Quote:

---

explains hundreds of millions of painful failures in America.- SECOND

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:Well, explain YOUR painful failure. It might help you to understand the painful failures of others.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

That tribalism keeps you, and your cohorts here, from evaluating 'your' tribe - democrats - rationally.

Do you want examples? Shall I point out the many, many problems I posted regarding Hillary, the DNC, and the platform?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Oh. I think at this point it's painfully obvious from Second's post history that he believes that he's never failed at anything in life and that he holds a monopoly on the truth and the right way to think about everything.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:


Bernie Sanders couldn't dismantle a piece of IKEA furniture.

Funny, since AOC can't put a piece of IKEA furniture together.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol

He's Jeff Bezos now.

Thanks for gracing us with your cow farts all over this forum that 10 people read everyday, Jeff.

Must be nice to have so much money that you don't have to do any work.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Oh. I think at this point it's painfully obvious from Second's post history that he believes that he's never failed at anything in life and that he holds a monopoly on the truth and the right way to think about everything. - SIX

I have failed, but in same sense as Jeff Bezos. “Given a 10 percent chance of a 100-times payout, you should take that bet every time,” Bezos wrote in his very first annual letter (1997). ... Most people want a 99% chance of success at making a 10% return. That will keep you alive but not much is possible thinking like that.
- SECOND

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

That tribalism keeps you, and your cohorts here, from evaluating 'your' tribe - democrats - rationally.

Do you want examples? Shall I point out the many, many problems I posted regarding Hillary, the DNC, and the platform?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SECOND:
It is not tribalism. It is realism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

... you’re ball cupping 6?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

That tribalism keeps you, and your cohorts here, from evaluating 'your' tribe - democrats - rationally.

Do you want examples? Shall I point out the many, many problems I posted regarding Hillary, the DNC, and the platform?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SECOND:
It is not tribalism. It is realism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:


The clowns in this thread are multiplying.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

That tribalism keeps you, and your cohorts here, from evaluating 'your' tribe - democrats - rationally.

Do you want examples? Shall I point out the many, many problems I posted regarding Hillary, the DNC, and the platform?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SECOND:
It is not tribalism. It is realism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Oh. I think at this point it's painfully obvious from Second's post history that he believes that he's never failed at anything in life and that he holds a monopoly on the truth and the right way to think about everything. - SIX

I have failed, but in same sense as Jeff Bezos. “Given a 10 percent chance of a 100-times payout, you should take that bet every time,” Bezos wrote in his very first annual letter (1997). ... Most people want a 99% chance of success at making a 10% return. That will keep you alive but not much is possible thinking like that.
- SECOND

---

SECOND, you could learn about Americans if you look into your own past, but - apparently- insight is just impossible for you.

You've made one horribly wrong choice in your life, which was volunteering for Vietnam. It was a choice a LOT of young men made, and for many it ended in death. That you escaped with a relatively minor disability was due to one thing: YOU GOT LUCKY.

You've made one great choice in your life, which was buying a crap piece of land/ mineral rights which might have oil or gas underneath it, and then riding an oil boom based on cheap money and endless loans, and it has been paying off ever since. And the reason why you got so rich is because YOU GOT LUCKY.

Unfortunately, you seem to think that because you made one good investment that paid off spectacularly now everything you think, feel, and do is golden. You're wise beyond belief. IN REALITY, you stray from reality quite often.

Take that piece of crap advice from Bezos: It only works if you are able to lose whatever you put up at risk. If you're living on the edge of survival, as many people are, you can't risk any of your time, or money, or resources because its loss would mean death. It is UNREALISTIC the advice given by someone who can afford to lose, and KEEP ON AFFORDING to lose, over and over and over again in low-probability ventures. It is the kind of fatuous advice that someone like you might give: Someone who is more than comfortably well-off, someone who got lucky, someone who already lives in a world that most people dodn't live in. In other words, its a piece of unrealistic crap.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

]Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In any case, we've strayed far from Iran. (I'll get into WHY Americans are so warlike later)

I see the American deep state has arranged another provocation, and that is sending a drone over Iran, which Iran shot down.

