100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

We’re gonna try to stay on point in this one - .

After the Iranian admission of shooting down the Ukrainian 737, which was carrying 82 Iranian passengers, protests against the Supreme Leader have broken out.

The UK ambassador to Iran has been arrested for talking photos of the protests. President Trump has tweeted support for the protesters in English and Farsi.

 

[superchuck500]

The above post received an upvote from you, and was the lead in to my response about how racism has not really won the day and how Beach has thrown his lot in with that crowd, but may or may not be racist himself.


I would be interested in an explanation for why inferring I am some shrieking SJW and rubbing my nose in that straw man evoked a thumbs up from you and then you decided to come and tone police me for a sentence I poorly punctuated, but attempted to correct?

Yeah, that like was accidental.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Andrus]

So, before you start to lecture anyone about poor posting behavior, counciling others on elevating discourse and suggesting remedies to generate dialogue, I think it would be wise to take a step back and understand your role in how this thread went left and, first, start holding yourself accountable to that standard.

Taylor made a very coherent, cogent post (#661) about how he felt this Administration's reputation for lying is problematic and how it affects how he sees their explanations for foreign policy motives and objectives. To which you replied:



A snide, partisan jab. That post isn't elevated discussion. Truthfully, this garbage, got the ball rolling down this precipitous path to begin with. Your post. Now, Taylor handled this trash masterfully. They didn't put you on ignore. Or say this:



Which, NOB is wrong for responding like that. Because that doesn't elevate discussion either. Taylor engaged you, asked for a suggestion and kindly vowed, in good faith, to consider your source. That's elevating discussion. That's the MCB. Turning your snide remark around and encouraging you to be better, more productive. Not meeting snark with snark and keeping us in the gutter.

As for this:



Let's make something abundantly clear. I can't believe I have to make the point. There are levels to insults. In no way shape or form, is being called racist, anywhere close, in the same universe, as deliberately attempting to insult someone by calling them the N word. Like. What. The. Actual. fork. And who is this "they." How did this escape your mind as an acceptable thought? Joe, if you seriously think there is any equivocation to being called racist, to being called (I'm sorry mods, I have to trip the filter to make the point, please understand the context) "brother"...like, I'm still in disbelief you would say that. I should not have to explain that to anyone, at all.



Some advice? Practice what you preach. You had no issue, earlier in this same thread, lobbing insults and accusations, saying posters were supporting Iran, but the suggestion that one may be racist is horrific to you. Get off that soapbox bro and raise your posting game up too.

Chuck was right. NOB was wrong for packaging his retort inferring racism. NOB, BF and Joe all took this thread left. However, I will say this. I admire Taylor for considering Tucker but I, for one, have seen enough of Tucker's content to know that he peddles racist content. I, too, have serious reservations about anyone suggesting TC as a reliable source for political commentary.

That being said, the MCB deserves better. But, the persons pointing fingers need to reexamine their role in its detriment.

I was about to formulate a post with the intent of stepping in to issue guidance, but the quoted response above is very close to my own feelings. First Time Poster definitely "gets it".

On another note. I have been side-tracked recently having taken on a due-diligence project that has had me distracted, so I haven't had much time on this site... but I wanted to say that It has become quite apparent that a select few here are incapable of posting on this board in the consistently civil and constructive manner that is required here on the MCB. We not only have those that do not post in good faith, but the usual suspects that couldn't keep it civil on the old board are beginning to push the envelope in kind here also. Then we have one member specifically practicing public undermining of the staff/moderation, and is probably oblivious to the fact that he has been doing so ever since he got here.

Self-reflection & reexamining roles in taking threads downhill is great advice. There is a lot of pot/kettle out there. Going around lobbing grenades and then reporting other members for tossing them back is just plain thick headed.

Try harder to remain civil and genuine. I don't know about anyone else.... but my patience is wearing thin with some members.

I will now re-open this thread, and expect to see better discourse.

 

[Andrus]

Reading the responses that followed the quoted post in my message above, it was good to see reasonable members giving good guidance in attempts to improve the discourse, which gives me hope. The best recipe for long term success of any community is a solid core of members.

 

[wardorican]

The money is anti establishment/ anti big corp?

That's where the viewers are.

 

[wardorican]

Seems that it is acceptable to call people racist around here doesn't? They call call us Racist without reprocussions, but if we called them the "N" word we'd get an infraction.

Double standard around here just like the PDB was.

I'm not a fan of calling anyone a racist, unless it is very, very clear.

However, trying to make the N word and "racist" equivalent is just plain stupid.

It's one thing to view them both as insults, which is true, but they clearly are not on equal ground. That's even ignoring the fact that one is an observed behavior.

