[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Welp, den Ah gess dat’d meen everbuddy dat thanks dem Eye-ranians is stoopid an crayzy wud be vindimacated.
An iffn dey don’t, den Ah gess it’d meen dat dey ain’t. Purdy simple.
[/quote]
Lol, pretty funny.
I knew you’d like that one!
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Ok what about the latest?
The US is sending the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt to stop Iran from arming the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Great, what if Iran opens up with a supersonic SS-N-22 Moskit cruise missile? What then?
Here’s a cool story I found about a guy from Colorado who’s volunteered to fight along side the Peshmerga against ISIS.
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=86658
MANAMA, Bahrain (NNS) - The aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), escorted by the guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG 60), transited the Strait of Hormuz from its station in the Arabian Gulf to the Arabian Sea, April 19.
"Theodore Roosevelt and Normandy have joined other U.S. forces conducting maritime security operations in the Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb and the Southern Red Sea.
In recent days, the U.S. Navy has increased its presence in this area as a result of the current instability in Yemen.
The purpose of these operations is to ensure the vital shipping lanes in the region remain open and safe. The United States remains committed to its regional partners and to maintaining security in the maritime environment."
A Pentagon spokesman stated that US Naval vessels are not conducting naval interdiction, contrary to a USA Today report that quoted an anonymous defense official.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What we want is for Iran to give up its nuclear program.
Edited.[/quote]
And the Saudis don’t?[/quote]
The Saudis remember when the US had a close strategic partnership with Iran. The want Iran to stay in the penalty box and and an Iran without the bomb. As the Italians say, they want their wife drunk and a full bottle of wine.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
A Pentagon spokesman stated that US Naval vessels are not conducting naval interdiction, contrary to a USA Today report that quoted an anonymous defense official. [/quote]
So, either it’s true…
or they pussied out!!??
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
A Pentagon spokesman stated that US Naval vessels are not conducting naval interdiction, contrary to a USA Today report that quoted an anonymous defense official. [/quote]
So, either it’s true…
or they pussied out!!??
[/quote]
No, USA Today fabricated their source or their source was incorrect. The Saudi Navy is already implementing a blockade.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What we want is for Iran to give up its nuclear program.
Edited.[/quote]
And the Saudis don’t?[/quote]
They do, but they want it to be after we bomb the Persians, or after an economic collapse. The guy is saying, explicitly, that the Arab Gulf states are worried that Iran will comply with the West’s terms. Not deceive or reneg – comply.
A compliant Iran is not his #1 choice if it means a thaw with the U.S. – he is saying exactly as much.
Edited.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What we want is for Iran to give up its nuclear program.
Edited.[/quote]
And the Saudis don’t?[/quote]
The Saudis remember when the US had a close strategic partnership with Iran. The want Iran to stay in the penalty box and and an Iran without the bomb. As the Italians say, they want their wife drunk and a full bottle of wine.
[/quote]
That’s a great saying, I will be stealing that at some point.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What we want is for Iran to give up its nuclear program.
Edited.[/quote]
And the Saudis don’t?[/quote]
The Saudis remember when the US had a close strategic partnership with Iran. The want Iran to stay in the penalty box and and an Iran without the bomb. As the Italians say, they want their wife drunk and a full bottle of wine.
[/quote]
That’s a great saying, I will be stealing that at some point.[/quote]
I was told by my oenophile lady friend that it’s the Italian equivalent of the English idiomatic proverb "You can’t have your cake and eat it too. It’s almost as good as the Tamil “desire to have both the mustache and to drink the porridge” As a beard owner and oatmeal lover, the struggle is real.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Ok what about the latest?
The US is sending the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt to stop Iran from arming the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Great, what if Iran opens up with a supersonic SS-N-22 Moskit cruise missile? What then?
[/quote]
The Yemen angle has truly added a bizarre element to these negotiations.
This situation is truly fucked up and seemingly came out of nowhere. I know they did not come out of nowhere and has brewed for a while before. But it seems out of nowhere anyway.
When you stand up and take about ten steps back and up from the situation and look at the whole current picture, you get a truly weird, fucked up… there just are not words in the English language that adequately describe the fucked-upness of dealing with Iran.
On one side you have high level political diplomacy and negotiations going on in good faith, largely, until an agreement can be made, supposedly in June.
