Edit: That link is interesting but it was harder to glean the actual numbers than I thought when I posted it. The relevant numbers I wanted to point out were 47,000 suicides, 88,000 deaths involving alcohol and 70,000 deaths by dug overdose in rhe US in 2017.
Is anyone else afraid that John Bolton had that drone shot down?
I'm not sure if that's a serious question or not. Playing it straight though - it seems unlikely given that the Iranians have claimed responsibility. I suppose you could argue that Bolton could have used an attempt by the Iranians as a cover, but I'm not sure why he would feel the need. The situation is escalating quite nicely at the moment anyway from the point of view of someone seeking conflict and firing a missile at an unmanned drone is anyway not a lot different from actually shooting it down ...
And here we have the inevitable consequence of lying about everything on daily basis for years. When a serious situation arises where you need credibility, no one believes you.
I don't think that's so much an issue in relation to the drone, but it absolutely is in relation to the attacks on shipping, where Iran has denied carrying them out. Personally I think the most likely explanation is that Iranians did carry out the attacks, but without authorization from the full government. I think it's also quite possible though that a third party carried out the attacks with the specific aim of fomenting trouble between the US and Iran. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel potentially have the means and motivation to do that and I think it's unlikely that possibility has been properly evaluated by the US.
Entertainment and funny news sites are covering an amusing story about an American far right christian site that created a petition to get Netflix to cancel Good Omens. Since that show is an Amazon Prime original, hilarity has ensued. I pulled up full coverage on Google, to see what kind of play the story was getting. Pretty much every entertainment outlet and news site with an entertainment section had a little blurb on it. Then I noticed that someone seemed to be missing. I didn't want to jump to conclusions, so I went to their website.
This probably seems funnier to me than to most, because I'm a Snopes addict. Every day there's items that come in from the far right "blogosphere" with some variation of "...but you won't see this in the MSM." And now the first time I've actually seen that happen, it's the other way around. Just precious.
I thought it would be worth doing a follow-up to my last post saying that Saudi Arabia had a potential motivation to cause trouble between the US and Iran. There's a clear strategic interest in doing that as the states compete for influence in that area. However, there are also a couple of more specific issues which have recently been highlighted:
- the US Senate has blocked Trump's proposed use of emergency powers to go ahead with an $8bn weapons sale to Saudi Arabia. Trump will veto that, so the sale is likely to proceed anyway, but being allies in a conflict with Iran would probably help ensure that.
- a UN rapporteur looking at the Khashoggi case has concluded not only that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia bears responsibility for the death, but that there was credible evidence linking high-ranking individuals (including bin Salman) to the operation. There's a total lack of surprise at that conclusion, given the very large operation involved and the ability to order an ambassador to carry out the killing and dismemberment of a prominent citizen's body in his own embassy . A war might help to blunt memories though ...
And we're off. And THIS is why you don't elect an unhinged lunatic to the most powerful position in the world. For the 100th time. The Iran Deal was working. This is a fact. Trump ripped up the deal with NO plan for what came after. Now here we are. What took the Obama Administration nearly half a decade to achieve was destroyed, and now we are on the brink of war. Except, if this is to be believe, this buffoon may have actually had planes in the air and then called it off at the last second. So as of now we HAVEN'T attacked Iran, but they damn well know we were GOING to. Madness:
I also seem to have vivid memories about every Republican in existence prattling on and on and on about "decisiveness" and how important it is in a leader for only about the last 20 goddamn years. If it was ever reported that Barack Obama had ordered a major military operation and pulled the plug at the last minute when troops were literally in position......ah screw it, why even bother anymore.......
As far as I can read the situation, Bolton and Pompeo are salivating for a full-blown conflict and the only thing preventing it at the moment is Donald Trump's mood at any given hour. We may be one late Big Mac delivery away from war. Pleasant dreams. And worth remembering this is all over a flying camera.
It seems all too likely to me that the drone was deliberately sent into Iranian airspace with the specific intention of getting it shot down. The US has a long history of making provocative border incursions into Iran and a long history of lying about those.
Although not relating to a drone, one particularly serious example of this type of lie was when the US shot down a Iranian civil airliner in 1988. The airliner was following a normal commercial flightpath, inside Iranian airspace, when it was shot down. Although the truth about the location of the airliner and the frigate that shot it down was published fairly quickly internationally, it took the US 3 years to admit that - and it has never apologized or published a full report on the encounter. It did settle an international legal case in 1996 for $132m, though without admitting liability.
