The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Tucker Carlson Saves Trump from War with Iran
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

Urged to Launch an Attack, Trump Listened to the Skeptics Who Said It Would Be a Costly Mistake

By Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman and Thomas Gibbons-Neff
June 21, 2019

WASHINGTON — He heard from his generals and his diplomats. Lawmakers weighed in and so did his advisers. But among the voices that rang powerfully for President Trump was that of one of his favorite Fox News hosts: Tucker Carlson.

While national security advisers were urging a military strike against Iran, Mr. Carlson in recent days had told Mr. Trump that responding to Tehran’s provocations with force was crazy. The hawks did not have the president’s best interests at heart, he said. And if Mr. Trump got into a war with Iran, he could kiss his chances of re-election goodbye.

However much weight that advice may or may not have had, the sentiments certainly reinforced the doubts that Mr. Trump himself harbored as he navigated his way through one of the most consequential foreign policy decisions of his presidency. By his own account, the president called off the “cocked & loaded” strike on Thursday night with only 10 minutes to spare to avoid the estimated deaths of as many as 150 people.

The concerns that Mr. Trump heard from Mr. Carlson reflected that part of the presidential id that has always hesitated at pulling the trigger. Belligerent and confrontational as he is in his public persona, Mr. Trump has at times pulled back from the use of force, convinced that America has wasted too many lives and too much money in pointless Middle East wars and wary of repeating what he considers the mistakes of his predecessors.

As Mr. Carlson and other skeptics have argued, a strike against Iran could easily spiral into a full-fledged war without easy victory. That, Mr. Trump was told, was everything he ran against. And so the president struggled into the early evening, committed to taking action to demonstrate resolve right up until the moment he decided against it and called off the warplanes and missile launchers.

 
Hide 321 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. If there’s not going to be an Iran War, Tucker Carlson will deserve a statue for that alone. I don’t watch TV at all, certainly not American TV, but what I heard about his opinions, he seems as solid as a public figure in America could be. The best part is that he’s probably more solid than that, just smart enough to avoid disclosing things which could shut him out of TV.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Interesting, what sort of things do you think Tucker cohen't talk about on TV? Why do you think he cohen't discuss them?
    , @utu

    ‘Conservatives Might Want to Pause and Rethink the Relationship’ with the Kochs
    https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/06/19/fncs-carlson-conservatives-might-want-to-pause-and-rethink-the-relationship-with-the-kochs/

    But in the case of the Kochs, conservatives might want to pause and rethink the relationship. As it turns out, the Kochs don’t have much in common with conservatives. They are totally opposed to most conservative policy goals. The Kochs are libertarian ideologues, passionate and inflexible. America first? The Kochs find the very notion absurd, if not fascist. An economic policy that seeks to strengthen families? The Kochs denounce that as “crony capitalism,” or “picking winners and losers.” They think it’s immoral. Controlling our borders? The Kochs consider that racist. A few years ago, Bernie Sanders noted that the Koch brothers are far to the left of him on immigration. Open borders? Quote: “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he said.
     
    , @Malcolm X-Lax
    He gets up to the line. I hope when he finally decides to recede from public life, he arranges it so that he can broadcast live to his audience, no 5 second delays, but straight out: Americans, here's what's REALLY going on.
    , @reiner Tor
    To be honest, I'm not sure war has been averted for a long time. Trump just announced major new sanctions - the old sanctions were the main reason for the Iranian provocations (like the attacks on the tankers and the downing of the drone), so we can now expect Iran to step up its provocations.

    What needs to be understood is that the biggest economy in the world can simply announce extraterritorial sanctions (i.e. sanctions against anyone doing business or certain types of business with the target country), and it can de facto have the same effect as a naval blockade - which would be an act of war. However, it's pretty obvious that if a naval blockade is an act of war, than such a de facto blockade is de facto an act of war, too.

    So, Iran won't be nice enough to just go down without shooting a rifle. They will keep pushing until something happens. They know that a war would be a major disaster for the US and much of the rest of the world, and they want to go down like Wotan in the Twilight of the Gods, if they need to go down. They also understand that it'd be pretty difficult for the US to occupy Tehran, so they know that a shooting war is probably not a much bigger danger to the regime than the economic warfare waged by the US. It might even strengthen them internally, rally around the flag and all that.
    , @AnotherDad
    It's good for us not to have another war. And great for the Iranian people--especially some Iranian boys who'd be killed, and their families.

    But I want to see Trump doing stuff that is great for Americans.

    The war on Americans--and more broadly, the West--invasion, conquest, replacement, continues apace.

    How about Trump stopping that war?
  2. Yeah maybe. But Trump himself said the response would not have been proportional to us losing an unmanned drone.

    I’m thinking Trump reasons far better than people give him credit for.

    • Replies: @Realist

    I’m thinking Trump reasons far better than people give him credit for.
     
    Is that why the dumbass hired Bolton, Pompeo and and all the other assholes???
    , @European-American
    > Trump reasons far better than people give him credit for

    I agree. That's not a high bar to pass, since most people agree he's an idiot.

    But when people say he's an idiot, they are really saying they dislike him. He's disgusting.

    The big problem with Trump is that we can't fantasize on him as a great President. But the credit we give to the fallible humans who somehow become our leaders is fraught with emotion and fantasy.

    Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson -- which of the presidents of the last 100 years reasoned well?

    Which one of them was the wise Solon that we deserve, instead of the orange clown we have to cope with?

    Trump makes me nervous, but I don't think he's out of place in that list.

    He might even be, as Houellebecq slyly said, "one of the best American presidents".

    https://harpers.org/archive/2019/01/donald-trump-is-a-good-president/
    , @RadicalCenter
    Especially if our drone was over their territory, as they allege and i would easily believe.
    , @Desiderius
    As usual. A lot of salaries dependent on Trump not getting credit for anything.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    "I'm thinking Trump reasons far better than people give him credit for."

    Maybe, hopefully. I'm glad Tucker has got his ear.
  3. “We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East — we’ve done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away — and for what? It’s not like we had victory. It’s a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, and everything else that is all falling apart!”

    -Candidate Donald Trump

    Why does Trump surround himself with warmongers? I guess it is the power of the military-industrial complex along with the wars for Israel crowd.

  4. I always irked by the New York Times referring to Donald Trump as Mr. Trump rather than as President Trump. Did they do the same for Barack Obama? I seem to remember reading that throughout the 1930s they referred to Adolf Hitler as Chancellor Hitler. Can’t they at least have as much respect for Trump as they did for Hitler.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    They refuse to call him president because they fear him.

    Well they should.
    , @Kyle
    The refer to him as president trump the first instance, then in the rest of the article they refer to him as mr. trump. They do that for every president, it’s apparently in their style guide.
  5. If only Bush and Obama would’ve had the balls to do the same…

  6. That’s impressive if it happened, no?

    What worries me is I just took one of these dumb Internet polls and 64% of people were in favor of war with Iran if tensions escalate. Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?

    Plus I doubt Bolton and Pompeo and co. won’t try again.

    BTW, there is a great article in AmCon about all the times we’ve been duped into war, starting with the Mexican-American:

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/lies-they-told-us-a-long-history-of-being-manipulated-into-war/

    • Replies: @L Woods
    At least the Mexican-American War yielded some very fine real estate. It was probably the last war the US fought that could be said to be worthwhile.
    , @theMann
    "What worries me is I just took one of these dumb Internet polls and 64% of people were in favor of war with Iran if tensions escalate. Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?"


    Well that certainly is the question, huh?

    I know I live in Texas, full of both actual and armchair warriors, but sentiment here is about 70% for war with Iran. Interestingly though, much higher among women, nearly 100%, than men. Please, let's start drafting women already.

    I usually start with "Remember the Maine" and list an impressive chunk of the Fed's consistent lies about going to war, among other things, which will usually get anyone to slink off in shame, but here is a better question:

    What is so wrong with the character of the American People that we constantly have to go through the fig leaf of false and perjured lies, in order to affect a pretense of self-righteous superiority?

    It is both cowardly and dishonest to engage in this circus of self deceit on the part of ordinary Americans. It is an utterly loathsome dereliction of duty on the part of Congress to abdicate war making powers, and then rubber stamp the actions of the Executive Branch, all to advance the circus of deceit.

    What the World must think of us.
    , @reiner Tor

    Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?
     
    Yes, I would've thought that the Iraq War would prevent a big military adventure for another generation. I was wrong. The Iran War would be a way bigger disaster than the Iraq War, both for America and the rest of the world.
    , @PiltdownMan

    What worries me is I just took one of these dumb Internet polls and 64% of people were in favor of war with Iran if tensions escalate. Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?
     
    It's quite possible. The American public has repeated demonstrated that it will reflexively close ranks and support war, once the drums of war start beating in Washington DC. I cannot recall a single instance when there has been any kind of meaningful public debate or discussion before the commencement of hostilities, to a degree that might avert war, at least in my lifetime. Discussions have always come after.

    I was reading the comments in the Washington Post on President Trump's decision to call off the military action yesterday. 99% of the comments by liberals were assumed that attacking Iran would have been the right thing to do—simply because the President decided otherwise.

  7. One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization. If it is the case that he was influenced by Carlson, then thank God, in this case, that the advice given was sane. Perhaps Jerry Hall or Ivanka also had something to do with it.

    The general policy of Washington towards Iran has been pretty despicable under Trump and if Iran did take a pot shot at a spy drone that may or may not have been over Iran’s airspace, but was certainly close enough to trigger mistakes, then it was the fault of the US, and anyway no one was killed.

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz “accidentally” shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.

    In 1996, the governments of the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement “…the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident… As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. [Wikipedia]

    Well at least the US promptly apologized–8 years being the equivalent of a quickie divorce in the US legal system–oh, wait, we have not formally apologized yet. Formal apologies for US government atrocities usually take about 143 years, based on precedent.

    If Iran cares to admit that it was mistaken and agrees to pay compensation, could this be the start of some kind of rapprochement between the two governments? Unlikely while Trump has the current set of goofy advisors whom he himself appointed, and neither country seems to have been able to devise a method of selecting sensible, mature leaders

    One of the most basic concepts taught in management courses is the Abilene paradox.

    The Abilene paradox refers to a situation wherein no member of a group decides to contest a decision taken by the group, believing it to be the consensus of everyone, when in reality, none of the group members agree with the decision. However, none of them speak up for the fear of going against the wishes of others, and end up regretting not speaking up in time.

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil’s advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

    Perhaps Trump in the fog of his dotage is stumbling into the right decisions because this afternoon he is fortunately unable to remember what was decided this morning or why.

    • Replies: @SFG
    "It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization."

    All true (though I think Carlson's pretty much the only high-profile figure to take a position against woke capital I can think of)...but who else does he have? The lack of a populist right think-tank industry means he has nobody to fill White House staffing jobs, and most competent foreign policy people are part of the establishment that got us into all these bloody wars. I'd love to see, say, Walt and Mearsheimer advising him, but that's unlikely.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    The left used to claim President Reagan was senile all the time during his 2nd term, Jonathan. Senile or not, things ran smoothly and good decisions were made. They claimed Reagan zoned out or snoozed during meetings and let his cabinet and advisors decide things. That may have been true, but, (as you said) an executive has lots of supposedly smart people around him to help him decide. Ronnie picked people who were ON HIS SIDE when it comes to principles.

    President Trump has picked people that are against his , OK, Candidate Trump's policies to be his advisors, ambassadors, and cabinet members. How stupid is that? It otherwise wouldn't matter as much if he is "in the fog of his dotage".

    Good comment there.
    , @Desiderius
    You’ve bought way too much fake news.
    , @Realist

    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.
     
    Then why don't they ever do it?
    , @Charles Pewitt

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil’s advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

     

    I don't know crud about no ABILENE PARADOX, but the internet says the average humidity in Abilene is 59 -- too high. Houston has average humidity of 75, which is intolerable, which is why David Brooks wants us Whites to be racked and stacked in Houston with the Third Worlders, all of us sweating our balls off. David Brooks is an evil person and he gets on my nerves.

    This ABILENE PARADOX concept is why I am running against President Trump in the 2020 GOP presidential primary. Some political leader needs to stand up and confront Trump on his call to flood the USA with mass legal immigration "in the largest numbers ever."

    Trump has refused to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA and Trump has refused to build a wall and fencing system to seal the border.

    Pewitt Pledge:

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW

    DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS NOW
    , @TontoBubbaGoldstein
    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz “accidentally” shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers.

    I'll bet wampum to bagels that most Iranians are aware of this incident.

    A generation or two ago, the United States involvement in the Persian Gulf could be somewhat justified as being in our national interest due to our "dependence on foreign oil." (Even then, the "foreign oil" we were "dependent" on was mostly from Mexico and Canada.) Today, Iran closing down the Strait of Hormuz can be summed up in my three favorite words : "Not my problem."
    , @Mr. Anon

    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.
     
    And yet they never do.

    I wouldn't call Bolton one of the best minds in America. Although he does have a very important mustache.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Journalists, at their best, can see the whole field better than experts. Mark Bowden did that with Somalia (“Blackhawk Down”), to the point where generals were reading his work. Tucker Carlson and Steve Sailer are other examples of journalists at this level.
    , @AnonAnon

    Perhaps Trump in the fog of his dotage is stumbling into the right decisions because this afternoon he is fortunately unable to remember what was decided this morning or why.
     
    I'm sure he remembered that one of the reasons he was elected is because Americans are tired of wasting money and lives in the Middle East, waging wars that don't benefit us at all and only egg on terrorists to retaliate on our soil. Whatever the polls report, Americans are tired of wars, particularly over some spy drone. I can't believe anything the press writes, they were likely trying to instigate a war by reporting Trump was about to push the button, when he was no where near that.
    , @AnotherDad

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz “accidentally” shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.
     
    Why the scare quotes around "accidentally".

    It was obviously accidental in the normal meaning of the word. I.e. no one meant to shoot down an airliner. It was a huge black eye for the United States which has just spent the last couple of years scoring propaganda points bashing the Soviets for recklessly shooting down Korean Air 007. Then we screwed up and shot down an Iranian airliner.

    If it wasn't accidental then it would have been an ingenuously clever consipracy by the Iranians or the Russians who paid Capt. Rogers to be a bozo to disagrace the United States, as they were the beneficiaries.

    No. People screw up all the time. Militaries have guns and bombs and missiles, when they screw up it's ugly.
    , @The Alarmist

    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.
     
    Trump's experts were largely foisted upon him, and are little more than life insurance. If he went completely off the reservation, he'd likely be Kennedyed
    , @Chris Mallory

    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.
     
    Most of those "best minds" wouldn't have enough sense to pour urine from a boot if you wrote the instructions on the bottom.

    Seeing the messes they have made over the past 120 years, we shouldn't let a "best mind" within 1000 miles of DC.
  8. @reiner Tor
    If there’s not going to be an Iran War, Tucker Carlson will deserve a statue for that alone. I don’t watch TV at all, certainly not American TV, but what I heard about his opinions, he seems as solid as a public figure in America could be. The best part is that he’s probably more solid than that, just smart enough to avoid disclosing things which could shut him out of TV.

    Interesting, what sort of things do you think Tucker cohen’t talk about on TV? Why do you think he cohen’t discuss them?

    • Replies: @Lot
    Tucker likes the right kind of cohen!

    https://twitter.com/YairNetanyahu/status/1137111643064848388
    , @HammerJack

    Interesting, what sort of things do you think Tucker cohen’t talk about on TV?
     
    Your argument is sound but your writing is barely coherent.
    , @Xopher Halftongue
    An example of things Tucker Carlson must avoid saying to stay on TV.

    Answering his own question on as to why working class Americans can't afford marriage. Feminism is a major dogma of the State Religion after all.
  9. This is a repost of a comment I made at the related Saker article:

    Yes, it’s reported that the Pentagon advised Trump not to retaliate militarily for the drone shoot down.

    Given advanced missile technologies, surface warships of any stripe are sitting ducks. I’m guessing that Iran has a plethora of missile batteries up and down its coast. If Iran launched a barrage of missiles simultaneously (10? 20? 30?) at a single surface warship in the Persian Gulf, what would be the probability that the ship’s self-defense systems could neutralize them all?

    If a single multi-billion dollar warship were sunk, the credibility of U.S. naval “power projection” would evaporate. In that context, the Pentagon’s reluctance may be because they’d rather not establish that their hyper-expensive blue-water surface Navy is an anachronism.

    The Pentagon lost a $150 Million drone to the Iranians. Could they be getting gun shy about losing War Toys against an adversary that can effectively shoot back?

    • Replies: @International Jew
    Those anti-ship missiles are the sitting ducks, if you get the drop on them.
    , @Redneck farmer
    Or maybe gunshy about getting into another ME war. We lose a ship, we'd have to take out the IRGC naval Force. That would be followed by "We need to invade and stabilize Iran". Probably not worth it.
    , @Sam Haysom
    Maybe but I wouldn’t base it on Florida based third Rome apologist Saker. Saker has been saying an aircraft carrier is going to get sunk for going on twenty years. If he had any honor he’d have joined the Russian navy and worked his out to command of a small boat and tried to sink one by now. But he mostly just masturbates to shirt less pics of Putin.
    , @Autochthon
    Again with with the assured pronouncements of obsolescence and fragility for every surface ship in the world. Interestingly, always from someone with no discernible expertise or even experience of the matter.

    Again not one example, nor even an intelligent argument supporting the concept in theory.

    You lot are like toddlers in a sandbox arguing that a eagles "can so!" totally beat up tigers.

    Tired of refuting this nonsense myself, I offer the words of Tim Gould, a retired operations specialist who very much knows what he is talking about.

    (No; I've never heard of him; I just spent one minute to find another explanation of how this stuff actually works, since maybe something about how I explain it escapes people.)
  10. Tucker had a great show last night and did it all without naming the Zionist. Glen Greenwald’s segment was amazing.

  11. I’d like to have a beer with Tucker.

  12. Trump-critical intellectuals often make the following argument: “Trump has no intellectual depth. He relies entirely on instincts.” Which may be true!

    But what I’ve noticed is that assessment often segues imperceptibly into something quite different – that Trump has no instincts either! That he’s a complete nullity. This seems to be considerably less likely.

  13. The rather well padded Mr Carlson deserves a pat on the back and a box of doughnuts.

    On the other hand – what the hell has the world come to that the Prez of the US has to turn to a journalist for sane advice?

    I just hope that Mr Carlson doesn’t meet with an unfortunate accident or a mysterious mugging.

    I suppose the obvious way to pay for his security detail is just to appoint him Secretary of Defense, or National Security Adviser, or Secretary of State. No doubt Fox News would grant him leave of absence to pursue such duties.

    If not him then Tulsi Gabbard.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    what the hell has the world come to that the Prez of the US has to turn to a journalist for sane advice?

    As a presidential candidate, Jeb Bush was taking foreign policy advice from Paul Wolfowitz. We dodged a bullet there.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jeb-bush-says-paul-wolfowitz-is-a-foreign-policy-adviser-2015-08-14
  14. SFG says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization. If it is the case that he was influenced by Carlson, then thank God, in this case, that the advice given was sane. Perhaps Jerry Hall or Ivanka also had something to do with it.

    The general policy of Washington towards Iran has been pretty despicable under Trump and if Iran did take a pot shot at a spy drone that may or may not have been over Iran's airspace, but was certainly close enough to trigger mistakes, then it was the fault of the US, and anyway no one was killed.

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz "accidentally" shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.

    In 1996, the governments of the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident... As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. [Wikipedia]

    Well at least the US promptly apologized--8 years being the equivalent of a quickie divorce in the US legal system--oh, wait, we have not formally apologized yet. Formal apologies for US government atrocities usually take about 143 years, based on precedent.

    If Iran cares to admit that it was mistaken and agrees to pay compensation, could this be the start of some kind of rapprochement between the two governments? Unlikely while Trump has the current set of goofy advisors whom he himself appointed, and neither country seems to have been able to devise a method of selecting sensible, mature leaders

    One of the most basic concepts taught in management courses is the Abilene paradox.

    The Abilene paradox refers to a situation wherein no member of a group decides to contest a decision taken by the group, believing it to be the consensus of everyone, when in reality, none of the group members agree with the decision. However, none of them speak up for the fear of going against the wishes of others, and end up regretting not speaking up in time.

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil's advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

    Perhaps Trump in the fog of his dotage is stumbling into the right decisions because this afternoon he is fortunately unable to remember what was decided this morning or why.

    “It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization.”

    All true (though I think Carlson’s pretty much the only high-profile figure to take a position against woke capital I can think of)…but who else does he have? The lack of a populist right think-tank industry means he has nobody to fill White House staffing jobs, and most competent foreign policy people are part of the establishment that got us into all these bloody wars. I’d love to see, say, Walt and Mearsheimer advising him, but that’s unlikely.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    Lou Dobbs.
    , @Jonathan Mason
    Mearsheimer would be an excellent choice for National Security Advisor, but the real problem is that no serious person wants to work with Trump.

    Remember that Rex Tillerson called Trump "a fucking moron" and after he had resigned was quoted as saying: "It was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil corporation, ... to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn't like to read, doesn't read briefing reports, doesn't like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, 'This is what I believe."

    Nothing like giving your former boss a good reference.
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    The lack of a populist right think-tank industry means he has nobody to fill White House staffing jobs,
     
    We don't need no steeenking theenk tanks, Senor, to quote an old movie line that doesn't apply, but still cracks me up. Nah, all it takes is common sense from a bunch of trusted friends/advisors, say from Trump's real estate business days. Wouldn't he have a ton of real friends?

    Sure, SFG, the think tank guys would come up with talking points with perfect wording and slogans and all. However, does Trump not remember the issues he campaigned on? It doesn't take Washington insiders, and you especially don't want those, as they couldn't be trusted, as seems obvious by now.

    If we have to rely on Trump having caught a certain newscast by Tucker Carlson to avoid war, that is pretty sad. It still beats the shape we'd have been in with the Hildabeast though. We know the evil that would have come out of her.
    , @istevefan
    I forgot to add Pat Buchanan who once wrote about Bush, "he lost Arizona while he was saving Al Anbar province."

    I think Trump needs to hear that because it's happening now.
    , @Charles Pewitt
    Tucker Carlson is a mutton-headed bastard whose head looks like a bloated Swanson meatloaf frozen dinner. Somehow this Tucker Carlson guy has Swanson frozen dinner loot in his background.

    Tucker Carlson is another American hayseed sonofabitch with English and German ancestry. I also have English and German ancestry and many millions of other Americans do too.

    Tucker Carlson puts that Living On Tulsi Time Gabbard US House Rep. and presidential candidate on his show to talk about foreign policy and the prudence of a non-interventionist foreign policy for the United States. That's good.

    Tucker Carlson has English Fair Play sentiments and a good bit of German common sense.

    Compare and contrast the level-headed patriot Tucker Carlson with treasonous rat scumbags like Jack Keane and Sean Hannity and Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton and George W Bush and Dick Cheney and all the rest of the other disgusting filth that puts the interests of other nations ahead of the interests of the United States.

    Low IQ treasonite scum such as Jack Keane put the interests of other nations ahead of the interests of the United States -- that is TREASON!

    General George Washington and General Andrew Jackson would hang any man who put the interests of any other nation ahead of the interests of the United States.
    , @Real Buddy Ray
    Even if there were populist right people available to staff the administration, Jared would never let them through. Trump did have populists like that once, Bannon, Hicks, Lewandowski and to a certain degree Kelley. They were all summarily ousted by the Trump whisperer. Kushner talked Trump out of the recent tariffs on Mexico (Daily Beast). The president only threatened tariffs when Kushner was out of the country. The threat ended when Kushner came back.

    Populists can’t compete with a guy who is married to Trump’s favorite daughter. And no true center right populist is going to line up with Jared’s view of the world. As Kushner Inc revealed, Jared is extremely sensitive about Israel. He supposedly disliked Christie for not letting a rabbi handle what he thought was a family matter. He assuredly doesn’t want anyone in the administration who isn’t as sensitive on Israel as him. That’s why we have Bolton and Pompeo even though Tillerson was in the cusp of peace with NKorea. Haley made sure to praise Kushner on her way out. Kanye talked primarily to Kushner in the Oval Office meeting, not Trump. And look what got done. The Mexicans talked to Kushner to get Trump to back down off the tariffs (Daily Beast). Center right populists have sympathy for the Palestinians. And even though the media despises them, they abhor journalists being chopped up. Kushner wanted to “weather the storm.” Probably because of the alliance with Israel. It was this very site where I read about the Good Friday massacre where hundreds of Palestinian protesters were shot for practicing free speech. No good center right populists could go along with that.
  15. Tucker for Prez! Tucker 2020!

  16. @SFG
    That's impressive if it happened, no?

    What worries me is I just took one of these dumb Internet polls and 64% of people were in favor of war with Iran if tensions escalate. Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?

    Plus I doubt Bolton and Pompeo and co. won't try again.

    BTW, there is a great article in AmCon about all the times we've been duped into war, starting with the Mexican-American:

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/lies-they-told-us-a-long-history-of-being-manipulated-into-war/

    At least the Mexican-American War yielded some very fine real estate. It was probably the last war the US fought that could be said to be worthwhile.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    In his Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson argues that acquiring those new territories led to the Civil War. The slave states saw that there'd soon be about a dozen new senators lined up against them, and that intensified the sense that the walls were closing in.
  17. By the way, if the US drone really had been shot down over international waters shouldn’t we have expected some good evidence for that by now? So it was presumably in Iranian airspace.

    Maybe next time the US will shoot down one of its own drones over international waters and blame Iran. Or would that be hard to pull off?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    By the way, if the US drone really had been shot down over international waters shouldn’t we have expected some good evidence for that by now?
     
    Yes. The video released by Iran seems consistent with the idea that it all happened over Iranian airspace. It doesn’t look very far from the coast (from where the missile was launched), so that’s what I’d guess.
  18. First, thank goodness Bill O’Reilly lost his show and freed up that timeslot for Tucker.

    Second, will this cause a rift between Hannity and Tucker? Sean is literally foaming at the mouth for a war with Iran. What’s the tension like when those two walk down the same hall?

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    https://twitter.com/walid970721/status/1142393069423288321
    , @dr kill
    Settle down. These are professionals. They don't take anything seriously except their ratings. Conflict and resolution are required by opinion audiences.
    , @L Woods
    I doubt Hannity personally cares about bombing Iran -- it just pays the bills. In any case, it can't be any worse than when Lou Dobbs worked at CNN.
    , @Prester John
    That's what makes Carlson's show so interesting. He doesn't spout the party line and at times displays a healthy skepticism. In addition, he has clearly taken a keen interest in the UFO phenomenon by devoting whole segments to this controversy. Whatever they may be, it appears clear that he doesn't buy the rote "weather balloon" or "clouds" explanation. Nevertheless Fox has been very careful do an ill-disguised tongue-in-cheek intro to the segment, mindful in part of the fallout from the Orson Welles "War of The Worlds" incident. .
    , @Realist

    Second, will this cause a rift between Hannity and Tucker?
     
    I would guess Tuckers opinion of Hannity is extremely low.
    , @Dacian Julien Soros
    They are both paid to say what they say, and pull in boomers from both sides of the argument. Why would they be upset that the other got a different mission?
    , @Desiderius
    Hannity takes his cues from fellow New Yorker Trump. If Trump says war isn’t worth it, Hannity will find a way to make sense of it.
    , @Hail

    What’s the tension like when [Tucker and Hannity] walk down the same hall?
     
    This seldom happens because Tucker broadcasts out of the Washington DC Fox studio and Hannity out of the New York studio.
    , @Tank
    I would guess none.
    , @Autochthon
    I'm cynical enough not to be surprised if it turns out otherwise, but I think Carlson really is a pretty principled dude sick of the baloney, and he's ten times smarter then the other talking heads (of whatever persuasion).

    Note how he openly mocked Bolton when that loser appeared on Carslon's show, even though Bolton was "just down the hall" five minutes ago at Fox – one of Carlson's jabs was even that Bolton's ilk drift from incompetent work in government to work as cable news contributors!

    Carlson also regularly points out how all these characters put their pants on one leg at a time, pointing out often to guests that he knows where they live, he lives in the same neighbourhood, and the guests are filthy rich, etc. – he never lets them play the "just plain folks" card, never mind the "I am an oppressed Person of Many Colours reppin' my people from the hood (barrio...whatever...).

    No, I think Carlson has enough money to never have to work again and really has decided to opt out of the mendacity. He censors himself to the extent he does not from greed or fear, but because he knows he can so more good for what he believes in with his show than without it.
  19. @SFG
    "It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization."

    All true (though I think Carlson's pretty much the only high-profile figure to take a position against woke capital I can think of)...but who else does he have? The lack of a populist right think-tank industry means he has nobody to fill White House staffing jobs, and most competent foreign policy people are part of the establishment that got us into all these bloody wars. I'd love to see, say, Walt and Mearsheimer advising him, but that's unlikely.

    Lou Dobbs.

    • Replies: @Carol
    He was a voice in the wilderness for a long time. Now he's happy, smiling, one of the few shows I don't mind "watching" while reading isteve.

    Limbaugh and Levin are also very unhappy, and sniping at Carlson. Lol.

    It's always 1939, it's always Munich.
    , @SFG
    You're right! And they got rid of him, no?
  20. Who hired Bolton, a man who has never seen a war he doesn’t like?
    Who hired Pompeo?
    No one pointed a gun at Trump’s head to force him to hire these guys.
    Who scrapped the deal with Iran? Imperfect as that deal was, it’s better than the situation we are now in where any wrong move can trip us into war.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No one pointed a gun at Trump’s head to force him to hire these guys.

    How do you know (figuratively speaking)?
  21. @istevefan
    First, thank goodness Bill O'Reilly lost his show and freed up that timeslot for Tucker.

    Second, will this cause a rift between Hannity and Tucker? Sean is literally foaming at the mouth for a war with Iran. What's the tension like when those two walk down the same hall?

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    On a daily basis, Sean Hannity excoriates Joe Biden for saying sensible things about race back in the 1970s, like opposing forced busing or arguing that desegregating schools isn't going to make blacks learn better. A firm proponent of the DR3 cause, Hannity thinks the race realism Biden once expressed is disgusting. Joe even noticed that most convenience stores are run by people from India--can you imagine? How dare he!

    Too bad Joe is such a shameless opportunist that he now toes the SJW line. If he had maintained those views I wouldn't mind him much as president.

    Hannity is an embarrassment.

    , @LondonBob
    If you said Sean Hannity was a subtle spoof character played by a comedian I would believe you.
    , @Anon87
    Thank you for that clip, I had not seen it. Pat is as fiesty as ever, and as always, right. I'm guessing going forward Sean will stay clear of foreign policy when Pat is on.
  22. @istevefan
    Lou Dobbs.

    He was a voice in the wilderness for a long time. Now he’s happy, smiling, one of the few shows I don’t mind “watching” while reading isteve.

    Limbaugh and Levin are also very unhappy, and sniping at Carlson. Lol.

    It’s always 1939, it’s always Munich.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Levin can only be described as shrill.

    He's even literally (i.e., sonically) shrill; his screeching voice hurts my ears. He acts like a g--damned female.

    Limbaugh is just doddering anymore. He's more interested in golf and football than politics and such. He should have retired long ago. I've also always been a little suspect about what he values because he had like three wives and never had children. Unless he has a medical condition making him infertile, that's just weird....

  23. @Jonathan Mason
    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization. If it is the case that he was influenced by Carlson, then thank God, in this case, that the advice given was sane. Perhaps Jerry Hall or Ivanka also had something to do with it.

    The general policy of Washington towards Iran has been pretty despicable under Trump and if Iran did take a pot shot at a spy drone that may or may not have been over Iran's airspace, but was certainly close enough to trigger mistakes, then it was the fault of the US, and anyway no one was killed.

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz "accidentally" shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.

    In 1996, the governments of the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident... As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. [Wikipedia]

    Well at least the US promptly apologized--8 years being the equivalent of a quickie divorce in the US legal system--oh, wait, we have not formally apologized yet. Formal apologies for US government atrocities usually take about 143 years, based on precedent.

    If Iran cares to admit that it was mistaken and agrees to pay compensation, could this be the start of some kind of rapprochement between the two governments? Unlikely while Trump has the current set of goofy advisors whom he himself appointed, and neither country seems to have been able to devise a method of selecting sensible, mature leaders

    One of the most basic concepts taught in management courses is the Abilene paradox.

    The Abilene paradox refers to a situation wherein no member of a group decides to contest a decision taken by the group, believing it to be the consensus of everyone, when in reality, none of the group members agree with the decision. However, none of them speak up for the fear of going against the wishes of others, and end up regretting not speaking up in time.

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil's advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

    Perhaps Trump in the fog of his dotage is stumbling into the right decisions because this afternoon he is fortunately unable to remember what was decided this morning or why.

    The left used to claim President Reagan was senile all the time during his 2nd term, Jonathan. Senile or not, things ran smoothly and good decisions were made. They claimed Reagan zoned out or snoozed during meetings and let his cabinet and advisors decide things. That may have been true, but, (as you said) an executive has lots of supposedly smart people around him to help him decide. Ronnie picked people who were ON HIS SIDE when it comes to principles.

    President Trump has picked people that are against his , OK, Candidate Trump’s policies to be his advisors, ambassadors, and cabinet members. How stupid is that? It otherwise wouldn’t matter as much if he is “in the fog of his dotage”.

    Good comment there.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Ronnie picked people who were ON HIS SIDE when it comes to principles.


    It's too bad they weren't on the side of the American people.
  24. @SFG
    "It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization."

    All true (though I think Carlson's pretty much the only high-profile figure to take a position against woke capital I can think of)...but who else does he have? The lack of a populist right think-tank industry means he has nobody to fill White House staffing jobs, and most competent foreign policy people are part of the establishment that got us into all these bloody wars. I'd love to see, say, Walt and Mearsheimer advising him, but that's unlikely.

    Mearsheimer would be an excellent choice for National Security Advisor, but the real problem is that no serious person wants to work with Trump.

    Remember that Rex Tillerson called Trump “a fucking moron” and after he had resigned was quoted as saying: “It was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil corporation, … to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn’t like to read, doesn’t read briefing reports, doesn’t like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, ‘This is what I believe.”

    Nothing like giving your former boss a good reference.

    • Replies: @Cowboy Shaw
    Or, another way of looking at it might be that no serious person wants to have a serious foreign policy. So the people have decided to put a non-serious person in, who is groping however tentatively towards a serious foreign policy, but who supposedly serious people don't want to work for.
    , @L Woods
    The "serious people" have proven themselves to be feckless, venal clowns.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    I think Tillerson’s ego got in the way a bit, which is understandable for man of his accomplishments and previous position. “He doesn’t read” is a cop out. Darren Beattie is as intellectual as they come, and wasn’t troubled by Trump’s reading habits.
    , @BB753
    Trump made the right call. That makes him smarter than Dubya and Baracky. No doubt, Hillary in his place would have gone full nuclear.
    IMHO, a president who doesn't listen to the advice of professional politicians and Think Tank shills is an improvement over yes men like Bush Jr and Obama.
    , @Realist

    Nothing like giving your former boss a good reference.
     
    At least it was factual.
    , @fnn
    Mearsheimer can't be the NSA because he wrote a famous book about the Israel lobby.
    , @AnotherDad

    Remember that Rex Tillerson called Trump “a fucking moron” and after he had resigned was quoted as saying: “It was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil corporation, … to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn’t like to read, doesn’t read briefing reports, doesn’t like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, ‘This is what I believe.”

    Nothing like giving your former boss a good reference.
     
    I'm no fan of Trump's laziness--nor his failure to execute the nationalist agenda he ran on. But this snippet just shows Tillerson is confused--perhaps smart IQ wise, but not truly intelligent--or a pompous jerk (my bet).

    First off, a competent underling doesn't require his boss to drown himself in detail to figure everything out. He is capable of giving his boss whatever level of detail the boss needs/desires. And he can take the boss's larger agenda and map out a strategy in his balliwick that works. Tillerson obviously knows this and no doubt did it before taking the top job.

    Furthermore, Trump isn't CEO of the United States, he's a political leader. "This is what i believe" should be sufficient marching orders. Tillerson should have been able to take Trump's "this is what i believe" and deliver competent execution of Trump's agenda.

    My guess is that Tillerson simply didn't like Trump's "this is what i believe" and couldn't change his mind with all his arguments and detail in a "briefing report". And that's what pissed Tillerson off.

    But politics isn't drilling wells and pumping gas. De novo, in this dispute, Tillerson's agenda isn't "right" because his "briefing report" makes a good argument for what Tillerson would rather do. Rather Trump's agenda is "right" because the people elected him President.

    Of course, what is actually "right" isn't what the President wants, but what's in the long term interest of the American people. But count me as skeptical that Tillerson's agenda was superior to Trump's in this respect.
    , @guest
    Oh, he wants to be "process-oriented?" What Managerial State gobbledygook.

    Trump is a politician. These guys are bureaucrats. They are at war with eachother in the best of circumstances. But when you have someone like Trump who is an outsider to their world and has at least talked about confronting them head-on (drain the swamp), of course they don't want to work for him. Which means they cast about for professional differences and differences of personality, but a couple things:

    Firstly, we know Trump was a real estate mogul with a vast empire of employees doing stuff for him. Maybe it didn't run like your beloved Exxon-Mobile, but it ran.

