Jump to content

Perpetual Middle East Geopolitical Quagmire Megathread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

immamac

immamac 44199

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Sorry for the multiple posts in a row - I was catching up on the thread and replying as I went.

But question on this bullshittery amnesty for Icono.

How come he was allowed FOR MONTHS to spew his hatred and violent thoughts and nonsense but when he got almost unanimous condemnation and pushback, he was alllowed to bitch out? And be protected by the admins?

He literally made statements that, as a “good brown person”, he would never have to worry about what he called fear mongering and scare tactics about where the racist policies of the Trump administration would eventually lead.

And now we have edicts from the administration stating their intent to detain and interrogate visitors, immigrants, and citizens of Iranian descent. Fulfilling the predictions many of us made that Icono laughed off while accusing us of being hysterical and claiming he would happily step into the coming detainee camps to prove what a “good American” he is.

All that to say, why the blue fuck are we not “allowed” to call him out now?

Too bad he snowflaked out of the CR but it’s truly horseshit that his disgusting ass is being shielded from our right to scream “We told you so”.

I was letting you guys know constantly @ing him and talking about him was just like yelling at the clouds. He's not coming in here. I could give 2 fucks if you talk about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ousuxndallas
ousuxndallas

Trump is the antithesis of that pussy Obama. The reasons why you guys hate Trump are the reasons we love him. He told Iran not to start shit, and when they did, he laid the wood. #MAGA

Brian Fantana
Brian Fantana

You've seriously got to be kidding me. In literally any other country in the world, Sanders and Warren would be considered centrists. The Overton window has shifted so far to the right in this fucked

Red Five
Red Five

You love him because he's a career criminal and conman and has no idea what he's doing and is historically corrupt and is incapable of telling the truth and is a truly terrible human being? That's wei

Posted Images

Tom

Tom 2960

Posted
Posted

I can't imagine how weak willed one has to be to have to ask a moderator to block my access to a board because I don't have the mental strength to not click on it.  Apparently he's not the only one.  

 

I mean, I fucking hate Texags, but I've never emailed Billy Liucci and begged him to IP ban me.  I just don't post there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Parliament

Parliament 14559

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

 

 

 

As a moderate, decided to take a trip into the political forum to see what the take was on the Iran situation. All I can say is that was a mistake, wtf is wrong with you all, really disgraceful stuff here.

 

giphy.gif

This board is bad, and you make it worse by needling them.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 30231

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Parliament said:

This board is bad, and you make it worse by needling them.

You have nothing of substance to say about a) our president reneging on an agreement that was successfully preventing Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, b) him ordering the assassination of a general who was on a diplomatic mission, c) getting us kicked out of Iraq, or d) threatening to illegally bomb cultural sites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SubliminalHorn

SubliminalHorn 6995

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, bolverk said:

We already got a lecture from Immamac yesterday about @ing him. Apparently, he can’t see these posts in here as he’s been completely locked out.

Still, though, you’re not wrong to point out his utter stupidity and how we all predicted he and his kinsmen would eventually become targets.

I was not aware of the lecture 🤷🏽‍♂️ But he’s still an idiot 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4754

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, bolverk said:

You have nothing of substance to say about a) our president reneging on an agreement that was successfully preventing Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, b) him ordering the assassination of a general who was on a diplomatic mission, c) getting us kicked out of Iraq, or d) threatening to illegally bomb cultural sites?

I'm sure he thinks Trump is doing a great job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29556

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

Is this how people talk here? Three people openly rooting against the USA? Im out

 

giphy.gif

*Berlin, Germany, July 3, 1934

Hornsby looks around in the aftermath of the night of the long knives. "Well, this doesn't look like it's going to go well, but I'm a patriotic German so I've got to support mein Fuhrer!" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom

Tom 2960

Posted
Posted
Just now, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

make an attempt to defend the president's comments/actions over the last week. just try it.

 

Well, that's simple enough.  Sure, we assassinated a leader from another sovereign nation, we may be about to get into another long and drawn out war with a nation that won't hold up their end of a deal we already abandoned, and maybe this seems bad so soon after we left our allies to get slaughtered in Syria while surrendering our military bases to Russia, but have you seen my 401K?  Also, what about her emails!?!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28904

Posted
Posted

You know, if we had killed Osama bin Laden on 9/10/01, the attacks the next day still would've happened. I'm trying to figure out why we're supposed to think taking out Soleimani stopped an imminent attack. That makes no sense. Trump says "we caught him in the act?" The act of what? 