It didn't seem realistic to me that Trump would actually start a war with Iran, but maybe I'm just being naive again. Canceling a military strike partway through its implementation is the sort of impulsive decision and impulsive reversal that Trump has long been prone to make.
It seems all too likely to me that the drone was deliberately sent into Iranian airspace with the specific intention of getting it shot down. The US has a long history of making provocative border incursions into Iran and a long history of lying about those.
Although not relating to a drone, one particularly serious example of this type of lie was when the US shot down a Iranian civil airliner in 1988. The airliner was following a normal commercial flightpath, inside Iranian airspace, when it was shot down. Although the truth about the location of the airliner and the frigate that shot it down was published fairly quickly internationally, it took the US 3 years to admit that - and it has never apologized or published a full report on the encounter. It did settle an international legal case in 1996 for $132m, though without admitting liability.
They tried the tried and true boat burning ala the gulf of Tonkin hoax and no one gave a shit and the Japanese captain said flat out that the stories Pompeo and Bolton were telling were not true. Anyway, that didn't work so they accidentally or deliberately flew a drone into Irans airspace and got shot down.
Why are we droning so close to Iran anyway? They aren't going to attack us anytime soon? Fly drones around the US, quit trying to drag us into more forever wars. No more chickenhawk Republicans.
It didn't seem realistic to me that Trump would actually start a war with Iran, but maybe I'm just being naive again. Canceling a military strike partway through its implementation is the sort of impulsive decision and impulsive reversal that Trump has long been prone to make.
He probably just postponed it to be closer to the election if it looks like he'll lose he'll have no problem starting a war to distract. He won't leave office either if the election is at all close and he loses. He'll try and cry to his rigged Supreme Court for help to legitimize whatever lie and excuse he's going to go with (voter fraud probably or maybe just Democrats shouldn't be able to vote).
Well there's your reason to not start the impeachment process.
Trump will start a war to change that subject.
I also want to think that Canada and Trudeau played a part of tempering him from attacking as they've been attempting to re-establish diplomatic ties since taking office and would not stand behind the U.S. if they attacked, in fact, Trudeau might have condemned the U.S. for taking such a strong stance.
This, with Trudeau in Washington atm, would have put him in the headlines instead of Trump and we all know Trump wouldn't want that.
That's all speculation though and mostly wishful thinking that we have a prime minister that isn't as timid as he looks and acts.
Or could it be that this whole military strike ordered then called off is a lie just to scare Iran? Giving them the impression that they were minutes away from being attacked may give them pause in rhe future and it cost us nothing. There was really no way to retaliate for the drone without escalating to loss of human life so this conveniently makes it look like we were on the 'brink of war'. Face saved!
Or could it be that this whole military strike ordered then called off is a lie just to scare Iran? Giving them the impression that they were minutes away from being attacked may give them pause in rhe future and it cost us nothing. There was really no way to retaliate for the drone without escalating to loss of human life so this conveniently makes it look like we were on the 'brink of war'. Face saved!
It might scare Iran, agreed. In a similar manner it could also been seen as the US getting cold feet and caving. Hard to say.
But it also adds to the impression of Trump being irrational, given that the cancels a momentous decision like that shortly afterwards. Again, might help at scaring people but hurts as being seen as a reliable actor.
First of all, there is no way I actually believe that drone was in international water from THIS crew. As if the US wouldn't shoot down an Iranian drone off the coast of Long Island. As the meme that makes it's way around the internet says "How dare they put their country so close to our military bases??"
But secondly, we (just like most other Cabinet positions) do not have a confirmed Secretary of Defense. This is because the acting one (you know, the one who was a former defense contractor) had to withdraw his name from consideration after it was revealed he was involved in a domestic violence incident with his former wife AND defended his son after he fractured his mother's skull with a baseball bat (which makes brings the number of wife-beaters who have had to leave this Administration to two, but they have plenty of time to add even more). So, this means that the Senate has had no say whatsoever over this position and Bolton (who after Iraq shouldn't be anywhere NEAR power) and Pompeo are whispering in his ear like Iago. And now this:
This INFURIATES me. The audacity of it. Why in the ever-loving HELL would they agree to talk to you?? They were living up to their end of the nuclear deal, you lied (and did the bidding of Israel and the Saudis) and said they weren't and ripped it up. Then you DEMANDED that they live up to their end of the deal anyway, despite having no incentive to do so, and no possible way they could ever trust anything America ever says again. And you want to TALK?? This is exhibit A of the bottomless arrogance of this country, exemplified by a preening jackass who is actually a frightened child when it comes to matters like this of any consequence, which makes it all the more dangerous.
