operation Outside the Box).

The fundamental taboo question is: "Can Israel and Iran have a balance in nuclear deterrence just Russia vs US, China vs US, India vs Pakistan?" I think it obviously yes. Forget the demagoguery of the Middle East, these players will fall in line just as every other country having nuclear weapons has. But naturally the rhetoric HAS TO BE that Iranians are crazy Mullahs hell bent on destroying Israel even if that means that Iran will be destroyed. Yet it doesn't make sense. Never has. But whatever goes in the public discourse. Iranian politicians get likes with rants of destroying Israel and the US politicians will get likes with of rants that Iran poses an existential threat to the US. All that nonsense will continue.

Israel will just loose it's nuclear hegemony and likely it will make it more timid in attacking it's neighbours.

Why not. What’s worked so far? — Brett

Ever been a genuine effort to break the stranglehold of the two party system? I haven't.

Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party got 28% of the votes in the 1912 election.
Ross Perot as an independent got 19% in 1992 (and dashed hopes for the older Bush to get 2nd term).

And as said earlier (perhaps on another thread), it's only been these crazy dashes for the Presidency, not anything coming up from the communal and state level.

So I guess Americans are in fact really happy with the two parties they have.

Yes, Trump has achieved two things for them. 1) Given them an excuse to restart their nuclear program and 2) Shown that he's not willing to go to war over it. The winner here is the developing Russia/China axis with Iran and North Korea as untouchable assets harassing and undermining US interests. — Baden

Correct.

You might then add 3) The administration sticks it's head into the ground and denies 1) and 2) and says everything is OK now. And anyone saying otherwise, especially those working for the government, will be a persona-non-grata considered hostile to the administration.

And in the end we'll talk about Iranian nukes as we do about North Korean nukes. And life goes on.

Have you ever considered the events of the last few days between America and Iran showing a greater understanding and appreciation of each other than ever before? — Brett

Oh you mean like JFK and Nikita Khrushchev had after the Cuban missile crisis, where we were going to WW3?

Cold War continued afterwards with quite a lot of intensity. In 1983 the Soviets were really thinking that Reagan was contemplating an out-of-the-blue sudden nuclear strike on the Soviet Union.

(I think it's well known that Iranians can be reasonable, if you just put aside the Middle Eastern death rants intended for the domestic crowd. And then again, Americans can be reasonable too.)

Don’t forget the political system that enabled this. People understand business, they know who they’re dealing with, they understand the corruption of business, the drive for the bottom line. But they depend on politicians. If politicians let them down where do they turn? — Brett

Does then pinning your hopes on a politician promising change help? Or pinning your hopes on a narcissistic billionaire-pretend that wants to be accepted by the elite and would have been just fine as a TV personality?

All I could argue is that you really should more political parties. At least the two political parties should feel they can indeed perish, if they get things utterly wrong. How about a "Law & Justice Party" that has as it's primary agenda rooting out corruption and upholding the constitution?

Of course knowing US politics, that party would be run by some mobster or something...

It looks like evidence is pointing to Iran shooting down a Ukrainian aircraft filled with Iranian, Canadian and Ukrainian civilians. Not a good look, especially after the annihilation of Soleimani, the deaths of funeral-goers, and the bombing of Iraq. Iran is incompetent. — NOS4A2

So it looks (with the airplane accident). It happens with GBAD (ground based air defence) when it's put to highest alert. They start shooting everything moving in the air and identify targets later.

Similar thing happened with the downing of MH-17. Or earlier with the downing of Iran Air 655 by USS Vincennes (which mistook a civil passenger aircraft for an Iranian F-14).

What is now interesting to see how Iran handles the incident and of course we have to look what the investigation turns out. If it was an accidental downing, Iran can opt either to take the line that President Reagan did with Iran Air 655 and deeply regret the accident OR (which is more likely) take the "asshole-approach" that the Russians did with MH-17 and deny, deny and deny and then blame it on your opponent and not care about overwhelming evidence on the contrary.

but I am sure that there are far too many individuals with far too much power, and far too many enormous swathes of people with little to none. — creativesoul

I think the problem is that corporations and the extremely rich can influence far too much the policies and simply write the best laws for themselves personally. Everything is nearly fine as long as the economy chugs along. The Trump vote and also those favouring Bernie (and AOC) aren't actually so happy with this, even if their opinions otherwise are totally different.

In the US system the elite doesn't think they would have any special role for the ordinary people. It simply is taken as granted that the system works, (as what could be bad with the system given down from the Founding Fathers!) hence one can mind one's own business and simply push one's own agenda. Any collective agenda isn't needed. Now I don't have much against libertarianism, but in this case the assumption that as everyone is responsible for oneself, the rich don't need to anything for the United States is a bit problematic. Then the only thing is just to fight government bureaucracy and the closet-socialists lurking in the democratic party.