Yanno, it seems that every time Trump has an upcoming meeting (G20 in this case) where peace might break out between Trump and Putin, "something" happens. This has Bolt-on's fingerprints all over it.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
SECOND suffers from rich person's insanity. They think that because they're rich, and life hasn't thrown them a problem they can't buy their way out of in the last 7 years (7 years being the average emotional impact of memory), that they must be unusually gifted and wise.

Unfortunately, it's an all-too common insanity. Just look at our politicians from BOTH parties.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Second. You are rich. YOU are the enemy of the people.

You had better start building that panic room and digging that moat for your castle.

Things aren't getting any better and there are no indicators that show the only way for everybody to go is down.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

6ix, I know all about the poor getting poorer and the Trumps getting richer, and I oppose everything Trump and the GOP are:

---

Quote:

---

SECOND suffers from rich person's insanity. They think that because they're rich, and life hasn't thrown them a problem they can't buy their way out of in the last 7 years (7 years being the average emotional impact of memory), that they must be unusually gifted and wise.

Unfortunately, it's an all-too common insanity. Just look at our politicians from BOTH parties. - KIKI

1kiki, you got my psychology wrong. I could have easily gone from Houston's Veterans Hospital to Houston's Veterans Memorial Cemetery back in 1973...

---

Quote:

---

Dr.Doom Warns Of Imminent Sino-American Bust-Up After G-20
Authored by Nouriel Roubini via Nepal24Hours.com,

The nascent Sino-American cold war is the key source of uncertainty in today’s global economy. How the conflict plays out will affect consumer and asset markets of all kinds, as well as the trajectory of inflation, monetary policy, and fiscal conditions around the world. Escalation of the tensions between the world’s two largest economies could well produce a global recession and subsequent financial crisis by 2020, even if the US Federal Reserve and other major central banks pursue aggressive monetary easing.

Much, therefore, depends on whether the dispute does indeed evolve into a persistent state of economic and political conflict. In the short term, a planned meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, at the G20 Summit in Osaka on June 28-29 is a key event to watch. A truce could leave tariffs frozen at the current level, while sparing the Chinese technology giant Huawei from the crippling sanctions that Trump has put forward; failure to reach an agreement could set off a progressive escalation, ultimately leading to the balkanization of the entire global economy.

JAW-JAW OR WAR-WAR?

Viewed broadly, there are three scenarios for how the situation might develop between now and the end of 2020, when the United States will hold its next presidential election.

One possibility is that Trump and Xi will find a truce or modus vivendi in Osaka, paving the way for a negotiated settlement toward the end of this year. On the trade front, the US wants China to buy more American goods, reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers, open more financial and service sectors to foreign direct investment, and commit to maintaining currency stability and transparency with respect to foreign-exchange data.

On technology, the US is demanding that China strengthen intellectual-property protections, cease making the transfer of technology to Chinese firms a condition of market entry for US (and other) companies, and crack down on corporate cyber espionage and theft. A temporary deal could include any of the above, with the US offering medium-term (through the end of 2020, and possibly longer) exemptions to Chinese tech firms that use US components, semiconductors, and software. This would leave Huawei severely constrained, but not dead in the water.

The second possibility is a full-scale trade, tech, and cold war within the next 6-12 months. In this scenario, the US and China would adopt rapidly diverging positions after failing to successfully restart negotiations (with or without a truce). The US would follow through with import tariffs – starting at 10% but increasing to 25% – on the remaining $300 billion worth of Chinese goods that have so far been spared. And the Trump administration would pull the trigger on Huawei and other Chinese tech firms, barring them from purchasing components and software from US companies.

China, meanwhile, would take steps to protect its economy through macro-level stimulus, while retaliating against the US through measures that go beyond tariffs (such as expelling American firms). Huawei might survive within the Chinese market, but its growing global business would effectively be crippled, at least for the time being.

Beyond trade and technology, this scenario also implies increased geopolitical and military tensions. The possibility of some type of conflict over the East and South China Seas, Taiwan, North Korea, Xinjiang, Iran, or Hong Kong could not be ruled out.

