How to take on Iran

[pjohns]

@Didgevillage

Iranians are not dumb.
The average Iranian youth is no different.
They smoke dope, listened to music of their choice, date girls, and are critical of the regime.
But when threatened, they are prepared to fight back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef64utVO8iY

I am aware of no American who wishes harm to the Iranian people.

It is the (theocratic and totalitarian) regime that is the problem.

And to claim that the Iranian regime represents the interests of the Iranian people (in the same way that the US government represents the interests of the American people) is an utter absurdity.

[TWR]

Some nutball conspiracy website no doubt. You can’t even convince him that Fukishima wasn’t nuked by the dirty ■■■■■

[pjohns]

@montecresto1

@pjohns

Nothing sarcastic about it. (Oddly, you evidently did not find the first part of the equation to be filled with “sarcasm”–in fact, you responded to it–yet this part, you do. Strange…)

Iran engages in terrorism to advance its interests just as Saudi Arabia, Israel and the US do. So it’s not about Iran being good.

In this particular instance however, Iran has nothing to gain by attacking a Japanese ship, and along with many others I’m not buying it. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the historic neocons pushing Trump however all have much to gain if Iran could be blamed for it and then attacked by the US in the fashion that you and others here are wanting.

As I have pointed out previously–and I truly do hope that you are listening–Iran does have something to “gain” (potentially, at least) by its actions: It could prompt Europe (which relies upon oil that travels through the Strait of Hormuz) to pressure the US to ease its sanctions–which are badly hurting the Iranian economy.

I suppose I should just reconcile myself to the reality that you are not likely to respond to this; but instead, merely to repeat your talking point about Iran (supposedly) having “nothing to gain” by its attacks. (Remember, a Norwegian ship was attacked also.)

[pjohns]

@montecresto1

@pjohns

The “relation” has to do with Iran’s consistently bad behavior.

It’s that the US regularly focuses on Iran’s bad behavior while ignoring the same with other countries. As a matter of fact, Trump just defended SA again over their killing of the journalist at their Turkish mission.

I have said before–and will reiterate now–that the US has allies based upon two (wholly different) criteria:

One is a similarity of values. Israel is a good example of this.

The other is usefulness. Saudi Arabia, as a counterweight to Iran, is certainly an example of this.

Iran does not fit either criterion.

[pjohns]

@montecresto1

@pjohns

And I really do not know just how Iran might “fight back”–even for “a week” or “a month”–if it had no navy or air force whatsoever, and if we had no boots on the ground in Iran.

Well, I guess you’ll find that out if and when you get your coveted attack on them…

Oh, please feel free to be more specific. Now.

A country without any navy or air force (not even a remnant of either) could “fight back”–how, exactly?

[pjohns]

@montecresto1

@pjohns

How in the world may the UN act against a country’s national sovereignty?

The US is emphatically not merely a part of some globalist union; rather, it is a 100 percent sovereign nation –which does not need to ask permission to act

The US was instrumental in the creation of the UN and the rules by which nations are to abide. Pompeo has been traveling about trying to hussle up a coalition. Bush and Obama both did the same thing. Bush sought and secured a resolution for Iraq, Obama however wasn’t successful in getting a resolution for Syria, Russia and China pointing to the abuse of UNSCR 1973 in Libya.

So, are you suggesting that since the creation of the UN (in 1945), the US has not really been a fully sovereign country; and that this is now an outmoded concept?

[pjohns]

@montecresto1

@pjohns

One might add the fact that it is the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism.

Repeating that talking point won’t make it true.

And suggesting that it is untrue (as you appear to be doing) does not make that so, either.

[pjohns]

@montecresto1

@pjohns

How in the world may the UN act against a country’s national sovereignty?

It doesn’t, it acts to protect it as it did with Syria.

Oh.

You mean, for instance, just how the UN “protect[ed]” Syria from America’s bombing of it in 2018?

Got it…

[pjohns]

@Didgevillage

It was a puzzle how Japan behaved in the last 100 years or so. But now I realize the country became Masonic, meaning it has been run by Masons (in politics, military and industry) since late 19th century.

Japan’s invasion of China in 1930s boggles mind. How you gonna take over a country with a population ten times bigger than yours? I now know that the reason for the invasion was to assist Mao’s communist party to win. The same reasoning applies to the US and Japan sending troops to Siberia immediately after the red revolution to let the Russians rally behind the Bolsheviks, saying “Mother Russia is under attack by foreign forces. Unite!”

Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor was a show, a staged event to give FDR an excuse to join the fray in Europe.

Now, the Japanese government is not fully cooperating with the Zionist propaganda machine by not admitting it was the Iranian mines. See how Israel will react to that.

Now, all you have left out is a reference to “the Illuminati”…

[pjohns]

@montecresto1

@pjohns

It does not even deny this.

Correct, they claim the drone was in Iranian airspace. We’ve seen this movie before.

And I am guessing that you would trust the Iranian government more than the US government–on this matter, and just about any other matter, as well…

[pjohns]

@montecresto1

@pjohns

although you will probably side with Iran here

Wrong again, you can dispense with the gratuitous swipes. My point is that we need time, we need investigations, we need other countries to weigh in. A rush to escalations is not prudent. I’m glad Trump called off last nights attacks.

From what I have heard on the news, President Trump did not stop the attack at the last moment, due to any uncertainty as to who was to blame; rather, he learned that about 150 people would be killed in the attack–and he simply did not want that.

[pjohns]

@montecresto1

@pjohns

although you will probably side with Iran here

Wrong again, you can dispense with the gratuitous swipes. My point is that we need time, we need investigations, we need other countries to weigh in. A rush to escalations is not prudent. I’m glad Trump called off last nights attacks.

And why, exactly, would we require “other countries to weigh in,” in order for the US to pursue its national interests?

Or even to be quite sure of just what happened–and who was responsible for it?

[pjohns]

[quote=“montecresto1, post:241, topic:3206, full:true”]

@pjohns

I seriously doubt that Russia will become involved (unless it is behind the scenes, with weapons sales), as that would surely bring the US into the conflict; and neither Russia nor the US desires the start of WWIII.

@montecresto1

You may not see direct and overt involvement from Russia as in a Russian fighter shooting down an American fighter, but you can bet that Russia will be defending their ally and interests by frustrating US efforts at every turn.

And just how, exactly, do you imagine that Russia could (and would) “frustrat[e]” the US in this matter?

[Didgevillage]

That’s exactly what I mean.
That strategically meaningless attack was a blow for Germany.
(It is no secrete that FDR and Churchill knew, and blamed it on admiral Kimmel)

[Didgevillage]

Au contraire, shabbos goys are hard at work to destroy civilization, be it Iranian or Christian.
Anything, but parasitic non-civilization.

[Jimsouth]

We are not lagging behind in education. Affirmative Action took care of that. Degrees are instantly available to any knuckledragger who cries bias or racism. Where ya been? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This article was originally titled "Mississippi Schools’; but I located it under a different title. A child ( Gabe ) comes home from school crying. His parents put a recording device in his school bag. This is it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on [January 8, 2010
Gabe: “I don’t know what to do on this.”

Ms. Williams: “Well, you’d better find out. It’s not hard. Nobody else didn’t have to ask no questions bout it. You know what to do, you just want somebody to just sit there and pet you about it, but I ain’t gonna do it. You know how to go in that lunch room and tear that food up every day. Ain’t nothing hard bout that sheet.”

Following this Miltonian eructation, we have:

Ms. Williams: “No, do your work. She ain’t goin to be sittin up in here wanting somebody to help her every time she, cause she don’t wanna apply herself to her work. You know how to go in that cafeteria and enjoy that lunch and breakfast every morning.”

Then, waxing ever more lyrical, even Ciceronian,

Ms. Williams: “Where this go?”

Child: “I colored that yesterday.”

Ms. Williams: “It shouldn’t of got changed at all, that ain’t nothing to be proud of.”

Ms. Williams clearly is barely literate, and should be in the first grade instead of teaching it. Gabe speaks better English than she does. In a country not sliding into degradation, a restraining order would keep her from coming within a hundred yards of a school.

Why do we permit this sort of thing? Ms. Williams is black. The story carefully doesn’t say so, but it doesn’t have to. Only the black uneducated speak as she does.

The proper response from parents would be fury. The discovery that this creature is attempting to turn their children into the equivalent of farm animals ought to result in the lynching of the school board of Mississippi. A civilized people with backbone will not allow their their offspring to be made into gurbling iPodded peasants. But we are not such a civilization.

Why is it happening? “Affirmative action.” Since Ms. Williams does not speak the language of the country, the only possible reason for hiring her is that she is black. She is not just slightly unqualified, allowing an expectation that she might catch up—this being the founding fantasy of “affirmative action”—but absolutely unqualified.

