Iran (so far away)

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25364
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by JasonL »

So the reasoning is sulemani being in Iraq is not command and control no matter what he does. He is truly blessed.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 29878
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by thoreau »

JasonL wrote:
11 Jan 2020, 19:15
So the reasoning is sulemani being in Iraq is not command and control no matter what he does. He is truly blessed.
WTF are you trying to say?

Nobody here has denied that Suleimani was a military officer directing proxy forces (and maybe Iranian covert forces) in Iraq. Nobody has denied that a military officer directing such forces is a valid target. Some have questioned whether it was wise to hit that target, but nobody has denied that he was a valid target under all relevant rules.* Do you need me to type that out a few more times?

*Insert any necessary disclaimers on rules, legal knowledge, etc.
" Columbus wasn’t a profile in courage or brilliance despite the odds, he was a dumb motherfucker that got lucky. Oddly, that makes him the perfect talisman for the Trump era."
--Mo

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 29652
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Warren »

thoreau wrote:
11 Jan 2020, 19:28
JasonL wrote:
11 Jan 2020, 19:15
So the reasoning is sulemani being in Iraq is not command and control no matter what he does. He is truly blessed.
WTF are you trying to say?

Nobody here has denied that Suleimani was a military officer directing proxy forces (and maybe Iranian covert forces) in Iraq. Nobody has denied that a military officer directing such forces is a valid target. Some have questioned whether it was wise to hit that target, but nobody has denied that he was a valid target under all relevant rules.* Do you need me to type that out a few more times?

*Insert any necessary disclaimers on rules, legal knowledge, etc.
WTF are you trying to say? Nobody has failed to question whether it was wise to target Suleimani.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25364
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by JasonL »

Literally someone just denied all those things.

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 13195
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Ellie »

thoreau wrote:
11 Jan 2020, 11:06
Ellie wrote:
10 Jan 2020, 21:21
I want to go back to talking about Kim Jong Un enjoying a fresh hot lead salad. That was my favorite part. *sighs wistfully*
When Ellie gets excited about a man enjoying a hot lead salad, I wind up wondering if there's a gay sex metaphor that I'm missing.
Kim Jong Un is so awful that he is not ALLOWED gay sex.
"Yours is the much better comeback." -JD

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25627
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Jennifer »

JasonL wrote:
11 Jan 2020, 19:15
So the reasoning is sulemani being in Iraq is not command and control no matter what he does. He is truly blessed.
Would you have applied the same reasoning to Kissinger in regard to Vietnam and Cambodia? (Granted, Kissinger wasn't a commissioned military officer IIRC, but surely even you won't go so far as to deny his actions had the backing of the American government?)
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16952
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Aresen »

Ellie wrote:
11 Jan 2020, 20:19
thoreau wrote:
11 Jan 2020, 11:06
Ellie wrote:
10 Jan 2020, 21:21
I want to go back to talking about Kim Jong Un enjoying a fresh hot lead salad. That was my favorite part. *sighs wistfully*
When Ellie gets excited about a man enjoying a hot lead salad, I wind up wondering if there's a gay sex metaphor that I'm missing.
Kim Jong Un is so awful that he is not ALLOWED gay sex.
Except with komodo dragons. As a 'bottom'.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 20093
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

I no longer have any idea what people are arguing about or who is on which side, but I'd like to go on record here and say I disagree.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16952
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Aresen »

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
11 Jan 2020, 21:43
I no longer have any idea what people are arguing about or who is on which side, but I'd like to go on record here and say I disagree.
I agree.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 8661
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Pham Nuwen »

I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!!!!!!!!!
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 8661
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Pham Nuwen »

But seriously. Y'all a bunch of crazies.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 29652
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Warren »

By contrast this weeks 5th Col. (ep 167) with guest Noah Rothman, was a highly intelligent and well informed back and forth on Iran. At least for the first hour, until Moynihan showed up when it instantly went to shit.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25627
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Jennifer »

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
11 Jan 2020, 21:43
I no longer have any idea what people are arguing about or who is on which side, but I'd like to go on record here and say I disagree.
Where Jason and I are concerned, I think the argument is over "Are there moral/ethical standards to which ALL nations are expected to adhere, or is there one set of rules for the US and its allies and a completely different, far more restricting, set of rules for everyone else?" Hence my repeated question on how he thinks Kissinger compares to Suleimani. (I personally adhere to the "one set of rules" doctrine: indiscriminately murdering civilians is evil when done in the name of Sharia law, evil when done in the name of fighting Communism [even commie gooks!], evil when done in the name of Democracy Whiskey Sexy. And I'm not going to make excuses for why such actions are less-evil or even virtuous, when committed by someone with my country's flag on his uniform.)
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16952
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Aresen »

Pham Nuwen wrote:
12 Jan 2020, 05:26
But seriously. Y'all a bunch of crazies.
You only just noticed that?
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 8661
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Pham Nuwen »

Aresen wrote:
12 Jan 2020, 16:42
Pham Nuwen wrote:
12 Jan 2020, 05:26
But seriously. Y'all a bunch of crazies.
You only just noticed that?
I'm slow.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25541
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Mo »

I can’t imagine Noah Rothman had anything interesting to say unless you haven’t heard any hawks case for war with Iran over the last 2 decades. He thought that the attacks on Saudi tankers and a 2% increase in oil prices were reason enough to go to war. He also thinks we should go harder in the war in Yemen and is unapologetic about supporting the war in Iraq.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 29652
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Warren »