    Secondly, has Tillerson read a political biography? Like ever? Was Obama "disciplined and highly process-oriented?" Maybe when he ran his community organizing racket. But try listening to the people inside that White House.

    Oh, but the Managerial State and Obama were on the same side politically. I forgot.

    Okay, what would have happened had Tillerson found himself working under Prime Minister Churchill? Probably would've drowned the old lush in his tub.
  25. It’s not just war with Iran…it’s AFGHANISTAN…..IRAQ….and the illegal US MILITARY OCCUPATION OF SYRIA….

    Last Sunday, my Nephew(who was abandoned by his father at 14 years of age) shook my hands and hugged me goodbye…..he went into his car….drove down the road….off to a well known US ARMY BASE…..I had tears in my eyes watching him drive off…..Knowing full well that his fate is now in the hands of psychopathic serial killers John Bolton and Mike Pompeo…..and JEW ONLY ISRAELI…….and GLOBAL-HOMO…….I feel sick to my stomach…

    John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have the exact same psychological profile as psychopathic serial killer Ted Bundy………This is who is running Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy…….

    BRING THE TROOPS HOME!!!!….or we can draft the Chicken-Hawk-War-Hawk Sean Hannity for Infantry Platoon duty in Afghanistan….

  26. @Jonathan Mason
    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization. If it is the case that he was influenced by Carlson, then thank God, in this case, that the advice given was sane. Perhaps Jerry Hall or Ivanka also had something to do with it.

    The general policy of Washington towards Iran has been pretty despicable under Trump and if Iran did take a pot shot at a spy drone that may or may not have been over Iran's airspace, but was certainly close enough to trigger mistakes, then it was the fault of the US, and anyway no one was killed.

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz "accidentally" shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.

    In 1996, the governments of the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident... As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. [Wikipedia]

    Well at least the US promptly apologized--8 years being the equivalent of a quickie divorce in the US legal system--oh, wait, we have not formally apologized yet. Formal apologies for US government atrocities usually take about 143 years, based on precedent.

    If Iran cares to admit that it was mistaken and agrees to pay compensation, could this be the start of some kind of rapprochement between the two governments? Unlikely while Trump has the current set of goofy advisors whom he himself appointed, and neither country seems to have been able to devise a method of selecting sensible, mature leaders

    One of the most basic concepts taught in management courses is the Abilene paradox.

    The Abilene paradox refers to a situation wherein no member of a group decides to contest a decision taken by the group, believing it to be the consensus of everyone, when in reality, none of the group members agree with the decision. However, none of them speak up for the fear of going against the wishes of others, and end up regretting not speaking up in time.

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil's advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

    Perhaps Trump in the fog of his dotage is stumbling into the right decisions because this afternoon he is fortunately unable to remember what was decided this morning or why.

    You’ve bought way too much fake news.

    • Agree: Lot, Forbes, Redneck farmer
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    You’ve bought way too much fake news.
     
    Can you be a little more specific?

    The whole point of having drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as they are sometimes pompously known, is that you can have an aircraft in the air where it is too dangerous for a human pilot to be, so that if the spy plane, sorry UAV, is shot down, the life of a pilot is not at risk and he cannot be held captive and interrogated.

    So the whole purpose of using drones as spy planes is that if they are shot down it is not necessary to start a war to show how macho you are.

    When Gary Powers and his high altitude spy plane were shot down over Russia in 1960, the US government lied and said that the plane was a weather observation plane that had been blown off-course, but the plane was found almost intact and contained a lot more than wind socks and rain gauges.

    Powers was provided with a suicide capsule, which he failed to use. On his return to the US after doing time in the USSR and then being swapped for a Russian spy, he was criticized for failing to destroy his aircraft and commit suicide, but as far as I know he was not court-martialed for these offenses, which would have been hilarious. It was decided by the powers-that-be (no relation) that he was a hero.

    So that is why we have drones and no longer need suicide capsules.

  27. @SFG
    "It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization."

    All true (though I think Carlson's pretty much the only high-profile figure to take a position against woke capital I can think of)...but who else does he have? The lack of a populist right think-tank industry means he has nobody to fill White House staffing jobs, and most competent foreign policy people are part of the establishment that got us into all these bloody wars. I'd love to see, say, Walt and Mearsheimer advising him, but that's unlikely.

    The lack of a populist right think-tank industry means he has nobody to fill White House staffing jobs,

    We don’t need no steeenking theenk tanks, Senor, to quote an old movie line that doesn’t apply, but still cracks me up. Nah, all it takes is common sense from a bunch of trusted friends/advisors, say from Trump’s real estate business days. Wouldn’t he have a ton of real friends?

    Sure, SFG, the think tank guys would come up with talking points with perfect wording and slogans and all. However, does Trump not remember the issues he campaigned on? It doesn’t take Washington insiders, and you especially don’t want those, as they couldn’t be trusted, as seems obvious by now.

    If we have to rely on Trump having caught a certain newscast by Tucker Carlson to avoid war, that is pretty sad. It still beats the shape we’d have been in with the Hildabeast though. We know the evil that would have come out of her.

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    This book, worth skimming, blames partly Jared and Ivanka for his lousy picks.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1250185947/ref=tmm_hrd_title_sr?ie=UTF8&qid=1561236470&sr=8-1

    , @SFG
    I hear you, actually, and kind of agree. Thing is...I don't think he has real friends. There's no populist brain trust around him. His real estate buddies are all either ultra-Zionist warmongers (if they have opinions at all) or simply interested in making loads of money.

    I don't think he really cares about immigration either. He correctly assessed it as an issue nobody wanted to touch and ran with it, but he could have very easily slapped e-Verify on employers back when he had both houses. Instead he went on tax cuts for rich people and trying to kick everyone off Obamacare.

    Better than Hillary? Yes, and I will vote for him again. But let's not fool ourselves. I had a ringside seat to this guy's foibles back in NYC for 20 years and he is interested mostly in money and attention. The point is to make sure the GOP becomes a nationalist party and limits immigration; we have leverage over a Republican (they need our votes), but not over a Democrat (and their base wants to see us defeated).
  28. Why don’t we just skip the middleman next time and vote for Tucker Carlson?

  29. Warmonger Trump saved once again by dumb luck and his slavish devotion to whatever the TV (or “talky box” as sources close to the White House claim they’ve heard the President say) tells him to do.

  30. @Jonathan Mason
    Mearsheimer would be an excellent choice for National Security Advisor, but the real problem is that no serious person wants to work with Trump.

    Remember that Rex Tillerson called Trump "a fucking moron" and after he had resigned was quoted as saying: "It was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil corporation, ... to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn't like to read, doesn't read briefing reports, doesn't like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, 'This is what I believe."

    Nothing like giving your former boss a good reference.

    Or, another way of looking at it might be that no serious person wants to have a serious foreign policy. So the people have decided to put a non-serious person in, who is groping however tentatively towards a serious foreign policy, but who supposedly serious people don’t want to work for.

  31. @istevefan
    First, thank goodness Bill O'Reilly lost his show and freed up that timeslot for Tucker.

    Second, will this cause a rift between Hannity and Tucker? Sean is literally foaming at the mouth for a war with Iran. What's the tension like when those two walk down the same hall?

    Settle down. These are professionals. They don’t take anything seriously except their ratings. Conflict and resolution are required by opinion audiences.

  32. @istevefan
    First, thank goodness Bill O'Reilly lost his show and freed up that timeslot for Tucker.

    Second, will this cause a rift between Hannity and Tucker? Sean is literally foaming at the mouth for a war with Iran. What's the tension like when those two walk down the same hall?

    I doubt Hannity personally cares about bombing Iran — it just pays the bills. In any case, it can’t be any worse than when Lou Dobbs worked at CNN.

  33. A wise move by Trump, very wise, and it wouldn’t surprise if Tucker had his ear.

    (As a footnote, Carlson’s is the only Fox show that I regularly watch because it’s fun to see him negotiate the border with iSteve country with the skill of a mountain goat).

  34. @SFG
    "It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization."

    All true (though I think Carlson's pretty much the only high-profile figure to take a position against woke capital I can think of)...but who else does he have? The lack of a populist right think-tank industry means he has nobody to fill White House staffing jobs, and most competent foreign policy people are part of the establishment that got us into all these bloody wars. I'd love to see, say, Walt and Mearsheimer advising him, but that's unlikely.

    I forgot to add Pat Buchanan who once wrote about Bush, “he lost Arizona while he was saving Al Anbar province.”

    I think Trump needs to hear that because it’s happening now.

    • Agree: Hail, Bubba
  35. Assuming we stay out of a new war in the middle east, this decision will be remembered as the most important to the nation and world. The president knows this which is why he is already framing a picture for history with a contrived story of a last minute q and a with his nameless generals, the uniformed men going back and forth to bring him the dread butcher’s bill, our hero alone with his thoughts, communing with his God. Now imagine Hillary in the role.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    "ONLY 150 TOWELHEADS! WE NEED MORE, SO THEY KNOW WE'RE SERIOUS!"
    Actually, nah, we'd be having a real war in Syria. Like the beginning of Alas, Babylon.
  36. @Jonathan Mason
    Mearsheimer would be an excellent choice for National Security Advisor, but the real problem is that no serious person wants to work with Trump.

    Remember that Rex Tillerson called Trump "a fucking moron" and after he had resigned was quoted as saying: "It was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil corporation, ... to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn't like to read, doesn't read briefing reports, doesn't like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, 'This is what I believe."

    Nothing like giving your former boss a good reference.

    The “serious people” have proven themselves to be feckless, venal clowns.

    • Agree: William Badwhite
  37. @Jonathan Mason
    Mearsheimer would be an excellent choice for National Security Advisor, but the real problem is that no serious person wants to work with Trump.

    Remember that Rex Tillerson called Trump "a fucking moron" and after he had resigned was quoted as saying: "It was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil corporation, ... to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn't like to read, doesn't read briefing reports, doesn't like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, 'This is what I believe."

    Nothing like giving your former boss a good reference.

    I think Tillerson’s ego got in the way a bit, which is understandable for man of his accomplishments and previous position. “He doesn’t read” is a cop out. Darren Beattie is as intellectual as they come, and wasn’t troubled by Trump’s reading habits.

    • Replies: @Realist

    Darren Beattie is as intellectual as they come, and wasn’t troubled by Trump’s reading habits.
     
    He's a speech writer.....what intellectual? Intellectual is a description given to progressives by themselves.... and has nothing to do with intellegence.
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    Most high-level executives don't like to read. They'd rather be meeting, talking, analyzing, being briefed, and making decisions.
  38. @SFG
    That's impressive if it happened, no?

    What worries me is I just took one of these dumb Internet polls and 64% of people were in favor of war with Iran if tensions escalate. Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?

    Plus I doubt Bolton and Pompeo and co. won't try again.

    BTW, there is a great article in AmCon about all the times we've been duped into war, starting with the Mexican-American:

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/lies-they-told-us-a-long-history-of-being-manipulated-into-war/

    “What worries me is I just took one of these dumb Internet polls and 64% of people were in favor of war with Iran if tensions escalate. Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?”

    Well that certainly is the question, huh?

    I know I live in Texas, full of both actual and armchair warriors, but sentiment here is about 70% for war with Iran. Interestingly though, much higher among women, nearly 100%, than men. Please, let’s start drafting women already.

    I usually start with “Remember the Maine” and list an impressive chunk of the Fed’s consistent lies about going to war, among other things, which will usually get anyone to slink off in shame, but here is a better question:

    What is so wrong with the character of the American People that we constantly have to go through the fig leaf of false and perjured lies, in order to affect a pretense of self-righteous superiority?

    It is both cowardly and dishonest to engage in this circus of self deceit on the part of ordinary Americans. It is an utterly loathsome dereliction of duty on the part of Congress to abdicate war making powers, and then rubber stamp the actions of the Executive Branch, all to advance the circus of deceit.

    What the World must think of us.

    • Replies: @dimples
    Probably that's why the US is called the Great Satan.
  39. @istevefan
    First, thank goodness Bill O'Reilly lost his show and freed up that timeslot for Tucker.

    Second, will this cause a rift between Hannity and Tucker? Sean is literally foaming at the mouth for a war with Iran. What's the tension like when those two walk down the same hall?

    That’s what makes Carlson’s show so interesting. He doesn’t spout the party line and at times displays a healthy skepticism. In addition, he has clearly taken a keen interest in the UFO phenomenon by devoting whole segments to this controversy. Whatever they may be, it appears clear that he doesn’t buy the rote “weather balloon” or “clouds” explanation. Nevertheless Fox has been very careful do an ill-disguised tongue-in-cheek intro to the segment, mindful in part of the fallout from the Orson Welles “War of The Worlds” incident. .

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    Another reason why I like Tucker: an interest in a topic that the swells and rationalists discount. If there is an alien race making visits they wouldn't need metal ships. To badly paraphrase Sagan, the alien's technology would seem like magic to us (0r was that Arthur C. Clarke?) The UFOs inhabiting our skies and oceans are the descendants of the Nazi foo-fighter anti-gravity vehicles. The question is: what elite group of humans actually controls this advanced technology?
  40. @Jonathan Mason
    Mearsheimer would be an excellent choice for National Security Advisor, but the real problem is that no serious person wants to work with Trump.

    Remember that Rex Tillerson called Trump "a fucking moron" and after he had resigned was quoted as saying: "It was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil corporation, ... to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn't like to read, doesn't read briefing reports, doesn't like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, 'This is what I believe."

    Nothing like giving your former boss a good reference.

    Trump made the right call. That makes him smarter than Dubya and Baracky. No doubt, Hillary in his place would have gone full nuclear.
    IMHO, a president who doesn’t listen to the advice of professional politicians and Think Tank shills is an improvement over yes men like Bush Jr and Obama.

    • Agree: Haruto Rat
  41. @SFG
    That's impressive if it happened, no?

    What worries me is I just took one of these dumb Internet polls and 64% of people were in favor of war with Iran if tensions escalate. Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?

    Plus I doubt Bolton and Pompeo and co. won't try again.

    BTW, there is a great article in AmCon about all the times we've been duped into war, starting with the Mexican-American:

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/lies-they-told-us-a-long-history-of-being-manipulated-into-war/

    Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?

    Yes, I would’ve thought that the Iraq War would prevent a big military adventure for another generation. I was wrong. The Iran War would be a way bigger disaster than the Iraq War, both for America and the rest of the world.

    • Replies: @IHTG
    Those wars don't have to be disasters, just as Putin's Syria intervention isn't a disaster for Russia.

    The United States just doesn't seem to know how to fight in these regions. The 19th century Brits would have divide-and-conquered the shit out of Iraq.

    But the American people in the early 2000s could be excused for believing their army knew what it was doing.

    , @Anonymous
    I’m astounded. I cannot imagine why Americans would want anything to do with an Iran war. Are the American people insane?

    Do people not realize these ME wars have put almost 6 trillion onto the national debt? For WHAT?

    I thought people were tired of this nonsense, and this is why Trump was elected?

    America will fully deserve the fate that is coming. Very sad.
  42. If Tucker Carlson did this, he certainly did God’s work. Unfortunately, I’m afraid the deep state false flaggers (here and/or abroad) have just learned that they have to spill American blood, maybe a lot of it, for the false flag to work. BOLO.

  43. @GW
    Yeah maybe. But Trump himself said the response would not have been proportional to us losing an unmanned drone.

    I’m thinking Trump reasons far better than people give him credit for.

    I’m thinking Trump reasons far better than people give him credit for.

    Is that why the dumbass hired Bolton, Pompeo and and all the other assholes???

    • LOL: bomag
  44. @Jonathan Mason
    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization. If it is the case that he was influenced by Carlson, then thank God, in this case, that the advice given was sane. Perhaps Jerry Hall or Ivanka also had something to do with it.

    The general policy of Washington towards Iran has been pretty despicable under Trump and if Iran did take a pot shot at a spy drone that may or may not have been over Iran's airspace, but was certainly close enough to trigger mistakes, then it was the fault of the US, and anyway no one was killed.

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz "accidentally" shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.

    In 1996, the governments of the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident... As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. [Wikipedia]

    Well at least the US promptly apologized--8 years being the equivalent of a quickie divorce in the US legal system--oh, wait, we have not formally apologized yet. Formal apologies for US government atrocities usually take about 143 years, based on precedent.

    If Iran cares to admit that it was mistaken and agrees to pay compensation, could this be the start of some kind of rapprochement between the two governments? Unlikely while Trump has the current set of goofy advisors whom he himself appointed, and neither country seems to have been able to devise a method of selecting sensible, mature leaders

    One of the most basic concepts taught in management courses is the Abilene paradox.

    The Abilene paradox refers to a situation wherein no member of a group decides to contest a decision taken by the group, believing it to be the consensus of everyone, when in reality, none of the group members agree with the decision. However, none of them speak up for the fear of going against the wishes of others, and end up regretting not speaking up in time.

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil's advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

    Perhaps Trump in the fog of his dotage is stumbling into the right decisions because this afternoon he is fortunately unable to remember what was decided this morning or why.

    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    Then why don’t they ever do it?

  45. @istevefan
    First, thank goodness Bill O'Reilly lost his show and freed up that timeslot for Tucker.

    Second, will this cause a rift between Hannity and Tucker? Sean is literally foaming at the mouth for a war with Iran. What's the tension like when those two walk down the same hall?

    Second, will this cause a rift between Hannity and Tucker?

    I would guess Tuckers opinion of Hannity is extremely low.

    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @lavoisier

    I would guess Tuckers opinion of Hannity is extremely low.
     
    As would be the opinion of anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
  46. @Desiderius
    You’ve bought way too much fake news.

    You’ve bought way too much fake news.

    Can you be a little more specific?

    The whole point of having drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as they are sometimes pompously known, is that you can have an aircraft in the air where it is too dangerous for a human pilot to be, so that if the spy plane, sorry UAV, is shot down, the life of a pilot is not at risk and he cannot be held captive and interrogated.

    So the whole purpose of using drones as spy planes is that if they are shot down it is not necessary to start a war to show how macho you are.

    When Gary Powers and his high altitude spy plane were shot down over Russia in 1960, the US government lied and said that the plane was a weather observation plane that had been blown off-course, but the plane was found almost intact and contained a lot more than wind socks and rain gauges.

    Powers was provided with a suicide capsule, which he failed to use. On his return to the US after doing time in the USSR and then being swapped for a Russian spy, he was criticized for failing to destroy his aircraft and commit suicide, but as far as I know he was not court-martialed for these offenses, which would have been hilarious. It was decided by the powers-that-be (no relation) that he was a hero.

    So that is why we have drones and no longer need suicide capsules.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    So that is why we have drones and no longer need suicide capsules.

    They should issue suicide capsules along with Twitter blue check-marks.
    , @Charles Pewitt

    So the whole purpose of using drones as spy planes is that if they are shot down it is not necessary to start a war to show how macho you are.

     

    The Company boobs wanted complete and total control of their own airborne decapitation instruments and the those CIA rascals got what they wanted in those drones firing out death from above. I believe the CIA has complete and total command and control and total operational ability to blast the shit out of any damn thing they like, all while sipping diet cola and eating potato chips thousands of miles away.

    The Company didn't like the fact that some US military goon had to authorize and give the command to bring death from above for some Third World twit causing a problem in areas of the world of interest to the American Empire.

    All of the above is just a hayseed American and his imagination. Could be true, could be nonsense.

    I also think that if the USA had walls and fences and deported about 50 or 60 million foreigners and their spawn the American Empire could operate as it likes all over the globe without fear of blowback from the bullshit cooked up by the Company.

    Don't flood the USA with foreigners while the American Empire is all over the globe using creative destruction and destabilization tactics to mow the grass, as the Israelis say.
    , @Toddy Cat
    The U-2 missions may very well have prevented nuclear war between the US and the USSR, enabling you to be archly humorous about it all these years later, so you're welcome. Also, the Vincennes incident was a tragic accident, brought about by recklessness on both sides. No one this side of the Daily Kos thinks that it was a deliberate act on the part of the US, but I suppose that if you start out with the belief that the US is always wrong, and always has been, it all makes sense.

    I'm as against a war with Iran as you are, but there's no sense in going overboard. The governments that the US has to deal with in the region are hardly blameless in the current situation, "allies" and enemies alike.
    , @Bill H
    The main reason for drones is not that they are risk free, it is that they can remain on station for vastly longer than can piloted aircraft, rotating through several operators (I refuse to call them pilots) during a single mission. Second is that they are sufficiently smaller that it is orders of magnitude easier to allow them to avoid detection. The lack of risk to a pilot is a significant factor, but it is not the primary reason for deploying them.
    , @Desiderius
    All your caveats and asides are straight out of fake news, detracting from your valid main point.
    , @Forbes
    Gary Powers CIA mission to fly across the Soviet Union had not been briefed to the president--an early case of the Deep State operating rogue. Power's U-2 was shot down two weeks before an East-West summit resulting in a deterioration in relations.
    , @Forbes
    Gary Powers' U-2 was shot down two weeks before an East-West summit resulting in a deterioration in relations. Powers CIA mission to fly across the Soviet Union had not been briefed to the president--an early case of the Deep State operating rogue.
    , @Mr. Anon

    Powers was provided with a suicide capsule, which he failed to use. On his return to the US after doing time in the USSR and then being swapped for a Russian spy, he was criticized for failing to destroy his aircraft and commit suicide, but as far as I know he was not court-martialed for these offenses, which would have been hilarious. It was decided by the powers-that-be (no relation) that he was a hero.
     
    Powers was a civilian CIA employee when he was shot down, so he would not have been subject to military justice. There likely was no way to completely destroy the plane - a bomb big enough to blow the plane to bits would have precluded it from flying. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an explosive charge rigged to destroy the camera and the film cannister. Anyway, he bailed out. I once read a story about Powers which quoted one of the (other) U2 pilots. He said they were all given a "suicide pill" (as I recall, it wasn't actually a pill, but rather a shellfish-toxin tipped needle that they were supposed to jab themselves with) - and that the first thing they all did was throw it away.

    Your point about drones is apt. Ane of the reasons for having them (not the only reason, but an important one) is to avoid the sticky situations that arise from having your pilots shot down over hostile territory.

    Did the administration offer any evidence that the drone was in international air-space? I'm not saying it wasn't. But I don't exactly trust John Bolton or the Pentagon to give me the truth.
  47. @Jonathan Mason
    Mearsheimer would be an excellent choice for National Security Advisor, but the real problem is that no serious person wants to work with Trump.

    Remember that Rex Tillerson called Trump "a fucking moron" and after he had resigned was quoted as saying: "It was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil corporation, ... to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn't like to read, doesn't read briefing reports, doesn't like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, 'This is what I believe."

    Nothing like giving your former boss a good reference.

    Nothing like giving your former boss a good reference.

    At least it was factual.

  48. @SFG
    "It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization."

    All true (though I think Carlson's pretty much the only high-profile figure to take a position against woke capital I can think of)...but who else does he have? The lack of a populist right think-tank industry means he has nobody to fill White House staffing jobs, and most competent foreign policy people are part of the establishment that got us into all these bloody wars. I'd love to see, say, Walt and Mearsheimer advising him, but that's unlikely.

    Tucker Carlson is a mutton-headed bastard whose head looks like a bloated Swanson meatloaf frozen dinner. Somehow this Tucker Carlson guy has Swanson frozen dinner loot in his background.

    Tucker Carlson is another American hayseed sonofabitch with English and German ancestry. I also have English and German ancestry and many millions of other Americans do too.

    Tucker Carlson puts that Living On Tulsi Time Gabbard US House Rep. and presidential candidate on his show to talk about foreign policy and the prudence of a non-interventionist foreign policy for the United States. That’s good.

    Tucker Carlson has English Fair Play sentiments and a good bit of German common sense.

    Compare and contrast the level-headed patriot Tucker Carlson with treasonous rat scumbags like Jack Keane and Sean Hannity and Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton and George W Bush and Dick Cheney and all the rest of the other disgusting filth that puts the interests of other nations ahead of the interests of the United States.

    Low IQ treasonite scum such as Jack Keane put the interests of other nations ahead of the interests of the United States — that is TREASON!

    General George Washington and General Andrew Jackson would hang any man who put the interests of any other nation ahead of the interests of the United States.

  49. @Dave Pinsen
    I think Tillerson’s ego got in the way a bit, which is understandable for man of his accomplishments and previous position. “He doesn’t read” is a cop out. Darren Beattie is as intellectual as they come, and wasn’t troubled by Trump’s reading habits.

    Darren Beattie is as intellectual as they come, and wasn’t troubled by Trump’s reading habits.

    He’s a speech writer…..what intellectual? Intellectual is a description given to progressives by themselves…. and has nothing to do with intellegence.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    He has a mathematics degree from the University of Chicago and a PhD in political science from Duke, where his PhD thesis was Martin Heidegger's Mathematical Dialectic: Uncovering the Structure of Modernity.

    And he’s not a progressive.
  50. That’s terrific news! Trump, who runs the system that generated the false flag, has “changed his mind”. Peace Nobel on the way this winter, bombs all through 2020 summer (“look, he tried, but these ayatollahs are just insane, muh democracy”), reelection in November, profit.

    Of course, Trump and his underlings dindu nuthin about that Japanese ship while Abe was in Tehran. He will show the evidence, as soon as the IRS audit ends.

  51. @Jonathan Mason

    You’ve bought way too much fake news.
     
    Can you be a little more specific?

    The whole point of having drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as they are sometimes pompously known, is that you can have an aircraft in the air where it is too dangerous for a human pilot to be, so that if the spy plane, sorry UAV, is shot down, the life of a pilot is not at risk and he cannot be held captive and interrogated.

    So the whole purpose of using drones as spy planes is that if they are shot down it is not necessary to start a war to show how macho you are.

    When Gary Powers and his high altitude spy plane were shot down over Russia in 1960, the US government lied and said that the plane was a weather observation plane that had been blown off-course, but the plane was found almost intact and contained a lot more than wind socks and rain gauges.

    Powers was provided with a suicide capsule, which he failed to use. On his return to the US after doing time in the USSR and then being swapped for a Russian spy, he was criticized for failing to destroy his aircraft and commit suicide, but as far as I know he was not court-martialed for these offenses, which would have been hilarious. It was decided by the powers-that-be (no relation) that he was a hero.

    So that is why we have drones and no longer need suicide capsules.

    So that is why we have drones and no longer need suicide capsules.

    They should issue suicide capsules along with Twitter blue check-marks.

  52. @Jonathan Mason

    You’ve bought way too much fake news.
     
    Can you be a little more specific?

    The whole point of having drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as they are sometimes pompously known, is that you can have an aircraft in the air where it is too dangerous for a human pilot to be, so that if the spy plane, sorry UAV, is shot down, the life of a pilot is not at risk and he cannot be held captive and interrogated.

    So the whole purpose of using drones as spy planes is that if they are shot down it is not necessary to start a war to show how macho you are.

    When Gary Powers and his high altitude spy plane were shot down over Russia in 1960, the US government lied and said that the plane was a weather observation plane that had been blown off-course, but the plane was found almost intact and contained a lot more than wind socks and rain gauges.

    Powers was provided with a suicide capsule, which he failed to use. On his return to the US after doing time in the USSR and then being swapped for a Russian spy, he was criticized for failing to destroy his aircraft and commit suicide, but as far as I know he was not court-martialed for these offenses, which would have been hilarious. It was decided by the powers-that-be (no relation) that he was a hero.

    So that is why we have drones and no longer need suicide capsules.

    So the whole purpose of using drones as spy planes is that if they are shot down it is not necessary to start a war to show how macho you are.

    The Company boobs wanted complete and total control of their own airborne decapitation instruments and the those CIA rascals got what they wanted in those drones firing out death from above. I believe the CIA has complete and total command and control and total operational ability to blast the shit out of any damn thing they like, all while sipping diet cola and eating potato chips thousands of miles away.

    The Company didn’t like the fact that some US military goon had to authorize and give the command to bring death from above for some Third World twit causing a problem in areas of the world of interest to the American Empire.

    All of the above is just a hayseed American and his imagination. Could be true, could be nonsense.

    I also think that if the USA had walls and fences and deported about 50 or 60 million foreigners and their spawn the American Empire could operate as it likes all over the globe without fear of blowback from the bullshit cooked up by the Company.

    Don’t flood the USA with foreigners while the American Empire is all over the globe using creative destruction and destabilization tactics to mow the grass, as the Israelis say.

  53. @istevefan
    First, thank goodness Bill O'Reilly lost his show and freed up that timeslot for Tucker.

    Second, will this cause a rift between Hannity and Tucker? Sean is literally foaming at the mouth for a war with Iran. What's the tension like when those two walk down the same hall?

    They are both paid to say what they say, and pull in boomers from both sides of the argument. Why would they be upset that the other got a different mission?

  54. @Dave Pinsen
    I think Tillerson’s ego got in the way a bit, which is understandable for man of his accomplishments and previous position. “He doesn’t read” is a cop out. Darren Beattie is as intellectual as they come, and wasn’t troubled by Trump’s reading habits.

    Most high-level executives don’t like to read. They’d rather be meeting, talking, analyzing, being briefed, and making decisions.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    Yep.
    And I'll add that Trump's style reminds me of the rah-rah BS from several of the CEOs I've worked under. I'll bet much of the hysterical and allergic reaction Trump elicits on the left is due to the fact that influential leftists don't work in typical corporations. They're in government, universities, foundations etc. Some work in the media, true, but the culture there still shields them.
    , @Autochthon
    A thousand times this!

    Executives read less than Chris Rock's "n-----."

    You can make a major point the first sentence in the executive summary on the front page of a memo. Then, at the meeting to discuss the memo, after shamelessly announcing he reqd the memo with interest and is looking forward to discussing it with you, the executive will ask as his first question exactly what was answered unambiguously as that major point in the first sentence of the executive summary.

    They are douchebags.
  55. If we are to have a war then let’s attack Mexico’s six drug cartels. Nothing like militarizing the the southern border and going live fire on invaders with opioids to support national sovereignty and defense of the American people. That’s why we call it the Defense Department, right?

    • Replies: @Anon7
    The drug cartels are paramilitary organizations with tens of thousands of members dug into dozens of American cities. Starting a war with them seems like a bad idea to me. OTOH, giving Mexico’s police and security services aid in the form of arms, training and intelligence as a part of President Trump’s treaty seems like an excellent idea. Similar result, maybe not as satisfying.
  56. @Jonathan Mason
    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization. If it is the case that he was influenced by Carlson, then thank God, in this case, that the advice given was sane. Perhaps Jerry Hall or Ivanka also had something to do with it.

    The general policy of Washington towards Iran has been pretty despicable under Trump and if Iran did take a pot shot at a spy drone that may or may not have been over Iran's airspace, but was certainly close enough to trigger mistakes, then it was the fault of the US, and anyway no one was killed.

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz "accidentally" shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.

    In 1996, the governments of the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident... As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. [Wikipedia]

    Well at least the US promptly apologized--8 years being the equivalent of a quickie divorce in the US legal system--oh, wait, we have not formally apologized yet. Formal apologies for US government atrocities usually take about 143 years, based on precedent.

    If Iran cares to admit that it was mistaken and agrees to pay compensation, could this be the start of some kind of rapprochement between the two governments? Unlikely while Trump has the current set of goofy advisors whom he himself appointed, and neither country seems to have been able to devise a method of selecting sensible, mature leaders

    One of the most basic concepts taught in management courses is the Abilene paradox.

    The Abilene paradox refers to a situation wherein no member of a group decides to contest a decision taken by the group, believing it to be the consensus of everyone, when in reality, none of the group members agree with the decision. However, none of them speak up for the fear of going against the wishes of others, and end up regretting not speaking up in time.

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil's advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

    Perhaps Trump in the fog of his dotage is stumbling into the right decisions because this afternoon he is fortunately unable to remember what was decided this morning or why.

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil’s advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

    I don’t know crud about no ABILENE PARADOX, but the internet says the average humidity in Abilene is 59 — too high. Houston has average humidity of 75, which is intolerable, which is why David Brooks wants us Whites to be racked and stacked in Houston with the Third Worlders, all of us sweating our balls off. David Brooks is an evil person and he gets on my nerves.

    This ABILENE PARADOX concept is why I am running against President Trump in the 2020 GOP presidential primary. Some political leader needs to stand up and confront Trump on his call to flood the USA with mass legal immigration “in the largest numbers ever.”

    Trump has refused to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA and Trump has refused to build a wall and fencing system to seal the border.

    Pewitt Pledge:

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW

    DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS NOW

    • Replies: @CCZ
    Tucker Carlson saved Trump from war with Iran and Nancy Pelosi saved Trump from deporting millions of illegal aliens.

    "President Donald Trump says he is delaying a nationwide sweep to deport people living in the U.S. illegally."

    He said in a tweet:

    "At the request of Democrats, I have delayed the Illegal Immigration Removal Process (Deportation) for two weeks to see if the Democrats and Republicans can get together and work out a solution to the Asylum and Loophole problems at the Southern Border. If not, Deportations start!"

    PS: George C. Parker has just announced that he is selling his iconic bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan, all offers considered.
  57. anon[340] • Disclaimer says:

    War with Iran may be no bad thing wrt demographics. Iran is a major country, they’re a smart race, so could be major, thus requiring conscription / the draft.

    Young men of draft age in USA now majority darks. Put them on front line to take brunt of casualties. If some based White army generals could manoeuvre the lesser races (pakis, blacks, muzzoes) to the most dangerous positions. Bingo! Let historic Euro population repopulate post-war!

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Unfortunately, entering the combat arms ranks voluntarily requires some sense of civic mindedness or a certain sort of idealism (eg Starship Troopers) — they’re dominated by poor dupe white men who still think this is their country.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Lol.

    Wishful thinking. Globohomo isn't stupid.
  58. I keep saying here: Trump is not going to war. It’s against his every instinct. It’s by far – by far- his greatest attribute. No surge, no invasion, no overthrows. Pat Buchanan and the rest of his ilk are insane with this Israel Neocon crap. He ain’t going to war.

    That’s not Trump! For that alone I am so grateful he is President. President Hillary would have been in a nuclear exchange by now. Just to show how tough she was.

    Trump’s instinct is to sell arms to the Saudis. More and more of them. And let them fight it out. Now that’s a good President. Of course the Buchananite idiots and the Left wing don’t like that either. I love it!

    • Replies: @anon


    I keep saying here: Trump is not going to war. It’s against his every instinct. It’s by far – by far- his greatest attribute. No surge, no invasion, no overthrows.
     
    I agree. He stalled and delayed and blustered and did nothing in Syria and let the Syrian government and the Russians win, which was exactly the right thing to do. He hasn't sent US troops to Ukraine, something else Hillary would have done by now. He's talked tough on Iran but he's not invading.
    Give it time. This is how the US Empire fades away. And the end of the US Empire is how the US Nation gets revived.
    I will vote for Trump again because his instinct on war is to back off. And that is what we need now above all.
  59. Bernie Sanders wrote about the war talk in The Guardian today. I wonder if that is because he can’t get it published in the New York Times or the Washington Post.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/21/us-iran-bernie-sanders-airstrikes-drone-attack-war#comments

  60. @SFG
    That's impressive if it happened, no?

    What worries me is I just took one of these dumb Internet polls and 64% of people were in favor of war with Iran if tensions escalate. Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?

    Plus I doubt Bolton and Pompeo and co. won't try again.

    BTW, there is a great article in AmCon about all the times we've been duped into war, starting with the Mexican-American:

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/lies-they-told-us-a-long-history-of-being-manipulated-into-war/

    What worries me is I just took one of these dumb Internet polls and 64% of people were in favor of war with Iran if tensions escalate. Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?

    It’s quite possible. The American public has repeated demonstrated that it will reflexively close ranks and support war, once the drums of war start beating in Washington DC. I cannot recall a single instance when there has been any kind of meaningful public debate or discussion before the commencement of hostilities, to a degree that might avert war, at least in my lifetime. Discussions have always come after.

    I was reading the comments in the Washington Post on President Trump’s decision to call off the military action yesterday. 99% of the comments by liberals were assumed that attacking Iran would have been the right thing to do—simply because the President decided otherwise.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Just another twitter mob. They’ll forget what they were all stirred up about within a week. Back in reality people appreciate Trump’s thinking.
    , @Western
    I was a small child during the Vietnam War, but it seems a large portion of the country supported it for quite a while even though there was a draft. It seems crazy looking back.
    , @Jonathan Mason
    "I cannot recall a single instance when there has been any kind of meaningful public debate or discussion before the commencement of hostilities, to a degree that might avert war,"

    I think there was a lot for World War I. Also prior to Iraq, then Illinois State Senator Obama said in a well published speech that did a lot to enhance his future career as a politician. (Also millions marched against the war all round the world.)

    http://www.obamaspeeches.com/001-2002-Speech-Against-the-Iraq-War-Obama-Speech.htm

    That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

    Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

    I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

    I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

    This speech looks like it owes a lot to Antony's speech in Julius Caesar by W. Spearshakes.

    O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
    And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
    My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
    And I must pause till it come back to me.