Finally, in the third scenario, China and the US would fail to reach a deal on trade and technology, but they would forego rapid escalation. Instead of plunging into a total trade and technology war, the two powers might ratchet up their conflict more gradually. The US would impose new tariffs, but keep them at 10%, while renewing only temporarily exemptions that allow Huawei and other Chinese firms to continue purchasing key US-made inputs, while retaining the option of pulling the plug on Huawei at its discretion. Negotiations could continue, but the US would essentially hold a veto over Huawei’s bid to develop 5G and other key technologies of the global economy. Given that Trump could suddenly pull the plug on the company whenever it suits him, China’s leaders would probably abstain from blatant full-scale retaliation, but would still intervene to minimize the economic damage.

THE GOLDILOCKS OPTION…

The third scenario is the most likely for now, because China is playing a waiting game until November 2020, to see if the US elects a more even-keeled president. Even with a truce, therefore, any negotiations that are relaunched after the G20 summit will probably drag on indefinitely, with no real signs of progress. In the meantime, the Trump administration will want to apply additional pressure on China, while keeping its options open. Better, then, to start with a 10% tariff on that remaining $300 billion worth of exports. The US could always hike the rate to 25%, but at the risk of raising the costs of goods that many of Trump’s own lower-income voters rely on.

In the absence of a trade deal, the same modulated escalation is likely on the tech front. With Chinese firms already on a tight leash, the US could convince European countries and other allies not to grant Huawei tenders or licenses relating to 5G and consumer products such as smartphones, thereby undercutting Huawei’s current advantage in this market. That would buy the US a couple of years to cultivate its own national champions in 5G and related technologies, and to get a head start on 6G.

Moreover, a managed escalation has potential political advantages for Trump, and even for Xi. Trump will not be exposed to charges from Democrats that he got suckered or went soft on China. At the same time, the lingering uncertainty from an unresolved conflict will probably prompt the Fed to start cutting its policy rate in July – or September at the latest. Those cuts could reach 150 basis points if the slow rise in tensions starts to take a toll on business confidence. In fact, if the conflict is managed well, the US could avoid a recession altogether, albeit with a deceleration of annual growth from 2% toward the 1-1.5% range.

Whether the stock market would suffer a correction (a decline of 10% or more) or merely a sideways shift in the third scenario would depend on a variety of factors, such as investor confidence, growth trends, and monetary-policy measures. One also cannot rule out some type of fiscal stimulus in the US and other advanced economies. For example, Trump could try to broker a partial infrastructure-spending deal with congressional Democrats or seek to rebate tariff revenues to politically sensitive constituencies such as farmers and low- and middle-income households in the Rust Belt. Though Democrats would balk at granting Trump such favors, they would block rebates for the “losers” of the trade war at their peril.

The “managed-warfare” scenario also has advantages for Xi. The Chinese economy, after all, can be backstopped with monetary, fiscal, and credit stimulus, not to mention a weakening of the renminbi (above CN¥7 to the dollar). The government could also make a modest show of retaliation, such as by threatening to restrict (but not ban) exports of rare-earth metals, which are used in a wide range of high-tech products. At the same time, the authorities could make life harder for the hundreds of US firms with business and investments in China, not with a full boycott, but through a thousand small cuts and abuses.

… ISN’T REALLY AN OPTION

Because China and the US both know that they are in for a decades-long rivalry, they may well conclude that it is better not to risk a full-scale conflict and global recession in the short run. Only through proper preparation over the medium term can the two powers manage a long-term cold war and the de-globalization that will be necessary to protect their respective supply chains.

But this scenario is not particularly stable, and could easily morph into the first or the second after a few months. If China and the US are both motivated by concerns about growth and financial-market stability, they could overcome their immediate differences, which would allow for a temporary agreement that postpones the question of how to manage a larger cold-war rivalry.

In principle, both countries would be better off with a deal, which is why markets had priced in the first scenario up until this past May, when negotiations collapsed. For the US, an agreement on good terms would boost consumer and business confidence, and thus growth, while reducing inflationary risks from the tariffs.

