Want to search for posts across your favourite author? Just click on their name to reach their '100 most recent posts' page, and then use the search box located beside their name.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 4
No. of Recommendations: 6
I was laffing at the news this evening. Putin offering to mediate between Iran and the US....of course he would do that, and turn his back on the extra profit he's making on oil exports, because he is such a fine, upstanding, sociopath.
/sarcasm
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have written since the start that the Iran adventure is 1)Slaves doing Israeli bidding. 2.)Trump was bored and decided ---hey, wanna go to war over the weekend?
Housekeeping:
1.)Lord: No not in America. Never again. We need to even stop the word. Especially in Europe but America also. There are unapologetic 'aggressive" people of various faiths stepping in....and that fuel will expand, not shrink. Ask the pitiful Swedish chicks who should learn to just go with it.
2.)A trivialized society will always allow their Rulers to do dumb shit like this.
Bibi, Putin, and Democratic ZI -- all know it too.
Don't enlist people.
Sit back, relax, popcorn.
No. of Recommendations: 4
2.)Trump was bored and decided ---hey, wanna go to war over the weekend?
Trump would be in the first generation of kids who played "Risk". Being born in 46, Trump the Conqueror would have been 11 when the game came out, in 57, the same age as most of the war-mongering neo-cons. I remember classmates in junior high talking about it 1965-68. Did he have any friends who he could play that game with? Or he was the one no-one liked, and always resented not being in the group playing, so now he's playing "Risk" with real armies and countries?
Or is he being blackmailed by "Bibi", with videos of his indiscreet shenanigans in Epstein's honey pot?
Or is it baldfaced greed?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 6
so now he's playing "Risk" with real armies and countries?
So’s Pete Kegsbreath.
Meanwhile, even JD is beginning to sound the alarm about how it seems that the vast numbers of missiles and bombs being used are greater than what the Pentagon claims.
China and North Korea are undoubtedly taking note.
When you play Risk, you don’t have to worry about bombs, bullets and beans.
All you have to do is roll the dice and move your little wooden armies into Urkutzk or Kamchatka.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Did he have any friends who he could play that game with?
No. He could not manage to do anything--he was too incompetent.
There are TWO people listed in a search:
Ron Lauder
David Rem
Roy Cohn was NOT a childhood friend because Cohn was almost 20 yrs older and NOT known to Spankee while growing up.
No. of Recommendations: 0
move your little wooden armies into Urkutzk or Kamchatka.
Label the pieces SPANKEE and JUST DAMNED. And when they get LOST, well, gotta follow the rules and remove the corresponding real-world character(s) from the real-world game.
No. of Recommendations: 12
Or he was the one no-one liked, and always resented not being in the group playing, so now he's playing "Risk" with real armies and countries?
Or is he being blackmailed by "Bibi", with videos of his indiscreet shenanigans in Epstein's honey pot?
Or is it baldfaced greed?
My guess would be none of the above. I suspect it's far simpler. He thought it would work.
I think that he was emboldened by the success of the Venezuela operation. He got what he regarded as a huge positive outcome, with minimal intervention. High reward for very little cost. He believed the same could be achieved in Iran - that if the U.S. struck and took out the existing leadership, one of the following would happen:
1. There would be an Iranian "Delcy" that would come forward, seize power, and be eager to strike a deal; or
2. The regime would collapse and be replaced with something better - or at least no longer capable of pursuing nuclear weapons; or
3. The regime would survive but quickly sue for peace, after they realize they can't resist the U.S. military.
I'm pretty sure that Trump was well aware that Iran could shut down the strait, and that it would be a serious problem if they did. I just think it didn't stop him from pulling the trigger. He's a guy that is unafraid of risks, and believes very strongly that weaker players will submit - rather than resist - stronger players. I think he just didn't let the possibility that the regime would survive and be in a position to seize the strait or attack the other gulf states affect the final decision. Prior Presidents would ask, well what if that happened - and since that problem had never been "solved" by any potential U.S. response they determined that attacking Iran was ill-advised. Trump did not.
No. of Recommendations: 1
When you play Risk, you don’t have to worry about bombs, bullets and beans.While I heard about it, a lot, I never played it.
In the late 60s, I was playing "Jutland", which factored in speed, armor, firepower, gunnery range, and fuel.
Jutland is a naval board wargame published by Avalon Hill in 1967 that simulates the Battle of Jutland in the North Sea during World War I. Upon its release, Jutland was commended for its gameplay and mechanics, but criticism surrounded the complex rules and playing timehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jutland_(board_game)
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 5
I'm pretty sure that Trump was well aware that Iran could shut down the strait, and that it would be a serious problem if they did. I just think it didn't stop him from pulling the trigger.
The consistent pattern is he doesn't believe in red lines others warn him about - he needs to run against them himself.
A bit like a toddler who doesn't want to listen to mother's warnings not to touch the hot stove.
No. of Recommendations: 19
A bit like a toddler who doesn't want to listen to mother's warnings not to touch the hot stove.
But experience will teach the toddler not to touch the hot stove.
Trump will say the stove treated him very badly; that it was all the stoves fault, or mother's fault. And he will file a lawsuit against the stove and have his DOJ initiate an investigation into the stove's behavior. He lacks the insight and perception of a toddler.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Steve I dont reject any of your ideas in that post.
All of it is possible.
But Bibi and Epstein blackmail? If that was the base wouldn't Bill Clinton have blown Iran off face of Earth---instead----Bill Clinton gave Chalabi an allowance ---and told the NeoCons to EffOff for the most part.
George W Bush had nothing to do with Epstein yet he did Israel's bidding also-----
My point - I feel it was Bibi being the boss, and Trump - being the employee.
I think....