On another side, you have Iranian or Iranian backed militias, or both, not fighting with the (very loose) coalition, but on the same side of the coalition. I.E. They are fighting ISIS in Iraq just like the coalition is supposed to be doing, but they are doing it on their own for their own benefit.
Then on another, another side you have the Iranians fighting with, supporting and supplying and perhaps fighting with the Houthi rebels who deposed the legitimate government supported by the west. The Houthi rebels who are condemned by AQAP, but are being supported by Iran.
Saudi Arabia took the bulls by the horn and went on offensive in Yemen with a coalition of their own, fighting the Houthi rebels. The U.S. is sending naval power there to stare down Iranian ship bound to bring weapons and aid to the rebels. But we are tacitly fighting with Iran, on the same side, if not together in Iraq against ISIS.
So we are fighting on the same side, though not together in Iraq against ISIS. We are fighting against Iran in Yemen, and we are trying diplomacy to put together a good faith nuclear treaty with Iran. And we are supposed to trust a treaty with Iran?
Like, wow. WTF? Maybe it’s just me, but something just does not seem right about this whole mess; it’s just a little off.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
This is an interesting analysis by a Saudi A-rab…
[/quote]
I wonder if the president reads CNN online?
And I wonder if he gives a flying fuck what they think of what he is doing.[/quote]
I don’t know if he reads CNN or not. As far as the flying fuck, does not seem he gives one.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Ok what about the latest?
The US is sending the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt to stop Iran from arming the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Great, what if Iran opens up with a supersonic SS-N-22 Moskit cruise missile? What then? [/quote]
Welp, den Ah gess dat’d meen everbuddy dat thanks dem Eye-ranians is stoopid an crayzy wud be vindimacated.
An iffn dey don’t, den Ah gess it’d meen dat dey ain’t. Purdy simple.
[quote]Here’s a cool story I found about a guy from Colorado who’s volunteered to fight along side the Peshmerga against ISIS.
Now, THAT’s what I’m talking about. Awesome.
[/quote]
I think it’s time for the theme song:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
This is an interesting analysis by a Saudi A-rab…
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/opinions/barack-obama-mideast-sager/index.html
[/quote]
You can dismiss this guy with a mere roll of the eyes and a casual “He probably hasn’t even read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” line.[/quote]
Clearly he failed advanced PolySci 5010[/quote]
No, but you can dismiss him because he is a “privately-funded” shill for Saudi interests who writes things like “I have been fortunate enough to gauge the intentions of those in [the Saudi Arabian] government with regards to their human rights obligations and can confidently say that this process is being taken more seriously the [sic] ever” (Huffpost). This about one of the planet’s unqualifiedly worst human rights abusers.
Which is why he spent much of that editorial whining about how Obama isn’t saying nice enough things about the Arab Gulf states. Most tellingly, this: “the fear is that as long as Iran abides by any agreement that might come into force later this year, the U.S. will negate, downplay, or simply ignore those Iranian actions that the Arab world considers as direct threats.” In other words, his fear is that the Iranians will comply with the deal, which is bad for him because he doesn’t want the United States warming to a regional competitor. This is perfectly legitimate – from a Saudi perspective. What we want is for Iran to give up its nuclear program.
Edited.[/quote]
So you don’t like that he might not be completely subjective? Who is? [/quote]
That’s called a false dichotomy – we don’t have to choose between “impartial robot” and “Saudi shill.” I didn’t criticize him because “he might not be completely subjective,” I criticized him for being a propagandist willing to say fantastically stupid shit about Saudi Arabia in typo-riddled Huffpost blogs, and for openly admitting that his co-ideologues’ fear is that Iran will comply with the deal.
The kind that includes complicity in Nixon’s treason (for which multiple people should have hanged in public) and support for genocidaires. Not rough guys, not unsavory characters – genocidaires. But that isn’t really the point. I didn’t see the link, but I’ll go back and respond to it tomorrow.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What we want is for Iran to give up its nuclear program.
Edited.[/quote]
And the Saudis don’t?[/quote]
The Saudis remember when the US had a close strategic partnership with Iran. The want Iran to stay in the penalty box and and an Iran without the bomb. As the Italians say, they want their wife drunk and a full bottle of wine.