We had ONE shot at this, which the Obama Administration tried long and hard to get right. And whatever you think of them, or even if you were among the chorus talking about how naive it was to think it would work, the fact is all those people were WRONG. As of the moment Trump ripped it up, the deal was working. Iran was complying. There is NO political path to engaging with the US in talks again, because what Trump did was make the moderates who helped make it happen look like fools and delivered a victory to the hardliners. They aren't going to "talk". Who in their right mind would trust a single thing this man says??
I agree there's no chance that Iran would talk to the US at the moment. That doesn't though mean talking in the future is impossible. If, for instance, the US removed all the sanctions and actually did what the JCPOA said (which was not just to have no sanctions, but actually take some steps to encourage trade) that would remove at least some of the antagonism. After 2-3 years of that I think it would be possible for multilateral talks to start, hosted by someone other than the US. The chances of that happening would of course be far higher if Trump were not still the President at that time.
I do realize that scenario's not going to happen, but hey a man's got to be allowed to dream ...
We had ONE shot at this, which the Obama Administration tried long and hard to get right.
If the JCPOA were so important and correct then it should have been a treaty, not the political equivalent of a handshake over a beer. All it really did was give Iran a bunch of money--money that probably should not have been frozen in their accounts in the 1970s in the first place. All things considered, we do not need to be having any dealings with Iran whatsoever--now that the United States is the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world we should stop doing all business with Iran until they decide to enter the 21st Century.
At least this drone was not sent out to kill an American citizen without due process, like one of Obama's drones did. This is all just harrumphing in the early part of the election cycle, nothing more.
*************
A member of the Polish Parliament sent AOC a letter, extending "the olive branch of education" and inviting her to come to Poland so that she may learn about the reality of concentration camps by visiting some of them.
@Balrog99 So its okay for cops to kill innocent people, including children and the disabled so long as its less than common diseases?
That's not at all what I'm saying. Im saying that it isn't the wholesale epidemic slaughter that you're portraying. So how many children and/or disabled people are we talking about? I'd bet it's a very tiny percentage of the total. It really doesnt seem to me that we have 900,000 homicidal maniacs roaming the steets looking for people to blow away. I daresay there'd be, at least, a thousand times as many deaths if that were the case...
If over 900 hundred people being killed over the course of 6 months isn't a slaughter, what is? Don't think this is problematic?
No, I really don't. 900 sounds like a lot of people but it's not really. Sorry. There are 325 million people in the country and over 7 billion on the planet. Is it acceptable? No, of course it should ideally be 0 but it's not the wide-scale problem you seem to think it is...
You are perfectly fine with 900 people dying? Its not a lot!? Where exactly do you have to be in life where murder on a large scale is apparently fine? Do you just not care because its not you? What if your wife or daughter was one of those 900? Would you still claim this isn't a problem?! A SINGLE CHILD KILLED BY POLICE IS UNACCEPTABLE. Your comments on this are frankly, utterly disgusting.
@Balrog99 So its okay for cops to kill innocent people, including children and the disabled so long as its less than common diseases?
That's not at all what I'm saying. Im saying that it isn't the wholesale epidemic slaughter that you're portraying. So how many children and/or disabled people are we talking about? I'd bet it's a very tiny percentage of the total. It really doesnt seem to me that we have 900,000 homicidal maniacs roaming the steets looking for people to blow away. I daresay there'd be, at least, a thousand times as many deaths if that were the case...
If over 900 hundred people being killed over the course of 6 months isn't a slaughter, what is? Don't think this is problematic?
No, I really don't. 900 sounds like a lot of people but it's not really. Sorry. There are 325 million people in the country and over 7 billion on the planet. Is it acceptable? No, of course it should ideally be 0 but it's not the wide-scale problem you seem to think it is...
