Pompeo says U.S. does not want war with Iran; pushes for international response

[Morch]

Just now, bristolboy said:

The difference is that unlike the economic embargo of Iran, the administration doesn't have the means to coerce major nations to back it in this venture. It needs their willing cooperation.

 

Yes. I think it will get that if compelling evidence is available and presented. And it will , eventually, get a more limited form of the same, if the status quo goes on. I wouldn't know about being unable to coerce - not when it comes to Trump. Doesn't seem like there's a whole lot he won't leverage, and the reality is that countries find it hard to resist such things. 

 

[jany123]

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

We do not agree about the USA being the "least credible nation on the planet". Same goes for trying to minimize the attack by labeling it as "a nuisance" one. We further disagree about describing the motivation as "raise global awareness to its plight".

 

As for the rest of the nonsense on offer - Iranian rhetoric was covered in plenty of related OP's. Pretending that the sabre rattling is one sided is either being misinformed or disingenuous. Pick one.

Iranian Sabre rattling and gum bumping does not rise to the same level as we are seeing from the trump and it’s cohorts, pretending otherwise is what is disingenuous or selective.

 

to deny or excuse the trumps involvement, in any way, can only be done by one on the verge of a fatal dose of kool aid. The trump is the architect of this mess, not Iran, which was in full compliance of all its agreed restrictions.

 

if the trump wanted to further reduce Iran’s war capabilities (which I have no problems with, in theory) then I believe he should have entered into good faith negotiations, vs inflicting economic warfare onto the Iranian people’s.

 

And... come on... if Iran had wanted to sink a tanker, or harm the crew, do you really think they would have botched it so badly. Of course not, therefore the only logical conclusion is ( if they were responsible) that they deliberately chose not to.

 

no deaths, no real pollution, cargos still intact and viable... so a nuisance attack to get the worlds attention. Failing that, it had to be some other actor, with less skill and resources... so please, don’t attempt to suggest this is worth starting a conflict over

 

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, jany123 said:

if the trump wanted to further reduce Iran’s war capabilities (which I have no problems with, in theory) then I believe he should have entered into good faith negotiations, vs inflicting economic warfare onto the Iranian people’s.

Trump has made it impossible to be seen by Iran as conducting any negotiations with Iran under "good faith."

• Despite US efforts to limit missile proliferation in the Middle East, the U.S. intelligence agencies have full knowledge that Riyadh has been purchasing ballistic missile technology from Beijing to bolster its arsenal as it seeks to counter Iran. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/06/saudi-advancing-ballistic-missile-program-help-china/

But clearly Saudi Arabia acquiring missile technology leading to nuclear weapon capability is not an issue for Trump that would cause him to make the same restrictions on missile development on Saudi Arabia as he insists that Iran make. Iran cannot negotiate under Trump's duplicity.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, jany123 said:

Iranian Sabre rattling and gum bumping does not rise to the same level as we are seeing from the trump and it’s cohorts, pretending otherwise is what is disingenuous or selective.

 

to deny or excuse the trumps involvement, in any way, can only be done by one on the verge of a fatal dose of kool aid. The trump is the architect of this mess, not Iran, which was in full compliance of all its agreed restrictions.

 

if the trump wanted to further reduce Iran’s war capabilities (which I have no problems with, in theory) then I believe he should have entered into good faith negotiations, vs inflicting economic warfare onto the Iranian people’s.

 

And... come on... if Iran had wanted to sink a tanker, or harm the crew, do you really think they would have botched it so badly. Of course not, therefore the only logical conclusion is ( if they were responsible) that they deliberately chose not to.

 

no deaths, no real pollution, cargos still intact and viable... so a nuisance attack to get the worlds attention. Failing that, it had to be some other actor, with less skill and resources... so please, don’t attempt to suggest this is worth starting a conflict over

 

 

You first ignored Iranian sabre rattling altogether, then alleged it was discussed, next moved on to claiming it was off topic. Now it turns out that you're apparently well aware of it, at least to be able and determine that it "does not rise to the same level" as exhibited by the Trump administration. Make up your mind regarding which deflection path you're taking, please. But do go on about being selective or disingenuous, by all means. As for the claimed contention itself - guess that would be your opinion, rather than anything fact based.

 

I never denied, nor excused "Trump's involvement". Just your imagination.

