Getting out of all these foriegn entanglements was Central to both the Trump and Obama campaigns. Yet here we are, with expanded new powers and authority to boot. We vote for the peace candidate and get military action every time. Trump hasn't been too bad on this, compared to his predecessors,but even using the powers he was given and not changing them is bad enough.
I have no idea if Iran is behind the embassy attack. I operate under the assumption whatever Trump says is true is 9/10 times the exact opposite. But if Iran WAS involved, that is 110% on Trump. He's the one who ripped up the nuclear deal for NO other reason than it was a diplomatic achievement of the Obama Administration. Trump owns what happens with Iran and North Korea going forward lock, stock and barrel. He met with Kim and got nothing. He made sure Iran would never engage in non-military negotiations with the US ever again.
As for leaving Iraq, I mean, the time for that was before we went in. I was among the extreme minority in 2003 saying it was complete bullshit. Doing so got you labeled as a just short of a traitor among your own friends and family members. Erik goddamn Prince is still a central figure in right-wing politics, including this Adminstration. John Bolton was the National Security advisor until about 5 minutes ago. I have never been inconsistent in my belief that Bush is, still, after everything, on balance, worse than Trump. He pushed for and started a full-scale ground war in the Middle East based on lies. Many of which people still believe to this day. As time goes on, it becomes comparable in duplicity and blowback to even Vietnam. In fact, I'd argue they are neck and neck.
Vietnam was mission creep. The second Iraq war was a lie.
Indeed it was, and it wasn't a simple lie, but a systemic one aided by many people in the press, the government, and more.
I grew up during the Iraq War and the lies that surrounded it were my first lessons in politics. I've never been able to trust what people in high places say without verification anymore, and the less accountable they are the less I trust them.
I have no idea if Iran is behind the embassy attack. I operate under the assumption whatever Trump says is true is 9/10 times the exact opposite. But if Iran WAS involved, that is 110% on Trump. He's the one who ripped up the nuclear deal
I find this extremely unlikely to be the cause, but stranger things have happened.
Make both available to any two people who want them. The arguments against it in 2019 are antiquated nonsense.
That may be so, but with the way public opinion is changing among young people, we may be having that debate yet again. Now it is a minority among the young who are comfortable with it, a drop of nearly 20% in recent years.
I'm not convinced that survey is measuring what you think it is. I had a quick look to try and find the survey, but was unable to do so. GLAAD publishes an Executive Summary, but that says you need to email them with questions about methodology and data - which doesn't inspire me with confidence. The Harris Poll, who did the survey, have just a news release about it and provide no information about the basis for the survey.
Although there are a few issues that look potentially problematic, the one that I think might be the real driver for changing results is the way the survey asks the questions. I don't know exactly what those questions are, but the answers highlighted in the summary refer to the % of people feeling uncomfortable in particular situations - such as a family member revealing themselves as LGBT. Given the high profile assaults Trump has made on transgender status, it would not be surprising in the least if more people felt uncomfortable about a family member being transgender - but because they fear the reaction of others, not because they believe there is anything innately wrong about that. That explanation would be consistent with the findings of the survey that the proportion of people supporting LGBT rights remains high (79% in 2016 and 2017, 80% in 2018).
We can pull out anytime we want to. No preconditions neccesary. Neither Assad nor Hassan nor the boogieman of the moment is going to attack us, and I am sure they would be just fine seeing us go. Because the government, in bipartisan fashion, wants permanent war and occupation, they will always put us in a position to be obligated until we insist that enough is enough.
I don't think it's that straight-forward. For instance Israel has said very clearly they will not allow Iran to develop nuclear missiles - and said they will take military action if necessary to prevent that. If the US said they were just washing their hands of the region, conflict between Israel and Iran would seem extremely likely - at which point there would be great pressure on the US to involve themselves again.
On lots of issues today (climate change, nuclear proliferation, militarization of space, pollution, biodiversity etc), the world is just a far smaller place than it was even a generation ago and I think it's no longer realistic for any country to either just ignore such international issues or determine what actions they will take without considering the international implications of their decisions. Where action (or inaction) affects everyone in the world, ignoring those effects is just creating problems rather than solving them.
Make both available to any two people who want them. The arguments against it in 2019 are antiquated nonsense.
That may be so, but with the way public opinion is changing among young people, we may be having that debate yet again. Now it is a minority among the young who are comfortable with it, a drop of nearly 20% in recent years.
I'm not convinced that survey is measuring what you think it is. I had a quick look to try and find the survey, but was unable to do so. GLAAD publishes an Executive Summary, but that says you need to email them with questions about methodology and data - which doesn't inspire me with confidence. The Harris Poll, who did the survey, have just a news release about it and provide no information about the basis for the survey.