    However, it did the job, and had Hillary Clinton followed this line when she had the chance to lead the opposition to George W. Bush's Iraq War, she probably would not be the most frustrated old woman in America now.

    D. Trump was elected, at least in part, because he promised an end to senseless foreign wars and a draining of the swamp. Now he is up to his neck in the swamp and has not yet found the plughole.

    On April 27, 2016, then-Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump used an invitation-only event at Washington’s ornate Mayflower Hotel to argue that presidents of both parties had gotten the US ensnared in too many costly, grinding foreign wars.

    That, Trump promised, would change once he moved into the White House.

    “I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary, and I mean absolutely necessary, and will only do so if we have a plan for victory with a capital V,” he thundered. “The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies.”

    The speech was part of Trump’s attempt to make a decisive break with the more hawkish and interventionist wings of his own party, which he blamed for the Iraq War and Washington’s icy relationship with Moscow. He wasn’t just trying to argue that he’d be a different kind of president than Democrats like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. He was also arguing that he’d be a different kind of president than Republicans like George W. Bush.

    https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/25/16185936/trump-america-first-afghanistan-war-troops-iraq-generals

    Can we have that Trump back, please?
     
     

    , @gabriel alberton
    It has been decided long ago by some (if not exactly by 99% of liberal commenters, as you claim) that every single decision taken by Trump must be wrong, deplorable even -- as are each of his voters -- before he takes them.
  61. @istevefan
    Lou Dobbs.

    You’re right! And they got rid of him, no?

  62. eD says:

    Matt Taibbi lays out the “invade the world” script (and yes, there is a script):

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iran-trump-america-permanent-war-formula-850712/

    “Sometimes the “aggression” is more real than in others (Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait is a little different from a “sketchy” late-night firefight in Panama), but the result is usually the same. It somehow never strikes Americans as odd, however, that the “aggression” takes place in or around a faraway country with no ability to attack the territorial United States.”

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    Getting mad at human nature and then pretending it’s a uniquely American thing is why paleoconservatism is never going to increase its influence over American politics. It’s a shame more Paleocons don’t take their cues from Buchanan who gets it. All that matters is trump getting a second term. Then the Republican Party becomes an instrument for advancing the interests of core Americans. The American people aren’t perfect but they are absolutely near the top of what the options are and they are a shit ton better than Russian or Chinese or whatever people the black pill types want to see prevail.
    , @Forbes

    It somehow never strikes Americans as odd, however, that the “aggression” takes place in or around a faraway country with no ability to attack the territorial United States.”
     
    Odd? Really? I'd say (not that I'm favorably disposed), but attacking a faraway country with no ability to attack CONUS is a feature not a bug.

    Isn't the number of countries who could actually attack CONUS quite limited?

    And yet, the US takes refugees from all kinds of faraway (and not so faraway) places that have little to do with the first half of the "invade the world, invite the world" mantra.
    , @SFG
    "Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

    Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

    Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
  63. @Jonathan Mason
    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization. If it is the case that he was influenced by Carlson, then thank God, in this case, that the advice given was sane. Perhaps Jerry Hall or Ivanka also had something to do with it.

    The general policy of Washington towards Iran has been pretty despicable under Trump and if Iran did take a pot shot at a spy drone that may or may not have been over Iran's airspace, but was certainly close enough to trigger mistakes, then it was the fault of the US, and anyway no one was killed.

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz "accidentally" shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.

    In 1996, the governments of the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident... As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. [Wikipedia]

    Well at least the US promptly apologized--8 years being the equivalent of a quickie divorce in the US legal system--oh, wait, we have not formally apologized yet. Formal apologies for US government atrocities usually take about 143 years, based on precedent.

    If Iran cares to admit that it was mistaken and agrees to pay compensation, could this be the start of some kind of rapprochement between the two governments? Unlikely while Trump has the current set of goofy advisors whom he himself appointed, and neither country seems to have been able to devise a method of selecting sensible, mature leaders

    One of the most basic concepts taught in management courses is the Abilene paradox.

    The Abilene paradox refers to a situation wherein no member of a group decides to contest a decision taken by the group, believing it to be the consensus of everyone, when in reality, none of the group members agree with the decision. However, none of them speak up for the fear of going against the wishes of others, and end up regretting not speaking up in time.

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil's advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

    Perhaps Trump in the fog of his dotage is stumbling into the right decisions because this afternoon he is fortunately unable to remember what was decided this morning or why.

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz “accidentally” shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers.

    I’ll bet wampum to bagels that most Iranians are aware of this incident.

    A generation or two ago, the United States involvement in the Persian Gulf could be somewhat justified as being in our national interest due to our “dependence on foreign oil.” (Even then, the “foreign oil” we were “dependent” on was mostly from Mexico and Canada.) Today, Iran closing down the Strait of Hormuz can be summed up in my three favorite words : “Not my problem.”

  64. @Jonathan Mason

    You’ve bought way too much fake news.
     
    Can you be a little more specific?

    The whole point of having drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as they are sometimes pompously known, is that you can have an aircraft in the air where it is too dangerous for a human pilot to be, so that if the spy plane, sorry UAV, is shot down, the life of a pilot is not at risk and he cannot be held captive and interrogated.

    So the whole purpose of using drones as spy planes is that if they are shot down it is not necessary to start a war to show how macho you are.

    When Gary Powers and his high altitude spy plane were shot down over Russia in 1960, the US government lied and said that the plane was a weather observation plane that had been blown off-course, but the plane was found almost intact and contained a lot more than wind socks and rain gauges.

    Powers was provided with a suicide capsule, which he failed to use. On his return to the US after doing time in the USSR and then being swapped for a Russian spy, he was criticized for failing to destroy his aircraft and commit suicide, but as far as I know he was not court-martialed for these offenses, which would have been hilarious. It was decided by the powers-that-be (no relation) that he was a hero.

    So that is why we have drones and no longer need suicide capsules.

    The U-2 missions may very well have prevented nuclear war between the US and the USSR, enabling you to be archly humorous about it all these years later, so you’re welcome. Also, the Vincennes incident was a tragic accident, brought about by recklessness on both sides. No one this side of the Daily Kos thinks that it was a deliberate act on the part of the US, but I suppose that if you start out with the belief that the US is always wrong, and always has been, it all makes sense.

    I’m as against a war with Iran as you are, but there’s no sense in going overboard. The governments that the US has to deal with in the region are hardly blameless in the current situation, “allies” and enemies alike.

  65. eD says:

    Harper’s Magazine doesn’t exactly have a paywall, but you are allowed one free article this month. OK so make it this article. I actually bought the print version but threw it away after my flight:

    https://harpers.org/archive/2019/06/the-pentagon-syndrome/”

    Pretty much the argument is that the USA defense budget is like USA higher education, in that it will always increase faster than the inflation rate, each and every year. And one way they do it is faked up war scares.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    No shit. And I’m honestly skeptical that someone who reads harpers finds that an at all novel idea. Unless you only read harpers during the Obama administration.
  66. @Jonathan Mason

    You’ve bought way too much fake news.
     
    Can you be a little more specific?

    The whole point of having drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as they are sometimes pompously known, is that you can have an aircraft in the air where it is too dangerous for a human pilot to be, so that if the spy plane, sorry UAV, is shot down, the life of a pilot is not at risk and he cannot be held captive and interrogated.

    So the whole purpose of using drones as spy planes is that if they are shot down it is not necessary to start a war to show how macho you are.

    When Gary Powers and his high altitude spy plane were shot down over Russia in 1960, the US government lied and said that the plane was a weather observation plane that had been blown off-course, but the plane was found almost intact and contained a lot more than wind socks and rain gauges.

    Powers was provided with a suicide capsule, which he failed to use. On his return to the US after doing time in the USSR and then being swapped for a Russian spy, he was criticized for failing to destroy his aircraft and commit suicide, but as far as I know he was not court-martialed for these offenses, which would have been hilarious. It was decided by the powers-that-be (no relation) that he was a hero.

    So that is why we have drones and no longer need suicide capsules.

    The main reason for drones is not that they are risk free, it is that they can remain on station for vastly longer than can piloted aircraft, rotating through several operators (I refuse to call them pilots) during a single mission. Second is that they are sufficiently smaller that it is orders of magnitude easier to allow them to avoid detection. The lack of risk to a pilot is a significant factor, but it is not the primary reason for deploying them.

  67. Having spent time with military men, no I don’t really trust their intelligence or judgement. Evangelical Christianity is huge on military installations, from basic training onwards. Military bases all have Fox News being played constantly. Christian Zionism is lodged in their minds.

    Which means that the professional advice that Trump gets from his military officers is colored. It also means that reports of facts from military men on the ground is not entirely accurate.

    So it is a godsend that Tucker is on.

    Even without Bolton and Pompeo around, there is a good chance Trump would still have wound up here due to the biases and preoccupations of the military bureaucracy.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Yes, military men are one of the least ‘based’ demographics around. There’s a significant libshit minority (concentrated in the technical/intelligence fields), but really, what’s the difference?
  68. @GW
    Yeah maybe. But Trump himself said the response would not have been proportional to us losing an unmanned drone.

    I’m thinking Trump reasons far better than people give him credit for.

    > Trump reasons far better than people give him credit for

    I agree. That’s not a high bar to pass, since most people agree he’s an idiot.

    But when people say he’s an idiot, they are really saying they dislike him. He’s disgusting.

    The big problem with Trump is that we can’t fantasize on him as a great President. But the credit we give to the fallible humans who somehow become our leaders is fraught with emotion and fantasy.

    Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson — which of the presidents of the last 100 years reasoned well?

    Which one of them was the wise Solon that we deserve, instead of the orange clown we have to cope with?

    Trump makes me nervous, but I don’t think he’s out of place in that list.

    He might even be, as Houellebecq slyly said, “one of the best American presidents”.

    https://harpers.org/archive/2019/01/donald-trump-is-a-good-president/

  69. Tucker is the new Charles Lindbergh.

    • Replies: @lavoisier

    Tucker is the new Charles Lindbergh.
     
    Not until he notices the Jewish elephant in every room.

    But once he does that, he is finished.
  70. @GW
    Yeah maybe. But Trump himself said the response would not have been proportional to us losing an unmanned drone.

    I’m thinking Trump reasons far better than people give him credit for.

    Especially if our drone was over their territory, as they allege and i would easily believe.

  71. @PiltdownMan

    What worries me is I just took one of these dumb Internet polls and 64% of people were in favor of war with Iran if tensions escalate. Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?
     
    It's quite possible. The American public has repeated demonstrated that it will reflexively close ranks and support war, once the drums of war start beating in Washington DC. I cannot recall a single instance when there has been any kind of meaningful public debate or discussion before the commencement of hostilities, to a degree that might avert war, at least in my lifetime. Discussions have always come after.

    I was reading the comments in the Washington Post on President Trump's decision to call off the military action yesterday. 99% of the comments by liberals were assumed that attacking Iran would have been the right thing to do—simply because the President decided otherwise.

    Just another twitter mob. They’ll forget what they were all stirred up about within a week. Back in reality people appreciate Trump’s thinking.

  72. @PiltdownMan

    What worries me is I just took one of these dumb Internet polls and 64% of people were in favor of war with Iran if tensions escalate. Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?
     
    It's quite possible. The American public has repeated demonstrated that it will reflexively close ranks and support war, once the drums of war start beating in Washington DC. I cannot recall a single instance when there has been any kind of meaningful public debate or discussion before the commencement of hostilities, to a degree that might avert war, at least in my lifetime. Discussions have always come after.

    I was reading the comments in the Washington Post on President Trump's decision to call off the military action yesterday. 99% of the comments by liberals were assumed that attacking Iran would have been the right thing to do—simply because the President decided otherwise.

    I was a small child during the Vietnam War, but it seems a large portion of the country supported it for quite a while even though there was a draft. It seems crazy looking back.

  73. @istevefan
    First, thank goodness Bill O'Reilly lost his show and freed up that timeslot for Tucker.

    Second, will this cause a rift between Hannity and Tucker? Sean is literally foaming at the mouth for a war with Iran. What's the tension like when those two walk down the same hall?

    Hannity takes his cues from fellow New Yorker Trump. If Trump says war isn’t worth it, Hannity will find a way to make sense of it.

  74. @Jonathan Mason

    You’ve bought way too much fake news.
     
    Can you be a little more specific?

    The whole point of having drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as they are sometimes pompously known, is that you can have an aircraft in the air where it is too dangerous for a human pilot to be, so that if the spy plane, sorry UAV, is shot down, the life of a pilot is not at risk and he cannot be held captive and interrogated.

    So the whole purpose of using drones as spy planes is that if they are shot down it is not necessary to start a war to show how macho you are.

    When Gary Powers and his high altitude spy plane were shot down over Russia in 1960, the US government lied and said that the plane was a weather observation plane that had been blown off-course, but the plane was found almost intact and contained a lot more than wind socks and rain gauges.

    Powers was provided with a suicide capsule, which he failed to use. On his return to the US after doing time in the USSR and then being swapped for a Russian spy, he was criticized for failing to destroy his aircraft and commit suicide, but as far as I know he was not court-martialed for these offenses, which would have been hilarious. It was decided by the powers-that-be (no relation) that he was a hero.

    So that is why we have drones and no longer need suicide capsules.

    All your caveats and asides are straight out of fake news, detracting from your valid main point.

  75. @GW
    Yeah maybe. But Trump himself said the response would not have been proportional to us losing an unmanned drone.

    I’m thinking Trump reasons far better than people give him credit for.

    As usual. A lot of salaries dependent on Trump not getting credit for anything.

  76. utu says:
    @reiner Tor
    If there’s not going to be an Iran War, Tucker Carlson will deserve a statue for that alone. I don’t watch TV at all, certainly not American TV, but what I heard about his opinions, he seems as solid as a public figure in America could be. The best part is that he’s probably more solid than that, just smart enough to avoid disclosing things which could shut him out of TV.

    ‘Conservatives Might Want to Pause and Rethink the Relationship’ with the Kochs
    https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/06/19/fncs-carlson-conservatives-might-want-to-pause-and-rethink-the-relationship-with-the-kochs/

    But in the case of the Kochs, conservatives might want to pause and rethink the relationship. As it turns out, the Kochs don’t have much in common with conservatives. They are totally opposed to most conservative policy goals. The Kochs are libertarian ideologues, passionate and inflexible. America first? The Kochs find the very notion absurd, if not fascist. An economic policy that seeks to strengthen families? The Kochs denounce that as “crony capitalism,” or “picking winners and losers.” They think it’s immoral. Controlling our borders? The Kochs consider that racist. A few years ago, Bernie Sanders noted that the Koch brothers are far to the left of him on immigration. Open borders? Quote: “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he said.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    Bernie doesn't think of open borders as left-wing, so the Kochs couldn't be to his left on that issue. Paul Samuelson in his famous economics textbook always argued that the low levels of immigration the US had between 1923 and 1965 were what made unions strong in that era. Businesses couldn't find cheap labor, so they had to pay well.
  77. God bless Tucker Carlson.

  78. @istevefan
    First, thank goodness Bill O'Reilly lost his show and freed up that timeslot for Tucker.

    Second, will this cause a rift between Hannity and Tucker? Sean is literally foaming at the mouth for a war with Iran. What's the tension like when those two walk down the same hall?

    What’s the tension like when [Tucker and Hannity] walk down the same hall?

    This seldom happens because Tucker broadcasts out of the Washington DC Fox studio and Hannity out of the New York studio.

  79. @PiltdownMan

    What worries me is I just took one of these dumb Internet polls and 64% of people were in favor of war with Iran if tensions escalate. Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?
     
    It's quite possible. The American public has repeated demonstrated that it will reflexively close ranks and support war, once the drums of war start beating in Washington DC. I cannot recall a single instance when there has been any kind of meaningful public debate or discussion before the commencement of hostilities, to a degree that might avert war, at least in my lifetime. Discussions have always come after.

    I was reading the comments in the Washington Post on President Trump's decision to call off the military action yesterday. 99% of the comments by liberals were assumed that attacking Iran would have been the right thing to do—simply because the President decided otherwise.

    “I cannot recall a single instance when there has been any kind of meaningful public debate or discussion before the commencement of hostilities, to a degree that might avert war,”

    I think there was a lot for World War I. Also prior to Iraq, then Illinois State Senator Obama said in a well published speech that did a lot to enhance his future career as a politician. (Also millions marched against the war all round the world.)

    http://www.obamaspeeches.com/001-2002-Speech-Against-the-Iraq-War-Obama-Speech.htm

    That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

    Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

    I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

    I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

    This speech looks like it owes a lot to Antony’s speech in Julius Caesar by W. Spearshakes.

    O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
    And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
    My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
    And I must pause till it come back to me.

    However, it did the job, and had Hillary Clinton followed this line when she had the chance to lead the opposition to George W. Bush’s Iraq War, she probably would not be the most frustrated old woman in America now.

    D. Trump was elected, at least in part, because he promised an end to senseless foreign wars and a draining of the swamp. Now he is up to his neck in the swamp and has not yet found the plughole.

    On April 27, 2016, then-Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump used an invitation-only event at Washington’s ornate Mayflower Hotel to argue that presidents of both parties had gotten the US ensnared in too many costly, grinding foreign wars.

    That, Trump promised, would change once he moved into the White House.

    “I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary, and I mean absolutely necessary, and will only do so if we have a plan for victory with a capital V,” he thundered. “The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies.”

    The speech was part of Trump’s attempt to make a decisive break with the more hawkish and interventionist wings of his own party, which he blamed for the Iraq War and Washington’s icy relationship with Moscow. He wasn’t just trying to argue that he’d be a different kind of president than Democrats like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. He was also arguing that he’d be a different kind of president than Republicans like George W. Bush.

    https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/25/16185936/trump-america-first-afghanistan-war-troops-iraq-generals

    Can we have that Trump back, please?

    • Replies: @Lot
    I think if Obama had already been in the Senate and thinking about running for President in 2002-3, he’d have voted for Iraq like Clinton and Biden. But he was thinking about a blue-state Democratic Senate primary, or possibly appealing to the even more leftist pool of Dem primary voters for Chicago mayor or another attempt at Bobby Rush.

    That he dragged out Iraq and Afghanistan so long after becoming president, and filled his administration with “liberal hawks” who supported the war, supports my contention here.

    Obama’s short record in the Senate is even further support, he was right of center for a northern blue state Democrat, voting for “clean coal” and tort reform.
    , @Desiderius
    He never left. There are a lot of layers that the deep state has instituted over the years (likely starting with Truman) to protect the people from the president they’ve elected.

    Rolling those back isn’t realistic in the current political climate. What is realistic is either gaining enough popular support to dissuade the deep state campaign to oust Trump and/or winning the sympathy of the part of the deep state charged with maintaining those layers and/or putting internal pressure on them (i.e. via Barr) since they are after all extra-constitutional.

    I’ve yet to see evidence that Trump and those sympathetic to him are not pursuing all three options.
  80. Thursday night with only 10 minutes to spare to avoid the estimated deaths of as many as 150 people.

    150?! That’s three or four orders of magnitude below that of that other president whose name began with Trum-.

    And it didn’t happen.

    • Replies: @Hail

    150?!
     
    It is said that Iran lost around 500,000 men, dead, in the eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s. That during a period of major population-boom (39 million to 53 million during the eight-year war period). More than one percent of all Iranian males living at the time were killed in that war.

    Iran's baby boom is long over, now; inertia will take the population to ~90 million by 2030 (UN est.), after which there will be no net growth and significant aging; by 21st century Q3, population decline is expected to begin in earnest, perhaps making for zero net population, late 20th century to late 21st century.

    We Americans of European-Christian origin, meanwhile, have been slowly losing population for several years, and are probably currently at 188 million. We would be able to recover and stabilize, too, if not for having so many Third World immigrants dumped on us, with the apparent acquiescence of the Self-Promoter-in-Chief whom we elected to turn things around.
    , @HammerJack
    The other president. Had to look that up!
  81. Seems a wise decision. Sanctions seem to be working which is why Iran is so aggressive. It wants the US to attack so it can blame everything on the Great Satan and the Iran/Iraq war showed that Iran is no pushover. Besides the US is no longer dependent on Middle Eastern oil. We actually benefit now from higher oil prices and China doesn’t so let them sort out the Persian Gulf.

  82. @PiltdownMan

    What worries me is I just took one of these dumb Internet polls and 64% of people were in favor of war with Iran if tensions escalate. Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?
     
    It's quite possible. The American public has repeated demonstrated that it will reflexively close ranks and support war, once the drums of war start beating in Washington DC. I cannot recall a single instance when there has been any kind of meaningful public debate or discussion before the commencement of hostilities, to a degree that might avert war, at least in my lifetime. Discussions have always come after.

    I was reading the comments in the Washington Post on President Trump's decision to call off the military action yesterday. 99% of the comments by liberals were assumed that attacking Iran would have been the right thing to do—simply because the President decided otherwise.

    It has been decided long ago by some (if not exactly by 99% of liberal commenters, as you claim) that every single decision taken by Trump must be wrong, deplorable even — as are each of his voters — before he takes them.

  83. Let’s skip the middleman and elect Tucker Carlson for president.

  84. Hail says: • Website
    @Reg Cæsar

    Thursday night with only 10 minutes to spare to avoid the estimated deaths of as many as 150 people.
     
    150?! That's three or four orders of magnitude below that of that other president whose name began with Trum-.

    And it didn't happen.

    150?!

    It is said that Iran lost around 500,000 men, dead, in the eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s. That during a period of major population-boom (39 million to 53 million during the eight-year war period). More than one percent of all Iranian males living at the time were killed in that war.

    Iran’s baby boom is long over, now; inertia will take the population to ~90 million by 2030 (UN est.), after which there will be no net growth and significant aging; by 21st century Q3, population decline is expected to begin in earnest, perhaps making for zero net population, late 20th century to late 21st century.

    We Americans of European-Christian origin, meanwhile, have been slowly losing population for several years, and are probably currently at 188 million. We would be able to recover and stabilize, too, if not for having so many Third World immigrants dumped on us, with the apparent acquiescence of the Self-Promoter-in-Chief whom we elected to turn things around.

    • Replies: @Lot
    “We would be able to recover and stabilize, too, if not for having so many Third World immigrants dumped on us, with the apparent acquiescence of the Self-Promoter-in-Chief whom we elected to turn things around.”

    Given the ~8% rate of interracial births for whites, stabilization of the white U.S. population would require white TFR of about 2.4. And that’s assuming the rate doesn’t keep increasing.

    I don’t want the white US population to decline, so I favor massive natalist policies focused on the middle class, ending all third world migration and deporting illegals, and opening the US to Eastern European migration.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    "by 21st century Q3, population decline is expected to begin in earnest, perhaps making for zero net population"

    The trees don't grow up to the sky. Just because Iran's population is falling now, doesn't mean it'll carry on to zero.
    , @AnotherDad

    We Americans of European-Christian origin, meanwhile, have been slowly losing population for several years, and are probably currently at 188 million. We would be able to recover and stabilize, too, if not for having so many Third World immigrants dumped on us, with the apparent acquiescence of the Self-Promoter-in-Chief whom we elected to turn things around.
     
    Well said, Hail.

    We are currently undergoing a radical selection for women who can reproduce in our new environment of prosperity, the Pill, feminism and now the smart phone. That's a lot of disruption, but ... we'd get through it eventually.

    But immigration is just killing--literally killing, in surpressing our births--us. Both surpressing our recovery and overwhelming us before we can recover.
  85. @Jonathan Mason
    Mearsheimer would be an excellent choice for National Security Advisor, but the real problem is that no serious person wants to work with Trump.

    Remember that Rex Tillerson called Trump "a fucking moron" and after he had resigned was quoted as saying: "It was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil corporation, ... to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn't like to read, doesn't read briefing reports, doesn't like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, 'This is what I believe."

    Nothing like giving your former boss a good reference.

    Mearsheimer can’t be the NSA because he wrote a famous book about the Israel lobby.

  86. Lot says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    "I cannot recall a single instance when there has been any kind of meaningful public debate or discussion before the commencement of hostilities, to a degree that might avert war,"

    I think there was a lot for World War I. Also prior to Iraq, then Illinois State Senator Obama said in a well published speech that did a lot to enhance his future career as a politician. (Also millions marched against the war all round the world.)

    http://www.obamaspeeches.com/001-2002-Speech-Against-the-Iraq-War-Obama-Speech.htm

    That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

    Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

    I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

    I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

    This speech looks like it owes a lot to Antony's speech in Julius Caesar by W. Spearshakes.

    O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
    And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
    My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
    And I must pause till it come back to me.

    However, it did the job, and had Hillary Clinton followed this line when she had the chance to lead the opposition to George W. Bush's Iraq War, she probably would not be the most frustrated old woman in America now.

    D. Trump was elected, at least in part, because he promised an end to senseless foreign wars and a draining of the swamp. Now he is up to his neck in the swamp and has not yet found the plughole.

    On April 27, 2016, then-Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump used an invitation-only event at Washington’s ornate Mayflower Hotel to argue that presidents of both parties had gotten the US ensnared in too many costly, grinding foreign wars.

    That, Trump promised, would change once he moved into the White House.

    “I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary, and I mean absolutely necessary, and will only do so if we have a plan for victory with a capital V,” he thundered. “The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies.”

    The speech was part of Trump’s attempt to make a decisive break with the more hawkish and interventionist wings of his own party, which he blamed for the Iraq War and Washington’s icy relationship with Moscow. He wasn’t just trying to argue that he’d be a different kind of president than Democrats like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. He was also arguing that he’d be a different kind of president than Republicans like George W. Bush.

    https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/25/16185936/trump-america-first-afghanistan-war-troops-iraq-generals

    Can we have that Trump back, please?
     
     

    I think if Obama had already been in the Senate and thinking about running for President in 2002-3, he’d have voted for Iraq like Clinton and Biden. But he was thinking about a blue-state Democratic Senate primary, or possibly appealing to the even more leftist pool of Dem primary voters for Chicago mayor or another attempt at Bobby Rush.

    That he dragged out Iraq and Afghanistan so long after becoming president, and filled his administration with “liberal hawks” who supported the war, supports my contention here.

    Obama’s short record in the Senate is even further support, he was right of center for a northern blue state Democrat, voting for “clean coal” and tort reform.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    Yea Obama doesn’t win that primary if he isn’t opposed to the Iraq war. The idea of Obama as a dove is hilarious especially from people who think trump is a hawk.
  87. This is ‘news’ as part of the plan to destroy Tucker Carlson.

    The Brit WASP Elites by time of WW1 were determined to arrange things so that their 2 Semitic loves, Jews and Arabic Mohammedans, could be brought into the tent of Global WASP Empire (with the white trash as the, well, white trash). They – with the American WASP Elites and their Jewish Neocon BFs now making all the important calls – are damned determined now to make that dream a reality, and it requires war to destroy Iran.

    So Tucker Carlson must go for 2 reasons (the other being that he actually sees the ultimately self-defeating strategy of dumping on non-Elite whites as immoral). Both Liberal and Neocon Jews and the WASP Hawks, the Yank Hawks, the Anglo-Zionists hate Carlson for both. They want him removed from his job and ruined.

  88. Lot says:
    @Hail

    150?!
     
    It is said that Iran lost around 500,000 men, dead, in the eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s. That during a period of major population-boom (39 million to 53 million during the eight-year war period). More than one percent of all Iranian males living at the time were killed in that war.

    Iran's baby boom is long over, now; inertia will take the population to ~90 million by 2030 (UN est.), after which there will be no net growth and significant aging; by 21st century Q3, population decline is expected to begin in earnest, perhaps making for zero net population, late 20th century to late 21st century.

    We Americans of European-Christian origin, meanwhile, have been slowly losing population for several years, and are probably currently at 188 million. We would be able to recover and stabilize, too, if not for having so many Third World immigrants dumped on us, with the apparent acquiescence of the Self-Promoter-in-Chief whom we elected to turn things around.

    “We would be able to recover and stabilize, too, if not for having so many Third World immigrants dumped on us, with the apparent acquiescence of the Self-Promoter-in-Chief whom we elected to turn things around.”

    Given the ~8% rate of interracial births for whites, stabilization of the white U.S. population would require white TFR of about 2.4. And that’s assuming the rate doesn’t keep increasing.

    I don’t want the white US population to decline, so I favor massive natalist policies focused on the middle class, ending all third world migration and deporting illegals, and opening the US to Eastern European migration.

    • Replies: @Hail
    Current 1.8 expected lifetime fertility for White women, with up to 10% of those babies fathered by Nonwhite men (you say 8%) = implied 1.60 to 1.65 White-White TFR. Given a 2.10 replacement rate, this = a White child-generation at 77% the size of the original generation, = a grandchild generation at 60% the size of the original generation.

    This would, I think, imply a population of <120m Whites by the 2070s. How many people do we really need? 120m Whites is around what we were at in the mid 1940s.

    , @AnotherDad

    Given the ~8% rate of interracial births for whites, stabilization of the white U.S. population would require white TFR of about 2.4. And that’s assuming the rate doesn’t keep increasing.

    I don’t want the white US population to decline, so I favor massive natalist policies focused on the middle class, ending all third world migration and deporting illegals, and opening the US to Eastern European migration.
     
    You're consistently strong on this Lot--good stuff.

    As i mentioned in response to Hail--and have said in several comments over the years--we're had a radical disruption of our environment. So we are now rapidly selecting for genotypes (esp. as expressed in women) that still reproduce in our new environment of prosperity and the Pill, feminism, facebook and phones. I believe this process would work out just fine--if we were left alone. But immigration is an attempt to kill us--jam the knife in--before we recover from the disruption.

    However, it's no doubt true that there are plenty of good ripe young women, whose genes really are fine, if it wasn't for hostile Hollyweird, media, academia, government bathing their brains with a toxic minoritarian, anti-white, anti-natal ideology. So i'm definitely on board with turbo-charging the recovery with explictly natalist policies. When women start seeing an official approved natalist narrative/culture, we should see a real fertility turnaround.

    ~~

    My one point of disagreement is immigration from Eastern Europe.

    Minor point--they need their people there. I expect down the road some rebellions in the West. (I got to think rural Scandis will at some point rebel and if nothing else separate.) But right now the East looks like the one place the White race may survive. I don't want to drain it.

    More importantly: The easy win is an immigration moratorium.

    Long run we have to win on HBD, race and culture, to win. But in terms of just turning the ship around--or at least stopping it from going over the falls--a moratorium works.

    And unlike an "immigration from Eastern Europe" policy, we can dodge all the racial issues with the simple call for a moratorium:
    -- No more cheap labor.
    -- American jobs for Americans.
    -- We have enough people. We want an uncrowded pleasant America.
    -- We want a pleasant, uncrowded, affordable America for ... Americans. For ourselves and our posterity.
    -- America belongs to Americans.

    Of course, saying (or thinking) that America--with a pop density still less than a neutron star--actually belongs to Americans, and we shouldn't have our nation taken from us and be genocided by a billion foreigners ... makes me "literally Hitler". But it's the kind of "Hitler" a lot of people can get behind.
    , @SFG
    I don't think Europeans, even Eastern Europeans whose countries aren't as rich, are dying to come here. Eastern Europeans would rather go to Western Europe than juggle 3 jobs, get fat commuting in a car all day and eating junk food, and worry themselves sick over losing health insurance if they lose their job.

    Things were different 100 years ago when we had higher wages. But now...?
  89. If Iran, et al., know Trump won’t start a war because it risks costing him reelection, what’s the most damage they can do to U.S. interests before public opinion flips and allows him to retaliate?

    I have no idea, but that’s the essential question. 150 lives arent proportionate, true, but what does it embolden them to do and what are the future costs?

  90. Hail says: • Website
    @Lot
    “We would be able to recover and stabilize, too, if not for having so many Third World immigrants dumped on us, with the apparent acquiescence of the Self-Promoter-in-Chief whom we elected to turn things around.”

    Given the ~8% rate of interracial births for whites, stabilization of the white U.S. population would require white TFR of about 2.4. And that’s assuming the rate doesn’t keep increasing.

    I don’t want the white US population to decline, so I favor massive natalist policies focused on the middle class, ending all third world migration and deporting illegals, and opening the US to Eastern European migration.

    Current 1.8 expected lifetime fertility for White women, with up to 10% of those babies fathered by Nonwhite men (you say 8%) = implied 1.60 to 1.65 White-White TFR. Given a 2.10 replacement rate, this = a White child-generation at 77% the size of the original generation, = a grandchild generation at 60% the size of the original generation.

    This would, I think, imply a population of <120m Whites by the 2070s. How many people do we really need? 120m Whites is around what we were at in the mid 1940s.

    • Replies: @gabriel alberton
    A minor observation: from what I can readily find, the current US fertility rate is around 1.73 and falling. For white women in particular, I'd expect it to be significantly lower than 1.73, let alone 1.80. Here's a CDC report from eariler this year, concerning 2017, when the American fertility rate was around 1.765. As expected, for non-Hispanic white women, it's lower: 1.666. Witches, they are.

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_01-508.pdf

    Edit: nevermind, you said expected lifetime fertility. My mistake.

    , @Lot
    “How many people do we really need? ”

    I like white America a whole bunch, and would prefer our population grow about 1.5% a year.

    Moreover, declining population will stoke corporate demand for migration compared to moderate growth.
  91. Anonymous[842] • Disclaimer says:

    OT:

    Was the trump russian collusion spygate brouhaha actually a genuine Byzantine deep state conspiracy, right out of the coffee shops of Istanbul?

    It very well may have been.

    https://www.neonrevolt.com/2019/06/15/how-to-win-like-flynn-dissecting-genflynns-long-game-qanon-greatawakening-revolutionq-neonrevolt/

    General Flynn was working to send Gulen to Turkey. Gulen was an Obama pal giving big chunks of charter school money to the Clinton Foundation though.

    Mifsud and Halper and Soros show up too for good measure.

  92. Donald Trump should not have painted himself into a corner by withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Mind explaining what's so vital about the "Iran deal?"

    Are they the primo connection to the VIPs in ascendant superpower Afghanistan?
  93. Anon[388] • Disclaimer says:

    If you haven’t listened to Tucker’s book Ship of Fools you must. You’ll be blown away by it. Tucker narrates it himself. I started listening to it one day and couldn’t stop. Imagine a book discussing everything from the ruling elites to immigration to Silicon Valley to neocon wars which is even more powerful than his opening monologue. This was one of the best books I’ve ever read/listened to and plan to read and listen to it many more times.

    Just listen to the sample:

    https://www.audible.com/pd/Ship-of-Fools-Audiobook/B074TZDPQG?qid=1561222868&sr=1-1&pf_rd_p=e81b7c27-6880-467a-b5a7-13cef5d729fe&pf_rd_r=9XEW9CN3DFJQ7G3HERQT&ref=a_search_c3_lProduct_1_1

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @SFG
    I recommend the book highly. Between Tucker on the right and Bernie and Warren on the left we could really start reining in the banks and getting Middle East wars under control.
    , @Clyde
    Thanks.... I need stuff to listen to while exercising.
  94. OT: Joe Biden laughs at the idea of cooperating with Republicans in Congress, and suggests a brass knuckle fight and physical revolution. Sounds bizarre, but here he is:

    http://www.gunssavelife.com/biden-suggests-brass-knuckle-fight-and-physical-revolution-against-republicans/

  95. What purpose do Bolton and Pompeo serve as advisors?

    They only have one answer to any question or problem.

    Trump would get the same level of advise from a parrot trained to sqauwk “war, war, war”.

    Why have them around?

  96. @Jonathan Mason

    You’ve bought way too much fake news.
     
    Can you be a little more specific?

    The whole point of having drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as they are sometimes pompously known, is that you can have an aircraft in the air where it is too dangerous for a human pilot to be, so that if the spy plane, sorry UAV, is shot down, the life of a pilot is not at risk and he cannot be held captive and interrogated.

    So the whole purpose of using drones as spy planes is that if they are shot down it is not necessary to start a war to show how macho you are.

    When Gary Powers and his high altitude spy plane were shot down over Russia in 1960, the US government lied and said that the plane was a weather observation plane that had been blown off-course, but the plane was found almost intact and contained a lot more than wind socks and rain gauges.

    Powers was provided with a suicide capsule, which he failed to use. On his return to the US after doing time in the USSR and then being swapped for a Russian spy, he was criticized for failing to destroy his aircraft and commit suicide, but as far as I know he was not court-martialed for these offenses, which would have been hilarious. It was decided by the powers-that-be (no relation) that he was a hero.

    So that is why we have drones and no longer need suicide capsules.

    Gary Powers CIA mission to fly across the Soviet Union had not been briefed to the president–an early case of the Deep State operating rogue. Power’s U-2 was shot down two weeks before an East-West summit resulting in a deterioration in relations.

  97. @Jonathan Mason

    You’ve bought way too much fake news.
     
    Can you be a little more specific?

    The whole point of having drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as they are sometimes pompously known, is that you can have an aircraft in the air where it is too dangerous for a human pilot to be, so that if the spy plane, sorry UAV, is shot down, the life of a pilot is not at risk and he cannot be held captive and interrogated.

    So the whole purpose of using drones as spy planes is that if they are shot down it is not necessary to start a war to show how macho you are.