The sequencing of a potential deal also matters. As matters stand, persistent uncertainty will lead the Fed to loosen its monetary policy one way or another. Suppose that Trump and Xi restart negotiations that then drag on until late fall or early winter of this year. The Fed would have to cut its policy rate by at least 50 basis points, after which point the Trump administration may agree to a deal. Because the impact of monetary easing takes time, the Fed would have to remain on hold until November 2020. (Even if the economy and inflation were to rebound, monetary policymakers would be hesitant to reverse course before the election, lest they appear to be acting politically.)

In this sequence, Trump’s re-election prospects would be doubly improved. The Fed would have locked in rate cuts as insurance, and a new agreement would have bolstered investor confidence and the stock market. But, of course, this could happen only by chance. Trump’s “art of the deal” does not involve such multistep, multidimensional thinking, after all.

As for China, an agreement would, at a minimum, prevent further damage to its economy, and particularly its tech sector. The government would secure a few more years with which to prepare for a longer-term conflict over trade, investment, artificial intelligence, 5G, and geopolitical dominance in Asia and beyond.

The Chinese tend to think long term, and they are well aware of the “Thucydides trap” – a self-fulfilling prophecy in which a hegemon and an emerging power end up at war. Still, they clearly need more time to prepare. A major short-term shock today would be hard for China to absorb, especially if it knocks the country’s national champions offline for the medium to long term.

And indeed, Trump now appears to be opening the door to a truce at the G20, tweeting that critical preparatory work for an extensive meeting with Xi will now begin. But that meeting may still fail, even if both sides pretend that a truce was reached. If there is no substance to the terms of an agreement at the G20 – only painted smiles and stiff handshakes – the subsequent negotiations may quickly fail and lead to a gradual escalation of the trade and tech war.
THUCYDIDES RETURNS

Unfortunately, an even more likely course of events is that the third scenario – a managed trade and tech war, which is my baseline of how the rivalry will evolve over the next few months – would then devolve into the second (a full-scale confrontation). A Sino-American trade and tech deal in the coming months is far from assured. The negotiations broke down in May as a result of substantial differences between the two sides. And now, the complex preparations needed to stage a successful Trump-Xi summit in Osaka are being rushed at the last moment, after six weeks were wasted with no contact.

Even if the Americans and Chinese can overcome differences in their negotiating style, the US will still want legislative commitments from China, and China will still view such demands as a violation of its national sovereignty. The Chinese are highly sensitive to anything resembling the imperial interference that weakened China in the nineteenth century. Like Trump, Xi cannot afford to lose face.

Moreover, as the war of words has escalated over the last month, the spillover of trade frictions into the technology domain has intensified. Once kept formally separate, the two issues are now inextricably intertwined, which will make a resolution even harder to achieve. The Chinese cannot agree to any deal that does not rescue Huawei, but now that Huawei has become a bargaining chip, national-security hawks in the Trump administration and Congress will force Trump to take a hard line on the company.

Each side seems to think that the other will blink first. For example, the US assumes it can inflict more economic pain on China than China is capable of returning, because US exports to China ($130 billion) are a fraction of China’s exports to the US ($560 billion). Hence, when it comes to tariffs, China seems to have more to lose.

Yet, as we have seen, the conflict is about much more than tariffs, and China can retaliate in a number of ways. In addition to imposing new non-tariff barriers, it can strike a blow against major US firms that rely on Chinese supply chains and consumer markets, while allowing the renminbi to weaken. And if tensions escalate too far, China could even resort to the nuclear option of dumping its massive holdings of US Treasuries; it has already started to reduce its holdings of such US assets.

Moreover, US leaders may be underestimating the costs of the conflict. According to the prevailing narrative, the tariffs now in place have had only a modest impact on US growth and inflation. But the latest economic data suggest otherwise, as the US and global economy are slowing. In fact, one reason why the Fed has started considering preemptive insurance rate cuts – likely to start in July – may be that it is worried that tariffs are hurting the US economy more than was initially anticipated.