You are perfectly fine with 900 people dying? Its not a lot!? Where exactly do you have to be in life where murder on a large scale is apparently fine? Do you just not care because its not you? What if your wife or daughter was one of those 900? Would you still claim this isn't a problem?! A SINGLE CHILD KILLED BY POLICE IS UNACCEPTABLE. Your comments on this are frankly, utterly disgusting.
If the JCPOA were so important and correct then it should have been a treaty, not the political equivalent of a handshake over a beer. All it really did was give Iran a bunch of money--money that probably should not have been frozen in their accounts in the 1970s in the first place. All things considered, we do not need to be having any dealings with Iran whatsoever--now that the United States is the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world we should stop doing all business with Iran until they decide to enter the 21st Century.
It put in place a framework that was designed - and accordingly to the international community, seemed to be working to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
It wasn't made a treaty because congress has to ratify a treaty, and the GOP was firmly intent on obstructionism on this front. It wasn't even an issue of negotiating with congress. The GOP was only interested in obstruction.
At least this drone was not sent out to kill an American citizen without due process, like one of Obama's drones did. This is all just harrumphing in the early part of the election cycle, nothing more.
It put in place a framework that was designed - and accordingly to the international community, seemed to be working to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
It wasn't made a treaty because congress has to ratify a treaty, and the GOP was firmly intent on obstructionism on this front. It wasn't even an issue of negotiating with congress. The GOP was only interested in obstruction.
The Republicans were right to oppose the JCPOA. If Iran is such an upstanding member of the international community why shouldn't they be allowed to have nuclear weapons?
This is often the "argument" used when a valid point cannot be refuted. Obama personally ordered the death of an American citizen without due process of law.
This is often the "argument" used when a valid point cannot be refuted. Obama personally ordered the death of an American citizen without due process of law.
Remind me again, how is Obama ordering a drone strike is even remotely related to the current crisis of diplomacy with Iran? It's not. It was a total non sequitur.
The Republicans were right to oppose the JCPOA. If Iran is such an upstanding member of the international community why shouldn't they be allowed to have nuclear weapons
Bad faith argument is bad faith. You haven't explained why republicans should oppose the JCPOA, and you know exactly why Iran (and literally every other country in the world which doesn't already have nuclear weapons) should be incentivized not to obtain them.
Personal arguments have no place in this thread, folks. We are not here to throw out accusations at each other; we are here to share ideas.
Rule 1: No Flaming, Personal Attacks, or Disrespectful Behavior
Respectful behavior is mandatory for all forumites, to all forumites. Regardless of how passionately you may care about a given subject, there is no tolerance for showing disrespect or unkindness to your fellow forumites. Everyone has an equal right to express their viewpoint, and while viewpoints may disagree, no one is entitled to attack another person's character, intelligence, morality, or enlightenment.
This thread is here for people of differing viewpoints to discuss political issues in a polite, civil, and courteous way, to listen to each other from a position of empathy, and to agree or disagree without dismissing or belittling others. Ascribing absurd or sinister views to another forumite is against the rules.
I've been trying to figure out how to approach this issue in a post for the last 48 hours. Over the past few days, plenty of vitriol has been thrown at AOC for her unapologetic labeling of the child detention camps as "concentration camps". Nevermind that plenty of legitimate scholars of the subject say the label is entirely accurate. This entire debate lays bare the pedantry and sophistry of the mainstream media and the right supposedly obsessed with civility and decorum. They are more concerned about how AOC talks about the camps than the horrors that are taking place there. They may not be "death camps" (though at least 7 children have died in them) and they aren't "extermination camps", but they are, in every way, concentration camps, which are meant to house a certain group of people away from others outside of legal protections.
Don't believe me?? Well, that's fine I guess. Just know that your government was in court this week arguing that they have NO obligation to provide these children with toothpaste or soap and have every right to make them sleep on concrete floors. The judges hearing the arguments were visibly aghast at the arguments being made before them. They were dumbfounded. There are children going weeks without bathing or changing clothes. In some cases workers are feeding them uncooked frozen food (which as far as I can tell is one step from starvation, because how is a child supposed to eat a frozen block of food).
We can sit around and pretend this isn't happening and that it isn't being done on purpose. But mark my words on this. In 15 years, one (or many) of these children are going to write a book about what happened in these detention centers. And everyone will be horrified and shocked and say "how could we have known it was so bad??" And the answer to that question is that those people have been refusing to listen to those of us who were sounding the alarm on this from day one.