    When Gary Powers and his high altitude spy plane were shot down over Russia in 1960, the US government lied and said that the plane was a weather observation plane that had been blown off-course, but the plane was found almost intact and contained a lot more than wind socks and rain gauges.

    Powers was provided with a suicide capsule, which he failed to use. On his return to the US after doing time in the USSR and then being swapped for a Russian spy, he was criticized for failing to destroy his aircraft and commit suicide, but as far as I know he was not court-martialed for these offenses, which would have been hilarious. It was decided by the powers-that-be (no relation) that he was a hero.

    So that is why we have drones and no longer need suicide capsules.

    Gary Powers’ U-2 was shot down two weeks before an East-West summit resulting in a deterioration in relations. Powers CIA mission to fly across the Soviet Union had not been briefed to the president–an early case of the Deep State operating rogue.

  98. @Hail
    Current 1.8 expected lifetime fertility for White women, with up to 10% of those babies fathered by Nonwhite men (you say 8%) = implied 1.60 to 1.65 White-White TFR. Given a 2.10 replacement rate, this = a White child-generation at 77% the size of the original generation, = a grandchild generation at 60% the size of the original generation.

    This would, I think, imply a population of <120m Whites by the 2070s. How many people do we really need? 120m Whites is around what we were at in the mid 1940s.

    A minor observation: from what I can readily find, the current US fertility rate is around 1.73 and falling. For white women in particular, I’d expect it to be significantly lower than 1.73, let alone 1.80. Here’s a CDC report from eariler this year, concerning 2017, when the American fertility rate was around 1.765. As expected, for non-Hispanic white women, it’s lower: 1.666. Witches, they are.

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_01-508.pdf

    Edit: nevermind, you said expected lifetime fertility. My mistake.

  99. @istevefan
    First, thank goodness Bill O'Reilly lost his show and freed up that timeslot for Tucker.

    Second, will this cause a rift between Hannity and Tucker? Sean is literally foaming at the mouth for a war with Iran. What's the tension like when those two walk down the same hall?

    I would guess none.

  100. @eD
    Matt Taibbi lays out the "invade the world" script (and yes, there is a script):

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iran-trump-america-permanent-war-formula-850712/

    "Sometimes the “aggression” is more real than in others (Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait is a little different from a “sketchy” late-night firefight in Panama), but the result is usually the same. It somehow never strikes Americans as odd, however, that the “aggression” takes place in or around a faraway country with no ability to attack the territorial United States."

    Getting mad at human nature and then pretending it’s a uniquely American thing is why paleoconservatism is never going to increase its influence over American politics. It’s a shame more Paleocons don’t take their cues from Buchanan who gets it. All that matters is trump getting a second term. Then the Republican Party becomes an instrument for advancing the interests of core Americans. The American people aren’t perfect but they are absolutely near the top of what the options are and they are a shit ton better than Russian or Chinese or whatever people the black pill types want to see prevail.

    • Replies: @Hail

    All that matters is trump getting a second term. Then the Republican Party becomes an instrument for advancing the interests of core Americans
     
    Disagree.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    I think the Republican Party of Ryan, Romney, Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the country club set is on its last few election cycles. At least it should be. Trumpian economic nationalism and social moderation should be the way forward. If you throw in a ban against globalist neocon and neoliberal wars you'll attract droves of Americans into the new Republican Party. Otherwise, bye-bye GOP.
  101. @Lot
    I think if Obama had already been in the Senate and thinking about running for President in 2002-3, he’d have voted for Iraq like Clinton and Biden. But he was thinking about a blue-state Democratic Senate primary, or possibly appealing to the even more leftist pool of Dem primary voters for Chicago mayor or another attempt at Bobby Rush.

    That he dragged out Iraq and Afghanistan so long after becoming president, and filled his administration with “liberal hawks” who supported the war, supports my contention here.

    Obama’s short record in the Senate is even further support, he was right of center for a northern blue state Democrat, voting for “clean coal” and tort reform.

    Yea Obama doesn’t win that primary if he isn’t opposed to the Iraq war. The idea of Obama as a dove is hilarious especially from people who think trump is a hawk.

  102. @eD
    Harper's Magazine doesn't exactly have a paywall, but you are allowed one free article this month. OK so make it this article. I actually bought the print version but threw it away after my flight:

    "https://harpers.org/archive/2019/06/the-pentagon-syndrome/"

    Pretty much the argument is that the USA defense budget is like USA higher education, in that it will always increase faster than the inflation rate, each and every year. And one way they do it is faked up war scares.

    No shit. And I’m honestly skeptical that someone who reads harpers finds that an at all novel idea. Unless you only read harpers during the Obama administration.

  103. @eD
    Matt Taibbi lays out the "invade the world" script (and yes, there is a script):

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iran-trump-america-permanent-war-formula-850712/

    "Sometimes the “aggression” is more real than in others (Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait is a little different from a “sketchy” late-night firefight in Panama), but the result is usually the same. It somehow never strikes Americans as odd, however, that the “aggression” takes place in or around a faraway country with no ability to attack the territorial United States."

    It somehow never strikes Americans as odd, however, that the “aggression” takes place in or around a faraway country with no ability to attack the territorial United States.”

    Odd? Really? I’d say (not that I’m favorably disposed), but attacking a faraway country with no ability to attack CONUS is a feature not a bug.

    Isn’t the number of countries who could actually attack CONUS quite limited?

    And yet, the US takes refugees from all kinds of faraway (and not so faraway) places that have little to do with the first half of the “invade the world, invite the world” mantra.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Odd? Really?
     
    Yes. Odd. It's odd that people buy into this notion that Iran is any kind of threat to the United States.
  104. @Jonathan Mason
    "I cannot recall a single instance when there has been any kind of meaningful public debate or discussion before the commencement of hostilities, to a degree that might avert war,"

    I think there was a lot for World War I. Also prior to Iraq, then Illinois State Senator Obama said in a well published speech that did a lot to enhance his future career as a politician. (Also millions marched against the war all round the world.)

    http://www.obamaspeeches.com/001-2002-Speech-Against-the-Iraq-War-Obama-Speech.htm

    That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

    Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

    I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

    I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

    This speech looks like it owes a lot to Antony's speech in Julius Caesar by W. Spearshakes.

    O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
    And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
    My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
    And I must pause till it come back to me.

    However, it did the job, and had Hillary Clinton followed this line when she had the chance to lead the opposition to George W. Bush's Iraq War, she probably would not be the most frustrated old woman in America now.

    D. Trump was elected, at least in part, because he promised an end to senseless foreign wars and a draining of the swamp. Now he is up to his neck in the swamp and has not yet found the plughole.

    On April 27, 2016, then-Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump used an invitation-only event at Washington’s ornate Mayflower Hotel to argue that presidents of both parties had gotten the US ensnared in too many costly, grinding foreign wars.

    That, Trump promised, would change once he moved into the White House.

    “I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary, and I mean absolutely necessary, and will only do so if we have a plan for victory with a capital V,” he thundered. “The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies.”

    The speech was part of Trump’s attempt to make a decisive break with the more hawkish and interventionist wings of his own party, which he blamed for the Iraq War and Washington’s icy relationship with Moscow. He wasn’t just trying to argue that he’d be a different kind of president than Democrats like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. He was also arguing that he’d be a different kind of president than Republicans like George W. Bush.

    https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/25/16185936/trump-america-first-afghanistan-war-troops-iraq-generals

    Can we have that Trump back, please?
     
     

    He never left. There are a lot of layers that the deep state has instituted over the years (likely starting with Truman) to protect the people from the president they’ve elected.

    Rolling those back isn’t realistic in the current political climate. What is realistic is either gaining enough popular support to dissuade the deep state campaign to oust Trump and/or winning the sympathy of the part of the deep state charged with maintaining those layers and/or putting internal pressure on them (i.e. via Barr) since they are after all extra-constitutional.

    I’ve yet to see evidence that Trump and those sympathetic to him are not pursuing all three options.

  105. @Jonathan Mason

    You’ve bought way too much fake news.
     
    Can you be a little more specific?

    The whole point of having drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as they are sometimes pompously known, is that you can have an aircraft in the air where it is too dangerous for a human pilot to be, so that if the spy plane, sorry UAV, is shot down, the life of a pilot is not at risk and he cannot be held captive and interrogated.

    So the whole purpose of using drones as spy planes is that if they are shot down it is not necessary to start a war to show how macho you are.

    When Gary Powers and his high altitude spy plane were shot down over Russia in 1960, the US government lied and said that the plane was a weather observation plane that had been blown off-course, but the plane was found almost intact and contained a lot more than wind socks and rain gauges.

    Powers was provided with a suicide capsule, which he failed to use. On his return to the US after doing time in the USSR and then being swapped for a Russian spy, he was criticized for failing to destroy his aircraft and commit suicide, but as far as I know he was not court-martialed for these offenses, which would have been hilarious. It was decided by the powers-that-be (no relation) that he was a hero.

    So that is why we have drones and no longer need suicide capsules.

    Powers was provided with a suicide capsule, which he failed to use. On his return to the US after doing time in the USSR and then being swapped for a Russian spy, he was criticized for failing to destroy his aircraft and commit suicide, but as far as I know he was not court-martialed for these offenses, which would have been hilarious. It was decided by the powers-that-be (no relation) that he was a hero.

    Powers was a civilian CIA employee when he was shot down, so he would not have been subject to military justice. There likely was no way to completely destroy the plane – a bomb big enough to blow the plane to bits would have precluded it from flying. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an explosive charge rigged to destroy the camera and the film cannister. Anyway, he bailed out. I once read a story about Powers which quoted one of the (other) U2 pilots. He said they were all given a “suicide pill” (as I recall, it wasn’t actually a pill, but rather a shellfish-toxin tipped needle that they were supposed to jab themselves with) – and that the first thing they all did was throw it away.

    Your point about drones is apt. Ane of the reasons for having them (not the only reason, but an important one) is to avoid the sticky situations that arise from having your pilots shot down over hostile territory.

    Did the administration offer any evidence that the drone was in international air-space? I’m not saying it wasn’t. But I don’t exactly trust John Bolton or the Pentagon to give me the truth.

  106. Does anyone really rely on the NYT to interpret Trump’s decision-making/thinking/thought process on any subject…

  107. @Jonathan Mason
    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization. If it is the case that he was influenced by Carlson, then thank God, in this case, that the advice given was sane. Perhaps Jerry Hall or Ivanka also had something to do with it.

    The general policy of Washington towards Iran has been pretty despicable under Trump and if Iran did take a pot shot at a spy drone that may or may not have been over Iran's airspace, but was certainly close enough to trigger mistakes, then it was the fault of the US, and anyway no one was killed.

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz "accidentally" shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.

    In 1996, the governments of the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident... As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. [Wikipedia]

    Well at least the US promptly apologized--8 years being the equivalent of a quickie divorce in the US legal system--oh, wait, we have not formally apologized yet. Formal apologies for US government atrocities usually take about 143 years, based on precedent.

    If Iran cares to admit that it was mistaken and agrees to pay compensation, could this be the start of some kind of rapprochement between the two governments? Unlikely while Trump has the current set of goofy advisors whom he himself appointed, and neither country seems to have been able to devise a method of selecting sensible, mature leaders

    One of the most basic concepts taught in management courses is the Abilene paradox.

    The Abilene paradox refers to a situation wherein no member of a group decides to contest a decision taken by the group, believing it to be the consensus of everyone, when in reality, none of the group members agree with the decision. However, none of them speak up for the fear of going against the wishes of others, and end up regretting not speaking up in time.

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil's advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

    Perhaps Trump in the fog of his dotage is stumbling into the right decisions because this afternoon he is fortunately unable to remember what was decided this morning or why.

    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    And yet they never do.

    I wouldn’t call Bolton one of the best minds in America. Although he does have a very important mustache.

  108. Obama had has admin filled with “Responsibility to Protect” women: Samantha Power, Susan Rice, who wanted the US to intervene everywhere and anywhere. Similar to how Clinton maundered on how he should have sent the US military to stop the Rwandan Genocide. There is a LOT of support among the elite for Team America World Police, as long as it has no advantage to the US whatsoever and hurts White men who do the killing and dying.

    On the other hand, Iran is a threat along with Russia to the US basic interest: cheap oil. This has been US policy since FDR provided military support and protection to the House of Saud, re-affirmed by the Carter Doctrine, Reagan sinking half the Iranian Navy, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. Obama was wrong, Saddam was a long term strategic threat to the House of Saud which meant affordable oil and Americans not suffering another 1973 oil shock. That never ended. [The Soviets were undone by the Sauds pumping oil to levels not seen before — at the fall of the Berlin Wall the border guards had not been paid in three years. At the fall of the USSR the soldiers had not been paid in two years.]

    [MORE]

    Yes, a limited War against Iran was not in Trump’s interests, as it would have energized Code Pink and all those idiot utopian suburban idiots who think that gas just happens. However at some point, the US will have to sort out both Russia and Iran, or adjust to sky-high oil prices and the shock that will bring and including Vibrancy “live and direct” to every White person. NO ONE on the right has gamed out what say, gasoline at $25 a gallon or more, certainly possible, will mean: the end of the private automobile (unaffordable), total vibrancy in public transportation, White men in particular having to be a groveling submissive sort before every non-White particularly the extra Vibrant, the demand for even more cheap immigrant labor (manpower cheaper than automation/machines), and the desire among elites to raid Whitey for even more gibs to keep the Vibrant happy when everything costs more.

    Want MORE mass third world immigration? Raise energy prices so that a Central American or African laborer is cheaper than a machine. Reality check — even electric powered machines get their electricity from fossil fuels, not “sky magic” etc. Yes we’d get far fewer cheap Chinese stuff shipped over in mega cargo ships as energy costs rise up. But we’d get even more cheap servants for the ruling class to live 20 in a room and replace the “uppity” White working class in pretty much everything.

    This is the truth that the Right and ESPECIALLY the Alt-Right has never, ever grasped: White people and White MEN particularly do POORLY when labor costs are low and against cheap, non-White labor, and do WELL when energy/machines are substituted for cheap non-White labor.

    But hey, lets have “Peace in our time” so we can maunder on about peace and moral superiority while being overwhelmed by cheap non-White labor to substitute for ultra expensive energy. For me, I’d be happy to have every Iranian dead as long as it kept my car affordable and I didn’t have to worry about having enough to eat each week. But then I have no illusions about utopia, nor my public status as a moral person (only God will judge that one) or “give peace a chance.”

    That’s the same social environment of the ruling Gentry class like Michael Moore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Warren Buffett and I reject them as being totally irrelevant to my central concern: the survival of myself, my people, and my heritage (racial, cultural, etc.)

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    I have neither the time nor inclination to rebut every stupid thing you say, for you say many stupid things. You haven't been right about a single goddamned thing since forever.

    "For me, I’d be happy to have every Iranian dead as long as it kept my car affordable and I didn’t have to worry about having enough to eat each week."

    Suffice it to say that you are a foul piece of human garbage, Whiskey. You are s**t.

    "I reject them as being totally irrelevant to my central concern: the survival of myself, my people, and my heritage (racial, cultural, etc.)"

    And just what people is that, Jock-Angus McScotsman who doesn't even know what the term "Scots-Irish" means?

    F**k you, you slimy turd.

    , @L Woods
    Invade the world, DON’T invite the world. I can dig it.
    , @LondonBob
    Saudis funded Saddam, they were strongly opposed to the first Gulf War.
  109. @Sam Haysom
    Getting mad at human nature and then pretending it’s a uniquely American thing is why paleoconservatism is never going to increase its influence over American politics. It’s a shame more Paleocons don’t take their cues from Buchanan who gets it. All that matters is trump getting a second term. Then the Republican Party becomes an instrument for advancing the interests of core Americans. The American people aren’t perfect but they are absolutely near the top of what the options are and they are a shit ton better than Russian or Chinese or whatever people the black pill types want to see prevail.

    All that matters is trump getting a second term. Then the Republican Party becomes an instrument for advancing the interests of core Americans

    Disagree.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    Because you are dumb old and stubborn. Thankfully you’ll be dead soon.
  110. SFG says:
    @eD
    Matt Taibbi lays out the "invade the world" script (and yes, there is a script):

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iran-trump-america-permanent-war-formula-850712/

    "Sometimes the “aggression” is more real than in others (Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait is a little different from a “sketchy” late-night firefight in Panama), but the result is usually the same. It somehow never strikes Americans as odd, however, that the “aggression” takes place in or around a faraway country with no ability to attack the territorial United States."

    “Göring: Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

    Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

    Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

  111. It’s good to have an adult in charge, for a change.

    • Replies: @Anon7
    I was sitting with several Trump-hating liberal friends when a quick news item came on, stating that incompetent President Trump made yet another questionable decision, this time deciding not to pick any of the possible warlike responses to the drone-downing, saying that they were “disproportionate” (no loss of life with drone). My friends wrinkled their foreheads and opined that not starting a war with Iran seemed like a good decision to them.

    I’m glad we elected a thoughtful grownup, and I’m hoping the the President succeeds in holding the media responsible for their propagandistic ways in 2020.
  112. On his next show, Tucker Carlson should advise Trump to fire Bolton and Pompeo…

    • Replies: @bucky
    Yes that is the weird fine line Tucker has to toe. Because you listen to him talk as if Trump has no agency in the decisions that he has made and that things just happen to which Trump is the innocent victim.
  113. Good for Carlson for interviewing people outside the usual FOX sphere, people like Greenwald, who here calls out media shills like Stephens, Goldberg, and Thiessen.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    Yet another reason why I like Tucker: Allowing Glenn Greenwald and Michael Tracey on his show. Both Greenwald and Tracey are leftist journalists/pundits who catch hell from the Maoist authoritarians who now hold the power in Western liberalism for the crime of dissent against the new orthodoxy.
  114. @reiner Tor
    If there’s not going to be an Iran War, Tucker Carlson will deserve a statue for that alone. I don’t watch TV at all, certainly not American TV, but what I heard about his opinions, he seems as solid as a public figure in America could be. The best part is that he’s probably more solid than that, just smart enough to avoid disclosing things which could shut him out of TV.

    He gets up to the line. I hope when he finally decides to recede from public life, he arranges it so that he can broadcast live to his audience, no 5 second delays, but straight out: Americans, here’s what’s REALLY going on.

  115. @SFG
    "It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization."

    All true (though I think Carlson's pretty much the only high-profile figure to take a position against woke capital I can think of)...but who else does he have? The lack of a populist right think-tank industry means he has nobody to fill White House staffing jobs, and most competent foreign policy people are part of the establishment that got us into all these bloody wars. I'd love to see, say, Walt and Mearsheimer advising him, but that's unlikely.

    Even if there were populist right people available to staff the administration, Jared would never let them through. Trump did have populists like that once, Bannon, Hicks, Lewandowski and to a certain degree Kelley. They were all summarily ousted by the Trump whisperer. Kushner talked Trump out of the recent tariffs on Mexico (Daily Beast). The president only threatened tariffs when Kushner was out of the country. The threat ended when Kushner came back.

    Populists can’t compete with a guy who is married to Trump’s favorite daughter. And no true center right populist is going to line up with Jared’s view of the world. As Kushner Inc revealed, Jared is extremely sensitive about Israel. He supposedly disliked Christie for not letting a rabbi handle what he thought was a family matter. He assuredly doesn’t want anyone in the administration who isn’t as sensitive on Israel as him. That’s why we have Bolton and Pompeo even though Tillerson was in the cusp of peace with NKorea. Haley made sure to praise Kushner on her way out. Kanye talked primarily to Kushner in the Oval Office meeting, not Trump. And look what got done. The Mexicans talked to Kushner to get Trump to back down off the tariffs (Daily Beast). Center right populists have sympathy for the Palestinians. And even though the media despises them, they abhor journalists being chopped up. Kushner wanted to “weather the storm.” Probably because of the alliance with Israel. It was this very site where I read about the Good Friday massacre where hundreds of Palestinian protesters were shot for practicing free speech. No good center right populists could go along with that.

    • LOL: IHTG
    • Replies: @SFG
    You're probably right about Kushner and Israel, although I suspect the real problem with immigration is not Jared but Ivanka.

    Also, Kushner didn't hate Christie because of some rabbi. He hates Christie because he put his dad in jail. I'd hate Christie too.

    I'm also not so sure about center-right populists having more sympathy with the Palestinians; from what I've seen on the comments boards of relatively mainstream sites like Fox News and Breitbart, they are vaguely pro-Israel unless US interests are threatened (America first, as one would expect from a proper righty populist). Outside of the alt-right, Muslims are worse than Jews, and Israel is admired for its military strength, etc.

    Alt-right populists are a different story, of course.
  116. @Hail

    All that matters is trump getting a second term. Then the Republican Party becomes an instrument for advancing the interests of core Americans
     
    Disagree.

    Because you are dumb old and stubborn. Thankfully you’ll be dead soon.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Lol, have fun inheriting current year America. Enjoy your cappuccino step child.
  117. @anon
    War with Iran may be no bad thing wrt demographics. Iran is a major country, they're a smart race, so could be major, thus requiring conscription / the draft.

    Young men of draft age in USA now majority darks. Put them on front line to take brunt of casualties. If some based White army generals could manoeuvre the lesser races (pakis, blacks, muzzoes) to the most dangerous positions. Bingo! Let historic Euro population repopulate post-war!

    Unfortunately, entering the combat arms ranks voluntarily requires some sense of civic mindedness or a certain sort of idealism (eg Starship Troopers) — they’re dominated by poor dupe white men who still think this is their country.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    This is their country, it just isn’t (primarily) their armed forces.
    , @Chris Mallory

    Unfortunately, entering the combat arms ranks voluntarily requires some sense of civic mindedness or a certain sort of idealism
     
    In my experience it was usually more a desire to play with the toys. Machine guns, explosives, and tanks still hold a draw for a teenage male. Couple that with the desire to test/prove you manhood and you cover a large number of the combat arms enlistees.

    But then my service was 20 years before 9/11, so it might have changed.
  118. @bucky
    Having spent time with military men, no I don't really trust their intelligence or judgement. Evangelical Christianity is huge on military installations, from basic training onwards. Military bases all have Fox News being played constantly. Christian Zionism is lodged in their minds.

    Which means that the professional advice that Trump gets from his military officers is colored. It also means that reports of facts from military men on the ground is not entirely accurate.

    So it is a godsend that Tucker is on.

    Even without Bolton and Pompeo around, there is a good chance Trump would still have wound up here due to the biases and preoccupations of the military bureaucracy.

    Yes, military men are one of the least ‘based’ demographics around. There’s a significant libshit minority (concentrated in the technical/intelligence fields), but really, what’s the difference?

    • Replies: @bucky
    Army culture and army reasoning is largely honor based. So yes, even from the left flank it all revolves around honor.

    More to the point, I've met the shitlib in the army who is pro-islam, but the reasoning is really stupid. It is anecdotal about the one or two honorable Muslims who serves in the armed forces.

    I have yet to meet one who is critical of Israel, or who puts two and two together on why the Muslim world hates us because of Israel.
  119. @GW
    Yeah maybe. But Trump himself said the response would not have been proportional to us losing an unmanned drone.

    I’m thinking Trump reasons far better than people give him credit for.

    “I’m thinking Trump reasons far better than people give him credit for.”

    Maybe, hopefully. I’m glad Tucker has got his ear.

  120. Anonymous[206] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paul
    Donald Trump should not have painted himself into a corner by withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran.

    Mind explaining what’s so vital about the “Iran deal?”

    Are they the primo connection to the VIPs in ascendant superpower Afghanistan?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Are they the primo connection to the VIPs in ascendant superpower Afghanistan?
     
    A superpower in heroin and pederasty. What else do they lead the world in?
  121. @Jonathan Mason
    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization. If it is the case that he was influenced by Carlson, then thank God, in this case, that the advice given was sane. Perhaps Jerry Hall or Ivanka also had something to do with it.

    The general policy of Washington towards Iran has been pretty despicable under Trump and if Iran did take a pot shot at a spy drone that may or may not have been over Iran's airspace, but was certainly close enough to trigger mistakes, then it was the fault of the US, and anyway no one was killed.

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz "accidentally" shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.

    In 1996, the governments of the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident... As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. [Wikipedia]

    Well at least the US promptly apologized--8 years being the equivalent of a quickie divorce in the US legal system--oh, wait, we have not formally apologized yet. Formal apologies for US government atrocities usually take about 143 years, based on precedent.

    If Iran cares to admit that it was mistaken and agrees to pay compensation, could this be the start of some kind of rapprochement between the two governments? Unlikely while Trump has the current set of goofy advisors whom he himself appointed, and neither country seems to have been able to devise a method of selecting sensible, mature leaders

    One of the most basic concepts taught in management courses is the Abilene paradox.

    The Abilene paradox refers to a situation wherein no member of a group decides to contest a decision taken by the group, believing it to be the consensus of everyone, when in reality, none of the group members agree with the decision. However, none of them speak up for the fear of going against the wishes of others, and end up regretting not speaking up in time.

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil's advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

    Perhaps Trump in the fog of his dotage is stumbling into the right decisions because this afternoon he is fortunately unable to remember what was decided this morning or why.

    Journalists, at their best, can see the whole field better than experts. Mark Bowden did that with Somalia (“Blackhawk Down”), to the point where generals were reading his work. Tucker Carlson and Steve Sailer are other examples of journalists at this level.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  122. @Whiskey
    Obama had has admin filled with "Responsibility to Protect" women: Samantha Power, Susan Rice, who wanted the US to intervene everywhere and anywhere. Similar to how Clinton maundered on how he should have sent the US military to stop the Rwandan Genocide. There is a LOT of support among the elite for Team America World Police, as long as it has no advantage to the US whatsoever and hurts White men who do the killing and dying.

    On the other hand, Iran is a threat along with Russia to the US basic interest: cheap oil. This has been US policy since FDR provided military support and protection to the House of Saud, re-affirmed by the Carter Doctrine, Reagan sinking half the Iranian Navy, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. Obama was wrong, Saddam was a long term strategic threat to the House of Saud which meant affordable oil and Americans not suffering another 1973 oil shock. That never ended. [The Soviets were undone by the Sauds pumping oil to levels not seen before -- at the fall of the Berlin Wall the border guards had not been paid in three years. At the fall of the USSR the soldiers had not been paid in two years.]

    Yes, a limited War against Iran was not in Trump's interests, as it would have energized Code Pink and all those idiot utopian suburban idiots who think that gas just happens. However at some point, the US will have to sort out both Russia and Iran, or adjust to sky-high oil prices and the shock that will bring and including Vibrancy "live and direct" to every White person. NO ONE on the right has gamed out what say, gasoline at $25 a gallon or more, certainly possible, will mean: the end of the private automobile (unaffordable), total vibrancy in public transportation, White men in particular having to be a groveling submissive sort before every non-White particularly the extra Vibrant, the demand for even more cheap immigrant labor (manpower cheaper than automation/machines), and the desire among elites to raid Whitey for even more gibs to keep the Vibrant happy when everything costs more.

    Want MORE mass third world immigration? Raise energy prices so that a Central American or African laborer is cheaper than a machine. Reality check -- even electric powered machines get their electricity from fossil fuels, not "sky magic" etc. Yes we'd get far fewer cheap Chinese stuff shipped over in mega cargo ships as energy costs rise up. But we'd get even more cheap servants for the ruling class to live 20 in a room and replace the "uppity" White working class in pretty much everything.

    This is the truth that the Right and ESPECIALLY the Alt-Right has never, ever grasped: White people and White MEN particularly do POORLY when labor costs are low and against cheap, non-White labor, and do WELL when energy/machines are substituted for cheap non-White labor.

    But hey, lets have "Peace in our time" so we can maunder on about peace and moral superiority while being overwhelmed by cheap non-White labor to substitute for ultra expensive energy. For me, I'd be happy to have every Iranian dead as long as it kept my car affordable and I didn't have to worry about having enough to eat each week. But then I have no illusions about utopia, nor my public status as a moral person (only God will judge that one) or "give peace a chance."

    That's the same social environment of the ruling Gentry class like Michael Moore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Warren Buffett and I reject them as being totally irrelevant to my central concern: the survival of myself, my people, and my heritage (racial, cultural, etc.)

    I have neither the time nor inclination to rebut every stupid thing you say, for you say many stupid things. You haven’t been right about a single goddamned thing since forever.

    “For me, I’d be happy to have every Iranian dead as long as it kept my car affordable and I didn’t have to worry about having enough to eat each week.”

    Suffice it to say that you are a foul piece of human garbage, Whiskey. You are s**t.

    “I reject them as being totally irrelevant to my central concern: the survival of myself, my people, and my heritage (racial, cultural, etc.)”

    And just what people is that, Jock-Angus McScotsman who doesn’t even know what the term “Scots-Irish” means?

    F**k you, you slimy turd.

  123. @Forbes

    It somehow never strikes Americans as odd, however, that the “aggression” takes place in or around a faraway country with no ability to attack the territorial United States.”
     
    Odd? Really? I'd say (not that I'm favorably disposed), but attacking a faraway country with no ability to attack CONUS is a feature not a bug.

    Isn't the number of countries who could actually attack CONUS quite limited?

    And yet, the US takes refugees from all kinds of faraway (and not so faraway) places that have little to do with the first half of the "invade the world, invite the world" mantra.

    Odd? Really?

    Yes. Odd. It’s odd that people buy into this notion that Iran is any kind of threat to the United States.

  124. I have no doubts that a high casualty bloody nose from a war with Iran will lead to talk of a nuclear “option” within the first 3-6 months .

  125. @Whiskey
    Obama had has admin filled with "Responsibility to Protect" women: Samantha Power, Susan Rice, who wanted the US to intervene everywhere and anywhere. Similar to how Clinton maundered on how he should have sent the US military to stop the Rwandan Genocide. There is a LOT of support among the elite for Team America World Police, as long as it has no advantage to the US whatsoever and hurts White men who do the killing and dying.

    On the other hand, Iran is a threat along with Russia to the US basic interest: cheap oil. This has been US policy since FDR provided military support and protection to the House of Saud, re-affirmed by the Carter Doctrine, Reagan sinking half the Iranian Navy, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. Obama was wrong, Saddam was a long term strategic threat to the House of Saud which meant affordable oil and Americans not suffering another 1973 oil shock. That never ended. [The Soviets were undone by the Sauds pumping oil to levels not seen before -- at the fall of the Berlin Wall the border guards had not been paid in three years. At the fall of the USSR the soldiers had not been paid in two years.]

    Yes, a limited War against Iran was not in Trump's interests, as it would have energized Code Pink and all those idiot utopian suburban idiots who think that gas just happens. However at some point, the US will have to sort out both Russia and Iran, or adjust to sky-high oil prices and the shock that will bring and including Vibrancy "live and direct" to every White person. NO ONE on the right has gamed out what say, gasoline at $25 a gallon or more, certainly possible, will mean: the end of the private automobile (unaffordable), total vibrancy in public transportation, White men in particular having to be a groveling submissive sort before every non-White particularly the extra Vibrant, the demand for even more cheap immigrant labor (manpower cheaper than automation/machines), and the desire among elites to raid Whitey for even more gibs to keep the Vibrant happy when everything costs more.

    Want MORE mass third world immigration? Raise energy prices so that a Central American or African laborer is cheaper than a machine. Reality check -- even electric powered machines get their electricity from fossil fuels, not "sky magic" etc. Yes we'd get far fewer cheap Chinese stuff shipped over in mega cargo ships as energy costs rise up. But we'd get even more cheap servants for the ruling class to live 20 in a room and replace the "uppity" White working class in pretty much everything.

    This is the truth that the Right and ESPECIALLY the Alt-Right has never, ever grasped: White people and White MEN particularly do POORLY when labor costs are low and against cheap, non-White labor, and do WELL when energy/machines are substituted for cheap non-White labor.

    But hey, lets have "Peace in our time" so we can maunder on about peace and moral superiority while being overwhelmed by cheap non-White labor to substitute for ultra expensive energy. For me, I'd be happy to have every Iranian dead as long as it kept my car affordable and I didn't have to worry about having enough to eat each week. But then I have no illusions about utopia, nor my public status as a moral person (only God will judge that one) or "give peace a chance."

    That's the same social environment of the ruling Gentry class like Michael Moore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Warren Buffett and I reject them as being totally irrelevant to my central concern: the survival of myself, my people, and my heritage (racial, cultural, etc.)

    Invade the world, DON’T invite the world. I can dig it.

  126. Anonymous[388] • Disclaimer says:

    Tucker has as a frequent guest one of the most celebrated U.S. military strategists of our era, Col. Douglas Macgregor, a West Point guy with a Ph.D. from UVA who’s had books written about his war-fighting genius. Macgregor was on the other day and I’m inclined to believe his words sealed the ‘no-go” deal for Trump.

  127. @Sam Haysom
    Because you are dumb old and stubborn. Thankfully you’ll be dead soon.

    Lol, have fun inheriting current year America. Enjoy your cappuccino step child.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    I’m 6’3”. I clean up on single white girls.
  128. @Prester John
    That's what makes Carlson's show so interesting. He doesn't spout the party line and at times displays a healthy skepticism. In addition, he has clearly taken a keen interest in the UFO phenomenon by devoting whole segments to this controversy. Whatever they may be, it appears clear that he doesn't buy the rote "weather balloon" or "clouds" explanation. Nevertheless Fox has been very careful do an ill-disguised tongue-in-cheek intro to the segment, mindful in part of the fallout from the Orson Welles "War of The Worlds" incident. .

    Another reason why I like Tucker: an interest in a topic that the swells and rationalists discount. If there is an alien race making visits they wouldn’t need metal ships. To badly paraphrase Sagan, the alien’s technology would seem like magic to us (0r was that Arthur C. Clarke?) The UFOs inhabiting our skies and oceans are the descendants of the Nazi foo-fighter anti-gravity vehicles. The question is: what elite group of humans actually controls this advanced technology?

  129. @Realist

    Darren Beattie is as intellectual as they come, and wasn’t troubled by Trump’s reading habits.
     
    He's a speech writer.....what intellectual? Intellectual is a description given to progressives by themselves.... and has nothing to do with intellegence.

    He has a mathematics degree from the University of Chicago and a PhD in political science from Duke, where his PhD thesis was Martin Heidegger’s Mathematical Dialectic: Uncovering the Structure of Modernity.

    And he’s not a progressive.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Incidentally, he's Jewish and his intellectual background is Straussian and neocon, although not of the same variety as the likes of Kristol. So although he may not be a progressive and a typical neocon, his intellectual background has its own issues.
    , @Lot
    “PhD in political science from Duke, where his PhD thesis was Martin Heidegger’s Mathematical Dialectic: Uncovering the Structure of Modernity.”

    I have nothing against Beattie, but this isn’t impressive at all. Political science is the least selective of the social sciences* and Duke’s is third tier. The undergraduate degree (Math U Chicago) is much more impressive.

    Getting a poly sci PhD with a thesis about Heidegger from Duke shows questionable judgment in general.

    *Poli sci is a popular though declining undergraduate major, minor and elective topic, so universities enroll lots of Ph.D. students to teach them, even though few will ever get academic jobs and the degree is worthless in the private sector.
  130. @reiner Tor

    Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?
     
    Yes, I would've thought that the Iraq War would prevent a big military adventure for another generation. I was wrong. The Iran War would be a way bigger disaster than the Iraq War, both for America and the rest of the world.

    Those wars don’t have to be disasters, just as Putin’s Syria intervention isn’t a disaster for Russia.

    The United States just doesn’t seem to know how to fight in these regions. The 19th century Brits would have divide-and-conquered the shit out of Iraq.

    But the American people in the early 2000s could be excused for believing their army knew what it was doing.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "But the American people in the early 2000s could be excused for believing their army knew what it was doing."

    Why?
    , @SFG
    I actually agree. Sure, we could win a war with Iran. But why bother? Why get a few thousand of our boys killed and a few tens of thousands coming home with missing limbs and brain damage?

    I'm not as anti-Israel as most of the people here--I think they have a right to exist and prefer them to most of their enemies--but we don't need to be killing their enemies for them.
    , @Bill B.

    The United States just doesn’t seem to know how to fight in these regions. The 19th century Brits would have divide-and-conquered the shit out of Iraq.</blockquote>


    The British were engaged in colonial rule via empowering useful local elites backed by threats of force leavened by extensive knowledge of the territory.

    The Americans were imposing liberal democracy on ferocious inbred tribes who thought it was a daemonic scheme.

  131. @reiner Tor
    If there’s not going to be an Iran War, Tucker Carlson will deserve a statue for that alone. I don’t watch TV at all, certainly not American TV, but what I heard about his opinions, he seems as solid as a public figure in America could be. The best part is that he’s probably more solid than that, just smart enough to avoid disclosing things which could shut him out of TV.

    To be honest, I’m not sure war has been averted for a long time. Trump just announced major new sanctions – the old sanctions were the main reason for the Iranian provocations (like the attacks on the tankers and the downing of the drone), so we can now expect Iran to step up its provocations.

    What needs to be understood is that the biggest economy in the world can simply announce extraterritorial sanctions (i.e. sanctions against anyone doing business or certain types of business with the target country), and it can de facto have the same effect as a naval blockade – which would be an act of war. However, it’s pretty obvious that if a naval blockade is an act of war, than such a de facto blockade is de facto an act of war, too.

