[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Oh believe me, I agree with you, one oil to rule them all so to speak.
[/quote]
If you’re gonna do it, do it right.
One hydrocarbon ring to rule them all!
And now, of course, someone who’s an even bigger nerd than me will point out that petroleum is not one but a plethora of hydrocarbons, whose molecules are made up of multiple benzene rings. Fuck it.
Shit just got real between the Taliban and ISIS, the Muslim world’s exploding. Good Muslim? Bad Muslim? Moderate Muslim? Extremist Muslim? Who cares, let them fight it out.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Who cares, let them fight it out.
[/quote]
We caaaaaan’t. We’re Ameeeeeeerica. We hafta fuck around in eeeeeeveryone’s business.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Who cares, let them fight it out.
[/quote]
We caaaaaan’t. We’re Ameeeeeeerica. We hafta fuck around in eeeeeeveryone’s business. [/quote]
Well, if it’s true like you say, we’ll back each side and let them fight it out and back the one who wins…except for the one example I gave, that being Iran/Iraq, though people somehow conveniently forget we backed Iran though Iran/Contra and just play up the fact we helped Saddam fight what was our # 1 Middle Eastern enemy at the time, that being Iran, even though it’s known Saddam was a Soviet client and was heavily armed by them, which makes it idiotic how Iran readily accepts arms from Russia today, being that they OCCUPIED Iran last Century but that’s somehow ok, please provide another example of a war in which we provided weapons to both sides… and how’s that for a massive run-on?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Who cares, let them fight it out.
[/quote]
We caaaaaan’t. We’re Ameeeeeeerica. We hafta fuck around in eeeeeeveryone’s business. [/quote]
Well, if it’s true like you say, we’ll back each side and let them fight it out and back the one who wins…except for the one example I gave, that being Iran/Iraq, though people somehow conveniently forget we backed Iran though Iran/Contra and just play up the fact we helped Saddam fight what was our # 1 Middle Eastern enemy at the time, that being Iran, even though it’s known Saddam was a Soviet client and was heavily armed by them, which makes it idiotic how Iran readily accepts arms from Russia today, being that they OCCUPIED Iran last Century but that’s somehow ok, please provide another example of a war in which we provided weapons to both sides… and how’s that for a massive run-on?
[/quote]
I’ll give you two examples. The first and second World Wars.
Money, munitions, fuel, planes, vehicles, machinery, Coca-Cola, you name it. To both sides.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Who cares, let them fight it out.
[/quote]
We caaaaaan’t. We’re Ameeeeeeerica. We hafta fuck around in eeeeeeveryone’s business. [/quote]
Sigh.
Give our country a break from the snide criticism once in a while, my friend.
Pretty please?
We’re not ALL bad.[/quote]
Hell, I’ve got no problem with “our country”.
I’m not talking about “our country”.
Did “our country” meddle in any foreign nation’s affairs, disputes and conflicts?
No, it did not. But the United States government did, specifically the State Department and the Pentagon.
Are you taking offence on their behalf?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
after an economic collapse.[/quote]
And again, I say, “Why is that not what WE are waiting for?”
Why negotiate while your adversary still has some room to fall? If the sanctions are what brought the Iranians to the table, why not wait till they RUN there rather than act like they can take it or leave it?
[/quote]
Because what you quoted was one of two options, and the other was war – paid for and died in by us, not the Saudis. We could wait and see if the regime can eke its way past breakout, but, if it were to do so, we would bear the vast bulk of the mess and cleanup. Wouldn’t it be fun to fight ISIS away from our propped-up cardboard government in Tehran?
Or, alternatively, we drop some bombs and nothing more. In which case the sanctions dissolve and the whole thing begins again, with much more Iranian will (and, maybe, a bunch of remnant contraband).
Thing is, we don’t need to take any risks (and continuing to do nothing is by far the greater risk). We aren’t worried about what the Saudis are worried about. I don’t care if the Saudis sweat when they picture a thaw in U.S.-Iran relations. Again, the observer in question is worried that the deal will work. I say let him worry.[/quote]
Thanks for the civil and thoughtful answer.
[/quote]
And to you, good sir.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Who cares, let them fight it out.
[/quote]
We caaaaaan’t. We’re Ameeeeeeerica. We hafta fuck around in eeeeeeveryone’s business. [/quote]
Sigh.
Give our country a break from the snide criticism once in a while, my friend.
Pretty please?
We’re not ALL bad.[/quote]
Hell, I’ve got no problem with “our country”.