Watch this oral argument and try to remind yourself this isn't satire:
The JCPOA is not just a domestic act by one US president that can be repudiated by another without consequences. It was endorsed by a unanimous resolution of the UN Security Council that requires all UN member states to support it - the US is thus currently in flagrant violation of a significant UN requirement. In order to avoid breaching its international responsibilities the US could either seek to change the resolution (likely to be difficult given almost all other countries support it) or leave the UN.
It put in place a framework that was designed - and accordingly to the international community, seemed to be working to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
It wasn't made a treaty because congress has to ratify a treaty, and the GOP was firmly intent on obstructionism on this front. It wasn't even an issue of negotiating with congress. The GOP was only interested in obstruction.
The Republicans were right to oppose the JCPOA. If Iran is such an upstanding member of the international community why shouldn't they be allowed to have nuclear weapons?
Why should the US? The ONLY country to use nuclear weapons against another country, and the one country for 2 - 3 decades using the threat of a nuclear bomb again as a diplomatic negotiation tactic.
So, this type of treaty is to prevent other countries from playing from the same book the US has played from since WW2.
But this was also the opposite. Iran was willing to give up its nuclear ambitions for relief in other ways. Diplomatic relations was getting better (and still are with other countries who don’t elect a tantrum throwing toddler to their head of state) and are still salvageable regardless of what the US tries.
The EU won’t back an Iran war. Canada won’t back. Asian (Japan, SK) countries won’t back it. That leaves UK (and if Boris is elected he just might) and Australia (but doubt they would) who would follow the US into another pointless war.
This is often the "argument" used when a valid point cannot be refuted. Obama personally ordered the death of an American citizen without due process of law.
If Al-Awaki deserved due process, then so did a half-million Confederate soldiers. Whether he was a citizen or not is immaterial since he was a commander of a paramilitary force that had declared war on the US. He was just as legitimate a target of war as Yamamoto.
Meh. I had answers and other topics to address but I forgot that it isn't worth the hassle.
Now...where was I? Oh, yes.... No one is going to war against Iran. To those who support Iran by stating that the JCPOA was a good deal, well, just remember that Iran is a country where they outlaw hair styles for young men. The UN cannot enforce the JCPOA and so removing ourselves from that deal our choice to make. I reiterate the point--if those who wished for it had *really* wanted it then it would have become a treaty, not a handshake.
They were discussing reparations in Congress again. Suppose there is a person who happens to be black but who cannot prove that they had any ancestors who might have been enslaved--would that person receive money? There are other questions about that topic which I doubt anyone is ready, or willing, to answer right now, such as: will the First Nations receive money? will people who had Chinese ancestors who were enslaved while working on the railroads receive money? will people whose ancestors attained freedom before Emancipation receive less money because they obtained their freedom before the others?
ICE is already beginning raids in various cities. It is unlikely that all of those raids will end well.
So I suppose the response to this is going to be the usual ho-hum, but there is an article in New York magazine today in which Jean Carroll (longtime writer for the magazine) describes here multiple interactions with men harassing or even assaulting her over the years. One of them is Les Moonves. Another is the President of the United States. Except what she describes is nothing short of flat-out rape if true. Is it true?? Well, Trump obviously says it isn't. He says he has never met her before. One problem with his opening defense however in that regard. The article literally has a photo of them standing right next to each other.
First of all, there is no way I actually believe that drone was in international water from THIS crew. As if the US wouldn't shoot down an Iranian drone off the coast of Long Island. As the meme that makes it's way around the internet says "How dare they put their country so close to our military bases??"
But secondly, we (just like most other Cabinet positions) do not have a confirmed Secretary of Defense. This is because the acting one (you know, the one who was a former defense contractor) had to withdraw his name from consideration after it was revealed he was involved in a domestic violence incident with his former wife AND defended his son after he fractured his mother's skull with a baseball bat (which makes brings the number of wife-beaters who have had to leave this Administration to two, but they have plenty of time to add even more).
You're forgetting the man himself.
Documenting Trump’s Abuse of Women
for his 1993 book, “The Lost Tycoon,” Harry Hurt III acquired Ivana’s divorce deposition, in which she stated that Trump raped her.