    So, Iran won’t be nice enough to just go down without shooting a rifle. They will keep pushing until something happens. They know that a war would be a major disaster for the US and much of the rest of the world, and they want to go down like Wotan in the Twilight of the Gods, if they need to go down. They also understand that it’d be pretty difficult for the US to occupy Tehran, so they know that a shooting war is probably not a much bigger danger to the regime than the economic warfare waged by the US. It might even strengthen them internally, rally around the flag and all that.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "the old sanctions were the main reason for the Iranian provocations (like the attacks on the tankers and the downing of the drone), so we can now expect Iran to step up its provocations"

    What the US is doing - the economic blockade, the drones in Iranian airspace - isn't that provocation? It strikes me that the US are deliberately trying to start something.

    I know TPTB probably really hate Iran for helping save Syria from the headchoppers, but for the rest of us that should make Iran the good guys in this face-off.

    I don't believe Iran attacked the tankers and I'm surprised you do.

    "Praise Allah, there's a Japanese tanker sailing by, and the Japanese leader is in Tehran"

    "By the beard of the Prophet! What a perfect time to attack it!"
     
  132. @Mr. Anon
    Good for Carlson for interviewing people outside the usual FOX sphere, people like Greenwald, who here calls out media shills like Stephens, Goldberg, and Thiessen.

    Yet another reason why I like Tucker: Allowing Glenn Greenwald and Michael Tracey on his show. Both Greenwald and Tracey are leftist journalists/pundits who catch hell from the Maoist authoritarians who now hold the power in Western liberalism for the crime of dissent against the new orthodoxy.

  133. @anon
    War with Iran may be no bad thing wrt demographics. Iran is a major country, they're a smart race, so could be major, thus requiring conscription / the draft.

    Young men of draft age in USA now majority darks. Put them on front line to take brunt of casualties. If some based White army generals could manoeuvre the lesser races (pakis, blacks, muzzoes) to the most dangerous positions. Bingo! Let historic Euro population repopulate post-war!

    Lol.

    Wishful thinking. Globohomo isn’t stupid.

  134. @peterike
    It’s good to have an adult in charge, for a change.

    I was sitting with several Trump-hating liberal friends when a quick news item came on, stating that incompetent President Trump made yet another questionable decision, this time deciding not to pick any of the possible warlike responses to the drone-downing, saying that they were “disproportionate” (no loss of life with drone). My friends wrinkled their foreheads and opined that not starting a war with Iran seemed like a good decision to them.

    I’m glad we elected a thoughtful grownup, and I’m hoping the the President succeeds in holding the media responsible for their propagandistic ways in 2020.

  135. @Stick
    If we are to have a war then let’s attack Mexico’s six drug cartels. Nothing like militarizing the the southern border and going live fire on invaders with opioids to support national sovereignty and defense of the American people. That’s why we call it the Defense Department, right?

    The drug cartels are paramilitary organizations with tens of thousands of members dug into dozens of American cities. Starting a war with them seems like a bad idea to me. OTOH, giving Mexico’s police and security services aid in the form of arms, training and intelligence as a part of President Trump’s treaty seems like an excellent idea. Similar result, maybe not as satisfying.

  136. @Sam Haysom
    Getting mad at human nature and then pretending it’s a uniquely American thing is why paleoconservatism is never going to increase its influence over American politics. It’s a shame more Paleocons don’t take their cues from Buchanan who gets it. All that matters is trump getting a second term. Then the Republican Party becomes an instrument for advancing the interests of core Americans. The American people aren’t perfect but they are absolutely near the top of what the options are and they are a shit ton better than Russian or Chinese or whatever people the black pill types want to see prevail.

    I think the Republican Party of Ryan, Romney, Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the country club set is on its last few election cycles. At least it should be. Trumpian economic nationalism and social moderation should be the way forward. If you throw in a ban against globalist neocon and neoliberal wars you’ll attract droves of Americans into the new Republican Party. Otherwise, bye-bye GOP.

  137. Anonymous[130] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    He has a mathematics degree from the University of Chicago and a PhD in political science from Duke, where his PhD thesis was Martin Heidegger's Mathematical Dialectic: Uncovering the Structure of Modernity.

    And he’s not a progressive.

    Incidentally, he’s Jewish and his intellectual background is Straussian and neocon, although not of the same variety as the likes of Kristol. So although he may not be a progressive and a typical neocon, his intellectual background has its own issues.

  138. @Hail
    Current 1.8 expected lifetime fertility for White women, with up to 10% of those babies fathered by Nonwhite men (you say 8%) = implied 1.60 to 1.65 White-White TFR. Given a 2.10 replacement rate, this = a White child-generation at 77% the size of the original generation, = a grandchild generation at 60% the size of the original generation.

    This would, I think, imply a population of <120m Whites by the 2070s. How many people do we really need? 120m Whites is around what we were at in the mid 1940s.

    “How many people do we really need? ”

    I like white America a whole bunch, and would prefer our population grow about 1.5% a year.

    Moreover, declining population will stoke corporate demand for migration compared to moderate growth.

    • Replies: @L Woods

    I like white America a whole bunch,
     
    Good god, why. Have you even looked at it lately?
    , @Desiderius
    Plus all the entitlements are predicated on growing population. That’s productive population for the ruling class dimwits reading along.
  139. @Lot
    “How many people do we really need? ”

    I like white America a whole bunch, and would prefer our population grow about 1.5% a year.

    Moreover, declining population will stoke corporate demand for migration compared to moderate growth.

    I like white America a whole bunch,

    Good god, why. Have you even looked at it lately?

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    So, whine with your blackpill, sir?
    , @Autochthon
    Assuming, for the sale of argument, we are all the sort you lament (we are not): because they are our bastards.

    If my son grows up to disappoint me egregiously, he will still be immeasurably more precious to me than a Chinese astronaut.

    If you cannot understand that phenomenon, well...you have homework:

    https://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/05/steve-sailer-1998-race-is-extremely.html
  140. @HenryA
    I always irked by the New York Times referring to Donald Trump as Mr. Trump rather than as President Trump. Did they do the same for Barack Obama? I seem to remember reading that throughout the 1930s they referred to Adolf Hitler as Chancellor Hitler. Can't they at least have as much respect for Trump as they did for Hitler.

    They refuse to call him president because they fear him.

    Well they should.

  141. Lot says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    He has a mathematics degree from the University of Chicago and a PhD in political science from Duke, where his PhD thesis was Martin Heidegger's Mathematical Dialectic: Uncovering the Structure of Modernity.

    And he’s not a progressive.

    “PhD in political science from Duke, where his PhD thesis was Martin Heidegger’s Mathematical Dialectic: Uncovering the Structure of Modernity.”

    I have nothing against Beattie, but this isn’t impressive at all. Political science is the least selective of the social sciences* and Duke’s is third tier. The undergraduate degree (Math U Chicago) is much more impressive.

    Getting a poly sci PhD with a thesis about Heidegger from Duke shows questionable judgment in general.

    *Poli sci is a popular though declining undergraduate major, minor and elective topic, so universities enroll lots of Ph.D. students to teach them, even though few will ever get academic jobs and the degree is worthless in the private sector.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Except he chose poli sci because he actually wanted to go into politics. As for Duke there may be a Miller tie in there somewhere.

    Just because we don’t like Heidegger doesn’t mean the geniuses who brought us modernity didn’t. Their main error was in fact that they were too much like mathematicians, which is man’s greatest creation ex nihilo. However much the Great War felt like nihilo, it was not.

    Perhaps Beattie sought to better know his enemy before venturing forth to slay it.
    , @L Woods
    Not strictly speaking true: large firms will have political risk and government relations arms. It’s not easy to get those jobs though, it’s true. And poli sci isn’t the least selective social science; that honor has to go to sociology. And, a PhD from Duke would stand a good chance at an academic career.
    , @Realist

    “PhD in political science from Duke, where his PhD thesis was Martin Heidegger’s Mathematical Dialectic: Uncovering the Structure of Modernity.”

    I have nothing against Beattie, but this isn’t impressive at all. Political science is the least selective of the social sciences* and Duke’s is third tier. The undergraduate degree (Math U Chicago) is much more impressive.
     
    And then he goes on to be speech writer for a dumbass.....following in the footsteps of Dana Perino.
    , @blank-misgivings
    I'm no fan of contemporary political science which is obsessed with trivia and aspergers-oriented number crunching to solve meaningless puzzles about the 'precise' but ephemeral conditions under which certain groups of morons vote for certain groups of parasites.

    But 'least selective social science'? No way. Definitely more selective than sociology, anthropology, communications, social psychology and the like. Less selective than economics of course but actually a bit broader minded, and outside of the aspergers and social justice wings of poli sci (which control the apex positions), you're more likely to encounter common sense in the discipline than in other social sciences (and no, that's not saying much).
  142. @Lot
    “How many people do we really need? ”

    I like white America a whole bunch, and would prefer our population grow about 1.5% a year.

    Moreover, declining population will stoke corporate demand for migration compared to moderate growth.

    Plus all the entitlements are predicated on growing population. That’s productive population for the ruling class dimwits reading along.

  143. @Lot
    “PhD in political science from Duke, where his PhD thesis was Martin Heidegger’s Mathematical Dialectic: Uncovering the Structure of Modernity.”

    I have nothing against Beattie, but this isn’t impressive at all. Political science is the least selective of the social sciences* and Duke’s is third tier. The undergraduate degree (Math U Chicago) is much more impressive.

    Getting a poly sci PhD with a thesis about Heidegger from Duke shows questionable judgment in general.

    *Poli sci is a popular though declining undergraduate major, minor and elective topic, so universities enroll lots of Ph.D. students to teach them, even though few will ever get academic jobs and the degree is worthless in the private sector.

    Except he chose poli sci because he actually wanted to go into politics. As for Duke there may be a Miller tie in there somewhere.

    Just because we don’t like Heidegger doesn’t mean the geniuses who brought us modernity didn’t. Their main error was in fact that they were too much like mathematicians, which is man’s greatest creation ex nihilo. However much the Great War felt like nihilo, it was not.

    Perhaps Beattie sought to better know his enemy before venturing forth to slay it.

    • Replies: @Lot
    I don’t mean sound negative on him, he seems like a solid guy.

    “Just because we don’t like Heidegger doesn’t mean the geniuses who brought us modernity didn’t.”

    I don’t think any philosopher after 1800 has had any actual influence on politics and culture, and I am regretful for all the time I spent on them.

    Intellectuals may name drop philosophers, but I think the chain of causation is always political beliefs first, then looking for fancy justifications. So for Marx, he was unhappy seeing factory workers living in abusive squalor despite 60 hour weeks. His “dialectical materialism” schtick was putting an intellectual gloss on heartfelt socialism. Hegel was in vogue back then, so that was the gloss he went with.
  144. @Lot
    “PhD in political science from Duke, where his PhD thesis was Martin Heidegger’s Mathematical Dialectic: Uncovering the Structure of Modernity.”

    I have nothing against Beattie, but this isn’t impressive at all. Political science is the least selective of the social sciences* and Duke’s is third tier. The undergraduate degree (Math U Chicago) is much more impressive.

    Getting a poly sci PhD with a thesis about Heidegger from Duke shows questionable judgment in general.

    *Poli sci is a popular though declining undergraduate major, minor and elective topic, so universities enroll lots of Ph.D. students to teach them, even though few will ever get academic jobs and the degree is worthless in the private sector.

    Not strictly speaking true: large firms will have political risk and government relations arms. It’s not easy to get those jobs though, it’s true. And poli sci isn’t the least selective social science; that honor has to go to sociology. And, a PhD from Duke would stand a good chance at an academic career.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Government relations work and "political risk" work (what a goofy term; I've never encountered it but I'm going with it) – both known as lobbying in plain English – is done by lawyers and M.B.A.-types from outfits like McKinsey, Boston Consulting, Edelman, Ketchum, etc.

    Although some number of the lawyers doubtless got worthless undergraduate degrees in political science, they wised up before wasting their time on doctorates in this phony discipline, realising the money was in Yale's law school or an M.B.A. from Harvard.
  145. @L Woods
    Unfortunately, entering the combat arms ranks voluntarily requires some sense of civic mindedness or a certain sort of idealism (eg Starship Troopers) — they’re dominated by poor dupe white men who still think this is their country.

    This is their country, it just isn’t (primarily) their armed forces.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    By rights, but not in fact. But the same could be said for the armed forces.
  146. @Desiderius
    This is their country, it just isn’t (primarily) their armed forces.

    By rights, but not in fact. But the same could be said for the armed forces.

    • Agree: Autochthon
  147. @Lot
    “PhD in political science from Duke, where his PhD thesis was Martin Heidegger’s Mathematical Dialectic: Uncovering the Structure of Modernity.”

    I have nothing against Beattie, but this isn’t impressive at all. Political science is the least selective of the social sciences* and Duke’s is third tier. The undergraduate degree (Math U Chicago) is much more impressive.

    Getting a poly sci PhD with a thesis about Heidegger from Duke shows questionable judgment in general.

    *Poli sci is a popular though declining undergraduate major, minor and elective topic, so universities enroll lots of Ph.D. students to teach them, even though few will ever get academic jobs and the degree is worthless in the private sector.

    “PhD in political science from Duke, where his PhD thesis was Martin Heidegger’s Mathematical Dialectic: Uncovering the Structure of Modernity.”

    I have nothing against Beattie, but this isn’t impressive at all. Political science is the least selective of the social sciences* and Duke’s is third tier. The undergraduate degree (Math U Chicago) is much more impressive.

    And then he goes on to be speech writer for a dumbass…..following in the footsteps of Dana Perino.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Dana Perino was a press secretary, not a speechwriter. But I appreciate how you are undeterred in the face of being wrong.
  148. @utu

    ‘Conservatives Might Want to Pause and Rethink the Relationship’ with the Kochs
    https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/06/19/fncs-carlson-conservatives-might-want-to-pause-and-rethink-the-relationship-with-the-kochs/

    But in the case of the Kochs, conservatives might want to pause and rethink the relationship. As it turns out, the Kochs don’t have much in common with conservatives. They are totally opposed to most conservative policy goals. The Kochs are libertarian ideologues, passionate and inflexible. America first? The Kochs find the very notion absurd, if not fascist. An economic policy that seeks to strengthen families? The Kochs denounce that as “crony capitalism,” or “picking winners and losers.” They think it’s immoral. Controlling our borders? The Kochs consider that racist. A few years ago, Bernie Sanders noted that the Koch brothers are far to the left of him on immigration. Open borders? Quote: “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he said.
     

    Bernie doesn’t think of open borders as left-wing, so the Kochs couldn’t be to his left on that issue. Paul Samuelson in his famous economics textbook always argued that the low levels of immigration the US had between 1923 and 1965 were what made unions strong in that era. Businesses couldn’t find cheap labor, so they had to pay well.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    God forbid. Imagine our precious job creators being denied their fourth vacation home.
    , @Flip

    Bernie doesn’t think of open borders as left-wing, so the Kochs couldn’t be to his left on that issue. Paul Samuelson in his famous economics textbook always argued that the low levels of immigration the US had between 1923 and 1965 were what made unions strong in that era. Businesses couldn’t find cheap labor, so they had to pay well.
     
    Samuel Gompers and Cesar Chavez were both anti-immigration to protect the wages of their union members.
  149. Lot says:
    @Desiderius
    Except he chose poli sci because he actually wanted to go into politics. As for Duke there may be a Miller tie in there somewhere.

    Just because we don’t like Heidegger doesn’t mean the geniuses who brought us modernity didn’t. Their main error was in fact that they were too much like mathematicians, which is man’s greatest creation ex nihilo. However much the Great War felt like nihilo, it was not.

    Perhaps Beattie sought to better know his enemy before venturing forth to slay it.

    I don’t mean sound negative on him, he seems like a solid guy.

    “Just because we don’t like Heidegger doesn’t mean the geniuses who brought us modernity didn’t.”

    I don’t think any philosopher after 1800 has had any actual influence on politics and culture, and I am regretful for all the time I spent on them.

    Intellectuals may name drop philosophers, but I think the chain of causation is always political beliefs first, then looking for fancy justifications. So for Marx, he was unhappy seeing factory workers living in abusive squalor despite 60 hour weeks. His “dialectical materialism” schtick was putting an intellectual gloss on heartfelt socialism. Hegel was in vogue back then, so that was the gloss he went with.

  150. @Jonathan Mason
    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization. If it is the case that he was influenced by Carlson, then thank God, in this case, that the advice given was sane. Perhaps Jerry Hall or Ivanka also had something to do with it.

    The general policy of Washington towards Iran has been pretty despicable under Trump and if Iran did take a pot shot at a spy drone that may or may not have been over Iran's airspace, but was certainly close enough to trigger mistakes, then it was the fault of the US, and anyway no one was killed.

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz "accidentally" shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.

    In 1996, the governments of the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident... As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. [Wikipedia]

    Well at least the US promptly apologized--8 years being the equivalent of a quickie divorce in the US legal system--oh, wait, we have not formally apologized yet. Formal apologies for US government atrocities usually take about 143 years, based on precedent.

    If Iran cares to admit that it was mistaken and agrees to pay compensation, could this be the start of some kind of rapprochement between the two governments? Unlikely while Trump has the current set of goofy advisors whom he himself appointed, and neither country seems to have been able to devise a method of selecting sensible, mature leaders

    One of the most basic concepts taught in management courses is the Abilene paradox.

    The Abilene paradox refers to a situation wherein no member of a group decides to contest a decision taken by the group, believing it to be the consensus of everyone, when in reality, none of the group members agree with the decision. However, none of them speak up for the fear of going against the wishes of others, and end up regretting not speaking up in time.

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil's advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

    Perhaps Trump in the fog of his dotage is stumbling into the right decisions because this afternoon he is fortunately unable to remember what was decided this morning or why.

    Perhaps Trump in the fog of his dotage is stumbling into the right decisions because this afternoon he is fortunately unable to remember what was decided this morning or why.

    I’m sure he remembered that one of the reasons he was elected is because Americans are tired of wasting money and lives in the Middle East, waging wars that don’t benefit us at all and only egg on terrorists to retaliate on our soil. Whatever the polls report, Americans are tired of wars, particularly over some spy drone. I can’t believe anything the press writes, they were likely trying to instigate a war by reporting Trump was about to push the button, when he was no where near that.

  151. @Achmed E. Newman

    The lack of a populist right think-tank industry means he has nobody to fill White House staffing jobs,
     
    We don't need no steeenking theenk tanks, Senor, to quote an old movie line that doesn't apply, but still cracks me up. Nah, all it takes is common sense from a bunch of trusted friends/advisors, say from Trump's real estate business days. Wouldn't he have a ton of real friends?

    Sure, SFG, the think tank guys would come up with talking points with perfect wording and slogans and all. However, does Trump not remember the issues he campaigned on? It doesn't take Washington insiders, and you especially don't want those, as they couldn't be trusted, as seems obvious by now.

    If we have to rely on Trump having caught a certain newscast by Tucker Carlson to avoid war, that is pretty sad. It still beats the shape we'd have been in with the Hildabeast though. We know the evil that would have come out of her.

    This book, worth skimming, blames partly Jared and Ivanka for his lousy picks.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Even though I was trying to follow the story and read business and political headlines daily, I was unaware that Jared’s hubristic and idiotic purchase of 666 Fifth Ave at the peak of the prior bubble was finally bailed out by the Qataris until months after the fact.

    For an idea of how much he overpaid, nobody was willing to buy it for $900 million in 2002, Jared paid 1.8 billion in 2007, and the next year he sold 49% of it for $525 million. Of course the banks who lent him the money were just as stupid, lost even more, and are supposed to know better.

    In 2018, it was sold entirely for $1.3 billion, with Qataris secretly funding most of it.

    I don’t know about midtown Manhattan office towers specifically, but for the most part big city real estate prices exceeded their prior 2006-7 peaks by 2015, and in SF and LA are well above prior peaks.

    In summary, a 26 year old Jared, at the absolute peak of a real estate bubble, paid at least $500 million more for the building than its peak-bubble market price. And this is a decision relating to the business he was raised in!

    Jared’s other famous investment was the NY Observer, a dead-tree Village Voice type publication that was also obviously a bad investment.
    , @Mr. Anon

    This book, worth skimming, blames partly Jared and Ivanka for his lousy picks.
     
    And who picked Jared and Ivanka as advisors on policy and personnel? That's all on the Donald himself.
  152. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Interesting, what sort of things do you think Tucker cohen't talk about on TV? Why do you think he cohen't discuss them?

    Tucker likes the right kind of cohen!

    • Replies: @IHTG
    The belief that Tucker Carlson is a secret antisemite is an amusing new minor far-right belief.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Every American tax-payer is a big supporter of Israel. Whether they want to be or not.
  153. neocons are going to be mad so i expect either

    1) bigger false flag with a lot of US casualties

    or

    2) they’ll give up neoconning and go back to trotsky – throw their influence into full acceleration towards US collapse.

  154. @Steve

    It should be a priority right for conservatives to flood the White House with messages stating they oppose war with Iran. Trump should be made aware by his base that war with Iran will be a massive blow to his reelection.

  155. @Lot
    Tucker likes the right kind of cohen!

    https://twitter.com/YairNetanyahu/status/1137111643064848388

    The belief that Tucker Carlson is a secret antisemite is an amusing new minor far-right belief.

    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    IHTG:

    It is open to debate whether or not Carlson is a card-carrying antisemite. Even though he carefully treads the line, it is obvious that Tucker at the very least is a disciple of Mearsheimer & Walt in their no-holds-barred evaluation of Israel and its contingent US fifth column.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Whereas the belief that anyone is an anti-semit who is remotely critical of Israel or the actions of some Jewish Americans is as old as the Hills.
  156. @JohnnyD
    On his next show, Tucker Carlson should advise Trump to fire Bolton and Pompeo...

    Yes that is the weird fine line Tucker has to toe. Because you listen to him talk as if Trump has no agency in the decisions that he has made and that things just happen to which Trump is the innocent victim.

  157. CCZ says:
    @Charles Pewitt

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil’s advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

     

    I don't know crud about no ABILENE PARADOX, but the internet says the average humidity in Abilene is 59 -- too high. Houston has average humidity of 75, which is intolerable, which is why David Brooks wants us Whites to be racked and stacked in Houston with the Third Worlders, all of us sweating our balls off. David Brooks is an evil person and he gets on my nerves.

    This ABILENE PARADOX concept is why I am running against President Trump in the 2020 GOP presidential primary. Some political leader needs to stand up and confront Trump on his call to flood the USA with mass legal immigration "in the largest numbers ever."

    Trump has refused to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA and Trump has refused to build a wall and fencing system to seal the border.

    Pewitt Pledge:

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW

    DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS NOW

    Tucker Carlson saved Trump from war with Iran and Nancy Pelosi saved Trump from deporting millions of illegal aliens.

    “President Donald Trump says he is delaying a nationwide sweep to deport people living in the U.S. illegally.”

    He said in a tweet:

    “At the request of Democrats, I have delayed the Illegal Immigration Removal Process (Deportation) for two weeks to see if the Democrats and Republicans can get together and work out a solution to the Asylum and Loophole problems at the Southern Border. If not, Deportations start!”

    PS: George C. Parker has just announced that he is selling his iconic bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan, all offers considered.

    • Replies: @RVBlake
    Wise move by Trump...Listening to the requests of Democrats always benefits the country. If we just wait a bit longer for that working-together thingy, it'll work out fine.
    , @Sick of Orcs
    Trump is a bigger weakling than carter and Okenyan combined.

    #OrangeCuck
  158. @HenryA
    I always irked by the New York Times referring to Donald Trump as Mr. Trump rather than as President Trump. Did they do the same for Barack Obama? I seem to remember reading that throughout the 1930s they referred to Adolf Hitler as Chancellor Hitler. Can't they at least have as much respect for Trump as they did for Hitler.

    The refer to him as president trump the first instance, then in the rest of the article they refer to him as mr. trump. They do that for every president, it’s apparently in their style guide.

    • Agree: Paleo Liberal
  159. @Hail

    150?!
     
    It is said that Iran lost around 500,000 men, dead, in the eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s. That during a period of major population-boom (39 million to 53 million during the eight-year war period). More than one percent of all Iranian males living at the time were killed in that war.

    Iran's baby boom is long over, now; inertia will take the population to ~90 million by 2030 (UN est.), after which there will be no net growth and significant aging; by 21st century Q3, population decline is expected to begin in earnest, perhaps making for zero net population, late 20th century to late 21st century.

    We Americans of European-Christian origin, meanwhile, have been slowly losing population for several years, and are probably currently at 188 million. We would be able to recover and stabilize, too, if not for having so many Third World immigrants dumped on us, with the apparent acquiescence of the Self-Promoter-in-Chief whom we elected to turn things around.

    “by 21st century Q3, population decline is expected to begin in earnest, perhaps making for zero net population”

    The trees don’t grow up to the sky. Just because Iran’s population is falling now, doesn’t mean it’ll carry on to zero.

    • Replies: @Hail
    Sorry, there was a typo in there; should have read:

    by 21st century Q3, population decline [in Iran] is expected to begin in earnest, perhaps making for zero net population growth [between the] late 20th century to late 21st century.
     
    So, that would be

    Iran population
    1950: 17m
    1970: 28.5m
    1990: 56m
    2010: 74m
    2030: 88.5m
    2050: 85-90m?
    2070: 75-90m?
    2090: 60-85m?

    the 1990s to 2090s could well have net zero growth. Any predictions about the 2090s are (obviously) necessarily uncertain. These are UN projections.
  160. @Unladen Swallow
    Bernie doesn't think of open borders as left-wing, so the Kochs couldn't be to his left on that issue. Paul Samuelson in his famous economics textbook always argued that the low levels of immigration the US had between 1923 and 1965 were what made unions strong in that era. Businesses couldn't find cheap labor, so they had to pay well.

    God forbid. Imagine our precious job creators being denied their fourth vacation home.

  161. @dearieme
    By the way, if the US drone really had been shot down over international waters shouldn't we have expected some good evidence for that by now? So it was presumably in Iranian airspace.

    Maybe next time the US will shoot down one of its own drones over international waters and blame Iran. Or would that be hard to pull off?

    By the way, if the US drone really had been shot down over international waters shouldn’t we have expected some good evidence for that by now?

    Yes. The video released by Iran seems consistent with the idea that it all happened over Iranian airspace. It doesn’t look very far from the coast (from where the missile was launched), so that’s what I’d guess.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    The F.U.S.A. is constantly violating others' airspace to spy, sending in spooks and special operators to meddle, and so on, but the minute they're found out or confronted they put their hands in their pockets, stare at their shoes, and start whistling.

    Imagine if Iranian (Chinese...whatever) ships were constantly farting around just off the coast of Maryland or their birds were zooming around over the Aleutians.

    Would there by a calm, measured attitude in Washington about the principled importance of freedom of the seas and such?
  162. @dearieme
    The rather well padded Mr Carlson deserves a pat on the back and a box of doughnuts.

    On the other hand - what the hell has the world come to that the Prez of the US has to turn to a journalist for sane advice?

    I just hope that Mr Carlson doesn't meet with an unfortunate accident or a mysterious mugging.

    I suppose the obvious way to pay for his security detail is just to appoint him Secretary of Defense, or National Security Adviser, or Secretary of State. No doubt Fox News would grant him leave of absence to pursue such duties.

    If not him then Tulsi Gabbard.

    what the hell has the world come to that the Prez of the US has to turn to a journalist for sane advice?

    As a presidential candidate, Jeb Bush was taking foreign policy advice from Paul Wolfowitz. We dodged a bullet there.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jeb-bush-says-paul-wolfowitz-is-a-foreign-policy-adviser-2015-08-14

  163. @Jonathan Mason
    Mearsheimer would be an excellent choice for National Security Advisor, but the real problem is that no serious person wants to work with Trump.

    Remember that Rex Tillerson called Trump "a fucking moron" and after he had resigned was quoted as saying: "It was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil corporation, ... to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn't like to read, doesn't read briefing reports, doesn't like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, 'This is what I believe."

    Nothing like giving your former boss a good reference.

    Remember that Rex Tillerson called Trump “a fucking moron” and after he had resigned was quoted as saying: “It was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil corporation, … to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn’t like to read, doesn’t read briefing reports, doesn’t like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, ‘This is what I believe.”

    Nothing like giving your former boss a good reference.

    I’m no fan of Trump’s laziness–nor his failure to execute the nationalist agenda he ran on. But this snippet just shows Tillerson is confused–perhaps smart IQ wise, but not truly intelligent–or a pompous jerk (my bet).

    First off, a competent underling doesn’t require his boss to drown himself in detail to figure everything out. He is capable of giving his boss whatever level of detail the boss needs/desires. And he can take the boss’s larger agenda and map out a strategy in his balliwick that works. Tillerson obviously knows this and no doubt did it before taking the top job.

    Furthermore, Trump isn’t CEO of the United States, he’s a political leader. “This is what i believe” should be sufficient marching orders. Tillerson should have been able to take Trump’s “this is what i believe” and deliver competent execution of Trump’s agenda.

    My guess is that Tillerson simply didn’t like Trump’s “this is what i believe” and couldn’t change his mind with all his arguments and detail in a “briefing report”. And that’s what pissed Tillerson off.

    But politics isn’t drilling wells and pumping gas. De novo, in this dispute, Tillerson’s agenda isn’t “right” because his “briefing report” makes a good argument for what Tillerson would rather do. Rather Trump’s agenda is “right” because the people elected him President.

    Of course, what is actually “right” isn’t what the President wants, but what’s in the long term interest of the American people. But count me as skeptical that Tillerson’s agenda was superior to Trump’s in this respect.

  164. NYT is pathological about not giving me information in an orderly fashion. Here, they don’t bury the lead. It’s in the first paragraph. But why not in the title?

    Instead, they use that deadly boring title. Because they don’t want this story to be interesting.

  165. @Jonathan Mason
    Mearsheimer would be an excellent choice for National Security Advisor, but the real problem is that no serious person wants to work with Trump.

    Remember that Rex Tillerson called Trump "a fucking moron" and after he had resigned was quoted as saying: "It was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil corporation, ... to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn't like to read, doesn't read briefing reports, doesn't like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, 'This is what I believe."

    Nothing like giving your former boss a good reference.

    Oh, he wants to be “process-oriented?” What Managerial State gobbledygook.

    Trump is a politician. These guys are bureaucrats. They are at war with eachother in the best of circumstances. But when you have someone like Trump who is an outsider to their world and has at least talked about confronting them head-on (drain the swamp), of course they don’t want to work for him. Which means they cast about for professional differences and differences of personality, but a couple things:

    Firstly, we know Trump was a real estate mogul with a vast empire of employees doing stuff for him. Maybe it didn’t run like your beloved Exxon-Mobile, but it ran.

    Secondly, has Tillerson read a political biography? Like ever? Was Obama “disciplined and highly process-oriented?” Maybe when he ran his community organizing racket. But try listening to the people inside that White House.

    Oh, but the Managerial State and Obama were on the same side politically. I forgot.

    Okay, what would have happened had Tillerson found himself working under Prime Minister Churchill? Probably would’ve drowned the old lush in his tub.

    • Agree: PV van der Byl
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Good points.

    Tillerson wanted to work with Woodrow Wilson.

    Instead he had to work with (a cowardly, unprincipled, stupid version of) Andrew Jackson....
  166. @Jonathan Mason
    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization. If it is the case that he was influenced by Carlson, then thank God, in this case, that the advice given was sane. Perhaps Jerry Hall or Ivanka also had something to do with it.

    The general policy of Washington towards Iran has been pretty despicable under Trump and if Iran did take a pot shot at a spy drone that may or may not have been over Iran's airspace, but was certainly close enough to trigger mistakes, then it was the fault of the US, and anyway no one was killed.

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz "accidentally" shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.

    In 1996, the governments of the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident... As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. [Wikipedia]

    Well at least the US promptly apologized--8 years being the equivalent of a quickie divorce in the US legal system--oh, wait, we have not formally apologized yet. Formal apologies for US government atrocities usually take about 143 years, based on precedent.

    If Iran cares to admit that it was mistaken and agrees to pay compensation, could this be the start of some kind of rapprochement between the two governments? Unlikely while Trump has the current set of goofy advisors whom he himself appointed, and neither country seems to have been able to devise a method of selecting sensible, mature leaders

    One of the most basic concepts taught in management courses is the Abilene paradox.

    The Abilene paradox refers to a situation wherein no member of a group decides to contest a decision taken by the group, believing it to be the consensus of everyone, when in reality, none of the group members agree with the decision. However, none of them speak up for the fear of going against the wishes of others, and end up regretting not speaking up in time.

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil's advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

    Perhaps Trump in the fog of his dotage is stumbling into the right decisions because this afternoon he is fortunately unable to remember what was decided this morning or why.

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz “accidentally” shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.

    Why the scare quotes around “accidentally”.

    It was obviously accidental in the normal meaning of the word. I.e. no one meant to shoot down an airliner. It was a huge black eye for the United States which has just spent the last couple of years scoring propaganda points bashing the Soviets for recklessly shooting down Korean Air 007. Then we screwed up and shot down an Iranian airliner.

    If it wasn’t accidental then it would have been an ingenuously clever consipracy by the Iranians or the Russians who paid Capt. Rogers to be a bozo to disagrace the United States, as they were the beneficiaries.

    No. People screw up all the time. Militaries have guns and bombs and missiles, when they screw up it’s ugly.

    • Replies: @byrresheim

    It was a huge black eye
     
    for all the people aboard.
    , @Mr. Anon

    No. People screw up all the time. Militaries have guns and bombs and missiles, when they screw up it’s ugly.
     
    Yes, I don't think it was done intentionally; it was an accident. Although that might not make much difference to the Iranians. As you say, militaries screw up sometimes, and the results are horrific. Jack Cashill and others have made a pretty good case that the US Navy accidentally shot down one of our own airliners in 1996.
  167. We’re supposed to believe that Barack Obama was a very learned and erudite President. I have my doubts about that, but even if it were true…does it really matter how many books you’ve read, if you’re just gonna do whatever the CIA tells you to?

  168. @Bill B.
    This book, worth skimming, blames partly Jared and Ivanka for his lousy picks.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1250185947/ref=tmm_hrd_title_sr?ie=UTF8&qid=1561236470&sr=8-1

    Even though I was trying to follow the story and read business and political headlines daily, I was unaware that Jared’s hubristic and idiotic purchase of 666 Fifth Ave at the peak of the prior bubble was finally bailed out by the Qataris until months after the fact.

    For an idea of how much he overpaid, nobody was willing to buy it for $900 million in 2002, Jared paid 1.8 billion in 2007, and the next year he sold 49% of it for $525 million. Of course the banks who lent him the money were just as stupid, lost even more, and are supposed to know better.

    In 2018, it was sold entirely for $1.3 billion, with Qataris secretly funding most of it.

    I don’t know about midtown Manhattan office towers specifically, but for the most part big city real estate prices exceeded their prior 2006-7 peaks by 2015, and in SF and LA are well above prior peaks.

    In summary, a 26 year old Jared, at the absolute peak of a real estate bubble, paid at least $500 million more for the building than its peak-bubble market price. And this is a decision relating to the business he was raised in!

    Jared’s other famous investment was the NY Observer, a dead-tree Village Voice type publication that was also obviously a bad investment.

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    The book makes the point quite firmly that Jared is not at all clever. Not stupid but definitely dull.
  169. @SteveM
    This is a repost of a comment I made at the related Saker article:

    Yes, it’s reported that the Pentagon advised Trump not to retaliate militarily for the drone shoot down.

    Given advanced missile technologies, surface warships of any stripe are sitting ducks. I’m guessing that Iran has a plethora of missile batteries up and down its coast. If Iran launched a barrage of missiles simultaneously (10? 20? 30?) at a single surface warship in the Persian Gulf, what would be the probability that the ship’s self-defense systems could neutralize them all?

    If a single multi-billion dollar warship were sunk, the credibility of U.S. naval “power projection” would evaporate. In that context, the Pentagon’s reluctance may be because they’d rather not establish that their hyper-expensive blue-water surface Navy is an anachronism.
     

    The Pentagon lost a $150 Million drone to the Iranians. Could they be getting gun shy about losing War Toys against an adversary that can effectively shoot back?

    Those anti-ship missiles are the sitting ducks, if you get the drop on them.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    They don’t care. Life is a disappointment to them so they want America to suffer. They are literally no different than Westernized Russians. Life isn’t how they want it to so they support an external power. And to add icing to the cake Saker is actually a freaking Russian. Imagine abandoning your native country to move to the great Satan.
  170. @L Woods
    At least the Mexican-American War yielded some very fine real estate. It was probably the last war the US fought that could be said to be worthwhile.

    In his Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson argues that acquiring those new territories led to the Civil War. The slave states saw that there’d soon be about a dozen new senators lined up against them, and that intensified the sense that the walls were closing in.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Fair enough. It would probably have made more political (geographical notwithstanding) sense to extend the original states westward.
  171. “that part of the presidential id that has always hesitated at pulling the trigger.”

    I wonder if there’s any action Trump could take that wouldn’t be considered by the NYT to have been motivated by unconscious primal desire. Because I don’t normally associate hesitancy with the id.