Mo wrote:
12 Jan 2020, 19:45
I can’t imagine Noah Rothman had anything interesting to say unless you haven’t heard any hawks case for war with Iran over the last 2 decades. He thought that the attacks on Saudi tankers and a 2% increase in oil prices were reason enough to go to war. He also thinks we should go harder in the war in Yemen and is unapologetic about supporting the war in Iraq.
I mean. What hawks are you listening to? He was making a more thoughtful case than anything I've read by Bill Kristol and the old The New Republic gang. I'm not saying he was persuasive by any means. Kmele was a great counter to him, but the level of argument was so much higher that anything I've heard anywhere else in the past three years.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 19447
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Hugh Akston »

I can't imagine being able to function in everyday life with the amount of ignorance/cognitive dissonance required to believe that an armed conflict with Iran would make anything better for anyone. The 34th Rule of Acquisition notwithstanding.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16952
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Aresen »

Hugh Akston wrote:
12 Jan 2020, 20:36
I can't imagine being able to function in everyday life with the amount of ignorance/cognitive dissonance required to believe that an armed conflict with Iran would make anything better for anyone. The 34th Rule of Acquisition notwithstanding.
So, Fox News rejected your resume?
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
dead_elvis
Posts: 1574
Joined: 01 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by dead_elvis »

Hugh Akston wrote:
12 Jan 2020, 20:36
The 34th Rule of Acquisition notwithstanding.
I think you're underestimating how much cognitive dissonance your notwithstanding can support.
"Never forget: a war on undocumented immigrants by necessity is a war on all of our freedoms of association and movement."

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25541
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Mo »

Warren wrote:
12 Jan 2020, 19:56
Mo wrote:
12 Jan 2020, 19:45
I can’t imagine Noah Rothman had anything interesting to say unless you haven’t heard any hawks case for war with Iran over the last 2 decades. He thought that the attacks on Saudi tankers and a 2% increase in oil prices were reason enough to go to war. He also thinks we should go harder in the war in Yemen and is unapologetic about supporting the war in Iraq.
I mean. What hawks are you listening to? He was making a more thoughtful case than anything I've read by Bill Kristol and the old The New Republic gang. I'm not saying he was persuasive by any means. Kmele was a great counter to him, but the level of argument was so much higher that anything I've heard anywhere else in the past three years.
I've read his stuff. His whole philosophy is just backfilling for why conservatives are good and Obama is bad. Intervention in Libya was bad because it didn't serve our strategic goals, but intervention in Syria was good because it did. It's hard to see any sort of reason why either of those countries are strategically important to the US. I would like a single hawk, that have all largely praised the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" campaign on Israel, come to terms with the fact that it has led to more conflict from Iran. Yes, it did not stop Iran from working on conventional missiles or arming proxies, but it kept them quieter, to the point where we worked with Solemani against ISIL, and it succeeded at it's primary goals. Hell, during the Cold War, we had all sorts of arms and anti-proliferation traties with the Soviets, even as we engaged in hot proxy wars against their interests.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 29652
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Warren »

Fair enough
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25364
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by JasonL »

I think Rothman is a little crazy and I disagree with him on most things. I do think his version of events is the one you have to grapple with if you aren't interested in grappling with straw men. That doesn't make him right, but it erases some of the more foolish critiques of the neocon worldview.

Like "going to war for oil" is one way to describe things that is a bit deceptive. It doesn't mean "so we keep the oil", it means "so global oil delivery can't be controlled by one aggressive actor". That nuance shifts the argument from who gets to keep the oil to what degree of concern do you have about aggressive actors holding the world hostage via trade route disruption.

Another element of his view I think is worth reacting to, and the one that matches my own concerns in global affairs broadly, is how do you set up deterrence regimes in a world where you are saying at the outset there will be no consequences at all for bad action? If the answer is "but you can do sanctions" ok but there's a type of leadership where the elites have sufficient wealth they don't feel sanctions and all sanctions do is hurt the population. That whole thing is an issue, especially when dealing with, as the man said, habitual line-steppers. There's a kind of incremental aggression that can be employed to significant effect while maintaining the argument that it is never ever worth doing anything about it. Not at the first increment and not at the Nth increment. I worry about how to deal with that for all I recognize it may actually not be worth it for a very long time.

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 19447
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Hugh Akston »

dead_elvis wrote:
13 Jan 2020, 00:29
Hugh Akston wrote:
12 Jan 2020, 20:36
The 34th Rule of Acquisition notwithstanding.
I think you're underestimating how much cognitive dissonance your notwithstanding can support.
Are there really that many people out there on the side of the defense contractors and private security firms?
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25364
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by JasonL »

Hugh Akston wrote:
13 Jan 2020, 11:26
dead_elvis wrote:
13 Jan 2020, 00:29
Hugh Akston wrote:
12 Jan 2020, 20:36
The 34th Rule of Acquisition notwithstanding.
I think you're underestimating how much cognitive dissonance your notwithstanding can support.
Are there really that many people out there on the side of the defense contractors and private security firms?
Yes. I'd argue that possibly the largest political factor in the military industrial complex is the jobs and wages it provides and people will defend those to the death. The only thing they will defend more strongly is the value of their homes.

Post Reply