Although there are a few issues that look potentially problematic, the one that I think might be the real driver for changing results is the way the survey asks the questions. I don't know exactly what those questions are, but the answers highlighted in the summary refer to the % of people feeling uncomfortable in particular situations - such as a family member revealing themselves as LGBT. Given the high profile assaults Trump has made on transgender status, it would not be surprising in the least if more people felt uncomfortable about a family member being transgender - but because they fear the reaction of others, not because they believe there is anything innately wrong about that. That explanation would be consistent with the findings of the survey that the proportion of people supporting LGBT rights remains high (79% in 2016 and 2017, 80% in 2018).
The survey itself probably doesn't, because the numbers I was quoting come from the other report.
"The number of Americans 18 to 34 who are comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people slipped from 53% in 2017 to 45% in 2018 – the only age group to show a decline, according to the annual Accelerating Acceptance report. And that is down from 63% in 2016."
Anyways, happy new year. And new decade. This past one just flew by, for me.
Make both available to any two people who want them. The arguments against it in 2019 are antiquated nonsense.
That may be so, but with the way public opinion is changing among young people, we may be having that debate yet again. Now it is a minority among the young who are comfortable with it, a drop of nearly 20% in recent years.
I'm not convinced that survey is measuring what you think it is. I had a quick look to try and find the survey, but was unable to do so. GLAAD publishes an Executive Summary, but that says you need to email them with questions about methodology and data - which doesn't inspire me with confidence. The Harris Poll, who did the survey, have just a news release about it and provide no information about the basis for the survey.
Although there are a few issues that look potentially problematic, the one that I think might be the real driver for changing results is the way the survey asks the questions. I don't know exactly what those questions are, but the answers highlighted in the summary refer to the % of people feeling uncomfortable in particular situations - such as a family member revealing themselves as LGBT. Given the high profile assaults Trump has made on transgender status, it would not be surprising in the least if more people felt uncomfortable about a family member being transgender - but because they fear the reaction of others, not because they believe there is anything innately wrong about that. That explanation would be consistent with the findings of the survey that the proportion of people supporting LGBT rights remains high (79% in 2016 and 2017, 80% in 2018).
The survey itself probably doesn't, because the numbers I was quoting come from the other report.
"The number of Americans 18 to 34 who are comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people slipped from 53% in 2017 to 45% in 2018 – the only age group to show a decline, according to the annual Accelerating Acceptance report. And that is down from 63% in 2016."
That's the same report. I'm just not convinced that the report is correct saying that this is a reflection of people being less comfortable interacting with LGBT (as opposed to being more concerned about how the world will treat LGBT).
Anyways, happy new year. And new decade. This past one just flew by, for me.
And best wishes to you. My Dad collapsed yesterday while I was visiting him, so I got a ride in an ambulance. He's over 90 now and increasingly frail, so no great surprise he's having health problems - but it does rather bring home how time is marching on .
I am not saying Iran would push for an attack on the embassy as a direct result of the nuclear deal being torpedoed. What I'm saying is they were abiding by it's terms, and the main partner on the other side bailed on the agreement because of what can charitably be described as domestic political concerns (but what in actuality is Trump's bottomless envy of Barack Obama). Trusting the US in any way, shape or form ever again would be akin to believing your heroin-addict son is borrowing $400 for "the rent". The only viable choice they have left is to start flexing their muscles as strongly as possible in the entire region. We broke our word. The Iranians don't care that we changed Presidents. In their eyes, the United States a duplicitous liars. And they're correct. Assuming they ARE the power behind the attack, in what universe would they ever organize a full-scale attack on an American embassy if the deal was still in place and risk losing it as reprisal??
The Iraq War was a pretty simple lie actually. The Bush Administration insinuated every day for over a year that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 (he had nothing to do with it) and that he was building weapons of mass destruction (which were outright said to be nuclear bombs that could hit an American city). It was all poppycock. Anyone who was paying any attention knew it. But they correctly judged (and this is an indictment of the populous) that the American public would support attacking ANY country as long as it had Muslims to kill. The straight-up ignorance of most of the electorate during this time was absolutely astounding. And boy did we kill and kill some more. At the absolute bare minimum, we killed 100,000 innocent people. The number may be as high as a million. But aside from the slaughter, the absolute most bone-headed move in the modern history of American foreign policy was Coalition Provisional Authority Order 2, which disbanded the Iraqi military and left thousands upon thousands of men with no way to support their families (the ones we hadn't blown up already). They quite predictably took up arms as militants. This is the main reason ISIS exists.
And the "liberal" media (this is the #1 reason that term is such a joke) went along for the ride to the point of basically being stenographers. There has never been a reckoning for it. I still maintain one of the reasons Trump won the GOP primary was because he offered Republican voters an "out" for their balls to the walls support of that war. He told them they didn't have to be accountable for it. They could just blame Jeb, as if every damn Trump voter in the country wasn't sporting "love it or leave it" bumper stickers on their SUV and didn't have Bush/Cheney signs on their lawn in 2004. This was also what the Tea Party was about. It wasn't about deficits (an absolutely laughable explanation in retrospect). It was about erasing culpability for Bush.