    Id would suggest more Fight or Flight than Fight or Reflect Soberly and Demure from Action Due to Moral Scruple.

  172. @Hail

    150?!
     
    It is said that Iran lost around 500,000 men, dead, in the eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s. That during a period of major population-boom (39 million to 53 million during the eight-year war period). More than one percent of all Iranian males living at the time were killed in that war.

    Iran's baby boom is long over, now; inertia will take the population to ~90 million by 2030 (UN est.), after which there will be no net growth and significant aging; by 21st century Q3, population decline is expected to begin in earnest, perhaps making for zero net population, late 20th century to late 21st century.

    We Americans of European-Christian origin, meanwhile, have been slowly losing population for several years, and are probably currently at 188 million. We would be able to recover and stabilize, too, if not for having so many Third World immigrants dumped on us, with the apparent acquiescence of the Self-Promoter-in-Chief whom we elected to turn things around.

    We Americans of European-Christian origin, meanwhile, have been slowly losing population for several years, and are probably currently at 188 million. We would be able to recover and stabilize, too, if not for having so many Third World immigrants dumped on us, with the apparent acquiescence of the Self-Promoter-in-Chief whom we elected to turn things around.

    Well said, Hail.

    We are currently undergoing a radical selection for women who can reproduce in our new environment of prosperity, the Pill, feminism and now the smart phone. That’s a lot of disruption, but … we’d get through it eventually.

    But immigration is just killing–literally killing, in surpressing our births–us. Both surpressing our recovery and overwhelming us before we can recover.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The pill is so new it will soon qualify for Medicare. Do the boomercons around here even read what you write?
  173. Ok, admit it, the main reason most of you are so giddy is that Iran is the enemy of your enemy, Israel.

    If a $130 million piece of USAF equipment got shot down elsewhere — say, by Mexico while monitoring our border — you’d be able to engage your rational brains. And then you’d grasp (1) that all-out war and doing nothing are not our only choices, and (2) we should at the least expect compensation for the cost of the craft.

    No, Iran would not escalate against us. The Israeli Air Force bombs Iranian targets in Syria all the time, and there’s no escalation. E.g.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46941717

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Ok, admit it, the main reason most of you are so giddy is that Iran is the enemy of your enemy, Israel.

    If a $130 million piece of USAF equipment got shot down elsewhere — say, by Mexico while monitoring our border — you’d be able to engage your rational brains. And then you’d grasp (1) that all-out war and doing nothing are not our only choices, and (2) we should at the least expect compensation for the cost of the craft.

    No, Iran would not escalate against us. The Israeli Air Force bombs Iranian targets in Syria all the time, and there’s no escalation.
     

    Okay, admit it, International Jew, the main reason you are so upset with the commenters here is that Iran is the enemy of your friend, Israel.

    If a $130 million piece of Israeli Air Force equipment got shot down elsewhere -- say, by some hoodlums or even false flagger Mossad agents in Gaza, you'd be so enraged that you would support the bombing of women and children there.

    No, we do not want to fight your wars for you. Since the Israeli Air Force bombs Iranian targets in Syria all the time, it can bomb Iran itself -- and surely, as you would say, Iran will not escalate against it..

    , @SFG
    Israel is not my enemy. But we don't need to be doing their dirty work for them.
    , @notanon

    Ok, admit it, the main reason most of you are so giddy is that Iran is the enemy of your enemy, Israel.
     
    invade the world, invite the world

    if "invade the world" neocons like Krystal weren't also "invite the world" liberals (for the West but not Israel) then maybe people wouldn't be so cranky about it.

    wild guess.
  174. Trump calls off immigration raids?!?!?

    TRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMPPP!!!!!

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Ann Coulter has him pegged to a T.
  175. @Achmed E. Newman
    The left used to claim President Reagan was senile all the time during his 2nd term, Jonathan. Senile or not, things ran smoothly and good decisions were made. They claimed Reagan zoned out or snoozed during meetings and let his cabinet and advisors decide things. That may have been true, but, (as you said) an executive has lots of supposedly smart people around him to help him decide. Ronnie picked people who were ON HIS SIDE when it comes to principles.

    President Trump has picked people that are against his , OK, Candidate Trump's policies to be his advisors, ambassadors, and cabinet members. How stupid is that? It otherwise wouldn't matter as much if he is "in the fog of his dotage".

    Good comment there.

    Ronnie picked people who were ON HIS SIDE when it comes to principles.

    It’s too bad they weren’t on the side of the American people.

  176. @International Jew
    Ok, admit it, the main reason most of you are so giddy is that Iran is the enemy of your enemy, Israel.

    If a $130 million piece of USAF equipment got shot down elsewhere — say, by Mexico while monitoring our border — you'd be able to engage your rational brains. And then you'd grasp (1) that all-out war and doing nothing are not our only choices, and (2) we should at the least expect compensation for the cost of the craft.

    No, Iran would not escalate against us. The Israeli Air Force bombs Iranian targets in Syria all the time, and there's no escalation. E.g.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46941717

    Ok, admit it, the main reason most of you are so giddy is that Iran is the enemy of your enemy, Israel.

    If a $130 million piece of USAF equipment got shot down elsewhere — say, by Mexico while monitoring our border — you’d be able to engage your rational brains. And then you’d grasp (1) that all-out war and doing nothing are not our only choices, and (2) we should at the least expect compensation for the cost of the craft.

    No, Iran would not escalate against us. The Israeli Air Force bombs Iranian targets in Syria all the time, and there’s no escalation.

    Okay, admit it, International Jew, the main reason you are so upset with the commenters here is that Iran is the enemy of your friend, Israel.

    If a $130 million piece of Israeli Air Force equipment got shot down elsewhere — say, by some hoodlums or even false flagger Mossad agents in Gaza, you’d be so enraged that you would support the bombing of women and children there.

    No, we do not want to fight your wars for you. Since the Israeli Air Force bombs Iranian targets in Syria all the time, it can bomb Iran itself — and surely, as you would say, Iran will not escalate against it..

    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @HammerJack
    Good smackdown.
  177. @IHTG
    Those wars don't have to be disasters, just as Putin's Syria intervention isn't a disaster for Russia.

    The United States just doesn't seem to know how to fight in these regions. The 19th century Brits would have divide-and-conquered the shit out of Iraq.

    But the American people in the early 2000s could be excused for believing their army knew what it was doing.

    “But the American people in the early 2000s could be excused for believing their army knew what it was doing.”

    Why?

  178. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Most high-level executives don't like to read. They'd rather be meeting, talking, analyzing, being briefed, and making decisions.

    Yep.
    And I’ll add that Trump’s style reminds me of the rah-rah BS from several of the CEOs I’ve worked under. I’ll bet much of the hysterical and allergic reaction Trump elicits on the left is due to the fact that influential leftists don’t work in typical corporations. They’re in government, universities, foundations etc. Some work in the media, true, but the culture there still shields them.

  179. @Realist

    “PhD in political science from Duke, where his PhD thesis was Martin Heidegger’s Mathematical Dialectic: Uncovering the Structure of Modernity.”

    I have nothing against Beattie, but this isn’t impressive at all. Political science is the least selective of the social sciences* and Duke’s is third tier. The undergraduate degree (Math U Chicago) is much more impressive.
     
    And then he goes on to be speech writer for a dumbass.....following in the footsteps of Dana Perino.

    Dana Perino was a press secretary, not a speechwriter. But I appreciate how you are undeterred in the face of being wrong.

    • Replies: @Realist

    Dana Perino was a press secretary, not a speechwriter.
     
    That is correct....but the intellect is the same.
  180. Anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lance
    Who hired Bolton, a man who has never seen a war he doesn't like?
    Who hired Pompeo?
    No one pointed a gun at Trump's head to force him to hire these guys.
    Who scrapped the deal with Iran? Imperfect as that deal was, it's better than the situation we are now in where any wrong move can trip us into war.

    No one pointed a gun at Trump’s head to force him to hire these guys.

    How do you know (figuratively speaking)?

    • Agree: Cagey Beast, Desiderius
  181. @SteveM
    This is a repost of a comment I made at the related Saker article:

    Yes, it’s reported that the Pentagon advised Trump not to retaliate militarily for the drone shoot down.

    Given advanced missile technologies, surface warships of any stripe are sitting ducks. I’m guessing that Iran has a plethora of missile batteries up and down its coast. If Iran launched a barrage of missiles simultaneously (10? 20? 30?) at a single surface warship in the Persian Gulf, what would be the probability that the ship’s self-defense systems could neutralize them all?

    If a single multi-billion dollar warship were sunk, the credibility of U.S. naval “power projection” would evaporate. In that context, the Pentagon’s reluctance may be because they’d rather not establish that their hyper-expensive blue-water surface Navy is an anachronism.
     

    The Pentagon lost a $150 Million drone to the Iranians. Could they be getting gun shy about losing War Toys against an adversary that can effectively shoot back?

    Or maybe gunshy about getting into another ME war. We lose a ship, we’d have to take out the IRGC naval Force. That would be followed by “We need to invade and stabilize Iran”. Probably not worth it.

  182. @Lot
    “We would be able to recover and stabilize, too, if not for having so many Third World immigrants dumped on us, with the apparent acquiescence of the Self-Promoter-in-Chief whom we elected to turn things around.”

    Given the ~8% rate of interracial births for whites, stabilization of the white U.S. population would require white TFR of about 2.4. And that’s assuming the rate doesn’t keep increasing.

    I don’t want the white US population to decline, so I favor massive natalist policies focused on the middle class, ending all third world migration and deporting illegals, and opening the US to Eastern European migration.

    Given the ~8% rate of interracial births for whites, stabilization of the white U.S. population would require white TFR of about 2.4. And that’s assuming the rate doesn’t keep increasing.

    I don’t want the white US population to decline, so I favor massive natalist policies focused on the middle class, ending all third world migration and deporting illegals, and opening the US to Eastern European migration.

    You’re consistently strong on this Lot–good stuff.

    As i mentioned in response to Hail–and have said in several comments over the years–we’re had a radical disruption of our environment. So we are now rapidly selecting for genotypes (esp. as expressed in women) that still reproduce in our new environment of prosperity and the Pill, feminism, facebook and phones. I believe this process would work out just fine–if we were left alone. But immigration is an attempt to kill us–jam the knife in–before we recover from the disruption.

    However, it’s no doubt true that there are plenty of good ripe young women, whose genes really are fine, if it wasn’t for hostile Hollyweird, media, academia, government bathing their brains with a toxic minoritarian, anti-white, anti-natal ideology. So i’m definitely on board with turbo-charging the recovery with explictly natalist policies. When women start seeing an official approved natalist narrative/culture, we should see a real fertility turnaround.

    ~~

    My one point of disagreement is immigration from Eastern Europe.

    Minor point–they need their people there. I expect down the road some rebellions in the West. (I got to think rural Scandis will at some point rebel and if nothing else separate.) But right now the East looks like the one place the White race may survive. I don’t want to drain it.

    More importantly: The easy win is an immigration moratorium.

    Long run we have to win on HBD, race and culture, to win. But in terms of just turning the ship around–or at least stopping it from going over the falls–a moratorium works.

    And unlike an “immigration from Eastern Europe” policy, we can dodge all the racial issues with the simple call for a moratorium:
    — No more cheap labor.
    — American jobs for Americans.
    — We have enough people. We want an uncrowded pleasant America.
    — We want a pleasant, uncrowded, affordable America for … Americans. For ourselves and our posterity.
    — America belongs to Americans.

    Of course, saying (or thinking) that America–with a pop density still less than a neutron star–actually belongs to Americans, and we shouldn’t have our nation taken from us and be genocided by a billion foreigners … makes me “literally Hitler”. But it’s the kind of “Hitler” a lot of people can get behind.

    • LOL: IHTG
    • Replies: @Lot
    “So we are now rapidly selecting for genotypes (esp. as expressed in women) that still reproduce in our new environment of prosperity and the Pill, feminism, facebook and phones.”

    Also selecting for men who dislike condoms the most!

    Unfortunately I think that selection will be very slow, not rapid, because the fertility collapse is mostly cultural.

    Here’s a hypo that illustrates this: at some Beth Israel hospital in New York, sole child of two 40 year secular Jews gets switched with the 7th child of some black-hat ultra Orthodox family where 10 is the norm.

    How many kids are these two girls going to have? I’d bet heavily on nurture over nature and say the black hat girl raised by the seculars will have 1 and the secular born girl raised ultra orthodox will have many.

    I wonder how far away reliable and affordable artificial wombs are. That may be the killer app that brings up white fertility to above replacement.

    Regarding Eastern Europe, parts of it are so bleak I don’t want to tell them to “stay and take care of your own country.” A lot of them are leaving anyway, but going to Western Europe. The USA is less crowded, higher wage, and I think more open to Eastern Europeans generally.
  183. @Woodsie
    Assuming we stay out of a new war in the middle east, this decision will be remembered as the most important to the nation and world. The president knows this which is why he is already framing a picture for history with a contrived story of a last minute q and a with his nameless generals, the uniformed men going back and forth to bring him the dread butcher’s bill, our hero alone with his thoughts, communing with his God. Now imagine Hillary in the role.

    “ONLY 150 TOWELHEADS! WE NEED MORE, SO THEY KNOW WE’RE SERIOUS!”
    Actually, nah, we’d be having a real war in Syria. Like the beginning of Alas, Babylon.

  184. @L Woods
    Yes, military men are one of the least ‘based’ demographics around. There’s a significant libshit minority (concentrated in the technical/intelligence fields), but really, what’s the difference?

    Army culture and army reasoning is largely honor based. So yes, even from the left flank it all revolves around honor.

    More to the point, I’ve met the shitlib in the army who is pro-islam, but the reasoning is really stupid. It is anecdotal about the one or two honorable Muslims who serves in the armed forces.

    I have yet to meet one who is critical of Israel, or who puts two and two together on why the Muslim world hates us because of Israel.

    • Replies: @Charlesz Martel
    Muslims were attacking our ships and taking our sailors as slaves 130 years before Israel existed.
  185. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor

    Is the public really that gullible so soon after Iraq?
     
    Yes, I would've thought that the Iraq War would prevent a big military adventure for another generation. I was wrong. The Iran War would be a way bigger disaster than the Iraq War, both for America and the rest of the world.

    I’m astounded. I cannot imagine why Americans would want anything to do with an Iran war. Are the American people insane?

    Do people not realize these ME wars have put almost 6 trillion onto the national debt? For WHAT?

    I thought people were tired of this nonsense, and this is why Trump was elected?

    America will fully deserve the fate that is coming. Very sad.

    • Replies: @HammerJack

    Do people not realize these ME wars have put almost 6 trillion onto the national debt? For WHAT?
     
    For the pleasure of our Ruling Class, of course. There's no such thing as a war which is not favored by the ruling class. Sadly, history also shows few examples of ruling classes which do not favor wars. It's that 'absolute power' thing most likely.
  186. @Achmed E. Newman

    The lack of a populist right think-tank industry means he has nobody to fill White House staffing jobs,
     
    We don't need no steeenking theenk tanks, Senor, to quote an old movie line that doesn't apply, but still cracks me up. Nah, all it takes is common sense from a bunch of trusted friends/advisors, say from Trump's real estate business days. Wouldn't he have a ton of real friends?

    Sure, SFG, the think tank guys would come up with talking points with perfect wording and slogans and all. However, does Trump not remember the issues he campaigned on? It doesn't take Washington insiders, and you especially don't want those, as they couldn't be trusted, as seems obvious by now.

    If we have to rely on Trump having caught a certain newscast by Tucker Carlson to avoid war, that is pretty sad. It still beats the shape we'd have been in with the Hildabeast though. We know the evil that would have come out of her.

    I hear you, actually, and kind of agree. Thing is…I don’t think he has real friends. There’s no populist brain trust around him. His real estate buddies are all either ultra-Zionist warmongers (if they have opinions at all) or simply interested in making loads of money.

    I don’t think he really cares about immigration either. He correctly assessed it as an issue nobody wanted to touch and ran with it, but he could have very easily slapped e-Verify on employers back when he had both houses. Instead he went on tax cuts for rich people and trying to kick everyone off Obamacare.

    Better than Hillary? Yes, and I will vote for him again. But let’s not fool ourselves. I had a ringside seat to this guy’s foibles back in NYC for 20 years and he is interested mostly in money and attention. The point is to make sure the GOP becomes a nationalist party and limits immigration; we have leverage over a Republican (they need our votes), but not over a Democrat (and their base wants to see us defeated).

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    I don’t think he has real friends
     
    Same with Reagan. If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog. If he wins re-election he’ll have friends coming out his ears.
  187. @International Jew
    Those anti-ship missiles are the sitting ducks, if you get the drop on them.

    They don’t care. Life is a disappointment to them so they want America to suffer. They are literally no different than Westernized Russians. Life isn’t how they want it to so they support an external power. And to add icing to the cake Saker is actually a freaking Russian. Imagine abandoning your native country to move to the great Satan.

  188. @Anonymous
    Mind explaining what's so vital about the "Iran deal?"

    Are they the primo connection to the VIPs in ascendant superpower Afghanistan?

    Are they the primo connection to the VIPs in ascendant superpower Afghanistan?

    A superpower in heroin and pederasty. What else do they lead the world in?

  189. @Lot
    “We would be able to recover and stabilize, too, if not for having so many Third World immigrants dumped on us, with the apparent acquiescence of the Self-Promoter-in-Chief whom we elected to turn things around.”

    Given the ~8% rate of interracial births for whites, stabilization of the white U.S. population would require white TFR of about 2.4. And that’s assuming the rate doesn’t keep increasing.

    I don’t want the white US population to decline, so I favor massive natalist policies focused on the middle class, ending all third world migration and deporting illegals, and opening the US to Eastern European migration.

    I don’t think Europeans, even Eastern Europeans whose countries aren’t as rich, are dying to come here. Eastern Europeans would rather go to Western Europe than juggle 3 jobs, get fat commuting in a car all day and eating junk food, and worry themselves sick over losing health insurance if they lose their job.

    Things were different 100 years ago when we had higher wages. But now…?

  190. @L Woods

    I like white America a whole bunch,
     
    Good god, why. Have you even looked at it lately?

    So, whine with your blackpill, sir?

  191. @IHTG
    Those wars don't have to be disasters, just as Putin's Syria intervention isn't a disaster for Russia.

    The United States just doesn't seem to know how to fight in these regions. The 19th century Brits would have divide-and-conquered the shit out of Iraq.

    But the American people in the early 2000s could be excused for believing their army knew what it was doing.

    I actually agree. Sure, we could win a war with Iran. But why bother? Why get a few thousand of our boys killed and a few tens of thousands coming home with missing limbs and brain damage?

    I’m not as anti-Israel as most of the people here–I think they have a right to exist and prefer them to most of their enemies–but we don’t need to be killing their enemies for them.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    This is the correct point of view. Screw Israel and screw their neighbors. But at what point of provocation does the pendulum switch. Most people here wouldn’t retaliate if Iran tried to sink an aircraft carrier in international waters because fundamentally they resent America because their lives were disappointing.
    , @Mr. Anon

    I actually agree. Sure, we could win a war with Iran. But why bother? Why get a few thousand of our boys killed and a few tens of thousands coming home with missing limbs and brain damage?
     
    When was the last the United States won a war? Kuwait, I suppose, which had limited war aims and unusually favorable geo-political circumstances, given the state of the Soviet Union. Fighting Iran wouldn't be as easy as fighting Iraq. And who is to say that any war would remain limited to Iran? Who knows where an extended shooting war in Iran might lead? It could bring us into conflict with Russia or China. It could lead to WWIII.
  192. @SteveM
    This is a repost of a comment I made at the related Saker article:

    Yes, it’s reported that the Pentagon advised Trump not to retaliate militarily for the drone shoot down.

    Given advanced missile technologies, surface warships of any stripe are sitting ducks. I’m guessing that Iran has a plethora of missile batteries up and down its coast. If Iran launched a barrage of missiles simultaneously (10? 20? 30?) at a single surface warship in the Persian Gulf, what would be the probability that the ship’s self-defense systems could neutralize them all?

    If a single multi-billion dollar warship were sunk, the credibility of U.S. naval “power projection” would evaporate. In that context, the Pentagon’s reluctance may be because they’d rather not establish that their hyper-expensive blue-water surface Navy is an anachronism.
     

    The Pentagon lost a $150 Million drone to the Iranians. Could they be getting gun shy about losing War Toys against an adversary that can effectively shoot back?

    Maybe but I wouldn’t base it on Florida based third Rome apologist Saker. Saker has been saying an aircraft carrier is going to get sunk for going on twenty years. If he had any honor he’d have joined the Russian navy and worked his out to command of a small boat and tried to sink one by now. But he mostly just masturbates to shirt less pics of Putin.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "But he mostly just masturbates to shirt less pics of Putin."

    The commenting style of a man sure of his facts.
  193. @International Jew
    Ok, admit it, the main reason most of you are so giddy is that Iran is the enemy of your enemy, Israel.

    If a $130 million piece of USAF equipment got shot down elsewhere — say, by Mexico while monitoring our border — you'd be able to engage your rational brains. And then you'd grasp (1) that all-out war and doing nothing are not our only choices, and (2) we should at the least expect compensation for the cost of the craft.

    No, Iran would not escalate against us. The Israeli Air Force bombs Iranian targets in Syria all the time, and there's no escalation. E.g.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46941717

    Israel is not my enemy. But we don’t need to be doing their dirty work for them.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    Fine, we shouldn't. Though I think our presence in the Persian Gulf has a lot more to do with protecting Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Emirates. It's they, not Israel, that get us to fight their wars.

    In any event, that $130 million drone didn't belong to Israel, or to the Saudis et al. It was ours. You ok with us just letting that go?
  194. @prime noticer
    Trump calls off immigration raids?!?!?

    TRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMPPP!!!!!

    Ann Coulter has him pegged to a T.

  195. @SFG
    I actually agree. Sure, we could win a war with Iran. But why bother? Why get a few thousand of our boys killed and a few tens of thousands coming home with missing limbs and brain damage?

    I'm not as anti-Israel as most of the people here--I think they have a right to exist and prefer them to most of their enemies--but we don't need to be killing their enemies for them.

    This is the correct point of view. Screw Israel and screw their neighbors. But at what point of provocation does the pendulum switch. Most people here wouldn’t retaliate if Iran tried to sink an aircraft carrier in international waters because fundamentally they resent America because their lives were disappointing.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Most people here wouldn’t retaliate if Iran tried to sink an aircraft carrier in international waters because fundamentally they resent America because their lives were disappointing.
     
    Perhaps you believe horses**t like that because - fundamentally - your life is disappointing.

    As to me - my life is fine. My only disappointment is the often low quality of commenters here. Commenters like you.
  196. @AnotherDad

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz “accidentally” shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.
     
    Why the scare quotes around "accidentally".

    It was obviously accidental in the normal meaning of the word. I.e. no one meant to shoot down an airliner. It was a huge black eye for the United States which has just spent the last couple of years scoring propaganda points bashing the Soviets for recklessly shooting down Korean Air 007. Then we screwed up and shot down an Iranian airliner.

    If it wasn't accidental then it would have been an ingenuously clever consipracy by the Iranians or the Russians who paid Capt. Rogers to be a bozo to disagrace the United States, as they were the beneficiaries.

    No. People screw up all the time. Militaries have guns and bombs and missiles, when they screw up it's ugly.

    It was a huge black eye

    for all the people aboard.

  197. @AnotherDad

    We Americans of European-Christian origin, meanwhile, have been slowly losing population for several years, and are probably currently at 188 million. We would be able to recover and stabilize, too, if not for having so many Third World immigrants dumped on us, with the apparent acquiescence of the Self-Promoter-in-Chief whom we elected to turn things around.
     
    Well said, Hail.

    We are currently undergoing a radical selection for women who can reproduce in our new environment of prosperity, the Pill, feminism and now the smart phone. That's a lot of disruption, but ... we'd get through it eventually.

    But immigration is just killing--literally killing, in surpressing our births--us. Both surpressing our recovery and overwhelming us before we can recover.

    The pill is so new it will soon qualify for Medicare. Do the boomercons around here even read what you write?

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    I always do. Read you too.
  198. @SFG
    I hear you, actually, and kind of agree. Thing is...I don't think he has real friends. There's no populist brain trust around him. His real estate buddies are all either ultra-Zionist warmongers (if they have opinions at all) or simply interested in making loads of money.

    I don't think he really cares about immigration either. He correctly assessed it as an issue nobody wanted to touch and ran with it, but he could have very easily slapped e-Verify on employers back when he had both houses. Instead he went on tax cuts for rich people and trying to kick everyone off Obamacare.

    Better than Hillary? Yes, and I will vote for him again. But let's not fool ourselves. I had a ringside seat to this guy's foibles back in NYC for 20 years and he is interested mostly in money and attention. The point is to make sure the GOP becomes a nationalist party and limits immigration; we have leverage over a Republican (they need our votes), but not over a Democrat (and their base wants to see us defeated).

    I don’t think he has real friends

    Same with Reagan. If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog. If he wins re-election he’ll have friends coming out his ears.

  199. @IHTG
    The belief that Tucker Carlson is a secret antisemite is an amusing new minor far-right belief.

    IHTG:

    It is open to debate whether or not Carlson is a card-carrying antisemite. Even though he carefully treads the line, it is obvious that Tucker at the very least is a disciple of Mearsheimer & Walt in their no-holds-barred evaluation of Israel and its contingent US fifth column.

    • Replies: @SFG
    I've seen no evidence of his being antisemitic/countersemitic. He's not antiwhite, and he is anti-immigration and turning into an economic populist, but just because he agrees with people here on a lot of 'national question' issues doesn't mean he actually hates Jews per se. I mean, Bernie Sanders was relatively pro-Palestinian compared to the other candidates, was certainly an economic populist, and even made occasional anti-immigration noises. I suspect Carlson is sick of Middle East wars, but that doesn't mean he wants to shoot up any synagogues.He'd probably be willing to join Netanyahu in a 'nationalist international' with Orban and, say, Farage as long as we weren't getting dragged into wars, though I haven't been studying the guy *that* closely.

    For that matter, I doubt Walt and Mearsheimer themselves are antisemitic. I actually read their book, and they point out most American Jews were liberals who opposed the Iraq War. The neocons in the Bush White House are a separate, ideologically distinct group.

  200. MOVIE PITCH: ex-president and former sec.of state conspire with enemy country to provoke a little war before election in order to derail popular and dynamic sitting president …….no ending ….yet

  201. @International Jew
    In his Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson argues that acquiring those new territories led to the Civil War. The slave states saw that there'd soon be about a dozen new senators lined up against them, and that intensified the sense that the walls were closing in.

    Fair enough. It would probably have made more political (geographical notwithstanding) sense to extend the original states westward.

  202. @Lot
    Tucker likes the right kind of cohen!

    https://twitter.com/YairNetanyahu/status/1137111643064848388

    Every American tax-payer is a big supporter of Israel. Whether they want to be or not.

  203. @IHTG
    The belief that Tucker Carlson is a secret antisemite is an amusing new minor far-right belief.

    Whereas the belief that anyone is an anti-semit who is remotely critical of Israel or the actions of some Jewish Americans is as old as the Hills.

  204. @Sam Haysom
    This is the correct point of view. Screw Israel and screw their neighbors. But at what point of provocation does the pendulum switch. Most people here wouldn’t retaliate if Iran tried to sink an aircraft carrier in international waters because fundamentally they resent America because their lives were disappointing.

    Most people here wouldn’t retaliate if Iran tried to sink an aircraft carrier in international waters because fundamentally they resent America because their lives were disappointing.

    Perhaps you believe horses**t like that because – fundamentally – your life is disappointing.

    As to me – my life is fine. My only disappointment is the often low quality of commenters here. Commenters like you.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    Lol nerve struck. And you were precisely one of the people I was referring to. The frustration oozes from every comment you make. It’s what separates the happy warrior palecons like Pat B from the sourpusses like you.
  205. @Buzz Mohawk

    Ok, admit it, the main reason most of you are so giddy is that Iran is the enemy of your enemy, Israel.

    If a $130 million piece of USAF equipment got shot down elsewhere — say, by Mexico while monitoring our border — you’d be able to engage your rational brains. And then you’d grasp (1) that all-out war and doing nothing are not our only choices, and (2) we should at the least expect compensation for the cost of the craft.

    No, Iran would not escalate against us. The Israeli Air Force bombs Iranian targets in Syria all the time, and there’s no escalation.
     

    Okay, admit it, International Jew, the main reason you are so upset with the commenters here is that Iran is the enemy of your friend, Israel.

    If a $130 million piece of Israeli Air Force equipment got shot down elsewhere -- say, by some hoodlums or even false flagger Mossad agents in Gaza, you'd be so enraged that you would support the bombing of women and children there.

    No, we do not want to fight your wars for you. Since the Israeli Air Force bombs Iranian targets in Syria all the time, it can bomb Iran itself -- and surely, as you would say, Iran will not escalate against it..

    Good smackdown.

  206. @Reg Cæsar

    Thursday night with only 10 minutes to spare to avoid the estimated deaths of as many as 150 people.
     
    150?! That's three or four orders of magnitude below that of that other president whose name began with Trum-.

    And it didn't happen.

    The other president. Had to look that up!

  207. @SFG
    I actually agree. Sure, we could win a war with Iran. But why bother? Why get a few thousand of our boys killed and a few tens of thousands coming home with missing limbs and brain damage?

    I'm not as anti-Israel as most of the people here--I think they have a right to exist and prefer them to most of their enemies--but we don't need to be killing their enemies for them.

    I actually agree. Sure, we could win a war with Iran. But why bother? Why get a few thousand of our boys killed and a few tens of thousands coming home with missing limbs and brain damage?

    When was the last the United States won a war? Kuwait, I suppose, which had limited war aims and unusually favorable geo-political circumstances, given the state of the Soviet Union. Fighting Iran wouldn’t be as easy as fighting Iraq. And who is to say that any war would remain limited to Iran? Who knows where an extended shooting war in Iran might lead? It could bring us into conflict with Russia or China. It could lead to WWIII.

  208. Iran will add to its ‘collection of downed drones’ if US border violations continue – IRGC commander

    Haha, joke’s on them. We don’t believe in borders.

  209. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Interesting, what sort of things do you think Tucker cohen't talk about on TV? Why do you think he cohen't discuss them?

    Interesting, what sort of things do you think Tucker cohen’t talk about on TV?

    Your argument is sound but your writing is barely coherent.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Your argument is sound but your writing is barely coherent.

    I think it's quite cohenerent.
    , @BengaliCanadianDude
    Wrong, his writing is quite coherent and easily understandable
  210. @Anonymous
    I’m astounded. I cannot imagine why Americans would want anything to do with an Iran war. Are the American people insane?

    Do people not realize these ME wars have put almost 6 trillion onto the national debt? For WHAT?

    I thought people were tired of this nonsense, and this is why Trump was elected?

    America will fully deserve the fate that is coming. Very sad.

    Do people not realize these ME wars have put almost 6 trillion onto the national debt? For WHAT?

    For the pleasure of our Ruling Class, of course. There’s no such thing as a war which is not favored by the ruling class. Sadly, history also shows few examples of ruling classes which do not favor wars. It’s that ‘absolute power’ thing most likely.

  211. Interesting times.

  212. @Desiderius
    The pill is so new it will soon qualify for Medicare. Do the boomercons around here even read what you write?

    I always do. Read you too.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Much appreciated. Just wish we could get AnotherDad to sober up and focus.
  213. Trump just announced (tweeted, probably) that Operation Wetback 2019 – the big ICE raid – which he has been foolishly touting for a week – is now off. He will instead negotiate with foreign trespassers who are here illegally.

    Remarkably, the reality TV show host / WWE-fan we elected President turned out to be a shallow, unserious blowhard.

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Trump just announced (tweeted, probably) that Operation Wetback 2019 – the big ICE raid – which he has been foolishly touting for a week – is now off. He will instead negotiate with foreign trespassers who are here illegally.
     
    It is becoming hilariously funny.

    What seems to be happening is that Trump suffers from sundowner's syndrome and is staying up all night on Twitter declaring wars, bombings, summits, imminent invasions, tariffs, pogroms, etc. then when his staff and family wake up in the morning, they are scrambling to cancel the latest atrocity, write a few lines that make Trump look good for public consumption and pretend that all is well in the ̶M̶a̶d̶ White House.
  214. SFG says:
    @Dan Hayes
    IHTG:

    It is open to debate whether or not Carlson is a card-carrying antisemite. Even though he carefully treads the line, it is obvious that Tucker at the very least is a disciple of Mearsheimer & Walt in their no-holds-barred evaluation of Israel and its contingent US fifth column.

    I’ve seen no evidence of his being antisemitic/countersemitic. He’s not antiwhite, and he is anti-immigration and turning into an economic populist, but just because he agrees with people here on a lot of ‘national question’ issues doesn’t mean he actually hates Jews per se. I mean, Bernie Sanders was relatively pro-Palestinian compared to the other candidates, was certainly an economic populist, and even made occasional anti-immigration noises. I suspect Carlson is sick of Middle East wars, but that doesn’t mean he wants to shoot up any synagogues.He’d probably be willing to join Netanyahu in a ‘nationalist international’ with Orban and, say, Farage as long as we weren’t getting dragged into wars, though I haven’t been studying the guy *that* closely.

    For that matter, I doubt Walt and Mearsheimer themselves are antisemitic. I actually read their book, and they point out most American Jews were liberals who opposed the Iraq War. The neocons in the Bush White House are a separate, ideologically distinct group.

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    SFG:

    Listening to what Tucker says and and more importantly doesn't say (but alludes to), I believe that he believes like Mearsheimeer & Walt that the pro-Israel lobby exerts an inordinate and ultimately pernicious influence on this country's foreign policy! And rest assured that Carlson would be thrown off the air if he publicly acknowledged his agreement with M & W!
  215. SFG says:
    @Real Buddy Ray
    Even if there were populist right people available to staff the administration, Jared would never let them through. Trump did have populists like that once, Bannon, Hicks, Lewandowski and to a certain degree Kelley. They were all summarily ousted by the Trump whisperer. Kushner talked Trump out of the recent tariffs on Mexico (Daily Beast). The president only threatened tariffs when Kushner was out of the country. The threat ended when Kushner came back.

    Populists can’t compete with a guy who is married to Trump’s favorite daughter. And no true center right populist is going to line up with Jared’s view of the world. As Kushner Inc revealed, Jared is extremely sensitive about Israel. He supposedly disliked Christie for not letting a rabbi handle what he thought was a family matter. He assuredly doesn’t want anyone in the administration who isn’t as sensitive on Israel as him. That’s why we have Bolton and Pompeo even though Tillerson was in the cusp of peace with NKorea. Haley made sure to praise Kushner on her way out. Kanye talked primarily to Kushner in the Oval Office meeting, not Trump. And look what got done. The Mexicans talked to Kushner to get Trump to back down off the tariffs (Daily Beast). Center right populists have sympathy for the Palestinians. And even though the media despises them, they abhor journalists being chopped up. Kushner wanted to “weather the storm.” Probably because of the alliance with Israel. It was this very site where I read about the Good Friday massacre where hundreds of Palestinian protesters were shot for practicing free speech. No good center right populists could go along with that.

    You’re probably right about Kushner and Israel, although I suspect the real problem with immigration is not Jared but Ivanka.

    Also, Kushner didn’t hate Christie because of some rabbi. He hates Christie because he put his dad in jail. I’d hate Christie too.

    I’m also not so sure about center-right populists having more sympathy with the Palestinians; from what I’ve seen on the comments boards of relatively mainstream sites like Fox News and Breitbart, they are vaguely pro-Israel unless US interests are threatened (America first, as one would expect from a proper righty populist). Outside of the alt-right, Muslims are worse than Jews, and Israel is admired for its military strength, etc.

    Alt-right populists are a different story, of course.

  216. @Anon
    If you haven’t listened to Tucker’s book Ship of Fools you must. You’ll be blown away by it. Tucker narrates it himself. I started listening to it one day and couldn’t stop. Imagine a book discussing everything from the ruling elites to immigration to Silicon Valley to neocon wars which is even more powerful than his opening monologue. This was one of the best books I’ve ever read/listened to and plan to read and listen to it many more times.

    Just listen to the sample:

    https://www.audible.com/pd/Ship-of-Fools-Audiobook/B074TZDPQG?qid=1561222868&sr=1-1&pf_rd_p=e81b7c27-6880-467a-b5a7-13cef5d729fe&pf_rd_r=9XEW9CN3DFJQ7G3HERQT&ref=a_search_c3_lProduct_1_1

    I recommend the book highly. Between Tucker on the right and Bernie and Warren on the left we could really start reining in the banks and getting Middle East wars under control.

  217. 2 groups of influential people in the firing line. Israel from Lebanon. US military Grandees living an opulent lifestyle in Bahrain and Qatar. My guess is The 2 stopped Trump assuming Trump actually ordered it, which I doubt. The US military regularly disobeys presidential orders the US military does not like. What happened to the Syria withdrawal.