I’m not talking about “our country”.
Did “our country” meddle in any foreign nation’s affairs, disputes and conflicts?
No, it did not. But the United States government did, specifically the State Department and the Pentagon.
Are you taking offence on their behalf?[/quote]
Not taking offense at all.
Just not convinced that even the US government is ALL bad, and a little “criticism fatigued.”
But it was just a friendly comment; feel free to ignore it.
An honest question: Do you have anything positive to say about the government, or is it all pretty much bad in your opinion?
[/quote]
The government gets a lot of things right. National parks, for one thing. Highways (for the most part) for another.
I appreciate federal laws requiring companies to tell me what’s in my food.
I also like the fact that the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian Institute exist. The national monuments are nice, too.
The bad of our government is not necessarily intrinsic bad, i.e. evil. No, it’s more the bad that results from blatant incompetence, greed and excess. It’s the bad that says “if you can’t do it right, at least do it larger, louder and more expensively.”
Yes, I admit, I sometimes blur my complaints about specific policies of specific government entities into generalised comments about "Mur… "
–oh, but I won’t say it. I don’t want you to scream or break things.
I will, however, lay off for a while. It makes me tired, too.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Who cares, let them fight it out.
[/quote]
We caaaaaan’t. We’re Ameeeeeeerica. We hafta fuck around in eeeeeeveryone’s business. [/quote]
Come on man…
[quote]loppar wrote:
John Dolan aka Gary Brecher aka War Nerd is basically required reading for making sense of the Gulf. Some might find his bitterness towards life in general irritating, but the observations and conclusion are spot on.
Due to many poor life choices he had to take a string of shitty jobs teaching English in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Kurdistan.
Nevertheless, or perhaps exactly for that reason his writings are brilliant.
Here’s a primer, well worth a read.
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/holiday-inn-surrection/
http://pando.com/2013/12/19/the-war-nerd-saudis-syria-and-blowback/
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/saudi-dirty-dozen/
http://pando.com/2015/03/28/the-war-nerd-a-brief-history-of-the-yemen-clusterfck/[/quote]
I hate you.
I stayed up until 2AM reading his past articles.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Who cares, let them fight it out.
[/quote]
We caaaaaan’t. We’re Ameeeeeeerica. We hafta fuck around in eeeeeeveryone’s business. [/quote]
Well, if it’s true like you say, we’ll back each side and let them fight it out and back the one who wins…except for the one example I gave, that being Iran/Iraq, though people somehow conveniently forget we backed Iran though Iran/Contra and just play up the fact we helped Saddam fight what was our # 1 Middle Eastern enemy at the time, that being Iran, even though it’s known Saddam was a Soviet client and was heavily armed by them, which makes it idiotic how Iran readily accepts arms from Russia today, being that they OCCUPIED Iran last Century but that’s somehow ok, please provide another example of a war in which we provided weapons to both sides… and how’s that for a massive run-on?
[/quote]
I’ll give you two examples. The first and second World Wars.
Money, munitions, fuel, planes, vehicles, machinery, Coca-Cola, you name it. To both sides.[/quote]
After we declared war with them,? Come on!
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Who cares, let them fight it out.
[/quote]
We caaaaaan’t. We’re Ameeeeeeerica. We hafta fuck around in eeeeeeveryone’s business. [/quote]
Well, if it’s true like you say, we’ll back each side and let them fight it out and back the one who wins…except for the one example I gave, that being Iran/Iraq, though people somehow conveniently forget we backed Iran though Iran/Contra and just play up the fact we helped Saddam fight what was our # 1 Middle Eastern enemy at the time, that being Iran, even though it’s known Saddam was a Soviet client and was heavily armed by them, which makes it idiotic how Iran readily accepts arms from Russia today, being that they OCCUPIED Iran last Century but that’s somehow ok, please provide another example of a war in which we provided weapons to both sides… and how’s that for a massive run-on?
[/quote]
Iranians have long memories and have not forgotten about Russian aggression toward them. Iran and Russia are not friendly allies. They are neighbors that realize each can provide the other benefits. Iran wanted a missile defense system, and Russia was willing to sell it. There aren’t many countries willing to do business with Iran, let alone arms deals.
Also, the US clearly provided much more support to Iraq than Iran during that war, and clearly wanted Saddam to succeed. Iran/Contra was selling some anti-tank missiles on the down low to help fund a shady intervention in Nicaragua. Saddam/Iraq was given large loans, intelligence, and political clout. No fucks were given as Saddam openly used chemical weapons on a massive scale (50,000 direct casualties, 50k more over time, and thousands more still needing treatment 3 decades later), including against civilians and Iraqi Kurds. The US provided operational support for chemical weapons attacks and implicitly supported these actions. To be fair, the entire world was silent and many countries were on board.