@WarChiefZeke "Does nobody cares out foriegn policy or civil liberties anymore? The entire discourse around the Trump era has been about the most irrelevant, tangential subjects."
Yup, rising hate crime rates, trying to oust all trans members of the military, encouraging police violence, ruining a hard fought agreement with Iran, putting children in concentration camps. We havde been criticizing all these things for some time now, but apparently these have nothing to with forgeign policy or civil liberties. Just irrelevant subjects. Really shouldn't be surprised I guess, since you recently defended segregation of all things.
And best wishes to you. My Dad collapsed yesterday while I was visiting him, so I got a ride in an ambulance. He's over 90 now and increasingly frail, so no great surprise he's having health problems - but it does rather bring home how time is marching on .
Much love to you and your family. Hope your Father gets well soon.
The Iraq War was a pretty simple lie actually. The Bush Administration insinuated every day for over a year that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 (he had nothing to do with it) and that he was building weapons of mass destruction (which were outright said to be nuclear bombs that could hit an American city). It was all poppycock. Anyone who was paying any attention knew it. But they correctly judged (and this is an indictment of the populous) that the American public would support attacking ANY country as long as it had Muslims to kill. The straight-up ignorance of most of the electorate during this time was absolutely astounding. And boy did we kill and kill some more. At the absolute bare minimum, we killed 100,000 innocent people. The number may be as high as a million. But aside from the slaughter, the absolute most bone-headed move in the modern history of American foreign policy was Coalition Provisional Authority Order 2, which disbanded the Iraqi military and left thousands upon thousands of men with no way to support their families (the ones we hadn't blown up already). They quite predictably took up arms as militants. This is the main reason ISIS exists.
TBH - this reminds me a bit of Vichy Syndrome. Vichy Syndrome was the phenomenon attributed to post WWII France where the general population all sort of collectively decided that they were subtlety supporting the French Resistance and were not collaborators in any way shape or form (When in reality, There were plenty of collaborators, and plenty of people that were just generally not involved - an occupied populace just trying to survive).
To be clear on two points: First - I was too young to be meaningfully politically aware of the origin of the Iraq war. Second - I'm not doubting that *you* were skeptical of the war, but I do think it's incorrect to suggest that the majority of the US population knew it was a lie and decided to believe otherwise in order to "kill Muslims". I think most people were still in some manner of shock from 9/11, and were ready to believe the government's word on who was responsible and how best to deal with it.
I do believe there are a lot of people who supported the war initially, and now regret it - and that regret manifests as "I never supported the war!". People arent particularly good at recognizing their own mistakes and honestly accounting for them.
(For the record - I think the same thing will happen with Trump in 20 or 30 years. Miraculously, most people who voted for Trump will identify as Never-Trumpers, especially Evangelicals).
Hard to really paint a picture of the atmosphere in the march to war in 2003. The reactionary right and evangelicals talk about being marginalized now, it is NOTHING compared to the lack of outlets and information sources for anti-war voices in 2003. Eventually, we got a fledgling talk-radio network that was only in select markets in Air America. Liberal blogs were ascendant by necessity, but high-speed internet wasn't the norm. The only reason I was plugged in was because of satellite radio and the liberal talk station (none of whose shows were also syndicated on regular airwaves at the time). No Twitter, no Facebook, no YouTube to push back. The message was completey controlled, and the media were in the thrall of the Bush Administration. Phil Donahue and Ashley Banfield were the only mainstream media voices being critical of what was happening in the run-up, and they were literally fired for doing so. 16 years later, there is still no acknowledgement of just how spot-on the anti-Iraq War left was. Being in a "haze" over 9/11 was never an excuse. That feeling was what Afghanistan was meant to take care of, and nearly EVERYONE was on board with that, because there was a clear connection to the attacks. Of course, Bush never got Bin Laden. Instead he went and opened up a war of choice on a completely unrelated front. Memory. The liberal super-power.
The Reactionary Mind by Corey Robin goes into this tendency in great detail. It's a rather amazing breakdown of how reactionary politics are structured in the mode of doing the thing while accusing other people of doing the thing.
The irony is that far left was the first to react, to what it correctly perceived as social injustice.
This is exactly why I continue to advocate for evolutionary approach, that doesn't "shoehorn" things "down people's throats" and doesn't provoke strong defensive reactions that polarize the society instead of unifying it.
But apparently some people want their candy right here, right now, and screw what happens after they crack the vending machine open. Depressing.
This is demonstrably false. Sure, point to a couple of tankies to prove your point but overall, the left is far too diverse to slot into a single box like this, and certainly not this BS horseshoe theory nonsense that the far left and the far right are comparable to this degree.