  218. @SFG
    I've seen no evidence of his being antisemitic/countersemitic. He's not antiwhite, and he is anti-immigration and turning into an economic populist, but just because he agrees with people here on a lot of 'national question' issues doesn't mean he actually hates Jews per se. I mean, Bernie Sanders was relatively pro-Palestinian compared to the other candidates, was certainly an economic populist, and even made occasional anti-immigration noises. I suspect Carlson is sick of Middle East wars, but that doesn't mean he wants to shoot up any synagogues.He'd probably be willing to join Netanyahu in a 'nationalist international' with Orban and, say, Farage as long as we weren't getting dragged into wars, though I haven't been studying the guy *that* closely.

    For that matter, I doubt Walt and Mearsheimer themselves are antisemitic. I actually read their book, and they point out most American Jews were liberals who opposed the Iraq War. The neocons in the Bush White House are a separate, ideologically distinct group.

    SFG:

    Listening to what Tucker says and and more importantly doesn’t say (but alludes to), I believe that he believes like Mearsheimeer & Walt that the pro-Israel lobby exerts an inordinate and ultimately pernicious influence on this country’s foreign policy! And rest assured that Carlson would be thrown off the air if he publicly acknowledged his agreement with M & W!

  219. Hail says: • Website
    @YetAnotherAnon
    "by 21st century Q3, population decline is expected to begin in earnest, perhaps making for zero net population"

    The trees don't grow up to the sky. Just because Iran's population is falling now, doesn't mean it'll carry on to zero.

    Sorry, there was a typo in there; should have read:

    by 21st century Q3, population decline [in Iran] is expected to begin in earnest, perhaps making for zero net population growth [between the] late 20th century to late 21st century.

    So, that would be

    Iran population
    1950: 17m
    1970: 28.5m
    1990: 56m
    2010: 74m
    2030: 88.5m
    2050: 85-90m?
    2070: 75-90m?
    2090: 60-85m?

    the 1990s to 2090s could well have net zero growth. Any predictions about the 2090s are (obviously) necessarily uncertain. These are UN projections.

  220. @Anon
    If you haven’t listened to Tucker’s book Ship of Fools you must. You’ll be blown away by it. Tucker narrates it himself. I started listening to it one day and couldn’t stop. Imagine a book discussing everything from the ruling elites to immigration to Silicon Valley to neocon wars which is even more powerful than his opening monologue. This was one of the best books I’ve ever read/listened to and plan to read and listen to it many more times.

    Just listen to the sample:

    https://www.audible.com/pd/Ship-of-Fools-Audiobook/B074TZDPQG?qid=1561222868&sr=1-1&pf_rd_p=e81b7c27-6880-467a-b5a7-13cef5d729fe&pf_rd_r=9XEW9CN3DFJQ7G3HERQT&ref=a_search_c3_lProduct_1_1

    Thanks…. I need stuff to listen to while exercising.

  221. @reiner Tor

    By the way, if the US drone really had been shot down over international waters shouldn’t we have expected some good evidence for that by now?
     
    Yes. The video released by Iran seems consistent with the idea that it all happened over Iranian airspace. It doesn’t look very far from the coast (from where the missile was launched), so that’s what I’d guess.

    The F.U.S.A. is constantly violating others’ airspace to spy, sending in spooks and special operators to meddle, and so on, but the minute they’re found out or confronted they put their hands in their pockets, stare at their shoes, and start whistling.

    Imagine if Iranian (Chinese…whatever) ships were constantly farting around just off the coast of Maryland or their birds were zooming around over the Aleutians.

    Would there by a calm, measured attitude in Washington about the principled importance of freedom of the seas and such?

  222. No one believes the US military lies about the alleged Iranian attacks against Japanese shipping and the RQ-4 drone being downed while in international airspace. That is why Trump plays good cop to Bolton’s bad cop. The next US-Israeli-Emerati operation will have to be more spectacular: such as the downed Malaysian airliner that Kiev ATC routed over a combat zone to be shot down by Ukraine in order to blame Russia in 2014. The next operation will also need to include American casualties to garner hope of any retaliatory support in the US.

  223. @istevefan
    First, thank goodness Bill O'Reilly lost his show and freed up that timeslot for Tucker.

    Second, will this cause a rift between Hannity and Tucker? Sean is literally foaming at the mouth for a war with Iran. What's the tension like when those two walk down the same hall?

    I’m cynical enough not to be surprised if it turns out otherwise, but I think Carlson really is a pretty principled dude sick of the baloney, and he’s ten times smarter then the other talking heads (of whatever persuasion).

    Note how he openly mocked Bolton when that loser appeared on Carslon’s show, even though Bolton was “just down the hall” five minutes ago at Fox – one of Carlson’s jabs was even that Bolton’s ilk drift from incompetent work in government to work as cable news contributors!

    Carlson also regularly points out how all these characters put their pants on one leg at a time, pointing out often to guests that he knows where they live, he lives in the same neighbourhood, and the guests are filthy rich, etc. – he never lets them play the “just plain folks” card, never mind the “I am an oppressed Person of Many Colours reppin’ my people from the hood (barrio…whatever…).

    No, I think Carlson has enough money to never have to work again and really has decided to opt out of the mendacity. He censors himself to the extent he does not from greed or fear, but because he knows he can so more good for what he believes in with his show than without it.

  224. @Carol
    He was a voice in the wilderness for a long time. Now he's happy, smiling, one of the few shows I don't mind "watching" while reading isteve.

    Limbaugh and Levin are also very unhappy, and sniping at Carlson. Lol.

    It's always 1939, it's always Munich.

    Levin can only be described as shrill.

    He’s even literally (i.e., sonically) shrill; his screeching voice hurts my ears. He acts like a g–damned female.

    Limbaugh is just doddering anymore. He’s more interested in golf and football than politics and such. He should have retired long ago. I’ve also always been a little suspect about what he values because he had like three wives and never had children. Unless he has a medical condition making him infertile, that’s just weird….

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Both Limbaugh and Levin have very different personnae on Radio vs. on TV.

    Limbaugh has his patented blustering arrogant jerk personality on the radio, but whenever I've seen him interviewed on TV, he comes across as modest, sober, and usually has some pretty good insights.

    By the same token, Levin - on the radio - comes across as a shrieking lunatic (as you say). However, on TV, he isn't bad. His politics is too Con Inc. for my taste, but he is solid on some stuff. His TV show features hour-long interviews, often with interesting subjects, and which can be pretty good.
  225. @L Woods
    Not strictly speaking true: large firms will have political risk and government relations arms. It’s not easy to get those jobs though, it’s true. And poli sci isn’t the least selective social science; that honor has to go to sociology. And, a PhD from Duke would stand a good chance at an academic career.

    Government relations work and “political risk” work (what a goofy term; I’ve never encountered it but I’m going with it) – both known as lobbying in plain English – is done by lawyers and M.B.A.-types from outfits like McKinsey, Boston Consulting, Edelman, Ketchum, etc.

    Although some number of the lawyers doubtless got worthless undergraduate degrees in political science, they wised up before wasting their time on doctorates in this phony discipline, realising the money was in Yale’s law school or an M.B.A. from Harvard.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    “Political risk” refers to what’s basically private intelligence: country assessments, political trend analysis, etc. There are standalone companies that do this (eg Eurasia Group, Kroll, Aeon), and large corporations also often have their own internal shop. They hire IR/poli sci degree holders (not exclusively, but frequently). I’d never recommend somebody get that sort of degree, but their prospects aren’t quite as dismal as certain people take apparent glee in believing.
  226. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Most high-level executives don't like to read. They'd rather be meeting, talking, analyzing, being briefed, and making decisions.

    A thousand times this!

    Executives read less than Chris Rock’s “n—–.”

    You can make a major point the first sentence in the executive summary on the front page of a memo. Then, at the meeting to discuss the memo, after shamelessly announcing he reqd the memo with interest and is looking forward to discussing it with you, the executive will ask as his first question exactly what was answered unambiguously as that major point in the first sentence of the executive summary.

    They are douchebags.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Like everybody else, some are, some aren't.

    Chief executives are not there to fret over details and pore over dense text and spreadsheets. That's why they hire you, to do the analysis and brief them so they can make a decision according to the general principles they've accrued from back when they did what you're doing. It's the 30,000-foot view, to use some shopworn but correct corporatespeak.
  227. @AnotherDad

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz “accidentally” shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.
     
    Why the scare quotes around "accidentally".

    It was obviously accidental in the normal meaning of the word. I.e. no one meant to shoot down an airliner. It was a huge black eye for the United States which has just spent the last couple of years scoring propaganda points bashing the Soviets for recklessly shooting down Korean Air 007. Then we screwed up and shot down an Iranian airliner.

    If it wasn't accidental then it would have been an ingenuously clever consipracy by the Iranians or the Russians who paid Capt. Rogers to be a bozo to disagrace the United States, as they were the beneficiaries.

    No. People screw up all the time. Militaries have guns and bombs and missiles, when they screw up it's ugly.

    No. People screw up all the time. Militaries have guns and bombs and missiles, when they screw up it’s ugly.

    Yes, I don’t think it was done intentionally; it was an accident. Although that might not make much difference to the Iranians. As you say, militaries screw up sometimes, and the results are horrific. Jack Cashill and others have made a pretty good case that the US Navy accidentally shot down one of our own airliners in 1996.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Militaries constantly go right up to the border to get the other side to switch on its air defenses so they can map where they are. Sometimes they go across the border, by accident or intent.
  228. @guest
    Oh, he wants to be "process-oriented?" What Managerial State gobbledygook.

    Trump is a politician. These guys are bureaucrats. They are at war with eachother in the best of circumstances. But when you have someone like Trump who is an outsider to their world and has at least talked about confronting them head-on (drain the swamp), of course they don't want to work for him. Which means they cast about for professional differences and differences of personality, but a couple things:

    Firstly, we know Trump was a real estate mogul with a vast empire of employees doing stuff for him. Maybe it didn't run like your beloved Exxon-Mobile, but it ran.

    Secondly, has Tillerson read a political biography? Like ever? Was Obama "disciplined and highly process-oriented?" Maybe when he ran his community organizing racket. But try listening to the people inside that White House.

    Oh, but the Managerial State and Obama were on the same side politically. I forgot.

    Okay, what would have happened had Tillerson found himself working under Prime Minister Churchill? Probably would've drowned the old lush in his tub.

    Good points.

    Tillerson wanted to work with Woodrow Wilson.

    Instead he had to work with (a cowardly, unprincipled, stupid version of) Andrew Jackson….

  229. @Cagey Beast
    https://twitter.com/walid970721/status/1142393069423288321

    On a daily basis, Sean Hannity excoriates Joe Biden for saying sensible things about race back in the 1970s, like opposing forced busing or arguing that desegregating schools isn’t going to make blacks learn better. A firm proponent of the DR3 cause, Hannity thinks the race realism Biden once expressed is disgusting. Joe even noticed that most convenience stores are run by people from India–can you imagine? How dare he!

    Too bad Joe is such a shameless opportunist that he now toes the SJW line. If he had maintained those views I wouldn’t mind him much as president.

    Hannity is an embarrassment.

    • Agree: William Badwhite
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Hannity is an embarrassment.
     
    Lawrence Auster summed up Sean Hannity pretty well: "He looks stupid. He sounds stupid. He is stupid."
    , @Reg Cæsar

    the DR3 cause
     
    It needs to be be upped to DR4, the fourth R being "and right". Not that we should take a position. Make them take a position.

    There is no position they can win with. If opposing busing was right, why did Joe abandon it?
    If it was wrong, does that mean he supports busing's return? How popular is that?

    Do they agree with the starboard side of the Supreme Court that black men should have the same access to firearms as do white men, or with the Founding Fathers that such thought belongs in the lunatic asylum?


    Again, hold off taking a position until you force them to. Tell them you're waiting to analyze their reasoning so yours can be better informed.
  230. @Bill B.
    This book, worth skimming, blames partly Jared and Ivanka for his lousy picks.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1250185947/ref=tmm_hrd_title_sr?ie=UTF8&qid=1561236470&sr=8-1

    This book, worth skimming, blames partly Jared and Ivanka for his lousy picks.

    And who picked Jared and Ivanka as advisors on policy and personnel? That’s all on the Donald himself.

  231. @Harry Baldwin
    On a daily basis, Sean Hannity excoriates Joe Biden for saying sensible things about race back in the 1970s, like opposing forced busing or arguing that desegregating schools isn't going to make blacks learn better. A firm proponent of the DR3 cause, Hannity thinks the race realism Biden once expressed is disgusting. Joe even noticed that most convenience stores are run by people from India--can you imagine? How dare he!

    Too bad Joe is such a shameless opportunist that he now toes the SJW line. If he had maintained those views I wouldn't mind him much as president.

    Hannity is an embarrassment.

    Hannity is an embarrassment.

    Lawrence Auster summed up Sean Hannity pretty well: “He looks stupid. He sounds stupid. He is stupid.”

    • LOL: vinteuil
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Mr. Anon:

    Both Larry Auster and Sam Francis had quirky personalities.
    Each in their own right were valued political thinkers.
    Both are sorely missed!
    , @Used Care Salesman

    Lawrence Auster summed up Sean Hannity pretty well: “He looks stupid. He sounds stupid. He is stupid.”
     
    Ha ha! Despite his philo-Judiasm, I miss Lawrence Auster. His takedown wit was something to cherish.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    I miss Auster. Granted, I didn't agree with him on everything, but that's a stupid proviso to add because I don't agree with anyone on everything, including myself from five years ago. He had a brilliant mind and he strongly influenced my thinking on a number of subjects.
  232. @bucky
    Army culture and army reasoning is largely honor based. So yes, even from the left flank it all revolves around honor.

    More to the point, I've met the shitlib in the army who is pro-islam, but the reasoning is really stupid. It is anecdotal about the one or two honorable Muslims who serves in the armed forces.

    I have yet to meet one who is critical of Israel, or who puts two and two together on why the Muslim world hates us because of Israel.

    Muslims were attacking our ships and taking our sailors as slaves 130 years before Israel existed.

    • Replies: @bucky
    How many Army men know this history?

    Muslims have been antagonists in history, and also they have been cordial in their dealings with us. One of the cornerstones of modern US power is Saudi oil.
  233. @Mr. Anon

    Most people here wouldn’t retaliate if Iran tried to sink an aircraft carrier in international waters because fundamentally they resent America because their lives were disappointing.
     
    Perhaps you believe horses**t like that because - fundamentally - your life is disappointing.

    As to me - my life is fine. My only disappointment is the often low quality of commenters here. Commenters like you.

    Lol nerve struck. And you were precisely one of the people I was referring to. The frustration oozes from every comment you make. It’s what separates the happy warrior palecons like Pat B from the sourpusses like you.

    • Agree: Thomm
    • Replies: @L Woods
    As opposed of course to you, a certified internet winner. The point of your interwebs posturing is what? Could it be...to make yourself feel better about your empty life? Gee, inane shaming language goes both ways doesn’t it? Imagine that.
  234. @Lot
    “PhD in political science from Duke, where his PhD thesis was Martin Heidegger’s Mathematical Dialectic: Uncovering the Structure of Modernity.”

    I have nothing against Beattie, but this isn’t impressive at all. Political science is the least selective of the social sciences* and Duke’s is third tier. The undergraduate degree (Math U Chicago) is much more impressive.

    Getting a poly sci PhD with a thesis about Heidegger from Duke shows questionable judgment in general.

    *Poli sci is a popular though declining undergraduate major, minor and elective topic, so universities enroll lots of Ph.D. students to teach them, even though few will ever get academic jobs and the degree is worthless in the private sector.

    I’m no fan of contemporary political science which is obsessed with trivia and aspergers-oriented number crunching to solve meaningless puzzles about the ‘precise’ but ephemeral conditions under which certain groups of morons vote for certain groups of parasites.

    But ‘least selective social science’? No way. Definitely more selective than sociology, anthropology, communications, social psychology and the like. Less selective than economics of course but actually a bit broader minded, and outside of the aspergers and social justice wings of poli sci (which control the apex positions), you’re more likely to encounter common sense in the discipline than in other social sciences (and no, that’s not saying much).

  235. anon[285] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ibound1
    I keep saying here: Trump is not going to war. It’s against his every instinct. It’s by far - by far- his greatest attribute. No surge, no invasion, no overthrows. Pat Buchanan and the rest of his ilk are insane with this Israel Neocon crap. He ain’t going to war.

    That’s not Trump! For that alone I am so grateful he is President. President Hillary would have been in a nuclear exchange by now. Just to show how tough she was.

    Trump’s instinct is to sell arms to the Saudis. More and more of them. And let them fight it out. Now that’s a good President. Of course the Buchananite idiots and the Left wing don’t like that either. I love it!

    I keep saying here: Trump is not going to war. It’s against his every instinct. It’s by far – by far- his greatest attribute. No surge, no invasion, no overthrows.

    I agree. He stalled and delayed and blustered and did nothing in Syria and let the Syrian government and the Russians win, which was exactly the right thing to do. He hasn’t sent US troops to Ukraine, something else Hillary would have done by now. He’s talked tough on Iran but he’s not invading.
    Give it time. This is how the US Empire fades away. And the end of the US Empire is how the US Nation gets revived.
    I will vote for Trump again because his instinct on war is to back off. And that is what we need now above all.

    • Agree: Ibound1, YetAnotherAnon
  236. @Harry Baldwin
    On a daily basis, Sean Hannity excoriates Joe Biden for saying sensible things about race back in the 1970s, like opposing forced busing or arguing that desegregating schools isn't going to make blacks learn better. A firm proponent of the DR3 cause, Hannity thinks the race realism Biden once expressed is disgusting. Joe even noticed that most convenience stores are run by people from India--can you imagine? How dare he!

    Too bad Joe is such a shameless opportunist that he now toes the SJW line. If he had maintained those views I wouldn't mind him much as president.

    Hannity is an embarrassment.

    the DR3 cause

    It needs to be be upped to DR4, the fourth R being “and right“. Not that we should take a position. Make them take a position.

    There is no position they can win with. If opposing busing was right, why did Joe abandon it?
    If it was wrong, does that mean he supports busing’s return? How popular is that?

    Do they agree with the starboard side of the Supreme Court that black men should have the same access to firearms as do white men, or with the Founding Fathers that such thought belongs in the lunatic asylum?

    Again, hold off taking a position until you force them to. Tell them you’re waiting to analyze their reasoning so yours can be better informed.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Blacks should be allowed to defend themselves but being as they possess poorer judgment the types of firearms they are allowed should perhaps be restricted.
  237. @L Woods

    I like white America a whole bunch,
     
    Good god, why. Have you even looked at it lately?

    Assuming, for the sale of argument, we are all the sort you lament (we are not): because they are our bastards.

    If my son grows up to disappoint me egregiously, he will still be immeasurably more precious to me than a Chinese astronaut.

    If you cannot understand that phenomenon, well…you have homework:

    https://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/05/steve-sailer-1998-race-is-extremely.html

  238. @Sam Haysom
    Lol nerve struck. And you were precisely one of the people I was referring to. The frustration oozes from every comment you make. It’s what separates the happy warrior palecons like Pat B from the sourpusses like you.

    As opposed of course to you, a certified internet winner. The point of your interwebs posturing is what? Could it be…to make yourself feel better about your empty life? Gee, inane shaming language goes both ways doesn’t it? Imagine that.

  239. @SteveM
    This is a repost of a comment I made at the related Saker article:

    Yes, it’s reported that the Pentagon advised Trump not to retaliate militarily for the drone shoot down.

    Given advanced missile technologies, surface warships of any stripe are sitting ducks. I’m guessing that Iran has a plethora of missile batteries up and down its coast. If Iran launched a barrage of missiles simultaneously (10? 20? 30?) at a single surface warship in the Persian Gulf, what would be the probability that the ship’s self-defense systems could neutralize them all?

    If a single multi-billion dollar warship were sunk, the credibility of U.S. naval “power projection” would evaporate. In that context, the Pentagon’s reluctance may be because they’d rather not establish that their hyper-expensive blue-water surface Navy is an anachronism.
     

    The Pentagon lost a $150 Million drone to the Iranians. Could they be getting gun shy about losing War Toys against an adversary that can effectively shoot back?

    Again with with the assured pronouncements of obsolescence and fragility for every surface ship in the world. Interestingly, always from someone with no discernible expertise or even experience of the matter.

    Again not one example, nor even an intelligent argument supporting the concept in theory.

    You lot are like toddlers in a sandbox arguing that a eagles “can so!” totally beat up tigers.

    Tired of refuting this nonsense myself, I offer the words of Tim Gould, a retired operations specialist who very much knows what he is talking about.

    (No; I’ve never heard of him; I just spent one minute to find another explanation of how this stuff actually works, since maybe something about how I explain it escapes people.)

  240. @Mr. Anon

    No. People screw up all the time. Militaries have guns and bombs and missiles, when they screw up it’s ugly.
     
    Yes, I don't think it was done intentionally; it was an accident. Although that might not make much difference to the Iranians. As you say, militaries screw up sometimes, and the results are horrific. Jack Cashill and others have made a pretty good case that the US Navy accidentally shot down one of our own airliners in 1996.

    Militaries constantly go right up to the border to get the other side to switch on its air defenses so they can map where they are. Sometimes they go across the border, by accident or intent.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    The Israelis did this in 1983. Sent in a bunch of drones, got the Syrians to turn on their SAM radars, then the Israelis blew them up. Syrian fighters scrambled in response had their radars jammed. They lost 82 aircraft; the Israelis lost none.

    A SEAD classic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19.
  241. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    the DR3 cause
     
    It needs to be be upped to DR4, the fourth R being "and right". Not that we should take a position. Make them take a position.

    There is no position they can win with. If opposing busing was right, why did Joe abandon it?
    If it was wrong, does that mean he supports busing's return? How popular is that?

    Do they agree with the starboard side of the Supreme Court that black men should have the same access to firearms as do white men, or with the Founding Fathers that such thought belongs in the lunatic asylum?


    Again, hold off taking a position until you force them to. Tell them you're waiting to analyze their reasoning so yours can be better informed.

    Blacks should be allowed to defend themselves but being as they possess poorer judgment the types of firearms they are allowed should perhaps be restricted.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Nerf guns and Super Soakers? (The latter invented by one of our great black inventors, fo' real!)
  242. Lot says:
    @AnotherDad

    Given the ~8% rate of interracial births for whites, stabilization of the white U.S. population would require white TFR of about 2.4. And that’s assuming the rate doesn’t keep increasing.

    I don’t want the white US population to decline, so I favor massive natalist policies focused on the middle class, ending all third world migration and deporting illegals, and opening the US to Eastern European migration.
     
    You're consistently strong on this Lot--good stuff.

    As i mentioned in response to Hail--and have said in several comments over the years--we're had a radical disruption of our environment. So we are now rapidly selecting for genotypes (esp. as expressed in women) that still reproduce in our new environment of prosperity and the Pill, feminism, facebook and phones. I believe this process would work out just fine--if we were left alone. But immigration is an attempt to kill us--jam the knife in--before we recover from the disruption.

    However, it's no doubt true that there are plenty of good ripe young women, whose genes really are fine, if it wasn't for hostile Hollyweird, media, academia, government bathing their brains with a toxic minoritarian, anti-white, anti-natal ideology. So i'm definitely on board with turbo-charging the recovery with explictly natalist policies. When women start seeing an official approved natalist narrative/culture, we should see a real fertility turnaround.

    ~~

    My one point of disagreement is immigration from Eastern Europe.

    Minor point--they need their people there. I expect down the road some rebellions in the West. (I got to think rural Scandis will at some point rebel and if nothing else separate.) But right now the East looks like the one place the White race may survive. I don't want to drain it.

    More importantly: The easy win is an immigration moratorium.

    Long run we have to win on HBD, race and culture, to win. But in terms of just turning the ship around--or at least stopping it from going over the falls--a moratorium works.

    And unlike an "immigration from Eastern Europe" policy, we can dodge all the racial issues with the simple call for a moratorium:
    -- No more cheap labor.
    -- American jobs for Americans.
    -- We have enough people. We want an uncrowded pleasant America.
    -- We want a pleasant, uncrowded, affordable America for ... Americans. For ourselves and our posterity.
    -- America belongs to Americans.

    Of course, saying (or thinking) that America--with a pop density still less than a neutron star--actually belongs to Americans, and we shouldn't have our nation taken from us and be genocided by a billion foreigners ... makes me "literally Hitler". But it's the kind of "Hitler" a lot of people can get behind.

    “So we are now rapidly selecting for genotypes (esp. as expressed in women) that still reproduce in our new environment of prosperity and the Pill, feminism, facebook and phones.”

    Also selecting for men who dislike condoms the most!

    Unfortunately I think that selection will be very slow, not rapid, because the fertility collapse is mostly cultural.

    Here’s a hypo that illustrates this: at some Beth Israel hospital in New York, sole child of two 40 year secular Jews gets switched with the 7th child of some black-hat ultra Orthodox family where 10 is the norm.

    How many kids are these two girls going to have? I’d bet heavily on nurture over nature and say the black hat girl raised by the seculars will have 1 and the secular born girl raised ultra orthodox will have many.

    I wonder how far away reliable and affordable artificial wombs are. That may be the killer app that brings up white fertility to above replacement.

    Regarding Eastern Europe, parts of it are so bleak I don’t want to tell them to “stay and take care of your own country.” A lot of them are leaving anyway, but going to Western Europe. The USA is less crowded, higher wage, and I think more open to Eastern Europeans generally.

    • Replies: @vinteuil

    Regarding Eastern Europe, parts of it are so bleak I don’t want to tell them to “stay and take care of your own country.”
     
    This is a great mystery to me. In the past few years, I've spent many months in Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, the Baltics, the Balkans, Romania, Poland & Russia (I'm presently in Moscow) - and I simply can't understand why so many here seem to find their prospects so bleak. The cities are gorgeous & safe, the countryside is beautiful, the people are attractive & well-educated - why, I keep asking, would anybody want to move away from all this, to a multicultural hell-hole like England or America?

    The only answer I ever get that makes any sense is: "because there are no jobs."

    But why are there no jobs?
  243. @Mr. Anon

    Hannity is an embarrassment.
     
    Lawrence Auster summed up Sean Hannity pretty well: "He looks stupid. He sounds stupid. He is stupid."

    Mr. Anon:

    Both Larry Auster and Sam Francis had quirky personalities.
    Each in their own right were valued political thinkers.
    Both are sorely missed!

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Agreed.
  244. @reiner Tor
    If there’s not going to be an Iran War, Tucker Carlson will deserve a statue for that alone. I don’t watch TV at all, certainly not American TV, but what I heard about his opinions, he seems as solid as a public figure in America could be. The best part is that he’s probably more solid than that, just smart enough to avoid disclosing things which could shut him out of TV.

    It’s good for us not to have another war. And great for the Iranian people–especially some Iranian boys who’d be killed, and their families.

    But I want to see Trump doing stuff that is great for Americans.

    The war on Americans–and more broadly, the West–invasion, conquest, replacement, continues apace.

    How about Trump stopping that war?

  245. Trump has made a good start. Now fire Bolton! No more wars for Israel…

    But if he really fears conflict with Iran, his best response is not to interfere god-knows-where-overseas-for-what-purpose, but to arrest the Fifth Column of Iranians who populate the US and are an ever present threat to the families of American service personnel n can sabotage American infrastructure with ease. There are so many dual citizen Iranians in the Us that they constitute an effective veto to Trump’s reelection chances.

    Multicult societies are by definition impotent abroad n defenseless at home, no matter what they spend on their military.

  246. @Mr. Anon

    Hannity is an embarrassment.
     
    Lawrence Auster summed up Sean Hannity pretty well: "He looks stupid. He sounds stupid. He is stupid."

    Lawrence Auster summed up Sean Hannity pretty well: “He looks stupid. He sounds stupid. He is stupid.”

    Ha ha! Despite his philo-Judiasm, I miss Lawrence Auster. His takedown wit was something to cherish.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  247. @Dan Hayes
    Mr. Anon:

    Both Larry Auster and Sam Francis had quirky personalities.
    Each in their own right were valued political thinkers.
    Both are sorely missed!

    Agreed.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  248. @Autochthon
    Levin can only be described as shrill.

    He's even literally (i.e., sonically) shrill; his screeching voice hurts my ears. He acts like a g--damned female.

    Limbaugh is just doddering anymore. He's more interested in golf and football than politics and such. He should have retired long ago. I've also always been a little suspect about what he values because he had like three wives and never had children. Unless he has a medical condition making him infertile, that's just weird....

    Both Limbaugh and Levin have very different personnae on Radio vs. on TV.

    Limbaugh has his patented blustering arrogant jerk personality on the radio, but whenever I’ve seen him interviewed on TV, he comes across as modest, sober, and usually has some pretty good insights.

    By the same token, Levin – on the radio – comes across as a shrieking lunatic (as you say). However, on TV, he isn’t bad. His politics is too Con Inc. for my taste, but he is solid on some stuff. His TV show features hour-long interviews, often with interesting subjects, and which can be pretty good.

  249. @International Jew
    Ok, admit it, the main reason most of you are so giddy is that Iran is the enemy of your enemy, Israel.

    If a $130 million piece of USAF equipment got shot down elsewhere — say, by Mexico while monitoring our border — you'd be able to engage your rational brains. And then you'd grasp (1) that all-out war and doing nothing are not our only choices, and (2) we should at the least expect compensation for the cost of the craft.

    No, Iran would not escalate against us. The Israeli Air Force bombs Iranian targets in Syria all the time, and there's no escalation. E.g.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46941717

    Ok, admit it, the main reason most of you are so giddy is that Iran is the enemy of your enemy, Israel.

    invade the world, invite the world

    if “invade the world” neocons like Krystal weren’t also “invite the world” liberals (for the West but not Israel) then maybe people wouldn’t be so cranky about it.

    wild guess.

  250. @Dave Pinsen
    Dana Perino was a press secretary, not a speechwriter. But I appreciate how you are undeterred in the face of being wrong.

    Dana Perino was a press secretary, not a speechwriter.

    That is correct….but the intellect is the same.

  251. @Jonathan Mason
    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization. If it is the case that he was influenced by Carlson, then thank God, in this case, that the advice given was sane. Perhaps Jerry Hall or Ivanka also had something to do with it.

    The general policy of Washington towards Iran has been pretty despicable under Trump and if Iran did take a pot shot at a spy drone that may or may not have been over Iran's airspace, but was certainly close enough to trigger mistakes, then it was the fault of the US, and anyway no one was killed.

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz "accidentally" shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.

    In 1996, the governments of the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident... As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. [Wikipedia]

    Well at least the US promptly apologized--8 years being the equivalent of a quickie divorce in the US legal system--oh, wait, we have not formally apologized yet. Formal apologies for US government atrocities usually take about 143 years, based on precedent.

    If Iran cares to admit that it was mistaken and agrees to pay compensation, could this be the start of some kind of rapprochement between the two governments? Unlikely while Trump has the current set of goofy advisors whom he himself appointed, and neither country seems to have been able to devise a method of selecting sensible, mature leaders

    One of the most basic concepts taught in management courses is the Abilene paradox.

    The Abilene paradox refers to a situation wherein no member of a group decides to contest a decision taken by the group, believing it to be the consensus of everyone, when in reality, none of the group members agree with the decision. However, none of them speak up for the fear of going against the wishes of others, and end up regretting not speaking up in time.

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil's advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

    Perhaps Trump in the fog of his dotage is stumbling into the right decisions because this afternoon he is fortunately unable to remember what was decided this morning or why.

    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    Trump’s experts were largely foisted upon him, and are little more than life insurance. If he went completely off the reservation, he’d likely be Kennedyed

    • Agree: Ron Mexico
  252. @Lot
    “So we are now rapidly selecting for genotypes (esp. as expressed in women) that still reproduce in our new environment of prosperity and the Pill, feminism, facebook and phones.”

    Also selecting for men who dislike condoms the most!

    Unfortunately I think that selection will be very slow, not rapid, because the fertility collapse is mostly cultural.

    Here’s a hypo that illustrates this: at some Beth Israel hospital in New York, sole child of two 40 year secular Jews gets switched with the 7th child of some black-hat ultra Orthodox family where 10 is the norm.

    How many kids are these two girls going to have? I’d bet heavily on nurture over nature and say the black hat girl raised by the seculars will have 1 and the secular born girl raised ultra orthodox will have many.

    I wonder how far away reliable and affordable artificial wombs are. That may be the killer app that brings up white fertility to above replacement.

    Regarding Eastern Europe, parts of it are so bleak I don’t want to tell them to “stay and take care of your own country.” A lot of them are leaving anyway, but going to Western Europe. The USA is less crowded, higher wage, and I think more open to Eastern Europeans generally.

    Regarding Eastern Europe, parts of it are so bleak I don’t want to tell them to “stay and take care of your own country.”

    This is a great mystery to me. In the past few years, I’ve spent many months in Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, the Baltics, the Balkans, Romania, Poland & Russia (I’m presently in Moscow) – and I simply can’t understand why so many here seem to find their prospects so bleak. The cities are gorgeous & safe, the countryside is beautiful, the people are attractive & well-educated – why, I keep asking, would anybody want to move away from all this, to a multicultural hell-hole like England or America?

    The only answer I ever get that makes any sense is: “because there are no jobs.”

    But why are there no jobs?

    • Replies: @Lot
    Central Europe I agree, not much reason to leave. Though some people like the idea of living in a big world city, I don’t think Bratislava or Zagreb qualifies.

    But Ukraine and Moldova?

    Poland is becoming a software center with decent wages considering the cost of living. Though cost of living isn’t especially low in Central Europe. I checked out real estate listings in a town some of my ancestors were baptized in for many generations, now part of Poland. The cheapest houses were about 50k and a basic US style 2000sf house with a yard and garage was about 170k. In other words, about the same as much of middle america, but with wages that are still considerably lower.
  253. @Cagey Beast
    https://twitter.com/walid970721/status/1142393069423288321

    If you said Sean Hannity was a subtle spoof character played by a comedian I would believe you.

  254. But why are there no jobs?

    Sure there are jobs. It’s well-paid jobs that are scarce. Two reasons for that:

    1. Capital-poor economy. Mining coal by hand you produce less than you do if you’re operating strip-mining equipment. Lower productivity, lower wages.

    2. Few rich people. So lower pay performing personal services, plumbing, home remodelling etc.

    In time, these should be self-correcting problems.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    It's tempting to try and emigrate to the Eastern European countries mentioned to help build startups...or consult for firms that are looking to improve things like production efficiency.

    I wonder if there are any extant opportunities for that sort of work?
  255. @SFG
    Israel is not my enemy. But we don't need to be doing their dirty work for them.

    Fine, we shouldn’t. Though I think our presence in the Persian Gulf has a lot more to do with protecting Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Emirates. It’s they, not Israel, that get us to fight their wars.

    In any event, that $130 million drone didn’t belong to Israel, or to the Saudis et al. It was ours. You ok with us just letting that go?

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    We must avenge the drone, it had a wife and little baby drones.

    Nixon didn't retaliate when the North Koreans shot down a US surveillance plane killing thirty odd US servicemen.
    , @Dan Hayes
    International Jew:

    Israel's role far outweighs that of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Emirates. Paul Gottfried once stated that all of this country's ethnic and/or religious groups would like to play a role in influencing/controlling the body politic, but none play the game better than the Jews and its concomitant Israeli lobby.
    , @Desiderius
    Seems like we could use a different drone store.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Do congressional leaders browbeat their caucuses into going on tours of Saudi Arabia?

    An Invitation You Can’t Refuse: How Rep. Steny Hoyer Makes Sure AIPAC’s Israel Junket Is Well Attended

    Note that Representative Killroy didn't want to go on the AIPAC sponsored junket............

    ...............so she went on the J-Street sponsored junket instead.

    Why it should be necessary for a Congresswoman from Ohio to go on a sponsored junket to Israel at all remains unexplained.

    But - sure - the pro-Israel influence on our government is all rather negligible. There isn't any such thing, really.

  256. @Whiskey
    Obama had has admin filled with "Responsibility to Protect" women: Samantha Power, Susan Rice, who wanted the US to intervene everywhere and anywhere. Similar to how Clinton maundered on how he should have sent the US military to stop the Rwandan Genocide. There is a LOT of support among the elite for Team America World Police, as long as it has no advantage to the US whatsoever and hurts White men who do the killing and dying.

    On the other hand, Iran is a threat along with Russia to the US basic interest: cheap oil. This has been US policy since FDR provided military support and protection to the House of Saud, re-affirmed by the Carter Doctrine, Reagan sinking half the Iranian Navy, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. Obama was wrong, Saddam was a long term strategic threat to the House of Saud which meant affordable oil and Americans not suffering another 1973 oil shock. That never ended. [The Soviets were undone by the Sauds pumping oil to levels not seen before -- at the fall of the Berlin Wall the border guards had not been paid in three years. At the fall of the USSR the soldiers had not been paid in two years.]

    Yes, a limited War against Iran was not in Trump's interests, as it would have energized Code Pink and all those idiot utopian suburban idiots who think that gas just happens. However at some point, the US will have to sort out both Russia and Iran, or adjust to sky-high oil prices and the shock that will bring and including Vibrancy "live and direct" to every White person. NO ONE on the right has gamed out what say, gasoline at $25 a gallon or more, certainly possible, will mean: the end of the private automobile (unaffordable), total vibrancy in public transportation, White men in particular having to be a groveling submissive sort before every non-White particularly the extra Vibrant, the demand for even more cheap immigrant labor (manpower cheaper than automation/machines), and the desire among elites to raid Whitey for even more gibs to keep the Vibrant happy when everything costs more.