 

I have repeatedly, and across multiple topics, made my view clear that Trump's withdrawal from the Iran Deal was wrong, and that achieving the announced goals would have been better served working under the framework of the agreement and further diplomatic efforts. What I wish would have happened does not make me blind to reality - and in this reality, the sanctions are effective and the Trump administration might get it's international coalition anyway.

 

I never said anything about Iran wanting to do the things you listed. I think that if it was an Iranian operation, the goal was to raise the stakes, rather than setting the ground for an all out confrontation. This would imply damage to be controlled, for now. You use "nuisance" in order to minimize it, we do not agree. If the footage provided by the USA is genuine and relevant, it would seem the execution wasn't all that great. And, of course, I wasn't suggesting "this is worth starting a conflict over" - again, one of them things you toss in as "fact".

[Misty]

19 hours ago, kamahele said:

I don't trust Pompeo one iota. 

He certainly has an interesting background and seems to know how to successfully work the system. 

 

Graduated from high school in California.  Graduated from USMA, West Point first in his class (in order to maintain that rank he would have had to work hard to game the system, as well as to maintain a high level of physical fitness. The latter no longer seems to be a priority.) 

 

Politically ambitious, his reported extracurricular activity at West Point was the "domestic affairs forum" (a group intended to groom those with political ambition, it provided mentoring and field trips to meet Washington DC insiders, etc).

 

After serving required time in the US Army, he went on to Harvard law school, then migrated to Wichita Kansas, where he co-invested with Chinese partners, took big political contributions from the Koch brothers, and ran for US Congress as a Tea Party member. As a junior Congressman, his focus was writing partisan papers on the Bengazhi investigations. Then he gained Trump's good will, as an outsider finagled to be CIA Director, and then onwards to be the US Sec of State - all in a very short period of time. 

 

Make of it what you will.

[bristolboy]

One consideration that could make the major nations less likely to help the USA is the 2020 presidential elections. Doubt the leaders of any major nations, apart from Putin, are looking forward to a 2nd Trump term. And the thing is, the US will need their assistance: 

 

"Securing the gulf for oil tankers would require enough naval vessels and reconnaissance capability to monitor just about every ship passing close to Iran’s shores.

“That requires a coalition,” said John F. Kirby, a retired rear admiral who participated in the tanker wars of the 1980s and served as the State Department spokesman during the negotiation of the Iran deal. “We don’t have enough ships to do it ourselves.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

[jany123]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Trump has made it impossible to be seen by Iran as conducting any negotiations with Iran under "good faith."

• Despite US efforts to limit missile proliferation in the Middle East, the U.S. intelligence agencies have full knowledge that Riyadh has been purchasing ballistic missile technology from Beijing to bolster its arsenal as it seeks to counter Iran. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/06/saudi-advancing-ballistic-missile-program-help-china/

But clearly Saudi Arabia acquiring missile technology leading to nuclear weapon capability is not an issue for Trump that would cause him to make the same restrictions on missile development on Saudi Arabia as he insists that Iran make. Iran cannot negotiate under Trump's duplicity.

Yep... the trump has wet the bed on this one too. Apparently he has a thing for that. What the trump has done, vs what the trump should have done, are most certainly at odds with what the world expects in presidential conduct and diplomacy.

 

the rest of the sane world needs to act together, now more than ever, to prevent the trump from further destructive actions, as congress and the senate are manifestly unwilling or incapable of implementing the checks and balances that they are charged with.

[billd766]

15 hours ago, Tagged said:

It is Iran, so nobody cares really! Same as all propaganda we have been served for decades for the better of humanity, and saving the world. How much longer will it take before China take over, and we have a new order, because we starting doubting the Emperor Usa? Lack of support, will take Usa down!

Yes, it is Iran, and yes I DO care as do many other people.. 

[billd766]

For a country professing that it doesn't want a war with Iran, why have the USA shifted another 1,000 troops into the Gulf area?

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48671319

 

It seems to me that they are building up their forces to attack Iran which is sending the wrong message to the world.

 

 

[Tagged]

24 minutes ago, billd766 said:

For a country professing that it doesn't want a war with Iran, why have the USA shifted another 1,000 troops into the Gulf area?

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48671319

 

It seems to me that they are building up their forces to attack Iran which is sending the wrong message to the world.