I mean, if someone was called "slow" is that as bad a "a degenerate piece of human filth that should die and burn in hell?" (not directed at anyone). But clearly, they aren't equal. So, they can't be a double standard.

It may not feel fair, but it's not fair to enslaved a group of people and then decide what they can and can't complain about afterwards when discussing old and current hurts.

EDIT: I posted this without catching up in the thread to see some of other posts.

 

[TaylorB]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/10/new-iran-revelations-suggest-trumps-deceptions-were-deeper-than-we-thought/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Weird how they've never mentioned the attempt on Shahlai

Shahlai is in Yemen fighting Kushner's WhatsApp buddies, the Saudis. The whole "imminent threat" part of the initial statement about the strike on Soleimani was a more conspicuous lie than sharpie drawn on a NOAA map.

The inconsistent messaging on this type of thing is such a troubling pattern. No one knew why we suddenly pulled out of NW Syria immediately after Erdogan called Trump. There may have been more military people involved in this decision than in Syria, but all the explanations seem like after-the-fact justifications of something he decided to do unilaterally or at the behest of a very small group (could be US or foreign or both). Ukraine was similar.

When it's reported he ordered the strike to kill Soleimani to appease Senators ahead of impeachment, it's hard not to consider that as a possibility. That's definitely a motivation he couldn't have made the military apparatus aware of before making the call. Who knows for sure whether that's true, but it's as logical as anything else we're being told. At the risk of being accused of mourning the death of a really bad dude (I'm not -- he deserved what he got), I'm frustrated at constantly being lied to.

I doubt we’ll all be able to agree upon a universal scale of culpability of various insults or belief systems to which we will all subscribe moving forward, but there does appear to be sufficient agreement on what is / isn’t productive with respect to the substantive discussions these threads are intended to facilitate.

As someone who is relatively new to posting on internet message boards, it‘s apparent this sort of forum has (too?) many shortcomings for such a complex discussion as race relations, but at a minimum, if we’re going to go there, the topic deserves its own thread due in part to its tendency to derail the other discussions, and in part because of its importance as a stand-alone issue. We should all carefully examine anything we post on that topic for a host of reasons I don’t need to list. It’s not just race that derails these discussions - bringing up media bias, etc. all has the effect of diverting attention from substance. We know this type of post when we see it.

I wish we had a magic answer as to how to keep these discussions from devolving into vague attacks on belief structures. I will be mindful of this problem going forward and will try to keep my own posts focused on the topic at hand. I can think of at least a few of my own prior posts I would have re-worded or not posted so as to avoid contributing to the problem. We can make this more productive and enjoyable if we engage in a bit of self-reflection.

Since it was my post that led to this getting derailed, I’ll give it a shot at getting it back on the rails:

Beach, to be honest, I thought you were baiting me with your response to my post. But I thought if I ignored it, we would keep talking past each other on this and other topics. My conservative friends know if they make a factual or philosophical point I will take it into serious consideration. That leads to more productive discussions because (1) they know I will take the time to understand their points of view (well, they might not agree I always do, but I think I do), and (2) they know they‘ll be called on anything they say that they can’t support. So I hope you know I’m sincere about giving you feedback on TC, because I want to debate the substance of all of this, and I’ll never be dismissive of a substantive viewpoint if it is based on sufficient factual support. If my responses to you come off as attempts to derail your substantive points, I hope you call me out for it as well.

So back to my original point: it’s frustrating that this admin keeps shifting stories on Soleimani. Now we have a 2016 memo from Erik Prince, a buddy of the UAE-SA alliance who trains mercenaries in UAE, talking about wanting Soleimani dead. The question over what is behind Trump’s foreign policy is a legitimate one given that the only consistency is that we continue to be lied to. I’m not satisfied with the lack of transparency given the magnitude of what’s at stake. That’s a reasonable point of view, no?

 

[FullMonte]

FWIW Susan Rice doesn’t think that story rings true. She said there can definitely be a menu of options but in her experience none of them are not viable options nor are they presented only to make other options look better. I thought it sounded kinda far out there when I heard that reporting.

She said sure there may be a low, middle and high response presented, but they aren’t trying to manipulate the president.

My only issue with this is that Ms. Rice is applying her experience of working with a President who had advisers who he listened to, and who appeared to actually consider all alternatives before making a calculated decision...to a President who, by all accounts, does not listen to his advisers as much, who has repeatedly stated out loud that he knows more than his advisers, and who reacts/acts based on his emotions at the moment.