After Hurt watched the infamous "grab em by the pussy" tape, he said, “I thought, Finally, this behavior is coming out.” Researching his book, in the early nineties, Hurt discovered and documented more serious instances of Trump’s mistreatment of women, yet had trouble getting news outlets to report on them.
The part of the book that caused the most controversy concerns Trump’s divorce from his first wife, Ivana. Hurt obtained a copy of her sworn divorce deposition, from 1990, in which she stated that, the previous year, her husband had raped her in a fit of rage.
In Hurt’s account, Trump was furious that a “scalp reduction” operation he’d undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation, Hurt wrote, Trump yanked out a handful of his wife’s hair, and then forced himself on her sexually.
She later, as part of her divorce settlement to get money despite the draconian pre-nup she'd been forced to sign, she backed off the language from the rape description she'd used.
Comments
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1016216
Edit: That link is interesting but it was harder to glean the actual numbers than I thought when I posted it. The relevant numbers I wanted to point out were 47,000 suicides, 88,000 deaths involving alcohol and 70,000 deaths by dug overdose in rhe US in 2017.
I don't think that's so much an issue in relation to the drone, but it absolutely is in relation to the attacks on shipping, where Iran has denied carrying them out. Personally I think the most likely explanation is that Iranians did carry out the attacks, but without authorization from the full government. I think it's also quite possible though that a third party carried out the attacks with the specific aim of fomenting trouble between the US and Iran. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel potentially have the means and motivation to do that and I think it's unlikely that possibility has been properly evaluated by the US.
Entertainment and funny news sites are covering an amusing story about an American far right christian site that created a petition to get Netflix to cancel Good Omens. Since that show is an Amazon Prime original, hilarity has ensued. I pulled up full coverage on Google, to see what kind of play the story was getting. Pretty much every entertainment outlet and news site with an entertainment section had a little blurb on it. Then I noticed that someone seemed to be missing. I didn't want to jump to conclusions, so I went to their website.
This probably seems funnier to me than to most, because I'm a Snopes addict. Every day there's items that come in from the far right "blogosphere" with some variation of "...but you won't see this in the MSM." And now the first time I've actually seen that happen, it's the other way around. Just precious.
- the US Senate has blocked Trump's proposed use of emergency powers to go ahead with an $8bn weapons sale to Saudi Arabia. Trump will veto that, so the sale is likely to proceed anyway, but being allies in a conflict with Iran would probably help ensure that.
- a UN rapporteur looking at the Khashoggi case has concluded not only that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia bears responsibility for the death, but that there was credible evidence linking high-ranking individuals (including bin Salman) to the operation. There's a total lack of surprise at that conclusion, given the very large operation involved and the ability to order an ambassador to carry out the killing and dismemberment of a prominent citizen's body in his own embassy
I also seem to have vivid memories about every Republican in existence prattling on and on and on about "decisiveness" and how important it is in a leader for only about the last 20 goddamn years. If it was ever reported that Barack Obama had ordered a major military operation and pulled the plug at the last minute when troops were literally in position......ah screw it, why even bother anymore.......
As far as I can read the situation, Bolton and Pompeo are salivating for a full-blown conflict and the only thing preventing it at the moment is Donald Trump's mood at any given hour. We may be one late Big Mac delivery away from war. Pleasant dreams. And worth remembering this is all over a flying camera.
Although not relating to a drone, one particularly serious example of this type of lie was when the US shot down a Iranian civil airliner in 1988. The airliner was following a normal commercial flightpath, inside Iranian airspace, when it was shot down. Although the truth about the location of the airliner and the frigate that shot it down was published fairly quickly internationally, it took the US 3 years to admit that - and it has never apologized or published a full report on the encounter. It did settle an international legal case in 1996 for $132m, though without admitting liability.
They tried the tried and true boat burning ala the gulf of Tonkin hoax and no one gave a shit and the Japanese captain said flat out that the stories Pompeo and Bolton were telling were not true. Anyway, that didn't work so they accidentally or deliberately flew a drone into Irans airspace and got shot down.
Why are we droning so close to Iran anyway? They aren't going to attack us anytime soon? Fly drones around the US, quit trying to drag us into more forever wars. No more chickenhawk Republicans.