Here's the difference when I think of my countries rich people: with just over five million people, people do feel a responsibility towards their little country, if they are rich. This also means that the conservatives and the traditional right and center have always favored policies that sound very socialist for the American. Hence the welfare state. I would argue that this is more like Otto von Bismarck implementing social programs: a way to counter the left and avoid social upheaval. Vast hordes of poor people that lose their faith in the society can bring destruction, hence better to resolve the problems.

I don’t know if I’m right or wrong, time will tell, but I see Trump as breaking, or shaking up, what was a very comfortable system for so many. — Brett

That's the belief Trump supporters desperately hang on to. That Trump was good friends with the Clintons is simpy sidelined, or that he has more billionaires in his administration and the tax cuts etc, a list that seems perpetually long. Personally I'm not convinced.

If things are bad for people in general in the US surely that’s the result of entrenched corruption in the system that goes back many years. To me the fact that these people, the elites, are so angry and out of control over Trump suggests that they really feel threatened. And why wouldn’t they, there’s so much to lose? — Brett

This is the thing: Trump has to be doing something good as the elite is angry. This is the assumption.

Yet just who is angry about Trump? Are those rich corrupt billionaires really angry about Trump? Is casino mogul Sheldon Adelson angry about Trump? Just to give ONE example from many but appropriate for this thead, Adelson put into Trump's election bid 82 million and Adelson's agenda was a) ending the Iran deal, b) moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and he personally c) suggested neocon John Bolton to be the security advisor. Trump gave everything to him, even if it didn't work well with Bolton. But I'm sure he likes what Trump has done now with Iran.

Rich rule the US. So what has changed, Brett?


Wife gets a lovely medal too!


Sure, George Soros might not like Trump, but he's the rich billionaire influencer of the Democrats. That's just how the system works. Billionaires, select your party and rule.

He backed out of a horrible deal with Iran because it lifted important sanctions and allowed them to continue their ballistic missile program, which was ultimately used to fire on Iraq just days ago. — NOS4A2

And today what is better?

Despite the JCPOA, Iran has acquired the largest and most diverse missile force in the Middle East. — NOS4A2

And it's a logical choice. Trying to compete with the USAF & USN by a conventional air force is a hopeless attempt for Iran, hence an alternative is to create ballistic missile artillery deterrent. Especially when the US is dependent on those bases (which btw were now attacked). Hence Iran hasn't modified much it's antiquated air force. Yet surprisingly has kept the F-14 Tomcats flying (which meanst that unfortunately there are no flying specimens of this great fighter in the US).

o since backing out of the deal Trump has been trying to pressure Iran into negotiations (or its own collapse) by reimposing those sanctions. — NOS4A2

And how has this worked? Seriously, what negations are you talking about.

You see, just like with Russia, sanctions don't so much effect especially the armed forces. On the contrary, they are an effective incentive to create and strengthen domestic arms production as Iran has done. And the economy? Can go up and down, but the biggest buyers of Iranian oil don't care a rats ass about Trump's sanctions. You think China and India will care about Trump's bitching? Or is Trump going to impose sanction on them or even start to blockade their oil tankers from entering Iranian ports? Not going to happen. And a lot of trade will just be circumvented through third countries.



All that the sanctions do is to keep oil prices higher. Because if Iranian oil would be open for the West to buy, it simply would lower the prices (as it actually did). That of course works fine for oil companies and other oil producers. And oil doesn't matter so much for the US at least, thanks to shale deposits.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has been in sanctions and in overtly hostile relations with it's former close ally USA since it's birth. For over 40 years now. So I guess they are quite adapted to that, just like Israel is adapted to the fact that it doesn't have much if any trade with it's neighbors.

Where’s the benefit for them in this? — Brett

Putin wants that Russia is a Great Power. A global player. It's the Russian version of "Make the Country Great Again!" This message sells, you know.

He has already fought back the 'biggest tragedy in history', the collapse of the Soviet Union, by annexing Crimea ...and annexing parts of Georgia back to Russia. Those were popular moves with many Russians.

After all, if you have stolen so much money that you are basically the wealthiest man in the World, you do want to have the ability to retire (or die in office) without nobody putting you behind bars. If you are popular among the people, that helps.

Seems you didn't get the sarcasm... the part that he's now with the re-election issue and obviously thinking that killing an Iranian general would be good for his bid. And his description of Obama fits himself, that's the point: he has absolutely no ability to negotiate, he's weak and he's ineffective.

And what deal on Earth are you talking about?

Tell me just when has Trump negotiated with the Iranians. What he has done is to break up a deal which had many countries aboard and basically this. It's just empty like the so-called "breakthroughs" Trump has had with North Korea. So he now knows personally the leader of a country that the US is basically at war. Otherwise...there's not much to show.