 

 

Wait for it, they will find a reason To call in members to join. We are talking about huge oil resoars, and enough for every big national oil companies to join. Where is Halliburton?

[jany123]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

You first ignored Iranian sabre rattling altogether, then alleged it was discussed, next moved on to claiming it was off topic. Now it turns out that you're apparently well aware of it, at least to be able and determine that it "does not rise to the same level" as exhibited by the Trump administration. Make up your mind regarding which deflection path you're taking, please.

What a complete load of rubbish and a dishonest distortion at best, in referencing comments I’ve made on this thread.

 

i did not include Iranian Sabre rattling, which is completely different to willfully ignoring it, in my first post, because I was deliberately referencing the current anti Iranian rhetoric, which could lead to a military attack on Iran, 

 

You may wish to post in a fence sitting style, such that you can cherry pick arguments that appeal to you, and cause others not as skilled at oratory as yourself, to chase you down a rabbit hole and gain sensure, but for goodness sakes, this thread is barely three pages long, and my comments on Sabre rattling or rhetoric are largely on page two.

 

14 hours ago, jany123 said:

the Sabre rattling war mongers are bumping their gums about the fact that only specializ operators could have done this deed, which if true, indicates that there was never any real intention to do serious harm, only mischief

you injected your opinion on the matter, at the bottom of a lengthy rant with this second reference to Sabre rattling in this thread, intended, imo, to start an argument over it, in terms that you could dictate

 

14 hours ago, Morch said:

Also, the repeated failure to acknowledge Iran's own "Sabre rattling war mongers....bumping their gums" is quite odd.

And then... I followed you down the rabbit hole anyway, whilst pointing out that it was a rabbit hole of your design.

 

13 hours ago, jany123 said:

Anyway.... when Thai visa runs a story about Iranian rhetoric, I’ll be sure to make a post, but this thread is about US players and their puppets bumping their gums, not Iran, and as getting off topic last night resulted in censure, I see no point in deliberately following you down another rabbit hole.

But poke poke poke.

 

13 hours ago, Morch said:

As for the rest of the nonsense on offer - Iranian rhetoric was covered in plenty of related OP's. Pretending that the sabre rattling is one sided is either being misinformed or disingenuous. Pick one.

I did not suggest it was one sided, I stated it was not on topic, but that I would comment on it on a thread about it (and even clearly explained why that was)... but... well... you made it a part of the thread, put your own unique spin on it....  and the rabbit hole had its own gravitational pull, so round and round and down we went

 

12 hours ago, jany123 said:

Iranian Sabre rattling and gum bumping does not rise to the same level as we are seeing from the trump and it’s cohorts, pretending otherwise is what is disingenuous or selective.

Unwise? Probably... as your quite obviously at the tiller now, with this attempt to rewrite history, and blame it on me.... with this rubbish (the starting point at the top of this post, reattached for chronological purposes)

 

3 hours ago, Morch said:

You first ignored Iranian sabre rattling altogether, then alleged it was discussed, next moved on to claiming it was off topic. Now it turns out that you're apparently well aware of it, at least to be able and determine that it "does not rise to the same level" as exhibited by the Trump administration. Make up your mind regarding which deflection path you're taking,

I made no deflections ( other than to point out that you were trying to drag me off topic)... made no claims that I was unaware of anything.... nor have I changed my POV.... distortions are all you.

 

my only mistake was to suggest you were disingenuous... clearly that’s wrong... clearly your like a rather clever little spider spinning webs to your own design.

[JimmyJ]

29 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Where is the rest of the intervju, look like it could have taken out of context, even I would like to believe it is that bad, I would like to see the rest. 

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mikepompeotexasA&M.htm

It's near the end of the video/transcript.

Go to the end of the transcript and then back up a few paragraphs or so.

 

As he's says, it's an aside. It stands on its own.

He is proud of this and wanted to brag about it.

Perhaps the only time in his life he has given an honest fact publicly.

 

He is despicable, but what of the audience?

They applaud his "lying, cheating, stealing".

[Misty]

2 hours ago, Tagged said:

Where is the rest of the intervju, look like it could have taken out of context, even I would like to believe it is that bad, I would like to see the rest. 