Fishhook theory is the real thing, though.
I had to come back: Just imagine looking at the "subsidized health care for everyone, poverty should be eliminated, everyone should have housing, everyone should have enough to eat" left and the "we need to remove anyone who isn't cisgender, straight, white, and able-bodied from society" right and thinking "Yes, these are exactly the same.
Just how many churches have the far left shot up in the past few years, exactly?
That's kinda my point - you (and not just you) keep comparing apples (far left) to oranges (far right), while I simply call both fruits (extremists). One refuses to hire based on skin color, the other bans for speaking racist word. Yes, that's exactly the same in my book.
Also since when has the left been about strong economy and the right about social politics? I thought it was the other way around...
When numbers dipped a year ago for young males, GLAAD went to where male audiences consume content: video games. The advocacy group worked with the industry to introduce diverse characters and help shape attitudes.
Jesus... someone really needs to read up on the concept of reverse psychology.
This tweet is very telling about the reasons why Barr had opened an investigation on how Trump’s campaign first began to be monitored by the FBI.
It is all coming down to creating a narrative to offer pardons to the “a lot of good people” who were taken down by the Mueller report. His base, as well as right wing media, will defend pardoning everyone from Manafort to Flynn to Stone, not because the IG report says it was a corrupt investigation but because Barr and Trump are pushing that narrative.
I can see him offering pardons right after his State of the Union address and in the first week of the Impeachment Trial if the news cycle isn’t being kind to him or the Republicans.
Every one of them had a top-notch legal defense and either a.) pled gulity or b.) was convicted by a jury of their peers. It's not like they are some guys from New York who sat in prison for decades wrongfully railroaded for an attack and rape in Central Park while a certain real estate tycoon ran a media campaign called for them to be executed........
Two different investigations anyway. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies during their investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election to help elect Trump.
The Ukraine impeachment is due to Trump meddling in the 2020 election through a bribery/extortion scheme to benefit his campaign.
Why's he conflating the two, they are about different elections. He must think the people who think he's not lying everytime he tweets are really gullible. It's sad how dumb he thinks Republican fans of his are.
Two different investigations anyway. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies during their investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election to help elect Trump.
The Ukraine impeachment is due to Trump meddling in the 2020 election through a bribery/extortion scheme to benefit his campaign.
Why's he conflating the two, they are about different elections. He must think the people who think he's not lying everytime he tweets are really gullible. It's sad how dumb he thinks Republican fans of his are.
Because if you conflate the two, and discredit one, you damage the other and make it an easier target.
We are now on the brink of war with Iran. We just assassinated the most powerful member of their military. Absurd to think there won't be retaliation. And even more absurd to think Trump would ever be a "non-interventionist". He owns what happens from here on out, and so does everyone that voted for him and pushed the "Hillary the Hawk, Donald the Dove" horseshit. You were told.
We'll be told alot of stuff in the coming days. This is why not lying your ass off THOUSANDS of time over the course of 3 years is probably not a wise move. Because I won't believe a single thing they say. Nor should anyone else. Get ready for EXACTLY what is said in this tweet. Some of us have already seen this movie in real life:
As far as Iran is concerned, this is basically like if another country assassinated the Vice President of the United States. What do you imagine OUR response would be if that happened?? Think about it, and then realize that that is what Iran is going to do. And if you think what happened in Iraq in the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam was something, wait til you get a load of the sequel. This is the kind of shit that starts World Wars. Every single American solider in the region is now going to be an active target. When they get killed, we'll escalate even further. And round and round we go.
I feel bad for the people or Iraq. They are going to be grounds for yet another war.
Also, after what the US just did to the Kurds, do not expect Iraq to help them out what so ever. Locally, the only help the US may get in this conflict is Turkey (but that would come with concessions). NATO itself would stay out of it as the US has been the aggressor.
I wouldn't be surprised if the US was actually run out of Iraq at this point.
Agreed. In the time I spent researching this story on the BBC it went from a byline to the top news story of the day - as it should be. The tactics of targeted assassination and extreme retaliation for attacks against your country are right out of Israel's playbook and I would be a bit surprised if there had not been high level discussions with them about this. If this action had been by a different country the interpretation would have been obvious - a country's leader was in trouble domestically and was aiming to create an international crisis to change the narrative. Unfortunately, in Trump's America that seems like all too plausible an explanation to me.
The US explanation for this will no doubt be that General Soleimani was the leader of a terrorist organisation (the US made this designation last April) and therefore a legitimate target for a response. The basis for that categorization was that QUDS uses force to project political power. Given the US actions in the Middle East over a long period, it should be obvious just how ridiculous that will seem to Iranians - and their people were probably already more convinced that it is the US acting as terrorists in the region than the US people are about Iran.