    Want MORE mass third world immigration? Raise energy prices so that a Central American or African laborer is cheaper than a machine. Reality check -- even electric powered machines get their electricity from fossil fuels, not "sky magic" etc. Yes we'd get far fewer cheap Chinese stuff shipped over in mega cargo ships as energy costs rise up. But we'd get even more cheap servants for the ruling class to live 20 in a room and replace the "uppity" White working class in pretty much everything.

    This is the truth that the Right and ESPECIALLY the Alt-Right has never, ever grasped: White people and White MEN particularly do POORLY when labor costs are low and against cheap, non-White labor, and do WELL when energy/machines are substituted for cheap non-White labor.

    But hey, lets have "Peace in our time" so we can maunder on about peace and moral superiority while being overwhelmed by cheap non-White labor to substitute for ultra expensive energy. For me, I'd be happy to have every Iranian dead as long as it kept my car affordable and I didn't have to worry about having enough to eat each week. But then I have no illusions about utopia, nor my public status as a moral person (only God will judge that one) or "give peace a chance."

    That's the same social environment of the ruling Gentry class like Michael Moore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Warren Buffett and I reject them as being totally irrelevant to my central concern: the survival of myself, my people, and my heritage (racial, cultural, etc.)

    Saudis funded Saddam, they were strongly opposed to the first Gulf War.

  257. @International Jew
    Fine, we shouldn't. Though I think our presence in the Persian Gulf has a lot more to do with protecting Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Emirates. It's they, not Israel, that get us to fight their wars.

    In any event, that $130 million drone didn't belong to Israel, or to the Saudis et al. It was ours. You ok with us just letting that go?

    We must avenge the drone, it had a wife and little baby drones.

    Nixon didn’t retaliate when the North Koreans shot down a US surveillance plane killing thirty odd US servicemen.

  258. @CCZ
    Tucker Carlson saved Trump from war with Iran and Nancy Pelosi saved Trump from deporting millions of illegal aliens.

    "President Donald Trump says he is delaying a nationwide sweep to deport people living in the U.S. illegally."

    He said in a tweet:

    "At the request of Democrats, I have delayed the Illegal Immigration Removal Process (Deportation) for two weeks to see if the Democrats and Republicans can get together and work out a solution to the Asylum and Loophole problems at the Southern Border. If not, Deportations start!"

    PS: George C. Parker has just announced that he is selling his iconic bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan, all offers considered.

    Wise move by Trump…Listening to the requests of Democrats always benefits the country. If we just wait a bit longer for that working-together thingy, it’ll work out fine.

  259. @Autochthon
    Government relations work and "political risk" work (what a goofy term; I've never encountered it but I'm going with it) – both known as lobbying in plain English – is done by lawyers and M.B.A.-types from outfits like McKinsey, Boston Consulting, Edelman, Ketchum, etc.

    Although some number of the lawyers doubtless got worthless undergraduate degrees in political science, they wised up before wasting their time on doctorates in this phony discipline, realising the money was in Yale's law school or an M.B.A. from Harvard.

    “Political risk” refers to what’s basically private intelligence: country assessments, political trend analysis, etc. There are standalone companies that do this (eg Eurasia Group, Kroll, Aeon), and large corporations also often have their own internal shop. They hire IR/poli sci degree holders (not exclusively, but frequently). I’d never recommend somebody get that sort of degree, but their prospects aren’t quite as dismal as certain people take apparent glee in believing.

  260. Given Tucker Carlson’s influence, he may be very well a modern day Vassili Arkhipov. By the way, did anybody else see how thoroughly Geraldo destroyed Hannity last week when discussing war with Iran? Tucker and Geraldo may be the only Fox News personalities who do not worship at the Bolton-Pompeo altar.

  261. @International Jew
    Fine, we shouldn't. Though I think our presence in the Persian Gulf has a lot more to do with protecting Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Emirates. It's they, not Israel, that get us to fight their wars.

    In any event, that $130 million drone didn't belong to Israel, or to the Saudis et al. It was ours. You ok with us just letting that go?

    International Jew:

    Israel’s role far outweighs that of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Emirates. Paul Gottfried once stated that all of this country’s ethnic and/or religious groups would like to play a role in influencing/controlling the body politic, but none play the game better than the Jews and its concomitant Israeli lobby.

  262. @International Jew
    Fine, we shouldn't. Though I think our presence in the Persian Gulf has a lot more to do with protecting Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Emirates. It's they, not Israel, that get us to fight their wars.

    In any event, that $130 million drone didn't belong to Israel, or to the Saudis et al. It was ours. You ok with us just letting that go?

    Seems like we could use a different drone store.

  263. @HammerJack

    Interesting, what sort of things do you think Tucker cohen’t talk about on TV?
     
    Your argument is sound but your writing is barely coherent.

    Your argument is sound but your writing is barely coherent.

    I think it’s quite cohenerent.

    • LOL: vinteuil
    • Replies: @Clyde

    I think it’s quite cohenerent.
     
    Indeed! How hard wuz this misspelled (on purpose) doggie whistle to figger out. Add in a lol or two.
  264. @Mr. Anon

    Hannity is an embarrassment.
     
    Lawrence Auster summed up Sean Hannity pretty well: "He looks stupid. He sounds stupid. He is stupid."

    I miss Auster. Granted, I didn’t agree with him on everything, but that’s a stupid proviso to add because I don’t agree with anyone on everything, including myself from five years ago. He had a brilliant mind and he strongly influenced my thinking on a number of subjects.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes, Mr. Anon
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    Auster was the ultimate awkward cuss. Anybody he knew, he'd eventually end up quarreling with. But he was great.

    I hope, in the undiscovered country, he's holding a nightly get-together with Sam Francis & Joe Sobran, comparing notes on who did the best job of telling us so.
  265. @Anonymous
    Blacks should be allowed to defend themselves but being as they possess poorer judgment the types of firearms they are allowed should perhaps be restricted.

    Nerf guns and Super Soakers? (The latter invented by one of our great black inventors, fo’ real!)

  266. @Autochthon
    A thousand times this!

    Executives read less than Chris Rock's "n-----."

    You can make a major point the first sentence in the executive summary on the front page of a memo. Then, at the meeting to discuss the memo, after shamelessly announcing he reqd the memo with interest and is looking forward to discussing it with you, the executive will ask as his first question exactly what was answered unambiguously as that major point in the first sentence of the executive summary.

    They are douchebags.

    Like everybody else, some are, some aren’t.

    Chief executives are not there to fret over details and pore over dense text and spreadsheets. That’s why they hire you, to do the analysis and brief them so they can make a decision according to the general principles they’ve accrued from back when they did what you’re doing. It’s the 30,000-foot view, to use some shopworn but correct corporatespeak.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Are you an executive yourself? I ask because the unambiguous point I made with glacial clarity and model concision has fuck-all to do with your non sequitur "explanation" and rejoinder about executives not having time to be mired in minutiae....

    Me: "The army can't take a beach even after the navy do all the work by shelling and bombing all all defenses to smithereens within ten miles of the coast. The army are douchebags."

    The Anti-Gnostic: "Yeah? Well, the army's only job is to physically occupy the beach after all defenses within ten miles of the coast have been shelled and bombed to smithereens by the navy; that's what the navy get paid for!"

    The sobriquet suits you, sir.
  267. @Harry Baldwin
    Your argument is sound but your writing is barely coherent.

    I think it's quite cohenerent.

    I think it’s quite cohenerent.

    Indeed! How hard wuz this misspelled (on purpose) doggie whistle to figger out. Add in a lol or two.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    Read my post again, very slowly, and pay special attention to the diction. With luck, it will become clear to you. No guarantees though (the Bengali was similarly flummoxed).
  268. @International Jew

    But why are there no jobs?
     
    Sure there are jobs. It's well-paid jobs that are scarce. Two reasons for that:

    1. Capital-poor economy. Mining coal by hand you produce less than you do if you're operating strip-mining equipment. Lower productivity, lower wages.

    2. Few rich people. So lower pay performing personal services, plumbing, home remodelling etc.

    In time, these should be self-correcting problems.

    It’s tempting to try and emigrate to the Eastern European countries mentioned to help build startups…or consult for firms that are looking to improve things like production efficiency.

    I wonder if there are any extant opportunities for that sort of work?

  269. @Mr. Anon
    Trump just announced (tweeted, probably) that Operation Wetback 2019 - the big ICE raid - which he has been foolishly touting for a week - is now off. He will instead negotiate with foreign trespassers who are here illegally.

    Remarkably, the reality TV show host / WWE-fan we elected President turned out to be a shallow, unserious blowhard.

    Trump just announced (tweeted, probably) that Operation Wetback 2019 – the big ICE raid – which he has been foolishly touting for a week – is now off. He will instead negotiate with foreign trespassers who are here illegally.

    It is becoming hilariously funny.

    What seems to be happening is that Trump suffers from sundowner’s syndrome and is staying up all night on Twitter declaring wars, bombings, summits, imminent invasions, tariffs, pogroms, etc. then when his staff and family wake up in the morning, they are scrambling to cancel the latest atrocity, write a few lines that make Trump look good for public consumption and pretend that all is well in the ̶M̶a̶d̶ White House.

    • Replies: @Ibound1
    Sure. The same geniuses that brought you Iraq War, Syria War, Afghanistan War, Libya War Ukraine War - they are simply laughing at Drumf - I mean that idiot hasn’t invaded anyone, or bombed anyone or surged anywhere. What a clown. We need to get some State Dept. and Defense Dept. geniuses in there to tell Drumf what to do. More home buying credit to minority borrowers and more War!
  270. Fine, we shouldn’t. Though I think our presence in the Persian Gulf has a lot more to do with protecting Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Emirates. It’s they, not Israel, that get us to fight their wars.

    Who says that those wars don’t serve the interests of Israel? The current Prime Minister of Israel seems to think they do. Following the US invasion of Iraq, Israel started getting nearly three quarters of its oil from the Kurdish province of Iraq. That seems like a tangible benefit of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    The Saudis buy influence. Israel has willing agents of influence in the Halls of Government. The Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon during the administration of Bush the Younger wasn’t staffed with Arabs. Nor is the State Department teeming with second and third generation Saudi-Americans. And every politician of consequence does not submit itself for an audience with ASPAC – the American Saudi Political Action Committee – because no such thing exists.

    In any event, that $130 million drone didn’t belong to Israel, or to the Saudis et al. It was ours. You ok with us just letting that go?

    The Iranian Government, which I don’t trust, says it was in Iran’s air-space. The US Government, which I don’t trust, says it wasn’t. Neither has offered compelling evidence to support their contention. So unleashing the Tomahawks doesn’t sound like such a good idea to me.

  271. @International Jew
    Fine, we shouldn't. Though I think our presence in the Persian Gulf has a lot more to do with protecting Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Emirates. It's they, not Israel, that get us to fight their wars.

    In any event, that $130 million drone didn't belong to Israel, or to the Saudis et al. It was ours. You ok with us just letting that go?

    Do congressional leaders browbeat their caucuses into going on tours of Saudi Arabia?

    An Invitation You Can’t Refuse: How Rep. Steny Hoyer Makes Sure AIPAC’s Israel Junket Is Well Attended

    Note that Representative Killroy didn’t want to go on the AIPAC sponsored junket…………

    ……………so she went on the J-Street sponsored junket instead.

    Why it should be necessary for a Congresswoman from Ohio to go on a sponsored junket to Israel at all remains unexplained.

    But – sure – the pro-Israel influence on our government is all rather negligible. There isn’t any such thing, really.

  272. @reiner Tor
    To be honest, I'm not sure war has been averted for a long time. Trump just announced major new sanctions - the old sanctions were the main reason for the Iranian provocations (like the attacks on the tankers and the downing of the drone), so we can now expect Iran to step up its provocations.

    What needs to be understood is that the biggest economy in the world can simply announce extraterritorial sanctions (i.e. sanctions against anyone doing business or certain types of business with the target country), and it can de facto have the same effect as a naval blockade - which would be an act of war. However, it's pretty obvious that if a naval blockade is an act of war, than such a de facto blockade is de facto an act of war, too.

    So, Iran won't be nice enough to just go down without shooting a rifle. They will keep pushing until something happens. They know that a war would be a major disaster for the US and much of the rest of the world, and they want to go down like Wotan in the Twilight of the Gods, if they need to go down. They also understand that it'd be pretty difficult for the US to occupy Tehran, so they know that a shooting war is probably not a much bigger danger to the regime than the economic warfare waged by the US. It might even strengthen them internally, rally around the flag and all that.

    “the old sanctions were the main reason for the Iranian provocations (like the attacks on the tankers and the downing of the drone), so we can now expect Iran to step up its provocations”

    What the US is doing – the economic blockade, the drones in Iranian airspace – isn’t that provocation? It strikes me that the US are deliberately trying to start something.

    I know TPTB probably really hate Iran for helping save Syria from the headchoppers, but for the rest of us that should make Iran the good guys in this face-off.

    I don’t believe Iran attacked the tankers and I’m surprised you do.

    “Praise Allah, there’s a Japanese tanker sailing by, and the Japanese leader is in Tehran”

    “By the beard of the Prophet! What a perfect time to attack it!”

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude

    “Praise Allah, there’s a Japanese tanker sailing by, and the Japanese leader is in Tehran”

    “By the beard of the Prophet! What a perfect time to attack it!”
     
    LOL
  273. @Realist

    Second, will this cause a rift between Hannity and Tucker?
     
    I would guess Tuckers opinion of Hannity is extremely low.

    I would guess Tuckers opinion of Hannity is extremely low.

    As would be the opinion of anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

    • Replies: @Realist
    The guy is a dolt.
  274. @Robert Dolan
    Tucker is the new Charles Lindbergh.

    Tucker is the new Charles Lindbergh.

    Not until he notices the Jewish elephant in every room.

    But once he does that, he is finished.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Hail

    Not until he notices the Jewish elephant
     
    He knows. Be sure of it.
  275. @Sam Haysom
    Maybe but I wouldn’t base it on Florida based third Rome apologist Saker. Saker has been saying an aircraft carrier is going to get sunk for going on twenty years. If he had any honor he’d have joined the Russian navy and worked his out to command of a small boat and tried to sink one by now. But he mostly just masturbates to shirt less pics of Putin.

    “But he mostly just masturbates to shirt less pics of Putin.”

    The commenting style of a man sure of his facts.

  276. @IHTG
    Those wars don't have to be disasters, just as Putin's Syria intervention isn't a disaster for Russia.

    The United States just doesn't seem to know how to fight in these regions. The 19th century Brits would have divide-and-conquered the shit out of Iraq.

    But the American people in the early 2000s could be excused for believing their army knew what it was doing.

    The United States just doesn’t seem to know how to fight in these regions. The 19th century Brits would have divide-and-conquered the shit out of Iraq.</blockquote>

    The British were engaged in colonial rule via empowering useful local elites backed by threats of force leavened by extensive knowledge of the territory.

    The Americans were imposing liberal democracy on ferocious inbred tribes who thought it was a daemonic scheme.

  277. @lavoisier

    I would guess Tuckers opinion of Hannity is extremely low.
     
    As would be the opinion of anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

    The guy is a dolt.

  278. @Lot
    Even though I was trying to follow the story and read business and political headlines daily, I was unaware that Jared’s hubristic and idiotic purchase of 666 Fifth Ave at the peak of the prior bubble was finally bailed out by the Qataris until months after the fact.

    For an idea of how much he overpaid, nobody was willing to buy it for $900 million in 2002, Jared paid 1.8 billion in 2007, and the next year he sold 49% of it for $525 million. Of course the banks who lent him the money were just as stupid, lost even more, and are supposed to know better.

    In 2018, it was sold entirely for $1.3 billion, with Qataris secretly funding most of it.

    I don’t know about midtown Manhattan office towers specifically, but for the most part big city real estate prices exceeded their prior 2006-7 peaks by 2015, and in SF and LA are well above prior peaks.

    In summary, a 26 year old Jared, at the absolute peak of a real estate bubble, paid at least $500 million more for the building than its peak-bubble market price. And this is a decision relating to the business he was raised in!

    Jared’s other famous investment was the NY Observer, a dead-tree Village Voice type publication that was also obviously a bad investment.

    The book makes the point quite firmly that Jared is not at all clever. Not stupid but definitely dull.

  279. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Like everybody else, some are, some aren't.

    Chief executives are not there to fret over details and pore over dense text and spreadsheets. That's why they hire you, to do the analysis and brief them so they can make a decision according to the general principles they've accrued from back when they did what you're doing. It's the 30,000-foot view, to use some shopworn but correct corporatespeak.

    Are you an executive yourself? I ask because the unambiguous point I made with glacial clarity and model concision has fuck-all to do with your non sequitur “explanation” and rejoinder about executives not having time to be mired in minutiae….

    Me: “The army can’t take a beach even after the navy do all the work by shelling and bombing all all defenses to smithereens within ten miles of the coast. The army are douchebags.”

    The Anti-Gnostic: “Yeah? Well, the army’s only job is to physically occupy the beach after all defenses within ten miles of the coast have been shelled and bombed to smithereens by the navy; that’s what the navy get paid for!”

    The sobriquet suits you, sir.

  280. @lavoisier

    Tucker is the new Charles Lindbergh.
     
    Not until he notices the Jewish elephant in every room.

    But once he does that, he is finished.

    Not until he notices the Jewish elephant

    He knows. Be sure of it.

    • Replies: @Lot
    “Not until he notices the Jewish elephant

    He knows. Be sure of it.”

    Based on what?

    I know, from another uncensored forum, one of TC’s writers.** He expressed plenty of “fireable offense” non-PC views, but nothing about teh joos.

    Elite right wing antisemitism is just incredibly rare in the USA due to intermarriage and Christian Zionism.


    (**Please do not post any guesses as to his name or the other site. Given the antifa and SJW twitter mobbing that target TC, I am being deliberately vague, and you can take my word on this or not.)

  281. Laughing.

    I stand by my previous comments on the president and the Iran issue —

    But if the sole reason for not engaging in military action is fear of not getting re-elected — then it hardly bodes well for service to the country.

    I might by that logic if not for a failure to enforce and protect US sovereignty on the borders — something highly supported by the public.

  282. Lot says:
    @vinteuil

    Regarding Eastern Europe, parts of it are so bleak I don’t want to tell them to “stay and take care of your own country.”
     
    This is a great mystery to me. In the past few years, I've spent many months in Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, the Baltics, the Balkans, Romania, Poland & Russia (I'm presently in Moscow) - and I simply can't understand why so many here seem to find their prospects so bleak. The cities are gorgeous & safe, the countryside is beautiful, the people are attractive & well-educated - why, I keep asking, would anybody want to move away from all this, to a multicultural hell-hole like England or America?

    The only answer I ever get that makes any sense is: "because there are no jobs."

    But why are there no jobs?

    Central Europe I agree, not much reason to leave. Though some people like the idea of living in a big world city, I don’t think Bratislava or Zagreb qualifies.

    But Ukraine and Moldova?

    Poland is becoming a software center with decent wages considering the cost of living. Though cost of living isn’t especially low in Central Europe. I checked out real estate listings in a town some of my ancestors were baptized in for many generations, now part of Poland. The cheapest houses were about 50k and a basic US style 2000sf house with a yard and garage was about 170k. In other words, about the same as much of middle america, but with wages that are still considerably lower.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    Thanks for the report - I'd been wondering about Poland as a possible retirement retreat. Sounds like prob'ly not. Maybe Romania.

    Ukraine & Moldova I haven't visited so far - but I wouldn't rule anything out. I don't need a "big world city" nearby, so long as I've got a good internet connection.
  283. @Hail

    Not until he notices the Jewish elephant
     
    He knows. Be sure of it.

    “Not until he notices the Jewish elephant

    He knows. Be sure of it.”

    Based on what?

    I know, from another uncensored forum, one of TC’s writers.** He expressed plenty of “fireable offense” non-PC views, but nothing about teh joos.

    Elite right wing antisemitism is just incredibly rare in the USA due to intermarriage and Christian Zionism.

    (**Please do not post any guesses as to his name or the other site. Given the antifa and SJW twitter mobbing that target TC, I am being deliberately vague, and you can take my word on this or not.)

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    I know, from another uncensored forum, one of TC’s writers.** He expressed plenty of “fireable offense” non-PC views, but nothing about teh joos.
     
    Maybe he knows enough not to express any such views to his writers or to pretty much anyone. He saw what has happened to Joseph Sobran / Pat Buchanan / etc. Anyway, I'm sure he has no opinion on "the Jews", although he might have an opinion on "some Jews". That is all that a lot of people notice, although some people construe it to mean something entirely more general. I.e. Say that the Koch Brothers do some really sh**ty things, and a lot of people will agree with you - liberals and conservatives alike. But say that George Soros or Tom Steyer or Paul Singer do some really sh**ty things, and you're all of a sudden an anti-semite.
  284. @Jonathan Mason

    Trump just announced (tweeted, probably) that Operation Wetback 2019 – the big ICE raid – which he has been foolishly touting for a week – is now off. He will instead negotiate with foreign trespassers who are here illegally.
     
    It is becoming hilariously funny.

    What seems to be happening is that Trump suffers from sundowner's syndrome and is staying up all night on Twitter declaring wars, bombings, summits, imminent invasions, tariffs, pogroms, etc. then when his staff and family wake up in the morning, they are scrambling to cancel the latest atrocity, write a few lines that make Trump look good for public consumption and pretend that all is well in the ̶M̶a̶d̶ White House.

    Sure. The same geniuses that brought you Iraq War, Syria War, Afghanistan War, Libya War Ukraine War – they are simply laughing at Drumf – I mean that idiot hasn’t invaded anyone, or bombed anyone or surged anywhere. What a clown. We need to get some State Dept. and Defense Dept. geniuses in there to tell Drumf what to do. More home buying credit to minority borrowers and more War!

    • LOL: BB753
  285. @L Woods
    Unfortunately, entering the combat arms ranks voluntarily requires some sense of civic mindedness or a certain sort of idealism (eg Starship Troopers) — they’re dominated by poor dupe white men who still think this is their country.

    Unfortunately, entering the combat arms ranks voluntarily requires some sense of civic mindedness or a certain sort of idealism

    In my experience it was usually more a desire to play with the toys. Machine guns, explosives, and tanks still hold a draw for a teenage male. Couple that with the desire to test/prove you manhood and you cover a large number of the combat arms enlistees.

    But then my service was 20 years before 9/11, so it might have changed.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    No, I’d say you’re probably right. That doesn’t so readily explain its particular appeal to white men though.
    , @dimples
    "Unfortunately, entering the combat arms ranks voluntarily requires some sense of civic mindedness or a certain sort of idealism."

    Bwaahahahahahah
    What idiot wrote that?

    To paraphrase a certain muslim woman: "It's all about the guns baby".
  286. @Jonathan Mason
    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    It is a pretty damning indictment of the executive that Trump consistently appoints people to advise him, then allows himself to be influenced by tabloid journalists from the Murdoch organization. If it is the case that he was influenced by Carlson, then thank God, in this case, that the advice given was sane. Perhaps Jerry Hall or Ivanka also had something to do with it.

    The general policy of Washington towards Iran has been pretty despicable under Trump and if Iran did take a pot shot at a spy drone that may or may not have been over Iran's airspace, but was certainly close enough to trigger mistakes, then it was the fault of the US, and anyway no one was killed.

    Many Americans are too young to remember the USS Vincennes and flight 655 in 1988, when a US ship in the straights of Hormuz "accidentally" shot down an Iranian passenger airliner, killing all the passengers. Had Iran been a nuclear power, the United States of America might have become the Toasted States of America.

    In 1996, the governments of the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident... As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. [Wikipedia]

    Well at least the US promptly apologized--8 years being the equivalent of a quickie divorce in the US legal system--oh, wait, we have not formally apologized yet. Formal apologies for US government atrocities usually take about 143 years, based on precedent.

    If Iran cares to admit that it was mistaken and agrees to pay compensation, could this be the start of some kind of rapprochement between the two governments? Unlikely while Trump has the current set of goofy advisors whom he himself appointed, and neither country seems to have been able to devise a method of selecting sensible, mature leaders

    One of the most basic concepts taught in management courses is the Abilene paradox.

    The Abilene paradox refers to a situation wherein no member of a group decides to contest a decision taken by the group, believing it to be the consensus of everyone, when in reality, none of the group members agree with the decision. However, none of them speak up for the fear of going against the wishes of others, and end up regretting not speaking up in time.

    The countermeasure to the Abilene paradox is to make sure that some advisors are assigned the role of devil's advocate, to present the best arguments for the opposite action to the one that is proposed, so that the executive has all the pros and cons at his fingertips.

    Perhaps Trump in the fog of his dotage is stumbling into the right decisions because this afternoon he is fortunately unable to remember what was decided this morning or why.

    One of the advantages of being President is that you may not know everything, but you can call on the expertise of the best minds in America to advise you.

    Most of those “best minds” wouldn’t have enough sense to pour urine from a boot if you wrote the instructions on the bottom.

    Seeing the messes they have made over the past 120 years, we shouldn’t let a “best mind” within 1000 miles of DC.

  287. @Steve Sailer
    Militaries constantly go right up to the border to get the other side to switch on its air defenses so they can map where they are. Sometimes they go across the border, by accident or intent.

    The Israelis did this in 1983. Sent in a bunch of drones, got the Syrians to turn on their SAM radars, then the Israelis blew them up. Syrian fighters scrambled in response had their radars jammed. They lost 82 aircraft; the Israelis lost none.

    A SEAD classic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The US had been developing a new way to achieve air supremacy in the 1970s. The Israelis gave away the secret in 1982 in Lebanon. The US was mad, but it freaked out the Soviets.
  288. @Jim Don Bob
    The Israelis did this in 1983. Sent in a bunch of drones, got the Syrians to turn on their SAM radars, then the Israelis blew them up. Syrian fighters scrambled in response had their radars jammed. They lost 82 aircraft; the Israelis lost none.

    A SEAD classic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19.

    The US had been developing a new way to achieve air supremacy in the 1970s. The Israelis gave away the secret in 1982 in Lebanon. The US was mad, but it freaked out the Soviets.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    Evidently the higher ups in Moscow were quite shaken by the result of that war, because the Soviet military had been not only building the air defense, but also operating it for the Syrians. The air combat results were even worse then those in 1967, because unlike that war, the Israelis didn't bomb that air force while parked on the ground, but blew them out of the air.
    , @Sam Haysom
    Sure but what really unsettled the Soviets was the jaw dropping success of guided munitions particularly the Paveway laser guided missile. It was one of the main reasons that the AVRN to the surprise of the entire world was able to repel the Easter Offensive despite the departure of American ground forces. It chewed through armor and fixed fortifications hitting Soviet war planners precisely where they had assumed an insurmountable advantage- overwhelming numerical superiority. It’s one of the main reasons why Soviet war planners abandoned the hope of a decisive European theater victory and focused on trying to undermine capitalism via their world revolution in peripheral countries.
  289. @Steve Sailer
    The US had been developing a new way to achieve air supremacy in the 1970s. The Israelis gave away the secret in 1982 in Lebanon. The US was mad, but it freaked out the Soviets.

    Evidently the higher ups in Moscow were quite shaken by the result of that war, because the Soviet military had been not only building the air defense, but also operating it for the Syrians. The air combat results were even worse then those in 1967, because unlike that war, the Israelis didn’t bomb that air force while parked on the ground, but blew them out of the air.

  290. @Chris Mallory

    Unfortunately, entering the combat arms ranks voluntarily requires some sense of civic mindedness or a certain sort of idealism
     
    In my experience it was usually more a desire to play with the toys. Machine guns, explosives, and tanks still hold a draw for a teenage male. Couple that with the desire to test/prove you manhood and you cover a large number of the combat arms enlistees.

    But then my service was 20 years before 9/11, so it might have changed.

    No, I’d say you’re probably right. That doesn’t so readily explain its particular appeal to white men though.

  291. I often run across fellow liberals who claim Trump is the worst president in US history.

    I was never a fan of Trump. I considered him a con man who pretended to be on the side of working people while giving the neo-con oligarchs everything they want, such as tax cuts for the rich, etc.

    Maybe I was right, maybe not.

    I always point out to my liberal friends that there was a recent president who:

    Got us into two endless wars; at least one of the wars being unnecessary.

    Crashed the economy twice, including the worst crash since the Great Depression.

    Turned record surpluses into record deficits.

    Well, Trump has made the deficit far worse with his tax cuts for the rich, but hasn’t crashed the economy or started an unnecessary war. Yet.

    There are those who believe a war with Iran would be far worse for Iran, the US, and the world, than the war with Iraq. That fighting in the Straits of Hormuz would cause a world-wide recession at best; a serious worldwide depression at worst.

    In other words, Trump may be bungling into a situation that would make George W Bush loon competent.

    I truly hope Trump does not bungle us into war. In the post-war era, American presidents have bungled us into wars with Korea, Vietnam, twice with Iraq, etc.

    If I wanted a president who would bungle us into war with Iran I would’ve voted for McCain.

    • Replies: @Ibound1
    McCain wouldn’t have “bungled” into war. He wanted war and it would have been deliberate. Hillary would have gotten us into war in Syria and Iran to show how “tough and Presidential” she was. She would have cackled like a psychopath about killing - as she cackled about the death of Khadaffi.

    Trump is purposefully keeping us out of war. It’s no accident. Be grateful. I am.
    , @nebulafox
    You aren't alone. Coming from a right-wing perspective, albeit also yet another 20-something who is directly dealing with the fallout from the last quarter century of grand bipartisan venality and incompetence, I think the only President who might compare with Dubya as the worst in our history was James Buchanan, TBH. (Woodrow Wilson's legacy would be cataclysmic for Europe, but he didn't outright damage the USA like those two did.) And yes: Iran has three times Iraq's population, way deeper strategic depth and infrastructure, and a cohesive national basis that no other nation in the region except for Israel has, among other things. I don't see a way the regime survives a direct conflict with the United States-something they and the Sauds both know, which is why they don't want it and the Sauds do-but it would be no cakewalk, to say the least. Our military looks impressive, but it has some deep problems. Not to mention that what happens after will make Iraq look positively trivial.

    As for Trump, I think left to his own devices, he typically wants the easiest way out of whatever situation he is presented with. He's just not that deep of a thinker: his supporters and enemies alike tend to forget that. The good news is that he simply doesn't strike me as the type who is much interested in "spreading democracy" by military fiat, no matter how hawkish he feels. (Then again, neither did Obama, yet look what happened in Libya and Syria and Afghanistan.) That is a fundamental incompatibility with the neocons and neolibs that can't be completely glossed over. The bad news is, he's pretty impressionable, as his policy record should show so far. And he's surrounded by people chomping at the bit, who are not exactly subtle about just how much they want war with Iran and what they'd be willing to do for it. Not to mention our awkward allies in Riyadh and their attempts at false flags.

    Thank goodness for Tucker Carlson. I occasionally wonder if he'd be willing to boost someone like Tulsi Gabbard if Trump doesn't toe the line.

  292. @HammerJack

    Interesting, what sort of things do you think Tucker cohen’t talk about on TV?
     
    Your argument is sound but your writing is barely coherent.

    Wrong, his writing is quite coherent and easily understandable

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    My guess is that you didn't even hear that whooshing sound just then...
  293. @YetAnotherAnon
    "the old sanctions were the main reason for the Iranian provocations (like the attacks on the tankers and the downing of the drone), so we can now expect Iran to step up its provocations"

    What the US is doing - the economic blockade, the drones in Iranian airspace - isn't that provocation? It strikes me that the US are deliberately trying to start something.

    I know TPTB probably really hate Iran for helping save Syria from the headchoppers, but for the rest of us that should make Iran the good guys in this face-off.

    I don't believe Iran attacked the tankers and I'm surprised you do.

    "Praise Allah, there's a Japanese tanker sailing by, and the Japanese leader is in Tehran"

    "By the beard of the Prophet! What a perfect time to attack it!"
     

    “Praise Allah, there’s a Japanese tanker sailing by, and the Japanese leader is in Tehran”

    “By the beard of the Prophet! What a perfect time to attack it!”

    LOL

  294. @Paleo Liberal
    I often run across fellow liberals who claim Trump is the worst president in US history.

    I was never a fan of Trump. I considered him a con man who pretended to be on the side of working people while giving the neo-con oligarchs everything they want, such as tax cuts for the rich, etc.

    Maybe I was right, maybe not.

    I always point out to my liberal friends that there was a recent president who:

    Got us into two endless wars; at least one of the wars being unnecessary.

    Crashed the economy twice, including the worst crash since the Great Depression.

    Turned record surpluses into record deficits.

    Well, Trump has made the deficit far worse with his tax cuts for the rich, but hasn’t crashed the economy or started an unnecessary war. Yet.

    There are those who believe a war with Iran would be far worse for Iran, the US, and the world, than the war with Iraq. That fighting in the Straits of Hormuz would cause a world-wide recession at best; a serious worldwide depression at worst.

    In other words, Trump may be bungling into a situation that would make George W Bush loon competent.

    I truly hope Trump does not bungle us into war. In the post-war era, American presidents have bungled us into wars with Korea, Vietnam, twice with Iraq, etc.

    If I wanted a president who would bungle us into war with Iran I would’ve voted for McCain.

    McCain wouldn’t have “bungled” into war. He wanted war and it would have been deliberate. Hillary would have gotten us into war in Syria and Iran to show how “tough and Presidential” she was. She would have cackled like a psychopath about killing – as she cackled about the death of Khadaffi.

    Trump is purposefully keeping us out of war. It’s no accident. Be grateful. I am.

  295. @Lot
    “Not until he notices the Jewish elephant

    He knows. Be sure of it.”

    Based on what?

    I know, from another uncensored forum, one of TC’s writers.** He expressed plenty of “fireable offense” non-PC views, but nothing about teh joos.

    Elite right wing antisemitism is just incredibly rare in the USA due to intermarriage and Christian Zionism.


    (**Please do not post any guesses as to his name or the other site. Given the antifa and SJW twitter mobbing that target TC, I am being deliberately vague, and you can take my word on this or not.)

    I know, from another uncensored forum, one of TC’s writers.** He expressed plenty of “fireable offense” non-PC views, but nothing about teh joos.

    Maybe he knows enough not to express any such views to his writers or to pretty much anyone. He saw what has happened to Joseph Sobran / Pat Buchanan / etc. Anyway, I’m sure he has no opinion on “the Jews”, although he might have an opinion on “some Jews”. That is all that a lot of people notice, although some people construe it to mean something entirely more general. I.e. Say that the Koch Brothers do some really sh**ty things, and a lot of people will agree with you – liberals and conservatives alike. But say that George Soros or Tom Steyer or Paul Singer do some really sh**ty things, and you’re all of a sudden an anti-semite.

    • Replies: @Lot
    “He saw what has happened to Joseph Sobran / Pat Buchanan / etc.”

    Other people fired for their frank unPC views like Richwine, Watson and Derb don’t have antisemitic views though. Though PB and JS are at worst borderline.

    We can’t know Tucker’s innermost thoughts, but as a matter of probability, we can make an educated guess.

    “But say that George Soros or Tom Steyer or Paul Singer do some really sh**ty things, and you’re all of a sudden an anti-semite.”

    Anti-Soros stuff is as mainstream conservative as you can get.

    Singer is a conservative and supporter of the Manhattan Institute, home of Heather MacDonald and other heros.

    Steyer is half Jewish, has a non-Jewish spouse, and his brother also has a non-Jewish spouse.

  296. @Steve Sailer
    The US had been developing a new way to achieve air supremacy in the 1970s. The Israelis gave away the secret in 1982 in Lebanon. The US was mad, but it freaked out the Soviets.

    Sure but what really unsettled the Soviets was the jaw dropping success of guided munitions particularly the Paveway laser guided missile. It was one of the main reasons that the AVRN to the surprise of the entire world was able to repel the Easter Offensive despite the departure of American ground forces. It chewed through armor and fixed fortifications hitting Soviet war planners precisely where they had assumed an insurmountable advantage- overwhelming numerical superiority. It’s one of the main reasons why Soviet war planners abandoned the hope of a decisive European theater victory and focused on trying to undermine capitalism via their world revolution in peripheral countries.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The US finally hit a railroad bridge in North Vietnam in 1972 with targeted bombs that it had missed for about 7 years with gravity bombs.
  297. @Sam Haysom
    Sure but what really unsettled the Soviets was the jaw dropping success of guided munitions particularly the Paveway laser guided missile. It was one of the main reasons that the AVRN to the surprise of the entire world was able to repel the Easter Offensive despite the departure of American ground forces. It chewed through armor and fixed fortifications hitting Soviet war planners precisely where they had assumed an insurmountable advantage- overwhelming numerical superiority. It’s one of the main reasons why Soviet war planners abandoned the hope of a decisive European theater victory and focused on trying to undermine capitalism via their world revolution in peripheral countries.

    The US finally hit a railroad bridge in North Vietnam in 1972 with targeted bombs that it had missed for about 7 years with gravity bombs.