He probably just postponed it to be closer to the election if it looks like he'll lose he'll have no problem starting a war to distract. He won't leave office either if the election is at all close and he loses. He'll try and cry to his rigged Supreme Court for help to legitimize whatever lie and excuse he's going to go with (voter fraud probably or maybe just Democrats shouldn't be able to vote).
Trump will start a war to change that subject.
I also want to think that Canada and Trudeau played a part of tempering him from attacking as they've been attempting to re-establish diplomatic ties since taking office and would not stand behind the U.S. if they attacked, in fact, Trudeau might have condemned the U.S. for taking such a strong stance.
This, with Trudeau in Washington atm, would have put him in the headlines instead of Trump and we all know Trump wouldn't want that.
That's all speculation though and mostly wishful thinking that we have a prime minister that isn't as timid as he looks and acts.
It might scare Iran, agreed. In a similar manner it could also been seen as the US getting cold feet and caving. Hard to say.
But it also adds to the impression of Trump being irrational, given that the cancels a momentous decision like that shortly afterwards. Again, might help at scaring people but hurts as being seen as a reliable actor.
But secondly, we (just like most other Cabinet positions) do not have a confirmed Secretary of Defense. This is because the acting one (you know, the one who was a former defense contractor) had to withdraw his name from consideration after it was revealed he was involved in a domestic violence incident with his former wife AND defended his son after he fractured his mother's skull with a baseball bat (which makes brings the number of wife-beaters who have had to leave this Administration to two, but they have plenty of time to add even more). So, this means that the Senate has had no say whatsoever over this position and Bolton (who after Iraq shouldn't be anywhere NEAR power) and Pompeo are whispering in his ear like Iago. And now this:
This INFURIATES me. The audacity of it. Why in the ever-loving HELL would they agree to talk to you?? They were living up to their end of the nuclear deal, you lied (and did the bidding of Israel and the Saudis) and said they weren't and ripped it up. Then you DEMANDED that they live up to their end of the deal anyway, despite having no incentive to do so, and no possible way they could ever trust anything America ever says again. And you want to TALK?? This is exhibit A of the bottomless arrogance of this country, exemplified by a preening jackass who is actually a frightened child when it comes to matters like this of any consequence, which makes it all the more dangerous.
We had ONE shot at this, which the Obama Administration tried long and hard to get right. And whatever you think of them, or even if you were among the chorus talking about how naive it was to think it would work, the fact is all those people were WRONG. As of the moment Trump ripped it up, the deal was working. Iran was complying. There is NO political path to engaging with the US in talks again, because what Trump did was make the moderates who helped make it happen look like fools and delivered a victory to the hardliners. They aren't going to "talk". Who in their right mind would trust a single thing this man says??
I do realize that scenario's not going to happen, but hey a man's got to be allowed to dream ...
How dare you say that about Sergeant Droney McDroneface! (snif) He was just 3 days away from retirement (snif)
We must avenge SGT McDroneface!
If the JCPOA were so important and correct then it should have been a treaty, not the political equivalent of a handshake over a beer. All it really did was give Iran a bunch of money--money that probably should not have been frozen in their accounts in the 1970s in the first place. All things considered, we do not need to be having any dealings with Iran whatsoever--now that the United States is the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world we should stop doing all business with Iran until they decide to enter the 21st Century.
At least this drone was not sent out to kill an American citizen without due process, like one of Obama's drones did. This is all just harrumphing in the early part of the election cycle, nothing more.
*************
A member of the Polish Parliament sent AOC a letter, extending "the olive branch of education" and inviting her to come to Poland so that she may learn about the reality of concentration camps by visiting some of them.
You are perfectly fine with 900 people dying? Its not a lot!? Where exactly do you have to be in life where murder on a large scale is apparently fine? Do you just not care because its not you? What if your wife or daughter was one of those 900? Would you still claim this isn't a problem?! A SINGLE CHILD KILLED BY POLICE IS UNACCEPTABLE. Your comments on this are frankly, utterly disgusting.
No, I'm sorry you're utterly naieve!
It put in place a framework that was designed - and accordingly to the international community, seemed to be working to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
It wasn't made a treaty because congress has to ratify a treaty, and the GOP was firmly intent on obstructionism on this front. It wasn't even an issue of negotiating with congress. The GOP was only interested in obstruction.
Non-sequitor/whataboutism
The Republicans were right to oppose the JCPOA. If Iran is such an upstanding member of the international community why shouldn't they be allowed to have nuclear weapons?