A most unfortunate and unnecessary quotation, I'm afraid, as that clip is being shown over and over again on the likes of Youtube, RT, Zero Hedge, etc. 

 

Here is a link to it from the US State Department website from a talk he gave at Texas A&M University on 15 Apr 2019 : https://www.state.gov/remarks-at-texas-am-wiley-lecture-series/

 

The section in question:

 

SECRETARY POMPEO: So I always begin with a deep understanding that no secretary of state gets through their first day without recognizing it’s a tough world out there. We don’t appreciate how glorious it is to be here in the United States of America on a consistent enough basis and with enough fervor. Maybe you do here at Texas A&M, but I think too many Americans don’t understand how blessed we are. These are – are many, many tough places out there.

Having said that, not all tough places are the same. They each present a different set of challenges. I – it reminds me, you would know this as – it’s a bit of an aside. But in terms of how you think about problem sets, I – when I was a cadet, what’s the first – what’s the cadet motto at West Point? You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do. I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. (Laughter.) It’s – it was like – we had entire training courses. (Applause.) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.

And so when you deal with these countries, you have to just recognize they’re not all the same. Some of these difficult, nasty places want to partner with the United States and just haven’t gotten to the right place yet, just haven’t been able to move their own institutions. And some of them may only be trying half as much as they ought to be trying, but they’re trying to move in the right direction. That presents a very different way of thinking about how the United States ought to address them. In those cases, we ought to assist them.

 

[Misty]

6 minutes ago, Misty said:

Here is a link to it from the US State Department website from a talk he gave at Texas A&M University on 15 Apr 2019 : https://www.state.gov/remarks-at-texas-am-wiley-lecture-series/ 

 

....But in terms of how you think about problem sets, I – when I was a cadet, what’s the first – what’s the cadet motto at West Point? You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do."

 

This isn't even correct. He's paraphrasing the West Point honor code.  The West Point motto is actually "Duty, Honor, Country." 

[JimmyJ]

36 minutes ago, Misty said:

This isn't even correct. He's paraphrasing the West Point honor code.  The West Point motto is actually "Duty, Honor, Country." 

I disagree completely with your interpretation in your posts #46 and #47.

The longer quote you gave changes nothing.

As he said, it's an aside. It stands on its own.

It means what he said.

 

 

"This isn't even correct. He's paraphrasing the West Point honor code.  The West Point motto is actually 'Duty, Honor, Country.' " 

 

Further:

"The U.S. Military Academy at West Point"

West Point's Cadet Honor Code reads simply that

"A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadet_Honor_Code

 

"A most unfortunate and unnecessary quotation, I'm afraid, as that clip is being shown over and over again on the likes of Youtube, RT, Zero Hedge, etc."

 

No need to be afraid.

His comments are unfortunate for him and his credibility, as he lapsed and spoke the truth.

 

(Many of us knew this about him without it. He wouldn't have the job he did if he was otherwise).

[JimmyJ]

20 hours ago, billd766 said:

I do hope so.

 

We lost too many good people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc to send more of them into harms way because of a stupid decision made by 3 doddering old men who are simply war mongers.

 

If they do attack Iran I would like to see all 3 of them in the front line with ALL their sons and daughters, nephew, nieces, etc of military age.

 

Cadet bone spurs to be #1.

 

Then perhaps they may understand what they are sending other people sons and daughters into.

"If they do attack Iran I would like to see all 3 of them in the front line with ALL their sons and daughters, nephew, nieces, etc of military age."

 

"The 116th session will open with less than 18 percent of Congress boasting first-hand familiarity with the military."

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/11/21/veterans-in-the-116th-congress-by-the-numbers/

 

If those who propose war had to fight it, there would be no more war.

 

[Misty]

22 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

I disagree completely with your interpretation in your posts #46 and #47.

The longer quote you gave changes nothing.

As he said, it's an aside. It stands on its own.

It means what he said.

 

Yes indeed.  Perhaps you misunderstood my intention?  I wasn't interpreting anything, just giving the context.

[Misty]

50 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

I

This isn't even correct. He's paraphrasing the West Point honor code.  The West Point motto is actually 'Duty, Honor, Country.' " 

 

Further:

"The U.S. Military Academy at West Point"

West Point's Cadet Honor Code reads simply that

"A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadet_Honor_Code

And that was my point exactly.  He says the West Point motto is "You will not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do."  That is not correct.  The West Point honor code is as you state.  The West Point motto is Duty, Honor, Country.