Further, this war was a result of Iraqi aggression and an invasion. Saddam wasn’t a patriot that needed to defend his people with help from the 1st world. He wanted Iranian lands that are oil rich and didn’t mind a million dying over it. As a cherry on top, near the end of the war the US killed 300 civilians on an Iranian commercial airline.
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
As a cherry on top, near the end of the war the US killed 300 civilians on an Iranian commercial airline.[/quote]
Obviously not deliberately. They didn’t say “let’s shoot down an airliner to send a message to the Iranian government that we hate them.”
Not like the Iranian backed bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon also during the 80’s or the list of Iranian backed Hezbollah terrorist attacks against Western targets there.
So what do you think, they deliberately shot a plane down just to do what? Start a war which has yet to materialize?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
As a cherry on top, near the end of the war the US killed 300 civilians on an Iranian commercial airline.[/quote]
Obviously not deliberately. They didn’t say “let’s shoot down an airliner to send a message to the Iranian government that we hate them.”
Not like the Iranian backed bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon also during the 80’s or the list of Iranian backed Hezbollah terrorist attacks against Western targets there.
So what do you think, they deliberately shot a plane down just to do what? Start a war which has yet to materialize?[/quote]
That really wasn’t what I wanted to focus on and there’s no need to get into a large discussion about it. It was just adding to my opinion that the US was not simultaneously backing both countries, it was backing Iraq. I don’t think it was an accident personally, but that one event wouldn’t change my opinion on who the US supported either way.
I am well aware of aggressive actions b/t Iran and the US on both sides. What almost never gets pointed out is US aggression toward Iran. To a more broad point, there are reasons why there is distrust and ill-will on both sides. I’m just trying to add to the depth of the discussion here, and am not taking sides against my own country (USA).
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
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?[/quote]
Oh, they are most assuredly wondering the same thing about us, for the same reasons.
[/quote]
Actually, I was questioning us, more so than them…[/quote]
There is a lot of confusion about Yemen in my opinion. The US isn’t that involved and it’s pretty obvious the US is providing its limited support to appease the Saudis. The Saudis have been whining for quite a long time now about the US never taking its side. This is to maintain that relationship and balance Saudi fears about a completed nuke deal with Iran.
Iran’s role in Yemen is way overstated, an idea propagated by Saudi propaganda. Show me a legitimate newspaper based in the US or Europe that says Iran is calling the shots for the Houthis. It’s really just a pretext to make the humanitarian clusterfuck Saudi Arabia has created look semi-legitimate. Also so they don’t look like complete twats that can’t defeat barefoot rebels with the best military hardware and training money can buy in an operation they dubbed “Decisive Storm”. Replace barefoot rebels with Iranians and I suppose it doesn’t look as embarrassing. To be fair, the Saudi’s also have to deal with Saleh loyalists, but he certainly has no ties to Iran. In any case, the Saudis are failing which shouldn’t be a surprise considering a spoiled 30 y/o prince with zero military experience is running the operation.
We should be glad we aren’t fighting “Iran” in Yemen at the behest of Saudi Arabia. Even Pakistan rejected Saudi pleas for troops. If Pakistan of all countries (which is beholden to Saudi) thinks its not worth sacrificing its troops for this war, then it sure as shit ain’t worth American lives and treasure. A very clear message was sent when “Decisive Storm” was replaced with “Restoring Hope” right after it was clear Pakistan wanted no part in this war.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
after an economic collapse.[/quote]
And again, I say, “Why is that not what WE are waiting for?”
Why negotiate while your adversary still has some room to fall? If the sanctions are what brought the Iranians to the table, why not wait till they RUN there rather than act like they can take it or leave it?
But Loppar says that the Iranian economy is doing well enough that it WON’T fall? I guess he knows more than the Saudi government…[/quote]
The reason is because this is a multi-lateral negotiation. If the US wasn’t willing to negotiate, then the sanctions regime would likely fall apart because other important countries wanted to negotiate. If it’s only the US sanctioning Iran, then Iran doesn’t much care and it’s economy would do fine.
I don’t get the comment about the Saudi “government”. What do they know that any major western country wouldn’t? I’d trust economists and experts in the US before Saudi officials on matters concerning Iran.