 

[superchuck500]

Obama Should Never Have Appeased Iran

Returning to a strategy of containment, backed by clear and credible deterrence, is more urgent than ever.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[N.O.Bronco]

That article is really not good and reminds me why I appreciate but also despise The Atlantic at times.

off the bat it starts off with an omission of critical historical facts, proceeds to leave out of context others to build its case(like the UN sanction alliance being solely and entiriely premised on bringing Iran to the nuclear negotiating table, it was never even a possibility to use it in service of right-wing US policy goals), and builds its entire argument on a set of presumptions, assertions and is anchored around policies that’s purpose are never defined. Let alone explained why they should be pursued in the first place.

It’s the sort of piece so grotesquely embedded in the American exceptionalism/imperialism mindset that it forgot to even explain why we should be fighting in the first place and why this sort of regional control is important to a broader US strategy. Let alone even feel a sense to acknowledge what “ally” actually meant pre-78. It takes controlling the Middle East, and essentially squeezing the regime until collapse, as a presumptive positive good by default. Then proceeds to very poorly articulate why the past policy couldn’t achieve it and doesn’t really offer a concrete plan or explanation for why containment will succeed? Let alone what would be the plan if it did?

Articles like this infer, but don’t outright say the goal is regime change. But there is no other logical conclusion. And if that is the goal, it already falls into the same trap that would of been evident if the author spent more time understanding why Iran went from ally to foe in 78 and why presuming that pushing the country to unrest and government collapse will magically improve America’s geostrategic position in the region when it very well could simply push Iran into a client state of China or Russia or a new type of military dictatorship.

 

[superchuck500]

Esper this morning saying that he never saw specific evidence of a threat to US embassies but he “believes the president” when he says there was a threat. What?! Why would the SECDEF not know?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I’d chalk that up to a president that is a habitual liar, a petty tyrant, and emotionally stunted, combined with a SecDef trying to balance a sense of personal moral responsibility(and self-incrimination) with loyalty to a leader that exhibits the above traits.

I.E. the president is full of shirt but I have to publicly and privately pretend he’s not while not exhibiting disloyalty and a non-unified American front.

 

[wardorican]

Esper this morning saying that he never saw specific evidence of a threat to US embassies but he “believes the president” when he says there was a threat. What?! Why would the SECDEF not know?

Does the intelligence community also filter through the Sec of Def? Or isnt he in the same high level threat assessments / decision meetings?

Wow, he's really dancing around this one..

 

[dtc]

Obama Should Never Have Appeased Iran

Returning to a strategy of containment, backed by clear and credible deterrence, is more urgent than ever.

www.theatlantic.com

It's so hard to take those folks seriously.

The impetus for Iran's latest stirrings is the Trump withdrawal from the deal Obama agreed to.

Characterizaing Obama removing troops from Iraq as appeasement may be likely to garner support from those who think being tough is a universal strategy, but it overlooks the fact that the US could not occupy Iraq forever.

It's as if they live in a vacuum where the US can just invade and occupy anyone at anytime and dictate to the world at a whim.

Iran was contained and behaving until Trump kneecapped the deal. I don't think there's much disagreement except among those like Bolton who see every sleight as a call to war.

 

[dtc]

Esper this morning saying that he never saw specific evidence of a threat to US embassies but he “believes the president” when he says there was a threat. What?! Why would the SECDEF not know?

It's a more plausible lie than saying Trump was telling the truth and it covers his butt.

 

[FullMonte]

Does the intelligence community also filter through the Sec of Def? Or isnt he in the same high level threat assessments / decision meetings?

Wow, he's really dancing around this one..

Well, I'd think that the guy who's going to be directing military action at particular targets would be given enough information so that he can do his job properly. If there was intelligence of a credible threat to the embassies, he would need to be told so that the defensive units in those areas can be briefed and be prepared.

So, with that said...let's look at the possibilities:

A) Trump was lying when he said that there was an imminent threat to the four embassies.
---Esper can say, "No, there was not a credible imminent threat to those embassies."
---Esper can say, "I believe the president when he said that he believed that there was a threat."

B) Trump was telling the truth
---Esper can say, "Yes, there was a credible threat to our embassies."

Did I miss anything?

 

[Lapaz]

Esper this morning saying that he never saw specific evidence of a threat to US embassies but he “believes the president” when he says there was a threat. What?! Why would the SECDEF not know?

Whether the intelligence showed that there was an imminent attack or not, why does assassinating the second in command help? Why wouldn’t Iran be MORE likely to execute those plans after the assassination? We’re caught up in trying to determine whether Trump was lying or not, but barely analyzing whether the action made sense. Trump probably lied as usual, but people forgive all of his lies. Trump probably abused his power again by ordering a war act without consultation with congress, but his supporters don’t care. However does anyone think killing Soleimani deterred Iran from committing a war act on our embassies? They have more justification for attacking our embassies after we killed Soleimani.