 

[Misty]

49 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

"A most unfortunate and unnecessary quotation, I'm afraid, as that clip is being shown over and over again on the likes of Youtube, RT, Zero Hedge, etc."

 

No need to be afraid.

His comments are unfortunate for him and his credibility, as he lapsed and spoke the truth.

 

(Many of us knew this about him without it. He wouldn't have the job he did if he was otherwise).

Again, I think you misunderstood my post.  It is an unfortunate and unnecessary quotation, for the organization that he was nominally the head of for a very short period of time.  He did them no favors.  I do not fear for him or his credibility, but he doesn't need to create problems for others by speaking glibly or off the cuff.

[JimmyJ]

29 minutes ago, Misty said:

Again, I think you misunderstood my post.  It is an unfortunate and unnecessary quotation, for the organization that he was nominally the head of for a very short period of time.  He did them no favors.  I do not fear for him or his credibility, but he doesn't need to create problems for others by speaking glibly or off the cuff.

 

How awful for someone to speak the truth, and make it difficult for others who lie, cheat, and steal.

 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

One consideration that could make the major nations less likely to help the USA is the 2020 presidential elections. Doubt the leaders of any major nations, apart from Putin, are looking forward to a 2nd Trump term. And the thing is, the US will need their assistance: 

"Securing the gulf for oil tankers would require enough naval vessels and reconnaissance capability to monitor just about every ship passing close to Iran’s shores.

“That requires a coalition,” said John F. Kirby, a retired rear admiral who participated in the tanker wars of the 1980s and served as the State Department spokesman during the negotiation of the Iran deal. “We don’t have enough ships to do it ourselves.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

 

It's a shame even a balanced piece like the one quoted falls prey to cherry-picking. The article actually does a good job of presenting the dilemmas signatories face and may be facing. Not quite one sided as some posts on here.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, jany123 said:

Yep... the trump has wet the bed on this one too. Apparently he has a thing for that. What the trump has done, vs what the trump should have done, are most certainly at odds with what the world expects in presidential conduct and diplomacy.

 

the rest of the sane world needs to act together, now more than ever, to prevent the trump from further destructive actions, as congress and the senate are manifestly unwilling or incapable of implementing the checks and balances that they are charged with.

 

So, which countries fall under the "rest of the sane world" label? And are they in the habit of cooperating and coordinating on the level required? There isn't really a whole lot of support for such wishful thinking.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

For a country professing that it doesn't want a war with Iran, why have the USA shifted another 1,000 troops into the Gulf area?

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48671319

 

It seems to me that they are building up their forces to attack Iran which is sending the wrong message to the world.

 

 

 

I kinda doubt 1000 troops would make much of a difference, or that they amount to much of buildup. The number of USA soldiers stationed in the area is still far from those observed on previous occasions. That it sends the wrong message might very well be true. Guess it depends what message is being sent, though.

[Morch]

 

@jany123

 

You didn't "include" Iranian sabre rattling and then asserted different things when the point was made. Going on about anti-Iranian rhetoric without referencing Iranian rhetoric doesn't seem like much of a proposition. I'm not obligated to post in the vehement style many on here seem to favor or throw away reason because of political convictions. And "fence sitting" is about as absurd as it gets, as if everyone needs to be enlisted to and cheering one side or the other. We can't be all on the extremes - both politically and with regard to posting styles.

 

Doubt making a point regarding Iranian sabre rattling, when there's quite a bit said about USA sabre rattling is off topic. The made up "rabbit hole" thing - very picturesque, but ultimately meaningless. As for the personal commentary - welcome to the club.

 

[bristolboy]

31 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It's a shame even a balanced piece like the one quoted falls prey to cherry-picking. The article actually does a good job of presenting the dilemmas signatories face and may be facing. Not quite one sided as some posts on here.

If my comment was meant to be a précis of the NY Times article you might have a point. But as the opening sentence clearly indicates,  it was actually about the possibility that other nations might be reluctant to help Trump since it would assist him in his reelection. There was nothing in the Times article about that at all.  I cited the NY Times article simply to point out the dilemma that the US and Trump would be in if no assistance was forthcoming. You know, using evidence to support a thesis.