The pattern repeats endlessly. Today I have read that the Chicago police contemplate eliminating their entrance examination on the grounds that not enough blacks pass it. Firemen of my acquaintance tell of women too weak to handle a hose, of female paramedics who can’t carry a stretcher. While I was on the police beat at the Washington Times , I encountered a tiny policewoman who never had to drive the paddy wagon because her feet didn’t reach the pedals.

On intercity buses there once were signs, and probably still are, saying, “Seating is without regard to race, creed, color, sex, or national origin.” Today everything seems to be with regard to nothing else. Anything, everything, must be done to keep the affirmative-action classes happy.

This rush to degradation is not new. In 1981 in Harper’s I wrote, in a piece on race in education, “The bald, statistically verifiable truth is that the teachers’ colleges, probably on ideological grounds, have produced an incredible proportion of incompetent black teachers. Evidence of this appears periodically, as, for example, in the results of a competency test given to applicants for teaching positions in Pinellas County, Florida (which includes St. Petersburg and Clearwater), cited in Time, June 16, 1980. To pass this grueling examination, an applicant had to be able to read at the tenth-grade level and do arithmetic at the eighth-grade level. Though they all held B.A.’s, 25 percent of the whites and 79 percent of the blacks failed. Similar statistics exist for other places.”

If you think it desirable to have black teachers, as I do believe it desirable, then get those who are fit to do the job. Plenty of blacks speak English. If you can’t find enough, then do without. The same applies to women who can’t carry stretchers. Fat chance, though.

What price do we pay for this total abnegation of responsibility, civilizational self-respect, reason? One price is a quiet contempt for blacks, and hostility toward them. Competent blacks are no problem, but “If he doan be eatin dis sangwidge…” doesn’t cut it. Women make perfectly good paramedics, but what is anyone, fellow crewman or patient, supposed to think when she can’t lift the stretcher? (Answer: Scorn, anger.) What does a patient think on seeing a black doctor come his way? “Oh god….” The doctor may have gotten through medical school on ability but, given affirmative action, you figure he probably didn’t. Blacks know this of course, and resent it. Knowing that they are despised, they say the hell with it, and content themselves with just getting by. This is useful?

The suspicion of affirmative action pervades American life. After Katrina, a friend in federal employ visited FEMA. It was, he said, very heavily black, on which fact he blamed the disastrous performance of the agency in New Orleans. Was he right? I don’t know. In the absence of affirmative action, the question would not be asked.

Thus the defining principle of American politics arises: If you don’t think in racial terms, if you look only to ability, you are a racist. Count me in.

This leads to another question, seldom asked and never answered: how much does affirmative action really cost the country? If you hire someone to do a job who can’t do it very well, it doesn’t get done very well. This doesn’t strike me as a profound thought, but it seems to elude many people. In the case of Ms. Williams, the damage is great and clear. It isn’t always so stark. When you regularly pass over the first 135 people, all white, on a test for promotion to sergeant in a police department, so as to get to the blacks and Latinos, what kind of police department do you get? If you hire reasonably good female engineers because they are female, instead of very good males, the consequences are less obvious, but there.

And when it becomes a firing offense to notice, the result is a permanent, irremediable drop in the quality of the work force. I don’t suppose it really matters though. The only serious economic competitors the US faces are, oh, Japan, Korea, China, India, Taiwan, Brazil, and the European Union. Piece of cake. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is very very disturbing is, THE ABOVE IS NOT UNUSUAL. In fact it’s becoming more & more the norm. Scary, ain’t it?

[Didgevillage]

America is on the decline. No doubt about it.
America was founded on the Christian values and the Constitution.
They have been under attack for some time, and the enemy of America has taken over.

[montecresto1]

@pjohns

So if you still imagine that Iran is not a bad actor

PJ, I’ve never claimed such a thing. What I have said is that Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the US are all bad actors from time to time pursuing their own interests.

[montecresto1]

@pjohns

as if it were really likely that they would be happy to precipitate WWIII)

Russia and China both blocked the US from securing a resolution for the use of force in Syria and when the US fell back on other means to advance its long term goal of regime change in Syria, Russia got involved militarily in Syria. Iran was also brought in to help in the effort to protect president Assad. That did not precipitate WW111 either.

[montecresto1]

@pjohns

So, are you suggesting that since the creation of the UN (in 1945), the US has not really been a fully sovereign country; and that this is now an outmoded concept?

Of course not, and I can’t even understand why you would ask that. But if you understand the UNSC, and resolutions for the use of force under chapter 7 and article 25, then you understand why the US participates as it does.