This will not be an issue where there will be an internal struggle between 'moderates' and 'extremists' in Iran about whether the US actions are wrong - essentially 100% of the country will agree about that. There may well be tactical questions about the best way to respond, but @jjstraka34 is quite correct that this is a clear act of war against Iran. It's difficult to see how the Iranian government could not respond to the assassination of such a well-known figure. At best that response will be to move to state sponsored acts of terrorism (and, contrary to the US narrative, up to this point the Iranians have essentially been suppressing terrorism against the US rather than sponsoring it). That would be very likely in itself of course to lead to a more general state of (declared) war, but the alternative to that would be to respond immediately with a clear act of war themselves ...
Trump's "plan" is to post a picture of an American flag on Twitter. Here comes the hyper-jingoism. This train is never late. I'm seeing the same sick freaks that lied us into Iraq (Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer) on FOX tonight literally going with another version of "they will great us as liberators". Pompeo is posting some video that reminds me distinctly of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue, a toppling that was revealed to have been arranged for a photo-op with the help of US Marines. The media is falling right in line. All the people who were 1000% wrong about Iraq are going to be brought back on TV for their "expertise".
Agreed. In the time I spent researching this story on the BBC it went from a byline to the top news story of the day - as it should be. The tactics of targeted assassination and extreme retaliation for attacks against your country are right out of Israel's playbook and I would be a bit surprised if there had not been high level discussions with them about this. If this action had been by a different country the interpretation would have been obvious - a country's leader was in trouble domestically and was aiming to create an international crisis to change the narrative. Unfortunately, in Trump's America that seems like all too plausible an explanation to me.
The US explanation for this will no doubt be that General Soleimani was the leader of a terrorist organisation (the US made this designation last April) and therefore a legitimate target for a response. The basis for that categorization was that QUDS uses force to project political power. Given the US actions in the Middle East over a long period, it should be obvious just how ridiculous that will seem to Iranians - and their people were probably already more convinced that it is the US acting as terrorists in the region than the US people are about Iran.
This will not be an issue where there will be an internal struggle between 'moderates' and 'extremists' in Iran about whether the US actions are wrong - essentially 100% of the country will agree about that. There may well be tactical questions about the best way to respond, but @jjstraka34 is quite correct that this is a clear act of war against Iran. It's difficult to see how the Iranian government could not respond to the assassination of such a well-known figure. At best that response will be to move to state sponsored acts of terrorism (and, contrary to the US narrative, up to this point the Iranians have essentially been suppressing terrorism against the US rather than sponsoring it). That would be very likely in itself of course to lead to a more general state of (declared) war, but the alternative to that would be to respond immediately with a clear act of war themselves ...
No one is saying this is a good guy. That is not the point, and anyone trafficking in that argument is a simpleton at best. He was the second most powerful official in Iran. Far more powerful than Rouhani, at least when you take domestic politics out of the equation. The arrogance of Americans after what we did in Iraq to complain about any of our soldiers getting killed or being in danger over there after the countless atrocities we have committed the last 20 years in laughable. When that next big terrorist attack hits in the US, you can bet your bottom dollar this will be the cause. And this was ALL avoidable. The Obama Administration worked for years on a SUCCESSFUL diplomatic negotiation with Iran, and the same imbeciles who argued for war in Iraq also opposed that deal. They promised us Iran would't abide by it. But they did. Then Trump tore it up. Half because of the bloodthirsty neo-cons in the Republican Party, and half over his bottomless envy of his predecessor. Either way, it has led us here. There is no disputing it, there is no disputing Trump is 100% responsible for what happens next, and there is no disputing that the Republican Party hasn't changed an ounce since 2003 on this issue. And as we'll see in the coming days, neither have their voters, despite their bullshit proclamations the last 3 years to the contrary:
That saying comes from the old days, before electric kettles, when both pot and kettle were boiled over an open fire. The point was that the kettle would be discolored by the fire (and could therefore legitimately be called black), but the pot would be even worse as it would be marked not just by the fire but spills of food. Obama had his faults, but his actions in Iran were a lot shinier than any old-fashioned kettle .
Well the definition now, not the oranges of the word, something you say that means people should not criticize someone else for a fault that they have themselves.
Iran probably wont take a direct action that could be justified as starting a war(I think they understand there's a geopolitical currency in being seen as the victim here), but I do think they'll do something that has a real and major harm. Closing the strait of Hormuz, for example. If I am not mistaken, closing the straight of Hormuz has long been seen as a red line for the USA.
Alternatively, you could imagine attacks on embassies and/or other diplomatic/military outposts in the middle-east.
I cannot be sure, but in a state that is so heavily militarized as Iran, not responding to the death of such an important figure would be unthinkable.
I pray for all the Persians in Iran and all over the world. Such a beautiful and noble people being sacrificed by a desert religion that does not even respect their women.
I hope that there is a war and that finally Persians can live free from this oppressive Fascist/Communist regime, masquerading as Godly men.