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

If my comment was meant to be a précis of the NY Times article you might have a point. But as the opening sentence clearly indicates,  it was actually about the possibility that other nations might be reluctant to help Trump since it would assist him in his reelection. There was nothing in the Times article about that at all.  I cited the NY Times article simply to point out the dilemma that the US and Trump would be in if no assistance was forthcoming. You know, using evidence to support a thesis.

 

The article discuses the dilemma potential coalition members may find themselves in. It references the considerations of such countries, for and against getting involved. Hence, cherry picking. Choosing a conveniently supportive bit, which somehow gives the wrong impression as to the gist of the article.

 

Wouldn't know that increased tensions in the Gulf, or even a war, would play toward Trump wining the elections, or that other countries' involvement is central to this. 

[billd766]

2 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

"If they do attack Iran I would like to see all 3 of them in the front line with ALL their sons and daughters, nephew, nieces, etc of military age."

 

"The 116th session will open with less than 18 percent of Congress boasting first-hand familiarity with the military."

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/11/21/veterans-in-the-116th-congress-by-the-numbers/

 

If those who propose war had to fight it, there would be no more war.

 

Part of the problem is that civilians (country leaders usually start wars but have no idea how to end them except by surrender.

 

They military fight the war and the side that has the most weapons and manpower usually win.

 

Then the civilians come back and they usually have no idea how to win the peace, how to rebuild a country from scratch etc. While you don't need as many military to keep the peace, they are usually there for a long time and cost a lot to keep up.

 

This assumes that the country which lost is fairly civilised and then you come to countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya who will always have resistance fighters who will ambush your troops, booby trap roads, houses, people etc. Your win ends up as a long term loss in manpower, materials and money.

 

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/iran-population/

 

In 2019 Iran had a population of 82,792,329 people

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

and a military of around 523,000 people.

 

The only way the USA can win in Iran is to kill every Iranian no matter where they live in the world, because while the Iranians aren't all happy with their government you can bet that the hate the USA far more. If you don't kill them all the survivors become resistance fighters/ freedom fighters/ terrorists If you want to call them that.

[bristolboy]

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The article discuses the dilemma potential coalition members may find themselves in. It references the considerations of such countries, for and against getting involved. Hence, cherry picking. Choosing a conveniently supportive bit, which somehow gives the wrong impression as to the gist of the article.

 

Wouldn't know that increased tensions in the Gulf, or even a war, would play toward Trump wining the elections, or that other countries' involvement is central to this. 

Historians, journalists, attorneys, scholars of all sorts routinely cite data taken from other works. Do they only take information from sources that support their theses. It is an obligation not to lie about the facts taken from the source. Not an obligation to cite only facts that are fractals.

[jany123]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

So, which countries fall under the "rest of the sane world" label? And are they in the habit of cooperating and coordinating on the level required? There isn't really a whole lot of support for such wishful thinking.

If it’s ironical that we need Germany to lead the free world, following the pain of the last century, then so be it.

 

ive got no idea what you mean by “cooperating and coordinating”, certainly the trump is not capable of that, as has been demonstrated, but in need, Im pretty sure that the United Nations could do the co operating and coordinating, on which ever level is needed, until after the 2020 elections.

 

[jany123]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@jany123

 

You didn't "include" Iranian sabre rattling and then asserted different things when the point was made. Going on about anti-Iranian rhetoric without referencing Iranian rhetoric doesn't seem like much of a proposition. I'm not obligated to post in the vehement style many on here seem to favor or throw away reason because of political convictions. And "fence sitting" is about as absurd as it gets, as if everyone needs to be enlisted to and cheering one side or the other. We can't be all on the extremes - both politically and with regard to posting styles.

 

Doubt making a point regarding Iranian sabre rattling, when there's quite a bit said about USA sabre rattling is off topic. The made up "rabbit hole" thing - very picturesque, but ultimately meaningless. As for the personal commentary - welcome to the club.

 

Rubbish, I did not assert different things, I maintained my position, originally expressed with a minimum amount of vehemence, without discussing the opposing position/ argument.

 

deep down I know I should block you, as engaging with you is bound to cause problems, but damnit, I do enjoy reading a good percentage of what you post, so I guess I’ll just have to bear that in mind and take my chances.