This is often the "argument" used when a valid point cannot be refuted. Obama personally ordered the death of an American citizen without due process of law.
Remind me again, how is Obama ordering a drone strike is even remotely related to the current crisis of diplomacy with Iran? It's not. It was a total non sequitur.
Bad faith argument is bad faith. You haven't explained why republicans should oppose the JCPOA, and you know exactly why Iran (and literally every other country in the world which doesn't already have nuclear weapons) should be incentivized not to obtain them.
Don't believe me?? Well, that's fine I guess. Just know that your government was in court this week arguing that they have NO obligation to provide these children with toothpaste or soap and have every right to make them sleep on concrete floors. The judges hearing the arguments were visibly aghast at the arguments being made before them. They were dumbfounded. There are children going weeks without bathing or changing clothes. In some cases workers are feeding them uncooked frozen food (which as far as I can tell is one step from starvation, because how is a child supposed to eat a frozen block of food).
We can sit around and pretend this isn't happening and that it isn't being done on purpose. But mark my words on this. In 15 years, one (or many) of these children are going to write a book about what happened in these detention centers. And everyone will be horrified and shocked and say "how could we have known it was so bad??" And the answer to that question is that those people have been refusing to listen to those of us who were sounding the alarm on this from day one.
Watch this oral argument and try to remind yourself this isn't satire:
http://media.crooksandliars.com/2019/06/42601.mp4_high.mp4
Why should the US? The ONLY country to use nuclear weapons against another country, and the one country for 2 - 3 decades using the threat of a nuclear bomb again as a diplomatic negotiation tactic.
So, this type of treaty is to prevent other countries from playing from the same book the US has played from since WW2.
But this was also the opposite. Iran was willing to give up its nuclear ambitions for relief in other ways. Diplomatic relations was getting better (and still are with other countries who don’t elect a tantrum throwing toddler to their head of state) and are still salvageable regardless of what the US tries.
The EU won’t back an Iran war. Canada won’t back. Asian (Japan, SK) countries won’t back it. That leaves UK (and if Boris is elected he just might) and Australia (but doubt they would) who would follow the US into another pointless war.
If Al-Awaki deserved due process, then so did a half-million Confederate soldiers. Whether he was a citizen or not is immaterial since he was a commander of a paramilitary force that had declared war on the US. He was just as legitimate a target of war as Yamamoto.
Now...where was I? Oh, yes.... No one is going to war against Iran. To those who support Iran by stating that the JCPOA was a good deal, well, just remember that Iran is a country where they outlaw hair styles for young men. The UN cannot enforce the JCPOA and so removing ourselves from that deal our choice to make. I reiterate the point--if those who wished for it had *really* wanted it then it would have become a treaty, not a handshake.
They were discussing reparations in Congress again. Suppose there is a person who happens to be black but who cannot prove that they had any ancestors who might have been enslaved--would that person receive money? There are other questions about that topic which I doubt anyone is ready, or willing, to answer right now, such as: will the First Nations receive money? will people who had Chinese ancestors who were enslaved while working on the railroads receive money? will people whose ancestors attained freedom before Emancipation receive less money because they obtained their freedom before the others?
ICE is already beginning raids in various cities. It is unlikely that all of those raids will end well.
You're forgetting the man himself.
Documenting Trump’s Abuse of Women
for his 1993 book, “The Lost Tycoon,” Harry Hurt III acquired Ivana’s divorce deposition, in which she stated that Trump raped her.
After Hurt watched the infamous "grab em by the pussy" tape, he said, “I thought, Finally, this behavior is coming out.” Researching his book, in the early nineties, Hurt discovered and documented more serious instances of Trump’s mistreatment of women, yet had trouble getting news outlets to report on them.
The part of the book that caused the most controversy concerns Trump’s divorce from his first wife, Ivana. Hurt obtained a copy of her sworn divorce deposition, from 1990, in which she stated that, the previous year, her husband had raped her in a fit of rage.
In Hurt’s account, Trump was furious that a “scalp reduction” operation he’d undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation, Hurt wrote, Trump yanked out a handful of his wife’s hair, and then forced himself on her sexually.
She later, as part of her divorce settlement to get money despite the draconian pre-nup she'd been forced to sign, she backed off the language from the rape description she'd used.