I pray for all the Persians in Iran and all over the world. Such a beautiful and noble people being sacrificed by a desert religion that does not even respect their women.
I hope that there is a war and that finally Persians can live free from this oppressive Fascist/Communist regime, masquerading as Godly men.
Ummm, this will never, ever be the result of such a conflict. In fact, while Iraqis and Iranians may by and large have hated (or hate) their regimes, the one SURE way to rally the entire populace in support of them is US bombs and troops. The fact that Pompeo is trotting out "we will be viewed as liberators" 2.0 and the same segments of the US electorate are buying it makes my head want to explode. We overthrew the legitimate Iranian government in the 1950s. We armed Saddam against then in the '80s (then turned on him). We armed the mujahedeen who became the Taliban. We illegally invaded Iraq based on lies. And we just tore up an ageeement meant to AVOID just this when Iran was fully in compliance with the terms. The Middle East views us as duplicitous snakes because we ARE duplicitous snakes.
Mike Pence has now claimed on Twitter that Soleimani facilitated the travel of "10 of the 12 9/11 hijackers". First of all, there were 19 hijackers. Secondly, this has never even been alleged, much less substantiated. They aren't even bothering to come up with new lies. They are just rehashing the old ones. This track gets played more than "Hotel California' on classic rock stations, and it's just as infuriating to hear.
Comments
As for leaving Iraq, I mean, the time for that was before we went in. I was among the extreme minority in 2003 saying it was complete bullshit. Doing so got you labeled as a just short of a traitor among your own friends and family members. Erik goddamn Prince is still a central figure in right-wing politics, including this Adminstration. John Bolton was the National Security advisor until about 5 minutes ago. I have never been inconsistent in my belief that Bush is, still, after everything, on balance, worse than Trump. He pushed for and started a full-scale ground war in the Middle East based on lies. Many of which people still believe to this day. As time goes on, it becomes comparable in duplicity and blowback to even Vietnam. In fact, I'd argue they are neck and neck.
Indeed it was, and it wasn't a simple lie, but a systemic one aided by many people in the press, the government, and more.
I grew up during the Iraq War and the lies that surrounded it were my first lessons in politics. I've never been able to trust what people in high places say without verification anymore, and the less accountable they are the less I trust them.
I find this extremely unlikely to be the cause, but stranger things have happened.
I'm not convinced that survey is measuring what you think it is. I had a quick look to try and find the survey, but was unable to do so. GLAAD publishes an Executive Summary, but that says you need to email them with questions about methodology and data - which doesn't inspire me with confidence. The Harris Poll, who did the survey, have just a news release about it and provide no information about the basis for the survey.
Although there are a few issues that look potentially problematic, the one that I think might be the real driver for changing results is the way the survey asks the questions. I don't know exactly what those questions are, but the answers highlighted in the summary refer to the % of people feeling uncomfortable in particular situations - such as a family member revealing themselves as LGBT. Given the high profile assaults Trump has made on transgender status, it would not be surprising in the least if more people felt uncomfortable about a family member being transgender - but because they fear the reaction of others, not because they believe there is anything innately wrong about that. That explanation would be consistent with the findings of the survey that the proportion of people supporting LGBT rights remains high (79% in 2016 and 2017, 80% in 2018).
I don't think it's that straight-forward. For instance Israel has said very clearly they will not allow Iran to develop nuclear missiles - and said they will take military action if necessary to prevent that. If the US said they were just washing their hands of the region, conflict between Israel and Iran would seem extremely likely - at which point there would be great pressure on the US to involve themselves again.
On lots of issues today (climate change, nuclear proliferation, militarization of space, pollution, biodiversity etc), the world is just a far smaller place than it was even a generation ago and I think it's no longer realistic for any country to either just ignore such international issues or determine what actions they will take without considering the international implications of their decisions. Where action (or inaction) affects everyone in the world, ignoring those effects is just creating problems rather than solving them.
The survey itself probably doesn't, because the numbers I was quoting come from the other report.
"The number of Americans 18 to 34 who are comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people slipped from 53% in 2017 to 45% in 2018 – the only age group to show a decline, according to the annual Accelerating Acceptance report. And that is down from 63% in 2016."
Anyways, happy new year. And new decade. This past one just flew by, for me.
That's the same report. I'm just not convinced that the report is correct saying that this is a reflection of people being less comfortable interacting with LGBT (as opposed to being more concerned about how the world will treat LGBT).