[/quote]
That’s a great saying, I will be stealing that at some point.[/quote]
I was told by my oenophile lady friend that it’s the Italian equivalent of the English idiomatic proverb "You can’t have your cake and eat it too. It’s almost as good as the Tamil “desire to have both the mustache and to drink the porridge” As a beard owner and oatmeal lover, the struggle is real. [/quote]
Nevermind my last post – I’m stealing the porridge one.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
This is an interesting analysis by a Saudi A-rab…
[/quote]
You can dismiss this guy with a mere roll of the eyes and a casual “He probably hasn’t even read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” line.[/quote]
Clearly he failed advanced PolySci 5010[/quote]
No, but you can dismiss him because he is a “privately-funded” shill for Saudi interests who writes things like “I have been fortunate enough to gauge the intentions of those in [the Saudi Arabian] government with regards to their human rights obligations and can confidently say that this process is being taken more seriously the [sic] ever” (Huffpost). This about one of the planet’s unqualifiedly worst human rights abusers.
Which is why he spent much of that editorial whining about how Obama isn’t saying nice enough things about the Arab Gulf states. Most tellingly, this: “the fear is that as long as Iran abides by any agreement that might come into force later this year, the U.S. will negate, downplay, or simply ignore those Iranian actions that the Arab world considers as direct threats.” In other words, his fear is that the Iranians will comply with the deal, which is bad for him because he doesn’t want the United States warming to a regional competitor. This is perfectly legitimate – from a Saudi perspective. What we want is for Iran to give up its nuclear program.
Edited.[/quote]
So you don’t like that he might not be completely subjective? Who is?
Henry Kissinger? He opposes the deal but then again what does he know? He probably hasn’t even read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action either. And besides what kind of foreign relations resume does he even have? I bet if he was here you and Bistro’d school the hell outta him.
[/quote]
"The president deserves respect for the commitment with which he has pursued the objective of reducing nuclear peril, as does Secretary of State John Kerry for the persistence, patience and ingenuity with which he has striven to impose significant constraints on Iran’s nuclear program.
Progress has been made on shrinking the size of Iran’s enriched stockpile, confining the enrichment of uranium to one facility, and limiting aspects of the enrichment process. Still, the ultimate significance of the framework will depend on its verifiability and enforceability."
Kissinger and Shultz don’t oppose a deal per se; their article “The Iran Deal and Its Consequences” is valuable as a work of red-team analysis. As an advocate of Realpolitik, I’m still in favor of a final deal as outlined by the JCPA. However, I hope that US negotiators are able to correct at least some of the deficiencies of the framework agreement that K&S so astutely pointed out.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
This is an interesting analysis by a Saudi A-rab…
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/opinions/barack-obama-mideast-sager/index.html
[/quote]
You can dismiss this guy with a mere roll of the eyes and a casual “He probably hasn’t even read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” line.[/quote]
Clearly he failed advanced PolySci 5010[/quote]
No, but you can dismiss him because he is a “privately-funded” shill for Saudi interests who writes things like “I have been fortunate enough to gauge the intentions of those in [the Saudi Arabian] government with regards to their human rights obligations and can confidently say that this process is being taken more seriously the [sic] ever” (Huffpost). This about one of the planet’s unqualifiedly worst human rights abusers.
Which is why he spent much of that editorial whining about how Obama isn’t saying nice enough things about the Arab Gulf states. Most tellingly, this: “the fear is that as long as Iran abides by any agreement that might come into force later this year, the U.S. will negate, downplay, or simply ignore those Iranian actions that the Arab world considers as direct threats.” In other words, his fear is that the Iranians will comply with the deal, which is bad for him because he doesn’t want the United States warming to a regional competitor. This is perfectly legitimate – from a Saudi perspective. What we want is for Iran to give up its nuclear program.
Edited.[/quote]
So you don’t like that he might not be completely subjective? Who is? [/quote]
That’s called a false dichotomy – we don’t have to choose between “impartial robot” and “Saudi shill.” I didn’t criticize him because “he might not be completely subjective,” I criticized him for being a propagandist willing to say fantastically stupid shit about Saudi Arabia in typo-riddled Huffpost blogs, and for openly admitting that his co-ideologues’ fear is that Iran will comply with the deal.
The kind that includes complicity in Nixon’s treason (for which multiple people should have hanged in public) and support for genocidaires. Not rough guys, not unsavory characters – genocidaires. But that isn’t really the point. I didn’t see the link, but I’ll go back and respond to it tomorrow.[/quote]
Here’s the link. The full article is much better than the snippets from Push’s source.