The New War with Iran

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think EA has been right on by noting the same elements in US politics that agitated for war against Iraq in 2002-03 are finding their voices again here in 2020 with Iran as the target.

Wanna know how I know Smokey 2.0 doesn't read anything if sentences form a paragraph (thus creating visual density which blinds them)? Had that been a standalone sentence you might've got him to go on a screed about Jewish-Liberals-turned-Neocons. He's gettin' close, though. That comment about Christians almost turned the corner into Amore territory.

- Doc

[_Chap]

I didn't contradict myself. Its an argument ad absurdem.

They try to reduce any judgment to a fallacy. Bigotry. That is in istelf the contradiction! Which is why it is so absurd. If any judgement no matter how sound is simple bigotry then it is not a sound judgement because it is bigotry: a.k.a. a fallacy!

The paradox you are mocking is your own. The outcome is divide and rule.

This does not seem to me to make any sense. What is this person trying to say?

[_DarkHelmet]

I wonder if Trump still thinks Soleimani was the leader of the Kurds. It's poosible Trump thinks he just defeated the Kurds.

[_honorentheos]

I think EA has been right on by noting the same elements in US politics that agitated for war against Iraq in 2002-03 are finding their voices again here in 2020 with Iran as the target.

Wanna know how I know Smokey 2.0 doesn't read anything if sentences form a paragraph (thus creating visual density which blinds them)? Had that been a standalone sentence you might've got him to go on a screed about Jewish-Liberals-turned-Neocons. He's gettin' close, though. That comment about Christians almost turned the corner into Amore territory.

- Doc

Maybe he's saving that for private conversations with his marks he came back to target after noting who was susceptible to his propaganda?

[_honorentheos]

I didn't contradict myself. Its an argument ad absurdem.

They try to reduce any judgment to a fallacy. Bigotry. That is in istelf the contradiction! Which is why it is so absurd. If any judgement no matter how sound is simple bigotry then it is not a sound judgement because it is bigotry: a.k.a. a fallacy!

The paradox you are mocking is your own. The outcome is divide and rule.

Let's try to untangle this. You claim "they" reduce any judgement to a fallacy.

You then define bigotry as the fallacy towards which "they" reduce all judgements.

Replacing bigotry with fallacy as you proposed (since bigotry = fallacy) your comment is saying, "If all judgements are based on a fallacy no matter how sound they may be, there can be no sound judgements because they are all based on a fallacy."

So, what we have is you reducing all judgements to fallacies out of bigotry towards people with whom you disagree, apparently believing all people of a certain belief are indiscriminately guilty of claiming everything everywhere is motivated by bigotry. It's almost like you are trying to figure out what's wrong with your own thinking but can't quite bring yourself to engage in introspection. "They" apparently being a stand in for the first person here.

What a funny fella you are.

[_EAllusion]

CBP is now indefinitely detaining people of Iranian heritage if they "seem suspicious" regardless citizenship status. Reports are several dozen people have already been caught up.

[_EAllusion]

So in the immediate aftermath, the US is being quickly forced out of Iraq, possibly leading to an ISIS resurgence. Internal protests against the Iranian regime have folded and are being replaced by huge shows of support. There's an Iranian parliamentary election in a month where fundamentalist hardliners just got a huge electoral benefit against the moderates clinging to power.

And this is before retaliation happens.

People with more military connections than I here probably already know this, but it also appears the US is also engaging in a huge military mobilization, presumably just in case.

Fantastic.

[_EAllusion]

We probably need to examine how much of Trump's behavior here is erratic and individualistic, and how much of it is really tied in to a small but real contingent of American politicians, media, and voters who are pretty happy with his figurately punching Iran in the nose.

There's several reports, with slight variations, indicating that the Pentagon showed Trump a list of possible responses. The one that he picked was meant to be the crazy one designed to make the other options look reasonable by comparison. But Trump, pushed by his aides who want aggression against Iran, went with it anyway, sending the Pentagon into a scramble.

The sourcing on these stories is thin enough that you have to take it with a grain of salt, but the underlying idea of it certainly is plausible. Trump going for the option that looks the most "tough" regardless or morality or long-term consequences is definitely the instinct you'd expect.

His then taking to Twitter and threatening to commit war crimes seems more like him flying off the handle than anything.

People's motives are complex, and it's absolutely possible that he felt good about this option because he thought it would distract from his domestic troubles. It can both be true that he's surrounded by sycophants who desperately want war with Iran and that he's giving in to their advice because he thinks it is good for himself politically.

[_EAllusion]

Aaaand Trump is tweeting more insane stuff.

[_honorentheos]

News stations are also reporting Iran has abandoned the 2015 nuclear agreement. So that didn't take long. It did leave the door open for a return to normalization, though. From the Washington Post's article -

ISTANBUL - Iran said Sunday that it is suspending all commitments under the 2015 nuclear deal it had struck with world powers and will abandon restrictions on uranium enrichment and other activities unless U.S. sanctions are lifted.

The government announced the move in a statement carried by state news agencies.

"Iran's nuclear program will now be based solely on its technical needs," the statement said. The move includes breaching the accord's caps on everything from enrichment capacity to activating centrifuges to its stockpile of nuclear fuel.

"If the sanctions are lifted … the Islamic Republic is ready to return to its obligations," the statement said. It added that Iran will continue to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog.

In addition to the February elections in Iran, Iraq passed a new election law just weeks ago that was predicted to result in greater Shiite/Iran-friendly representation in parliament. This on top of the uncertainty regarding the stability of their own Presidential leadership which makes for background that should be keep in front of the question as to what will be the near-term consequences of this. Good times.