And best wishes to you. My Dad collapsed yesterday while I was visiting him, so I got a ride in an ambulance. He's over 90 now and increasingly frail, so no great surprise he's having health problems - but it does rather bring home how time is marching on
The Iraq War was a pretty simple lie actually. The Bush Administration insinuated every day for over a year that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 (he had nothing to do with it) and that he was building weapons of mass destruction (which were outright said to be nuclear bombs that could hit an American city). It was all poppycock. Anyone who was paying any attention knew it. But they correctly judged (and this is an indictment of the populous) that the American public would support attacking ANY country as long as it had Muslims to kill. The straight-up ignorance of most of the electorate during this time was absolutely astounding. And boy did we kill and kill some more. At the absolute bare minimum, we killed 100,000 innocent people. The number may be as high as a million. But aside from the slaughter, the absolute most bone-headed move in the modern history of American foreign policy was Coalition Provisional Authority Order 2, which disbanded the Iraqi military and left thousands upon thousands of men with no way to support their families (the ones we hadn't blown up already). They quite predictably took up arms as militants. This is the main reason ISIS exists.
And the "liberal" media (this is the #1 reason that term is such a joke) went along for the ride to the point of basically being stenographers. There has never been a reckoning for it. I still maintain one of the reasons Trump won the GOP primary was because he offered Republican voters an "out" for their balls to the walls support of that war. He told them they didn't have to be accountable for it. They could just blame Jeb, as if every damn Trump voter in the country wasn't sporting "love it or leave it" bumper stickers on their SUV and didn't have Bush/Cheney signs on their lawn in 2004. This was also what the Tea Party was about. It wasn't about deficits (an absolutely laughable explanation in retrospect). It was about erasing culpability for Bush.
The reason is not Trump @jjstraka34 , it's Israel.
Yup, rising hate crime rates, trying to oust all trans members of the military, encouraging police violence, ruining a hard fought agreement with Iran, putting children in concentration camps. We havde been criticizing all these things for some time now, but apparently these have nothing to with forgeign policy or civil liberties. Just irrelevant subjects. Really shouldn't be surprised I guess, since you recently defended segregation of all things.
Much love to you and your family. Hope your Father gets well soon.
TBH - this reminds me a bit of Vichy Syndrome. Vichy Syndrome was the phenomenon attributed to post WWII France where the general population all sort of collectively decided that they were subtlety supporting the French Resistance and were not collaborators in any way shape or form (When in reality, There were plenty of collaborators, and plenty of people that were just generally not involved - an occupied populace just trying to survive).
To be clear on two points: First - I was too young to be meaningfully politically aware of the origin of the Iraq war. Second - I'm not doubting that *you* were skeptical of the war, but I do think it's incorrect to suggest that the majority of the US population knew it was a lie and decided to believe otherwise in order to "kill Muslims". I think most people were still in some manner of shock from 9/11, and were ready to believe the government's word on who was responsible and how best to deal with it.
I do believe there are a lot of people who supported the war initially, and now regret it - and that regret manifests as "I never supported the war!". People arent particularly good at recognizing their own mistakes and honestly accounting for them.
(For the record - I think the same thing will happen with Trump in 20 or 30 years. Miraculously, most people who voted for Trump will identify as Never-Trumpers, especially Evangelicals).
This is exactly why I continue to advocate for evolutionary approach, that doesn't "shoehorn" things "down people's throats" and doesn't provoke strong defensive reactions that polarize the society instead of unifying it.
But apparently some people want their candy right here, right now, and screw what happens after they crack the vending machine open. Depressing.
That's kinda my point - you (and not just you) keep comparing apples (far left) to oranges (far right), while I simply call both fruits (extremists). One refuses to hire based on skin color, the other bans for speaking racist word. Yes, that's exactly the same in my book.
Also since when has the left been about strong economy and the right about social politics? I thought it was the other way around...
Jesus... someone really needs to read up on the concept of reverse psychology.
<a href="
This tweet is very telling about the reasons why Barr had opened an investigation on how Trump’s campaign first began to be monitored by the FBI.
It is all coming down to creating a narrative to offer pardons to the “a lot of good people” who were taken down by the Mueller report. His base, as well as right wing media, will defend pardoning everyone from Manafort to Flynn to Stone, not because the IG report says it was a corrupt investigation but because Barr and Trump are pushing that narrative.
I can see him offering pardons right after his State of the Union address and in the first week of the Impeachment Trial if the news cycle isn’t being kind to him or the Republicans.
The Ukraine impeachment is due to Trump meddling in the 2020 election through a bribery/extortion scheme to benefit his campaign.
Why's he conflating the two, they are about different elections. He must think the people who think he's not lying everytime he tweets are really gullible. It's sad how dumb he thinks Republican fans of his are.
Because if you conflate the two, and discredit one, you damage the other and make it an easier target.
We'll be told alot of stuff in the coming days. This is why not lying your ass off THOUSANDS of time over the course of 3 years is probably not a wise move. Because I won't believe a single thing they say. Nor should anyone else. Get ready for EXACTLY what is said in this tweet. Some of us have already seen this movie in real life:
As far as Iran is concerned, this is basically like if another country assassinated the Vice President of the United States. What do you imagine OUR response would be if that happened?? Think about it, and then realize that that is what Iran is going to do. And if you think what happened in Iraq in the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam was something, wait til you get a load of the sequel. This is the kind of shit that starts World Wars. Every single American solider in the region is now going to be an active target. When they get killed, we'll escalate even further. And round and round we go.