There's no fucking way there was an imminent attack. If there was then it still would've happened despite Soleimani's death. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Junior Miller

Junior Miller 1502

Posted
Posted (edited)
Quote

A war with Iran would see it use its Chinese-supplied anti-ship missiles, mines and coastal artillery to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20% of the world’s oil supply. Oil prices would double, perhaps triple, devastating the global economy. The retaliatory strikes by Iran on Israel, as well as on American military installations in Iraq, would leave hundreds, maybe thousands, of dead. The Shiites in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, would see an attack on Iran as a religious war against Shiism. The 2 million Shiites in Saudi Arabia, concentrated in the oil-rich Eastern province, the Shiite majority in Iraq and the Shiite communities in Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey would turn in fury on us and our dwindling allies. There would be an increase in terrorist attacks, including on American soil, and widespread sabotage of oil production in the Persian Gulf. Hezbollah in southern Lebanon would renew attacks on northern Israel. War with Iran would trigger a long and widening regional conflict that, by the time it was done, would terminate the American Empire and leave in its wake mounds of corpses and smoldering ruins. Let us hope for a miracle to pull us back from this Dr. Strangelove self-immolation.

Iran, which has vowed “harsh retaliation,” is already reeling under the crippling economic sanctions imposed by the Trump administration when it unilaterally withdrew in 2018 from the Iranian nuclear arms deal. Tensions in Iraq between the U.S. and the Shiite majority, at the same time, have been escalating. On Dec. 27 Katyusha rockets were fired at a military base in Kirkuk where U.S. forces are stationed. An American civilian contractor was killed and several U.S. military personnel were wounded. The U.S. responded on Dec. 29 by bombing sites belonging to the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia. Two days later Iranian-backed militias attacked the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, vandalizing and destroying parts of the building and causing its closure. But this attack will soon look like child’s play.

Iraq after our 2003 invasion and occupation has been destroyed as a unified country. Its once-modern infrastructure is in ruins. Electrical and water services are, at best, erratic. There is high unemployment and discontent over widespread government corruption that has led to bloody street protests. Warring militias and ethnic factions have carved out competing and antagonistic enclaves. At the same time, the war in Afghanistan is lost, as the Afghanistan Papers published by The Washington Post detail. Libya is a failed state. Yemen after five years of unrelenting Saudi airstrikes and a blockade is enduring one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters. The “moderate” rebels we funded and armed in Syria at a cost of $500 million, after instigating a lawless reign of terror, have been beaten and driven out of the country. The monetary cost for this military folly, the greatest strategic blunder in American history, is between $5 trillion and $7 trillion.

So why go to war with Iran? Why walk away from a nuclear agreement that Iran did not violate? Why demonize a government that is the mortal enemy of the Taliban, along with other jihadist groups, including al-Qaida and Islamic State? Why shatter the de facto alliance we have with Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why further destabilize a region already dangerously volatile?

The generals and politicians who launched and prosecuted these wars are not about to take the blame for the quagmires they created. They need a scapegoat. It is Iran. The hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed, including at least 200,000 civilians, and the millions driven from their homes into displacement and refugee camps cannot, they insist, be the result of our failed and misguided policies. The proliferation of radical jihadist groups and militias, many of which we initially trained and armed, along with the continued worldwide terrorist attacks, have to be someone else’s fault. The generals, the CIA, the private contractors and weapons manufacturers who have grown rich off these conflicts, the politicians such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, along with all the “experts” and celebrity pundits who serve as cheerleaders for endless war, have convinced themselves, and want to convince us, that Iran is responsible for our catastrophe.

The chaos and instability we unleashed in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, left Iran as the dominant country in the region. Washington empowered its nemesis. It has no idea how to reverse its mistake other than to attack Iran.

Trump and Netanyahu, as well as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, are mired in scandal. They believe a new war would divert attention from their foreign and domestic crises. But they have no more rational strategy for war with Iran than they did for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria. European allies, whom Trump alienated when he walked away from the Iranian nuclear agreement, will not cooperate with Washington if the U.S. goes to war with Iran. The Pentagon lacks the hundreds of thousands of troops it would need to attack and occupy Iran. And the Trump administration’s view that the marginal and discredited Iranian resistance group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), which fought alongside Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran and is seen by most Iranians as composed of traitors, is a viable counterforce to the Iranian government is ludicrous.

International law, along with the rights of 80 million people in Iran, is ignored just as the rights of the peoples of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria were ignored. The Iranians, whatever they feel about their despotic regime, would not see the United States as allies or liberators. They do not want to be occupied. They would resist.

A war with Iran would be seen throughout the region as a war against Shiism. But these are calculations that the ideologues, who know little about the instrument of war and even less about the cultures or peoples they seek to dominate, cannot fathom. Attacking Iran would be no more successful than the Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon in 2006, which failed to break Hezbollah and united most Lebanese behind that militant group. The Israeli bombing did not pacify 4 million Lebanese. What will happen if we begin to pound a country of 80 million people whose land mass is three times the size of France?

The United States, like Israel, has become a pariah that shreds, violates or absents itself from international law. We launch preemptive wars, which under international law is defined as a “crime of aggression,” based on fabricated evidence. We, as citizens, must hold our government accountable for these crimes. If we do not, we will be complicit in the codification of a new world order, one that would have terrifying consequences. It would be a world without treaties, statutes and laws. It would be a world where any nation, from a rogue nuclear state to a great imperial power, would be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others. Such a new order would undo five decades of international cooperation — largely put in place by the United States — and thrust us into a Hobbesian nightmare. Diplomacy, broad cooperation, treaties and law, all the mechanisms designed to civilize the global community, would be replaced by savagery.

This piece written by former Middle East bureau chief of the New York Times Chris Hedges gives a decent idea what we're looking at if the escalation continues. If Iran decides to blockade the Strait of Hormuz it's probably goodbye US strong economy. 

Edited by Junior Miller
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28904

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

You know, if we had killed Osama bin Laden on 9/10/01, the attacks the next day still would've happened. I'm trying to figure out why we're supposed to think taking out Soleimani stopped an imminent attack. That makes no sense. Trump says "we caught him in the act?" The act of what? 

There's no fucking way there was an imminent attack. If there was then it still would've happened despite Soleimani's death. 

Expanding on this thought, let's suppose that there was an imminent threat and Soleimani had to be terminated immediately in order to stop it. First, I'd like to know when in military history that's ever been true, that killing the commander stops the attack that's about to happen. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

What was the target? If they really did discover an imminent attack then what did they do to boost security around the intended target? You can't assume you're going to deter the attack just by killing the commander, assuming that mission is even successful, so it would be irresponsible not to immediately beef up security around the intended target. They didn't know the Benghazi attack was coming, or at best they didn't know when. Trump is claiming we know what was coming and when, and presumably where because he's certain it involved a lot of American lives. Did no one notice hurried increases in security around any U.S. targets anywhere leading up to the strike on Soleimani?

Let's see the intelligence that justified the attack. I'll bet we never do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3829

Posted
Posted

So if I were Iran I might target Jared Kushner?  It is very possible that a lot of the world might view this as a controlled retaliation from Iran?

Not to say Jared Kushner is anywhere near as significant.  But is a "controlled" response taking another piece off the chess board from the US side via whatever means an appropriate or inappropriate response?  

I honestly thought Trump was gonna wait until the articles were presented to the Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Junior Miller

Junior Miller 1502

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Expanding on this thought, let's suppose that there was an imminent threat and Soleimani had to be terminated immediately in order to stop it. First, I'd like to know when in military history that's ever been true, that killing the commander stops the attack that's about to happen. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

What was the target? If they really did discover an imminent attack then what did they do to boost security around the intended target? You can't assume you're going to deter the attack just by killing the commander, assuming that mission is even successful, so it would be irresponsible not to immediately beef up security around the intended target. They didn't know the Benghazi attack was coming, or at best they didn't know when. Trump is claiming we know what was coming and when, and presumably where because he's certain it involved a lot of American lives. Did no one notice hurried increases in security around any U.S. targets anywhere leading up to the strike on Soleimani?

Let's see the intelligence that justified the attack. I'll bet we never do. 

Trump said it so of course it's a lie. Everyone in the world outside of his little fanbase knows everything he says is a lie. There's zero plausibility of this lie and the Iranians know it was pure bullshit. We know he wants to go the assassination route because before he was clamoring to assassinate Assad in Syria before being talked out of it.

It was a political hit just because he was pissed and saw the opportunity for a bit because the idiots in the pentagon actually gave him that as a choice. Those morons should know by now you only give him shit as a choice you actually want him to do because he's too stupid to not do the shit you think is insane. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46061

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

It was a political hit just because he was pissed and saw the opportunity for a bit because the idiots in the pentagon actually gave him that as a choice. Those morons should know by now you only give him shit as a choice you actually want him to do because he's too stupid to not do the shit you think is insane. 

100% this.  It is always the simplest explanation with this simple brain stem president.  He's a fucking nincompoop and we put him in fucking charge and for some reason there are still plenty of people that think he's got some master plan happening here.  He's a chimp pressing buttons.  The higher ups need to stop presenting him with the buttons that cause real shit to happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

Fuck Saudi Arabia.