1.)Bibi sold Trump on the idea---
2.)The Israeli Masters helped.
3.)Trump wanted something fun to do ---and he thought that Iran would be Venezuela.
If Bibi was blackmailing trump----he'd get TONS MORE than just a half-ass bombing of Iran ---and giving Iran the right to erect a Toll Booth.
No. of Recommendations: 2
But Bibi and Epstein blackmail?
When bribes don't work?
The only time I remember Israel being this toxic, and the US being such a willing participant, was in the early 80s. When Israel invaded Lebanon, and drove right to Beirut, Saint Reagan sent in the Marines to cover the IDF's flank. While there, the IDF looked that other way, while a Christian militia went into two Pal neighborhoods, and killed everyone in sight. I remember Reagan having one of the battleships off shore, providing fire support. I have no way of knowing if it is true, but some claim Epstein had a hand in Iran-Contra. It was the also the Begin regime that formally annexed the Golan heights, in 81, making Israel's expansionist ambition obvious.
Through most of the 80s, Likud ruled in Israel.
In the early 90s, Labor ruled in Israel.
"Bibi", and Likud held power from 96-99.
Labor held power, for less than two years. from 99 to March 2001, under Ehud Barak, close buddy of Epstein.
Likud, under Ariel Sharon, resumed power in March 2001, as the Bush 43 junta took power in the US. It was the Sharon regime, that evacuated the Israeli settlements in Gaza, in 2005, to make Gaza a free fire zone.
A centrist party took over when Sharon was disabled by a stroke in 06.
Likud, with "Bibi" took over in 2009. "Bibi" has ruled, except for a less than 2 year stint in 21-22, ever since, and one of the two PMs in that short period was Naftali Bennett.
Seems the most visible toxic behavior by Israel, is when Likud rules over an extended period: through the 80s, and, since 96, with only a couple brief interruptions. A toxic regime doesn't only need to get the US in line, it needs to overcome domestic Israeli opposition to it's operations, so it needs some hang time, to poison the well.
1.)Bibi sold Trump on the idea---
I have heard others express that idea: that "Bibi" knows exactly how to stroke Trump, pander to his vanity. Now, Trump is stuck. Iran wasn't a walk over. But his arrogance won't let him quit. Of course, his control of Venezuelan oil and the canal and ports in Panama, were part of his plan to enrich himself and his cronies, but that plan could have jelled, after he was sold on trying to knock over Iran, with the inevitable impact on global oil markets.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just watch....
When the ass whippings are over- Bibi will leave office and look for ----American Democrats to treat that as a full blown "Israel isn't a bad guy" now ;)
I continue to feel it's not blackmail. Blackmail would demand better than.....this.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Bibi will leave office and look for ----American Democrats to treat that as a full blown "Israel isn't a bad guy" now ;)
And who comes next? Bennett, again? He is as ardent a zealot, or worse, than "Bibi".
Bernie Sanders offered a bill in the Senate, again, to stop giving 1000lb bombs, and bulldozers, to Israel (Cat D9s seem to be Israel's preferred means for destroying the homes of civilians.)
A couple years ago, Sanders didn't get much support for this sort of legislation. On this go around, 39 other Dems joined him. Schumer and Fetterman were among the few, who voted against it.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
And who comes next? Bennett, again? He is as ardent a zealot, or worse, than "Bibi".
That's the reality in Israel, now. I don't think there are any serious contenders for leadership who would support a two-state solution (even Benny Gantz doesn't want to give full sovereignty anymore). The Israeli electorate is dead set against it, for the most part.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Israeli electorate is dead set against it, for the most part.
Is that attitude a cause, or an effect, of over 25 years of Likud domination of the government?
What would a "free and independent" Palestine consist of now? Gaza is uninhabitable, in anything resembling a civilized manner. The current regime has plainly said it's plan is to so chop of the west bank with settlements that it would be impossible for it to be a separate state. Israel, we are told, has a "right to exist", but, apparently, not Palestine.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 8
Is that attitude a cause, or an effect, of over 25 years of Likud domination of the government?
Probably more a cause than an effect, though I'm not sure it's really either.
I have a number of cousins in Israel, most of whom are fairly liberal politically and used to be in favor of a two-state solution. But not any more - they've all moved very hard on that. Not because of Likud, but just because of the experience of the last twenty years or so. Both in the region, and in the West.
Generally, they don't believe that creating a Palestinian state would change the dynamic. Previously, they believed that if there was a Palestinian state, the fighting would stop. Now, they're all convinced that the very most likely outcome would be that Hamas would govern the new Palestinian state (note - they were convinced of that before the October 7th attacks, and now they're even more convinced). Hamas would either win the first election, or they'd just seize power after the first election. Either way, Palestine would be governed by Hamas.
And in that scenario, Hamas just keeps fighting to destroy Israel. But now they're a state, so they can have an actual army - tanks and planes and missiles and everything. That would pose such a massive threat to Israel's security that they'd have to end up seizing security governance again - either in response to the first invasion from the new state, or pre-emptively.
You end up exactly where we are now - except Hamas has had some amount of time free of sanctions and import restrictions to become even more deadly, and now has the additional benefits of statehood. The exact same dynamic, but with a deadlier enemy, and no one has benefited - except Hamas.
The other thing that drives that pessimism is the rise in the belief among progressives and liberals in the West that Israel is illegitimate. They've always believed that Hamas rejected the idea of a two-state solution, and would only be happy with a one-state solution (with them in charge). But in the last decade they've become convinced that most global progressives/liberals believe the same thing. They don't trust that a two-state solution would be defended internationally when Hamas starts attacking again.
So....they've given up on supporting a second state. The status quo is terrible, but moving to a two-state situation would be vastly worse for them, in their opinion.