Also, after what the US just did to the Kurds, do not expect Iraq to help them out what so ever. Locally, the only help the US may get in this conflict is Turkey (but that would come with concessions). NATO itself would stay out of it as the US has been the aggressor.
I wouldn't be surprised if the US was actually run out of Iraq at this point.
The US explanation for this will no doubt be that General Soleimani was the leader of a terrorist organisation (the US made this designation last April) and therefore a legitimate target for a response. The basis for that categorization was that QUDS uses force to project political power. Given the US actions in the Middle East over a long period, it should be obvious just how ridiculous that will seem to Iranians - and their people were probably already more convinced that it is the US acting as terrorists in the region than the US people are about Iran.
This will not be an issue where there will be an internal struggle between 'moderates' and 'extremists' in Iran about whether the US actions are wrong - essentially 100% of the country will agree about that. There may well be tactical questions about the best way to respond, but @jjstraka34 is quite correct that this is a clear act of war against Iran. It's difficult to see how the Iranian government could not respond to the assassination of such a well-known figure. At best that response will be to move to state sponsored acts of terrorism (and, contrary to the US narrative, up to this point the Iranians have essentially been suppressing terrorism against the US rather than sponsoring it). That would be very likely in itself of course to lead to a more general state of (declared) war, but the alternative to that would be to respond immediately with a clear act of war themselves ...
No one is saying this is a good guy. That is not the point, and anyone trafficking in that argument is a simpleton at best. He was the second most powerful official in Iran. Far more powerful than Rouhani, at least when you take domestic politics out of the equation. The arrogance of Americans after what we did in Iraq to complain about any of our soldiers getting killed or being in danger over there after the countless atrocities we have committed the last 20 years in laughable. When that next big terrorist attack hits in the US, you can bet your bottom dollar this will be the cause. And this was ALL avoidable. The Obama Administration worked for years on a SUCCESSFUL diplomatic negotiation with Iran, and the same imbeciles who argued for war in Iraq also opposed that deal. They promised us Iran would't abide by it. But they did. Then Trump tore it up. Half because of the bloodthirsty neo-cons in the Republican Party, and half over his bottomless envy of his predecessor. Either way, it has led us here. There is no disputing it, there is no disputing Trump is 100% responsible for what happens next, and there is no disputing that the Republican Party hasn't changed an ounce since 2003 on this issue. And as we'll see in the coming days, neither have their voters, despite their bullshit proclamations the last 3 years to the contrary:
That saying comes from the old days, before electric kettles, when both pot and kettle were boiled over an open fire. The point was that the kettle would be discolored by the fire (and could therefore legitimately be called black), but the pot would be even worse as it would be marked not just by the fire but spills of food. Obama had his faults, but his actions in Iran were a lot shinier than any old-fashioned kettle
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pot-calling-the-kettle-black
Iran probably wont take a direct action that could be justified as starting a war(I think they understand there's a geopolitical currency in being seen as the victim here), but I do think they'll do something that has a real and major harm. Closing the strait of Hormuz, for example. If I am not mistaken, closing the straight of Hormuz has long been seen as a red line for the USA.
Alternatively, you could imagine attacks on embassies and/or other diplomatic/military outposts in the middle-east.
I cannot be sure, but in a state that is so heavily militarized as Iran, not responding to the death of such an important figure would be unthinkable.
I pray for all the Persians in Iran and all over the world. Such a beautiful and noble people being sacrificed by a desert religion that does not even respect their women.
I hope that there is a war and that finally Persians can live free from this oppressive Fascist/Communist regime, masquerading as Godly men.
Ummm, this will never, ever be the result of such a conflict. In fact, while Iraqis and Iranians may by and large have hated (or hate) their regimes, the one SURE way to rally the entire populace in support of them is US bombs and troops. The fact that Pompeo is trotting out "we will be viewed as liberators" 2.0 and the same segments of the US electorate are buying it makes my head want to explode. We overthrew the legitimate Iranian government in the 1950s. We armed Saddam against then in the '80s (then turned on him). We armed the mujahedeen who became the Taliban. We illegally invaded Iraq based on lies. And we just tore up an ageeement meant to AVOID just this when Iran was fully in compliance with the terms. The Middle East views us as duplicitous snakes because we ARE duplicitous snakes.
Mike Pence has now claimed on Twitter that Soleimani facilitated the travel of "10 of the 12 9/11 hijackers". First of all, there were 19 hijackers. Secondly, this has never even been alleged, much less substantiated. They aren't even bothering to come up with new lies. They are just rehashing the old ones. This track gets played more than "Hotel California' on classic rock stations, and it's just as infuriating to hear.