Making matters worse, the US has nowhere near as many tools to respond to macroeconomic shocks as China does. In addition to massive stimulus and currency depreciation, China’s government can bail out private and public enterprises at will. The US, by contrast, must rely on traditional monetary and fiscal tools, all of which are already severely constrained. And while Trump must worry about re-election, Xi has abolished presidential term limits, faces few constraints on his power, and presides over a sprawling apparatus of social control, including the Great Firewall of online censorship.
THE ART OF “NO DEAL”

Politically, then, it is much easier for China to take the long view, which is what Xi has done by announcing a “new Long March” – a reference to the People’s Liberation Army’s long, painful retreat in the 1930s to a new stronghold in Shaanxi province, from which it broke out and took over all of China, under Mao Zedong, in 1949. By wrapping himself in the Chinese flag and fomenting nationalism at home, Xi is preparing Chinese society for a protracted struggle. If a full-scale cold war ensues, he will be able to remind the Chinese of the need to suffer today to achieve glory tomorrow.

In fact, it is possible that Xi actually wants a full-scale economic war as a means of damaging Trump’s re-election chances. A new Democratic president – even one who accepts the reality of a more contentious Sino-American rivalry – would almost certainly be a more constructive and honest broker for China to deal with. In the parlance of the foreign-policy establishment, Xi may see de facto escalation as the quickest route to regime change in the US.

Moreover, Xi is not an absolute ruler. While he controls most of the levers of power, there are still factions within the Communist Party of China (CPC) that could turn on him if he does not mount a sufficiently aggressive response to the US. He is not in a position to accept a deal in which he – or China – loses face or power. If America’s medium- to long-term goal is to contain China, as the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy clearly suggests, Xi cannot agree to anything in the short term that advances that agenda. In the grand scheme of things, it might be better to start a full-scale conflict now than to grant the US a tactical advantage for the next two years.

The danger is that Trump, too, would prefer a partial or full-scale trade and technology war to a weak deal. If Trump makes any notable concessions, he will be accused by both Democrats and right-wing pundits of appeasing China and betraying American blue-collar workers. Even if he can’t secure a favorable deal, at least he can say he remained tough. Among those who have Trump’s ear are national-security hawks – some of them modern-day Dr. Strangeloves – who believe that China is so fragile that an economic shock could precipitate a political collapse, and even regime change. This is a dangerous game to play, because it could lead to actions that turn a cold war into a hot war. The mere presence of such extreme voices in Trump’s orbit suggests that the administration’s intent is to contain China at any cost.

Worse, these hawks have the upper hand now that the “adults in the room” have long since departed. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Adviser John Bolton, acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, and Vice President Mike Pence all appear to be China hawks. And the situation is no better with respect to trade and economic advisers, where Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, White House Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, and Peter Navarro, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, have sidelined moderates such as Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin (who is unwilling to stand up to the president anyway).
SUMMIT SIGNALS

Where does that leave us? If both Xi and Trump find the third scenario attractive, neither will be willing to meet halfway on a deal. That makes the second scenario – a full-scale trade and technology war – the most likely outcome, given that a controlled escalation is inherently unstable.

As matters stand, the probability of a deal eventually being reached is low (my colleagues and I put it at just 25%). Still, we will know more after the G20 summit later this month. If Trump and Xi fail to broker a truce or a temporary agreement regarding Huawei, the US will probably follow through with 10% tariffs on the remaining $300 billion worth of Chinese exports. We will then be in the initial stages of the third scenario.

On the other hand, if Trump and Xi hold a friendly meeting and agree to a truce, the US will probably withhold new tariffs, and we will be in the early stages of the first scenario. This would make the probability of the two sides reaching a deal slightly higher. But a lurch to the third scenario – a precipitous escalation of the current confrontation – would still be more likely, followed eventually by a descent into a full-scale conflict. Where it will end is anyone’s guess, but an escalating trade and tech war is, in my view, more likely than an eventual deal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
1kiki, you got my psychology wrong. I could have easily gone from Houston's Veterans Hospital to Houston's Veterans Memorial Cemetery back in 1973, which makes the last 46 years all gravy on my mashed potatoes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:
More like Trump told "senior advisors" to tell the media, "He was ready to pull the trigger... really really really ready... but he decided not to at the last second" knowing/thinking Iranian leaders would hear that and be scared and grateful. "Whoa! That was close!" But nobody believes Trump any more.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:


