Domain: tiger-web1.srvr.media3.us User Profile: Toomer Deplorable | TigerDroppings.com
Favorite team:
Location:Team Bitter Clinger
Biography:“I am not a bum. I'm a jerk. I once had wealth, power, and the love of a beautiful woman. Now I only have two things: my friends, and... uh... my thermos. Huh? My story? Okay. It was never easy for me. I was born a poor black child...”
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:24434
Registered on:5/15/2020
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
quote:

If Trump, the Pentagon, JCofS, and the US military had slaughtered a million US citizens in the street....Nah , I wouldn't say we were at war. I'd might say we were being liberated if we'd gone through the same shite the Iranian people had for the last 50 years.
Nitwit.


If wholly corrupted entities in our nation’s national security apparatus had not repeatedly toppled regimes and played kingmaker in the Middle East, spreading violent chaos, destabilizing the entire region and leaving a trail of bloodshed in their wake, you might have a point.

Yet as it is, the United States has no standing to present itself as some type of moral authority on the global stage.

In a myriad of ways — going back to the 1950s — the United States’ interventions in Iran’s internal affairs has played a part in fermenting the Iranian Revolution.

:usa:


Iran And The Shah. What Really Happened?

…Long regarded as a U.S. ally, the Shah was pro-Western and anti-communist, and he was aware that he posed the main barrier to Soviet ambitions in the Middle East. As distinguished foreign-affairs analyst Hilaire du Berrier noted: “He determined to make Iran capable of blocking a Russian advance until the West should realize to what extent her own interests were threatened and come to his aid…. It necessitated an army of 250,000 men.” The Shah’s air force ranked among the world’s five best. A voice for stability within the Middle East itself, he favored peace with Israel and supplied the beleaguered state with oil.

On the home front, the Shah protected minorities and permitted non-Muslims to practice their faiths. “All faith,” he wrote, “imposes respect upon the beholder.” The Shah also brought Iran into the 20th century by granting women equal rights. This was not to accommodate feminism, but to end archaic brutalization.

Yet, at the height of Iran’s prosperity, the Shah suddenly became the target of an ignoble campaign led by U.S. and British foreign policy makers. Bolstered by slander in the Western press, these forces, along with Soviet-inspired communist insurgents, and mullahs opposing the Shah’s progressiveness, combined to face him with overwhelming opposition. In three years he went from vibrant monarch to exile (on January 16, 1979), and ultimately death, while Iran fell to Ayatollah Khomeini’s terror.

Houchang Nahavandi, one of the Shah’s ministers and closest advisers, reveals in his book The Last Shah of Iran: “We now know that the idea of deposing the Shah was broached continually, from the mid-seventies on, in the National Security Council in Washington, by Henry Kissinger, whom the Shah thought of as a firm friend.”

Kissinger virtually epitomized the American establishment: before acting as Secretary of State under Republicans Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, he had been chief foreign-affairs adviser to Nelson Rockefeller, whom he called “the single most influential person in my life.” Jimmy Carter defeated Ford in the 1976 presidential election, but the switch to a Democratic administration did not change the new foreign policy tilt against the Shah.

Every presidential administration since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s has been dominated by members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most visible manifestation of the establishment that dictates U.S. foreign policy along internationalist lines. The Carter administration was no exception.

What is the solution to modern Iran? Before listening to war drums, let us remember:

It was the CFR clique — the same establishment entrenched in the Bush and Obama administrations — that ousted the Shah, resulting in today’s Iran. That establishment also chanted for the six-year-old Iraq War over alleged weapons of mass destruction never found.

Therefore, instead of contemplating war with Iran, a nation four times Iraq’s size, let us demand that America shed its CFR hierarchy and their interventionist policy that has wrought decades of misery, and adopt a policy of avoiding foreign entanglements, and of minding our own business in international affairs.


quote:

seems like someone is trying to drive a wedge.



Yes. And it is Marco Rubio and the neocon ratfrickers who have coopted Trump’s 2nd administration.

