International US/Israel v. Iran

[Trotsky]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...on-saudis-absorb-crown-princes-rush-to-reform

You're in over your head on this topic, friend.

The modern/moderate reform angle has been a joke among the Saudi political community for over a year now, with the recent "anti-corruption" moves being icing on the autocratic cake. Like everyone else, they had hope from the early propaganda, but it's clearly been shown to be a power grab disguised with a few meaningless scraps of social reform.

Regardless, Saudi Arabia would require several actual (not rhetorical) revolutions to be as moderate or as representative as Iran. And that's not lip service to how secular or awesome Iran is, but a reflection of how tyrannical Saudi Arabia is.

 

[Trotsky]

Yeah, I really figured that was a joke that I wasn't picking up on.

 

[luckyshot]

Now I get that at least a third of the country would eat that up. But the rest of us would be fucking livid in a way that we weren't livid about Afghanistan.

Would we though?

Who batted an eye when the Sentate passed a $700 billion dollar military budget? Trump touted a "historic spike" in military spending and his base-- including "mainstream" Republicans-- applauded. There were no protests in the street. Did people expect we'd just sit around and look at all that new stuff?
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/18/sen...-for-steep-increase-in-military-spending.html

We are currently in the midst of our longest war ever, and people hardly pay attention anymore.

There's a huge normalization factor. And even outrage fatigue.

In a post 9/11 world, Congress has ceded nearly unilateral power to the president in terms of military discretion (I had a Freudian slip and typed "military digression" at first) because they don't want their hands dirty.

That means there doesn't have to be a vote. There doesn't have to be a debate. There doesn't even have to be a formal declaration. It's a disgusting dereliction of duty. But, once again, people don't even notice anymore. It's become the "new normal."

I think there is a huge potential for this to be branded as merely a new front in the continuing (and continuous) War on Terror... in other words for mission creep. It wouldn't be called a "new war," but a "new phase" of the war. You know, THE war.

There would be some protests, sure, in big cities, in blue states... but so what? There were protests over Iraq in those places. There were protests over the "Muslim ban," too. There were protests over Charlottesville.

As long as GOP gerrymanders hold in 2018, what is the practical importance of Trump's approval rating dipping even further in already intensely liberal areas, such as big cities in blue states, where those protests would take place?

 

[InternetHero]

Headline: 'This is a revolution': Saudis absorb crown prince's rush to reform

If you are gong to dispute the narrative, something besides that guy's head might be more productive.

Just saying.

 

[InternetHero]

You're in over your head on this topic, friend.

The modern/moderate reform angle has been a joke among the Saudi political community for over a year now, with the recent "anti-corruption" moves being icing on the autocratic cake. Like everyone else, they had hope from the early propaganda, but it's clearly been shown to be a power grab disguised with a few meaningless scraps of social reform.

Regardless, Saudi Arabia would require several actual (not rhetorical) revolutions to be as moderate or as representative as Iran. And that's not lip service to how secular or awesome Iran is, but a reflection of how tyrannical Saudi Arabia is.

Noted, but we are all on the outside looking into the kingdom, and the story true, debated, or otherwise is getting a lot of play from good sources.

From who I do know in Saudi, there does seem to be some moderation to the the latest moves, or attempts to moderate for what is obviously a very... flawed... monarchy, theocracy, or shitty sand castle.

As per the last paragraph, I tend to agree, and from that we might keep in mind that any moderation being forced in reality or for optics by Saudi, would be a lot more productive if the revolutionary spirit takes hold in Iran.

I am sure Russia and China would much rather see Iran crackdown Assad style than have a real and moderate revolution, as would their Revolutionary guard.

However, maybe we can see something better. Let us hope so.

 

[HomerThompson]

Headline: 'This is a revolution': Saudis absorb crown prince's rush to reform

If you are gong to dispute the narrative, something besides that guy's head might be more productive.

Just saying.

The narrative is so stupid, it doesn't deserve a legitimate response.

 

[Fawlty]

Would we though?

Who batted an eye when the Sentate passed a $700 billion dollar military budget? Trump touted a "historic spike" in military spending and his base-- including "mainstream" Republicans-- applauded. There were no protests in the street. Did people expect we'd just sit around and look at all that new stuff?
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/18/sen...-for-steep-increase-in-military-spending.html

We are currently in the midst of our longest war ever, and people hardly pay attention anymore.

There's a huge normalization factor. And even outrage fatigue.

In a post 9/11 world, Congress has ceded nearly unilateral power to the president in terms of military discretion (I had a Freudian slip and typed "military digression" at first) because they don't want their hands dirty.

That means there doesn't have to be a vote. There doesn't have to be a debate. There doesn't even have to be a formal declaration. It's a disgusting dereliction of duty. But, once again, people don't even notice anymore. It's become the "new normal."

I think there is a huge potential for this to be branded as merely a new front in the continuing (and continuous) War on Terror... in other words for mission creep. It wouldn't be called a "new war," but a "new phase" of the war. You know, THE war.

There would be some protests, sure, in big cities, in blue states... but so what? There were protests over Iraq in those places. There were protests over the "Muslim ban," too. There were protests over Charlottesville.

As long as GOP gerrymanders hold in 2018, what is the practical importance of Trump's approval rating dipping even further in already intensely liberal areas, such as big cities in blue states, where those protests would take place?

I have to say that your POV is really defensible and in line with recent history. Especially in that sort of intangible Orwell sense- the war that has always been the war.

I remember worrying during the Bush years- lots of people worried actually- that the GWOT was going to replace the norm of congressional checks on the military. And that continued through Obama's presidency, even when he tried to remind Congress that it was their job. They just wanted the President to make the decision anyway.

But the people, to my knowledge, have never supported that. We can't exactly protest in the streets over dropping a bomb on Libya here, or a drone strike in Yemen there, or even selling cluster bombs to Israel to use on Lebanon. Those are small actions that frankly don't register to us.

But is Iran part of that new normal? It's a big country with a big military. It requires enormous pre-positioning of assets, and that would play out in the public in a way similar to the Iraq buildup, but at least 4x as large. Unless I'm too out of the loop, it's not possible to do that by sniping at them with drones. They would take Iraq immediately in response, so then we have to fight a ground war or have an army in place as a deterrent.

The complications arising from occupation would be exponentially scaled up from Iraq. I think people sort of get that. I think those memes would spread, that it's a giant clusterfuck and a lost cause before it begins. Combined with the hatred this country has for Trump, I see the public blowing up.

 

[HomerThompson]

I have to say that your POV is really defensible and in line with recent history. Especially in that sort of intangible Orwell sense- the war that has always been the war.

I remember worrying during the Bush years- lots of people worried actually- that the GWOT was going to replace the norm of congressional checks on the military. And that continued through Obama's presidency, even when he tried to remind Congress that it was their job. They just wanted the President to make the decision anyway.

But the people, to my knowledge, have never supported that. We can't exactly protest in the streets over dropping a bomb on Libya here, or a drone strike in Yemen there, or even selling cluster bombs to Israel to use on Lebanon. Those are small actions that frankly don't register to us.

But is Iran part of that new normal? It's a big country with a big military. It requires enormous pre-positioning of assets, and that would play out in the public in a way similar to the Iraq buildup, but at least 4x as large. Unless I'm too out of the loop, it's not possible to do that by sniping at them with drones. They would take Iraq immediately in response, so then we have to fight a ground war or have an army in place as a deterrent.

The complications arising from occupation would be exponentially scaled up from Iraq. I think people sort of get that. I think those memes would spread, that it's a giant clusterfuck and a lost cause before it begins. Combined with the hatred this country has for Trump, I see the public blowing up.

We the People just elected Donald Fucking Trump. I wouldn't hold our collective judgment in too high of a regard right now.

 

[Fawlty]

We the People just elected Donald Fucking Trump. I wouldn't hold our collective judgment in to high of a regard right now.

There's definitely that, lol. But the majority of the country, who dislike him so much, are a pretty strong bloc. Still, it kinda forces the question of whether a more vigilant public would have even allowed him into power- voter turnout was lower than it should have been, given the stakes. Does that suggest that our guard is down so much that we'll only complain on the internet about an Iran war? Seems unlikely to me.

Where I agree is if another 9/11 happens. We'll be able to attack anybody for any reason and the public will support it.

 

[HomerThompson]

There's definitely that, lol. But the majority of the country, who dislike him so much, are a pretty strong bloc. Still, it kinda forces the question of whether a more vigilant public would have even allowed him into power- voter turnout was lower than it should have been, given the stakes. Does that suggest that our guard is down so much that we'll only complain on the internet about an Iran war? Seems unlikely to me.

Where I agree is if another 9/11 happens. We'll be able to attack anybody for any reason and the public will support it.

I think Israel will play a big part in this effort. Trump giving them Jerusalem is a really big deal. They're going to land grab at an exceptional rate now. We'll decertify, or outright cancel, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and Israel will have to "preemptively" strike their weapons facilities. USAF will assist, then Turkey/Israel will do most of the work. Trump is definitely dumb enough to give Eric Prince 50,000 mercenaries as well. I'm extremely concerned about this. Fuck this year already.

 

[Fawlty]

I think Israel will play a big part in this effort. Trump giving them Jerusalem is a really big deal. They're going to land grab at an exceptional rate now. We'll decertify, or outright cancel, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and Israel will have to "preemptively" strike their weapons facilities. USAF will assist, then Turkey/Israel will do most of the work. Trump is definitely dumb enough to give Eric Prince 50,000 mercenaries as well. I'm extremely concerned about this. Fuck this year already.

There's an interesting angle, that it will be an action on behalf our ally. If Israel pulls the trigger we're only going to give Iran a super short window to concede.

 

[InternetHero]

The narrative is so stupid, it doesn't deserve a legitimate response.

An argument to common sense usually at least goes with the mainstream narrative, you're rejecting it from at best the median and probably the minority opinion.

Are you sure you're not just getting addicted to memes and stickers?

 

[HomerThompson]

There's an interesting angle, that it will be an action on behalf our ally. If Israel pulls the trigger we're only going to give Iran a super short window to concede.

Exactly. And CNN, and mainstream Democrats will back the President up too.

 

[HomerThompson]

An argument to common sense usually at least goes with the mainstream narrative, you're rejecting it from at best the median and probably the minority opinion.

Are you sure you're not just getting addicted to memes and stickers?

Show me any area where SA is more modern or progressive in their society than Iran. I'll wait. Or maybe you should just concede that your statement was completely idiotic, and we can move on with our evenings.

 

[Fawlty]

Exactly. And CNN, and mainstream Democrats will back the President up too.

That's the kind of shit that can really escalate. It's not hard to see a scenario where Israel gets attacked in response, and then the instability in SA becomes a factor and everything could go to shit. Maybe not WW3 (geographic isolation makes this unlikely) but pretty bad.

 

[InternetHero]

Show me any area where SA is more modern or progressive in their society than Iran. I'll wait. Or maybe you should just concede that your statement was completely idiotic, and we can move on with our evenings.

You just made a false equivalence between Iran and Saudi Arabia in terms of reform then asked me to comment on that.

Why?

Also, closer to 9 a.m. in the Middle kingdom.

 

[HomerThompson]

No, but hopefully the Iranian regime will moderate Saudi style or else shuffle out the door.

I would really love to see a relatively bloodless coup, that would terrify the CCP and be hard for them to hide on CCTV.

Show me any area where SA is more modern or progressive in their society than Iran. I'll wait. Or maybe you should just concede that your statement was completely idiotic, and we can move on with our evenings.

You just made a false equivalence between Iran and Saudi Arabia in terms of reform then asked me to comment on that.

Why?

Also, closer to 9 a.m. in the Middle kingdom.

<puh-lease75>

 

[InternetHero]

<puh-lease75>

I clearly meant and mean Saudi Arabia was going in the reform direction according to the narrative.

Which you can probably find through the fact (s) that I in no way tried to say that Saudi Arabia was more moderate or liberalized than Iran.

 

[HomerThompson]

I clearly meant and mean Saudi Arabia was going in the reform direction according to the narrative.

Which you can probably find through the fact (s) that I in no way tried to say that Saudi Arabia was more moderate or liberalized than Iran.

Dick tuck accepted.

 

[InternetHero]

Dick tuck accepted.

Pardon me?

You are you saying I am lying about my own opinion or you misunderstood me?

I never made the false equivalence you said I did in any of my posts, none.