That's only because, as I've suspected all along and have said several times, because you hate yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Iran And Trump On The Edge Of The Abyss
Authored by Alijah Magnier via EJMagnier.com,

Iran is pushing US President Donald Trump to the edge of the abyss, raising the level of tensions to new heights in the Middle East. After the sabotage of four tankers at al-Fujairah and the attack on the Aramco pipeline a month ago,

---

Quote:

---

and last week’s attack on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC – now categorized by the USA as a terrorist body) yesterday shot down a US Navy drone, sending two clear messages. The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out war, no matter what the consequences. The second message is that Iran is aware that the US President has cornered himself; the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump launched his electoral campaign.

---

Quote:

---

According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.

Iran is not inclined to help Trump come down from the tree he has climbed and would rather keep him confused and cornered. Furthermore, Iran would love to see Trump fail to win a second term, and will do everything to help oust him from the White House at the end of his mandate in 2020.

---

Quote:

---

Moreover, Iran has established a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan

---

Quote:

---

of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East. Iran’s allies have increased their level of readiness and alert to the highest level; they will participate in the war from the moment it begins if necessary. According to sources, Iran’s allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly organised, orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months.

---

Quote:

---

Sources confirmed that, in case of war, Iran aims to stop the flow of oil from the Middle East completely, not by targeting tankers but by hitting the sources of oil in every single Middle Eastern country, whether these countries are considered allies or enemies. The objective will be to cease all oil exports from the Middle East to the rest of the world.

Trump is trying to find a way out and calm tensions, stopping short of doing anything to ease the sanctions on Iran.

---

Quote:

---

It was the US President who triggered the current crisis by revoking the JCPOA nuclear deal at Benjamin Netanyahu’s request. Trump wants to see Iran suffer from the severe US sanctions for the duration of his presidential campaign. This status-quo is congenial to Trump but catastrophic for Iran.This is why Iran refused to go along with a scenario which would make Trump look like a winner by bombing locations in Iran, claiming he had destroyed the exact locations from which the missile was fired against his drone.

***Trump wants to win the war of appearances***, but is facing an Iranian regime as unaccommodating to him as he has been to Iran.

***Trump seems oblivious of the fact that economic embargo is an act of war; by unilaterally blocking the export of Iranian oil and so crippling Iran’s economy, Trump has already declared war on Iran.***

In response to the latest incidents, the US sent only limited reinforcements to the Middle East last week. According to sources, these forces were composed of several drone teams and a strike force capable of intervening in case of future attacks on oil tankers. The downing of the drone was Iran’s message to the US that nothing is off limits: all gloves are off. The Iranian message, made explicit already last year by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and other political and military officials, is clear: if we can’t export our oil, nobody can. But this message seems not to have reached Trump’s ears.

The US media claim that President Trump approved military strikes against Iran but revoked the order hours later. What actually happened – according to the source – is the following:

Iran was informed in advance by a third party of a proposal by US intelligence that Iran selects one or two or three empty locations for the US to bomb. This was intended to make everyone happy by saving face for all concerned. Iran refused to play along with this charade, which was ultimately designed to save face for Trump. Nonetheless, Iran was reassured by this offer that the US has no intention of going to war and is trying to find a way out of its quandary; Trump is looking for a way out.

Iran also does not want war, but neither will it accept the continued embargo of its oil exports. As long as Iran is blocked from selling its oil, Iran and Trump will continue their danse macabre on the edge of the abyss.

Iran’s economy is under attack by Trump’s embargo on Iranian oil exports. Trump refuses to lift the embargo and wants to negotiate first. Trump, unlike Israel and the hawks in his administration, is trying to avoid a shooting war.

***Netanyahu has reiteratedhis desire for war with Iran—a war that the US will fight*** –and is meeting with his Arab allies to help bring it about. As Ha’aretz described Netanyahu’s Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting Israel on the front line.