They’re the rich little instigator whispering to everyone else in the ME encouraging all manner of bullshittery but they keep just enough distance for plausible deniability.

If there’s any nation/government/kingdom that America should be holding accountable and punishing it’s those assholes.

Yet presidents of all stripes bow and kowtow to them because money and oil.

Fuck em.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 29174

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Chooky said:

You know those giant cowboy boot statues in front of North Star Mall in San Antonio?  How would you feel if someone bombed those?

Ambivalent. They are a San Antonio icon but I never cared for them so I am not sure how I would feel. If they took out The Pig Stand or the original Rudy's, well that would be upsetting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13337

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, F250 said:

Ambivalent. They are a San Antonio icon but I never cared for them so I am not sure how I would feel. If they took out The Pig Stand or the original Rudy's, well that would be upsetting.

A strike on the cultural heart of Trump's base would be a strike on one of those inflatable gorillas at an RV show.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrazilHorn

BrazilHorn 6792

Posted
Posted

While I think that Soleimani was actively working against the US and was responsible for American deaths, the slope to slide down in killing him is just to precarious a one to take. 
 

I don’t know where this will go. I do know landing troops in Iran is a terrible idea. 
There is no upside to this fight. I’m less worried about their military might as similar platitudes to weaponry were written about Saddam’s army. The asymmetrical nature of this fight worries me more with immeasurable individuals acting out jihadist fantasies on civilian targets. 
 

Just a total shitshow. Only investors in McDonnell Douglas and other defense contractors stand to gain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skipper

Skipper 6406

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

100% this.  It is always the simplest explanation with this simple brain stem president.  He's a fucking nincompoop and we put him in fucking charge and for some reason there are still plenty of people that think he's got some master plan happening here.  He's a chimp pressing buttons.  The higher ups need to stop presenting him with the buttons that cause real shit to happen.

If you read the Post article on the subject, according to their sources, Pompeo has been pushing this option internally for months.   So of course the claim that it was to prevent an imminent threat is BS.  Pompeo is a Warhawk that finally got his way bc the timing was right (i.e., increased and continued Iran aggression coupled with need for Trump to get a "W" for his base and take the focus off impeachment).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kringelbert Fishtybuns

Kringelbert Fishtybuns 945

Posted
Posted
On 1/3/2020 at 9:30 PM, Lobo said:

The one fucking time he reads, Trump decides to read that little footer at the bottom in a different font like some kinda final fuck-you from David Foster Wallace to society.  

Infinite Jest (VI) - Released The Year of the Flaming Hot Cheetos Puffy Taco. Poor Yorick Entertainment Unlimited.

Incadenza’s recently found secret final-final film; 85 mins; black and white; silent/sound. Initially thought to be blank, archivist found that by ingesting a potentially lethal dose of DMZ, a five minute recording was visible playing in a continual loop.  In this sequence, an obese Uncle Sam masturbates furiously while attempting to eat from a plate of falafel.  He begins to choke, but soon recovers, only to attempt to eat from the plate again.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted (edited)

Oh yeah, I think I've read that.  That's where that photo of Trump playing tennis in all-whites with his garish gold watch comes from.  

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29556

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, BrazilHorn said:

While I think that Soleimani was actively working against the US and was responsible for American deaths, the slope to slide down in killing him is just to precarious a one to take. 
 

I don’t know where this will go. I do know landing troops in Iran is a terrible idea. 
There is no upside to this fight. I’m less worried about their military might as similar platitudes to weaponry were written about Saddam’s army. The asymmetrical nature of this fight worries me more with immeasurable individuals acting out jihadist fantasies on civilian targets. 
 

Just a total shitshow. Only investors in McDonnell Douglas and other defense contractors stand to gain. 

The goal of Pompeo and the others in this administration that are encouraging escalation is regime change. That will require a ground war. Trump doesn't want it as badly as they do, but he can't resist a dick measuring contest so escalations will continue until he feels like he's got no other choice if he doesn't want to look like a complete pussy. Also he'll be convinced it will help his re-election chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

You know how you make a different face based on which muscle group you're working.  Like Your arms make your face do one look, your back is another look, etc., etc.  How can Kushner always look like he's exercising his taint?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21323

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, horn4life said:

So if I were Iran I might target Jared Kushner?  It is very possible that a lot of the world might view this as a controlled retaliation from Iran?

Not to say Jared Kushner is anywhere near as significant.  But is a "controlled" response taking another piece off the chess board from the US side via whatever means an appropriate or inappropriate response?  

I honestly thought Trump was gonna wait until the articles were presented to the Senate.

This, ladies and gentleman, is 'wishful thinking' at it's absolute best.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...