Although Trump says his friendship with Kim has produced a more peaceful North Korea, the reality, especially of late, has been quite different. Since May, North Korea has tested more missiles than it has in any other year in its history, except possibly 2016, according to the analyst Ankit Panda. It never stopped producing fissile material for nuclear bombs. Think tanks are pumping out reports on establishing “maximum pressure 2.0” against Pyongyang. The name-calling is back: Kim is once more “Rocket Man,” Trump a senile “dotard.” Satellites are spotting renewed activity at North Korean nuclear sites, while Kim has resumed testing at a rocket-launch site he had promised to dismantle in 2018. U.S. officials are yet again warning of military options. North Korean officials are proclaiming the days of denuclearization negotiations over.

And likely this will happen with Iran. Trump will make this a huge victory and hence anything saying otherwise will simply not be said...or at least not handled in media focus. Earlier it was said that countries that had the ability to put satellites into orbit had the potential to create ICBMs. Iran has put satellites up into space since 2005. That's fifteen years ago. Hence you shouldn't be surprised that the discourse will go like with North Korea. With North Korea first it was said extensively that they didn't make a nuclear detonation, but used massive amounts of TNT. Then their satellite launch failed. And in fact all their missile firings were a failure. Now it's "let's change the subject": we have peaceful North Korea!

It's long been my belief that real Republicans constitutes a wing of the Democrat Party, perhaps not even identifying themselves as Republican. — tim wood

Thanks for you sketch, Tim. It just shows how the whole political discourse has evolved. And I think of Trump's antics will be taken by the Party even when he leaves.

Especially now the Republican party is a mess. Many Republican politicians are now walking on eggshells thanks to the petulant yet popular Trump.

He's chosen the weak dick moment. Probably he was given little choice by those who know better. — Baden

Continuing with a war with Iran IS a stupid move. Nobody thinks otherwise.

So weak dick that he blew up the Ayatollahs right-hand man. — NOS4A2

Well, if Iraq goes really through with sending US forces and other foreign troops away AND the tit for tat stops really here, it's a clear victory for Iran. Iran has already been given the reason to go full forward with the nuclear development, so...the idea that one general would really be so important (especially when he's now a great martyr) for a large army is um...really a coherent idea? :chin:

The real reason is of course that Trump supporters are actually more logical than their Prez. If they didn't like the 2003 Iraqi invasion at least in hindsight (and Trump slaughtered the Bush candidate with that), have been fed a healthy distrust of the establishment and the military-industrial complex (and deep states etc), they simply won't like going to war with a salami tactic of a tit for tat. Trump will start to erode his own base if he goes to war.

But needles to say that Trump apologists like NOS4A2 will never admit anything like that. Likely they will champion how smart their hero is by NOW by showing restraint.

* * *

Btw the Iranian missiles seem to be quite accurate and seem really to have been intended to hit hangars (of course, there aren't all of the hits in the picture). Naturally the bases had early warning and the personnel evacuated to bunkers. And do notice that there's absolutely no comment about even trying to counter the attacks with ABM systems. It is actually similar to Trump's attack on a Syrian air base: the US did say to the Russians that they were going to attack the air base before hand.

At least five structures were damaged in the attack on the base in Anbar province, which apparently was precise enough to hit individual buildings. "Some of the locations struck look like the missiles hit dead center," says David Schmerler, an analyst with the Middlebury Institute.

Iran's attack targeted at least two military bases in Iraq. The extent of the damage to the second base, in Irbil, was unclear.

Shortly afterward, President Trump said in an optimistic tweet: "All is well!

See Satellite Photos Reveal Extent Of Damage From Iranian Strike On Air Base In Iraq

Yeah. All is well. Perhaps Americans will forget this in a couple of months. People in the region will perhaps not.

In the (Dis)information war is on...as usual. But on full steam now.

Victim: Kuna (through Reuters page)

DUBAI (Reuters) - Kuwait’s defense minister said it has received a letter from the Commander in Chief of a U.S. military camp in Kuwait “declaring imminent withdrawal of all U.S. military forces in three days,” state news agency KUNA said on Wednesday.

“Receiving such [a] letter from Camp Arifjan was unexpected and we are communicating with U.S. Department of Defense for more details and information,” KUNA reported the minister as saying.

Yet Star & Stripes (via AP) reports:

TEHRAN, Iran — Kuwait says its state-run KUNA news agency’s Twitter account was hacked and posted false story on US troops withdrawing from the nation.Kuwait made the announcement Wednesday after the fake alert went out on its account, drawing widespread attention.

Interesting to see how the news media handle obvious fake news on real time.