It is Trump’s desire to avoid war that makes him susceptible to Iranian pressure. Trump will be in an even more critical position domestically if Iranian missiles target Middle Eastern oil. Iran is offering only two choices to the US President: end the embargo on Iranian oil or go to war. Sources acknowledge that the future is uncertain and potentially very dangerous for the region and the global economy, since Iran will definitely not stop in its plans to halt all oil tanker navigation if its own oil cannot be exported.

Iran and the US are already at war economically. A way out of this crisis would be for Trump to close his eyes while allowing Europe to work to lift the economic pressure on Iran, without sanctioning the European companies concerned. Otherwise, there may be no escape from a regional and global catastrophe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
1kiki, you got my psychology wrong. I could have easily gone from Houston's Veterans Hospital to Houston's Veterans Memorial Cemetery back in 1973, which makes the last 46 years all gravy on my mashed potatoes.

---

I'm not on here half as much as y'all.... What happened in 1973... and did you win the lottery or something?

I guess I never realized you are an old geezer Hubbs wasn't even born 'til '74.

Who is older, you, Sig, or Kiki?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:


That's only because, as I've suspected all along and have said several times, because you hate yourself.

---

You really do have a delusion that everyone hates themselves, don't you??

I hate my health, and I hate being surrounded by goat-humping knuckle-draggers, but no one in this house hates themselves for who they are.

Maybe you should see a life coach or 12.

---

Quote:

---

I am 67. What happened to me? Helicopter crash in Vietnam.

---

Quote:

---

. Before that I learned something that remains true today: Americans, and especially Republicans, either voters, military officers, or politicians, don’t understand how to efficiently ***win a war*** with the fewest dead on both sides. If Vietnam had been a massively multiplayer online role-playing game, the Republicans playing it, from President even down to colonels and captains, had chosen the most asinine game strategies. (I’m a relative of General Sherman and had opinions before volunteering about how to fight to win a civil war.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman

What about Trump? What mistake is he making playing a MMORPG called America
rules the World?

Ivo Daalder explains in a book: The Empty Throne - America's Abdication of Global Leadership
www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/ivo-h-daalder/the-empty-throne/97815
41773851/

1) What's inside the book that might explain Trump and Iran?

Donald Trump wagered that the United States could secure the benefits of ***the world it created*** without bearing the burdens of leading it.

---

Quote:

---

That bet was unlikely to pay off. The world that ***America created*** after World War II was not inevitable. It was the result of conscious policy choices made in the pursuit of a vision of how ***cooperation and leadership, rather than domination and competition, could benefit the United States***.

---

Quote:

---

Consumed with the costs of that ***rules-based order***

---

Quote:

---

many of which he exaggerated, Trump couldn’t appreciate its continuing and far greater benefits. Working with friends and allies multiplied American power far more often than constrained it. As a result, Washington, more so than any other country, got to be the rule maker in international politics and, with that role, won ***the power to shape outcomes *** to its liking.

---

Quote:

---

By choosing to act alone rather than mobilizing others in common cause, Trump was waging war on the world America had made. He was also committing the very mistake he had accused his predecessors of making: taking on burdens others could have shared and squandering American power in the process.

2) Why is Trump acting belligerently toward Iran? Because his public wants it.

---

Quote:

---

In tweets Ivo Daalder throws out some statistics about Americans attitudes:

https://twitter.com/IvoHDaalder/status/1139637545875193858

70 percent of Americans now favor the United States taking an active part in world affairs. Since @ChicagoCouncil polling on that question began in 1974, the only time that number has been higher was in 2002, just after 9/11.

Support for the US "taking an active part” includes the military, too. Increasing majorities of Americans support keeping long-term military bases in South Korea (74%), Japan (65%), Germany (60%), and Turkey (53%). Nearly half say the same for a base in Poland (47%).

Support for using US troops abroad in certain situations is strong *** and increasing *** as well. Majorities of Americans say they would support using US troops to defend Baltic NATO nations against Russia and allies in Asia against North Korea.

---

Quote:

---

In fact, over a broad range of specific scenarios, majorities or pluralities of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, say they would favor the use of US troops abroad.

---

Quote:

---

Trump is terrible at playing the game ***"America Rules the World"***.

---

Quote:

---

He keeps flopping around, not knowing what to do next, but he won’t quit playing because people are watching and Trump hopes that he will stumble upon a winning strategy and be remembered as a Great Player/President with the highest score, ever.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


TWITCHY, SECONDRATE, THUGR, and GSTRING who want war, war, and more war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

I am 67. What happened to me? Helicopter crash in Vietnam. Before that

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

What about Trump? What mistake is he making playing a MMORPG called America rules the World?

. . .

Unfortunately, the ever-compliant media has been pushing hard in the opposite direction,and Trump is playing to an audience of warhawks and neocons and the ever-duped American public including TWITCHY, SECONDRATE, THUGR, and GSTRING who want war, war, and more war.

---

Quote:

---

TWITCHY, SECONDRATE, THUGR, and GSTRING who want war, war, and more war.- SIGNY
Only if it's with Russia. -TWITCHY

---

Quote:

---

It's so interesting you supported Trump because you thought he'd take us to war LESS, right? -TWITCHY

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

I am 67. What happened to me? Helicopter crash in Vietnam. Before that

---

Ok, Jack Ryan. From what height?
(PS, I like Amazon's series. I don't see why people complain about it.)

I suppose if I had to choose between crashing into a diesel hauler semi or helicopter, I'd still take the semi.... Still can't bend mah big toe all the way and if I step backwards too fast it'll twinge, but for the most part I'm good.

How many things did you break?

As for reducing body count... not surprising given that all the guys in this country have EVER been taught is how to UP the body count. It takes a woman to understand what it takes to make another person.


Reminds me of a Trek novel I read once where they put cadets on an empty space station and they have to play King of the Hill, take over the whole station...
At the end one person that "killed" (stunned) half the station was told they lost because you were supposed to take over the station with minimal casualties.

Maybe make it mandatory reading for all military

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I don't think there is a thread on Iran. Pompous, Bolt-on, and Trump are cranking up their "war on Iran"*, possibly leading up to war itself.

The PNAC neocons have long targeted Iran for destruction, along with Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Lebanon. ("We’re going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan, we’re going to come back and get Iran in five years". - General Clark)
https://journal-neo.org/2014/10/09/the-neoconservative-hit-list-iraq-l
ibya-and-now-syria-a-plan-for-global-u-s-military-supremacy/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


God, you're stupid

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Whatever Trump does is bad!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
I wish it was heroic, with guns blazing and major battle. But the fact is we hit a tree at dusk that stuck up higher than all the others. Boom! I've got a left leg shorter than the other. I would have ended up working at Burger King as a manager, same as my father until he retired, but I cannot stand on that leg all day. I tried it at Burger King and had to give up. Then I went to the University of Texas at Austin so I can get a job where I sit to work. Much better paying.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

I don't really look at a candidate's ideas about war because IF war happens nothing I say or do will matter a damn.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


God, you're stupid

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
I have always been glad that hubbs left the service before he would've been sent overseas.

---

Quote:

---

He tried to go for a degree in Criminal Justice and hated it

---

Quote:

---

and there was some weird snafu with paperwork

---

Quote:

---

so he ended up going for a tech degree.

---

Quote:

---

I think he would have washed out of police work after a while

---

Quote:

---

He wanted to drive trains, but you don't make enough to support a family on that here, and with the "sitting down narcolepsy" ( can no longer drive for more than an hour at a time without passing out) he has we are ALL much better off that he didn't...

---

Quote:

---

I wanted to be a surgical tech

---

Quote:

---

That, and the focusing that hard for hours on end. I could have in high school, but these days I drift too much...

---

Quote:

---

I'm really glad that I didn't go for college

---

Quote:

---

and change careers three times like the rest of my family...

---

Quote:

---

that are in debt up to their eyeballs and will be until the day they die...

---

Quote:

---

Nice how you really have no control how your life ends up where it does, isn't it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
College in America for a majority of the kids who go there is just a way to enslave them to the system for the rest of their lives.

Funny how college debt is one of the few debts that don't get erased in a bankruptcy, innit?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

I don't really look at a candidate's ideas about war because IF war happens nothing I say or do will matter a damn.

---