:usa:
So this means the People’s Republic Of Massachusetts seeks to vote themselves off the island? I fully support.

:usa:
quote:

Check my scorecard, bro.




Less constitutional constraints for him foreign vs. domestic.

Domestically, I’m a rule of law, due process guy.


So you are a constitutional, “rule of law, due process guy” — except when it comes to foreign policy? In other words, you are equal parts a constitutional cherry-picker, a military exhibitionist and a lover of authoritarianism?

You certainly check all the boxes of neocon cognitive dissonance. There certainly is nothing more “rule of law” to a neocon than ignoring constitutional checks and balances if it allows you to flex “big dick energy” abroad.

Yes, you are without doubt a neocon! And the homoerotic penis-fixation was a nice touch — you are fully channeling your inner Little Lindsey Graham.

You and SDV should get s selfie. Y’all make a revoltingly cute couple.



:usa:

So another of the board’s more vocal #nevertrumpers has suddenly jumped on the Trump train since Trump has now abandoned his non-interventionist promises and begin a neocon rehabilitation project? HHTM and now boosie?

What a telling spectacle. I suppose everything is revealed in time.




:usa:
Is this legit? If so, what an idiotic take by a war-mongering lunatic.

Reagan’s mistake here was not pulling the Marines out of Beirut, but placing the Marines in a nebulous peace-keeping mission to begin with. After the bombing of the Marine barracks, Reagan was under immense pressure from hawkish Republicans to deepen U.S. involvement in the Lebanese Civil War.

Yet Reagan wisely resisted that urge and ultimately made the call to bring our troops home, prioritizing their safety. Reagan later acknowledged that sending troops into Beirut in the first place was the greatest mistake and biggest regret of his presidency.
quote:



Is this another one of those posts where you try to say Saudi Arabia is the greatest sponsor of terrorism?

Because the U.S. didn't bomb Saudi Arabia 2 days ago.


I’m just appreciative you are following along at home. Yet are you denying the objective fact that the overwhelming majority of domestic Islamic terror attacks in this nation have been committed by radicalized Sunni jihadists?

In any event, don’t let my sarcastic tone mislead you. I’m not advocating for bombing any Middle Eastern nations.

In fact, I’m arguing against such strategies altogether. The real point here is that it’s sheer lunacy for the United States to involve itself in these ancient sectarian rivalries in the Middle East, trying to pick winners and losers among medieval theocracies and authoritarian regimes.
quote:


China is not getting into a conventional war with us. They will frick us from within which is what they’ve been doing for decades.


And isn’t it funny how the most hawkish Repubes are often the most compromised?

quote:

The times of Europe hiding under our military umbrella is over so we have to stockpile weapons at a staggering rate over the next 5 years.


Now do Israel and the parasitic Muslim nations in the Middle East.

:usa:
quote:




I’d guess Sudanese? Or from one of the nations in the Horn of Africa, such as Somalia?

If so, it most likely is another jihadist radicalized in a Saudi Arabia funded Madrassa. Did we bomb the wrong Middle Eastern nation?

:dunno:
quote:

This is sad and it sure looks like terror attack because the supreme leader was killed.


Has it been confirmed it was a Shia Muslim with Iranian sympathies?

:dunno:

If so, it would be anomaly.

Historically, the overwhelming majority of Islamic domestic terror attacks in the U.S. have been associated with Sunni extremist groups.

quote:

It’s not been a secret at all.



While it may not be a secret to the many knowledgeable individuals on this forum, it remains a closely guarded secret amongst the hoi polloi in Saudi Arabia.

This is due to the strong sentiment among Saudi citizens and broader Arab public opinion across the region regarding Israel.

The Arab masses are highly hostile to Israel because of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
quote:

This is not what I voted for.


Yet the “panicans” are the problem for expecting Trump to actually follow through on his campaign promises?

:crazy:

quote:

Those guys are all planning for a post oil future realizing the Jois aren't the problem.



That Israel and Saudi Arabia have been playing footsie with each other has been an open secret for years. It is long past time for both to fully invest in their collective security and quit expecting the United States to do their dirty work.
quote:

Glad I will never see Incirlik or deal with those murderous fricks in Turkey ever again.


You could apply that appellation to any of the fiefdoms in the Middle East. What a sand-pit of vipers.

Yet ironically, this duplicity is exactly why the U.S. would be better served by recognizing that these rivalries could play a vital role in maintaining a balance of power that discourages any one nation from achieving regional hegemony. It is insanity to continue to impose a unilateral solution imposed by the United States — this repeatedly has exacerbated the region’s volatility and created more conflict rather than less.




quote:

Turkey? FFS really?


Correct — Turkey. You know, our supposed steadfast ally in NATO?

Yes. That was sarcasm.

:rolleyes:

Don’t laugh though. Actually the regional rivalries between the Middle Eastern powers can work to keep each other in check.

The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East has indeed long been defined by a complex web of rivalries, not just between Sunni and Shia factions, but also within the Sunni world itself. At the heart of this dynamic are regional powers like Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Iran, and the Gulf Kingdoms, whose competition for influence can serve as a crucial stabilizing force against any single power’s bid for regional hegemony.

Against this convoluted backdrop of shifting alliances and competing interests, it is misguided for the United States to keep inserting itself as an arbiter capable of picking winners and losers in these ancient sectarian and ideological struggles between medieval theocracies and authoritarian regimes. Yet these rivalries — often framed through the lens of ethnic, sectarian and ideological differences — can act as a ballast, keeping the ambitions of any one single nation in check, and thus preventing the emergence of a single hegemonic power in Middle Eastern politics.

I have been extremely critical of Trump’s intervention in the Israel/Iran War, yet I hope this is Trump’s ultimate goal. Of course, some of the biggest obstacles to a U.S. retrenchment of U.S. troops from the Middle East will be the neocon snakes in the GOP itself.



No. Even though there are enough proven oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere to fuel our nation’s energy needs.*

The reason is because of the Petrodollar Pact. After Nixon closed the door on the gold standard in 1971, Saudi Arabia agreed to price it’s oil in USDs.

This agreement protected Saudi Arabia from Soviet aggression while also maintaining global demand for the U.S. currency even without gold backing. Yet while a brilliant piece of political statecraft in it’s day, the Petrodollar has been a disaster for both the U.S. dollar and our nation’s security since at least the end of the Cold War.

This is one of the primary reasons the United States has been locked in a permanent state of war in the Middle East for the past few decades. Nothing fundamentally changes until this nation returns to sound monetary policies: NOTHING.






*Thank You Uncle Nicolas Maduro!

:usa:
quote:

Every day with the Joos bullshite


Good grief! You think like a prog.

Every opinion on Israel that you disagree with is not an example of antisemitism. And it makes a mockery of the term to apply it in such a manner.

The point here is the other regional military powers in the Middle East — including Israel AND Saudi Arabia AND Turkey — each have clear strategic reasons to oppose a nuclear-armed Iran. These nations also possess advanced, capable militaries.

If they view Iran as an existential threat, they are in a position to coordinate and act accordingly. If Iran must be stopped, let these other regional powers form a coalition that will bear the costs and assume the consequences.

The United States is not obligated to referee these long-standing regional rivalries based on ancient sectarian divisions. Many Americans — including a significant segment of the MAGA coalition — are increasingly skeptical of continuing to be expected to shoulder the financial and strategic burdens of the United States serving as Global Cop.


quote:

:rolleyes:


What is the issue here?

:dunno:
quote:

America does not need to send troops in.


AMEN. Trump needs to wrap up U.S. operations in the region, and put a bow on it as a gift it to Israel and/or Saudi Arabia. For once, let these bloodsucking parasites put their own skin in the game.
quote:


Of course facts would upset you


:lol:

Seeing you once again make a fool of yourself and show your utter inability to think critically is not upsetting to me in the least. Far from it.

:cheers: