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

[Morch]

@billd766

 

I think it depends how a "win" is defined, and it today's reality, how it's presented as well.

 

The difficulties (and probably, the futility) of invading a country like Iran, and trying to install a new order can be addressed even without total annihilation playing a part.

 

Despite the bold assertions, there are Iranians who hate the Iranian government more than the USA. Some in country, and some away. Kinda doubt they'd turn on the USA to make your "point". Not sure which kind of victory would necessitate killing all Iranians, but bizarre, over-the-top posts are the new normal on some topics.
 

[user68677878]

smells like Trump BS to me- he needs to do something to bolster his popularity amongst the unwashed

[Morch]

2 hours ago, jany123 said:

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.

 

 

Ok....Are China and Russia members of the "sane world"? Is Saudi Arabia? Syria? Sudan? As bad as Trump is, it's not like everyone else is alright. Or was the "sane world" label more to do with Western countries?

How is Germany leading the free world (and specifically, on matters related to Iran)?

 

Your previous post asserted that "the rest of the sane world needs to act together....to prevent Trump from further destructive actions". This in mind, "cooperating and coordinating" seems self explanatory.

 

The UN isn't capable of doing much, let alone forcing key members doing something. All the more so when it comes to powerful countries, and permanent members of the UNSC, at that.

 

It's all very well going on about the whole world working together etc. - ain't gonna happen, though.

[user68677878]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

@billd766

 

I think it depends how a "win" is defined, and it today's reality, how it's presented as well.

 

The difficulties (and probably, the futility) of invading a country like Iran, and trying to install a new order can be addressed even without total annihilation playing a part.

 

Despite the bold assertions, there are Iranians who hate the Iranian government more than the USA. Some in country, and some away. Kinda doubt they'd turn on the USA to make your "point". Not sure which kind of victory would necessitate killing all Iranians, but bizarre, over-the-top posts are the new normal on some topics.
 

Name a successful US attempt "install a new order" within the last 50 years??????

The only winners being the MIC

[Morch]

2 hours ago, jany123 said:

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.

 

With regard to the first part, I beg to differ.

 

With regard to the second (1) Posting on tvf is living on the edge, who knew.

                                       (2) I suspect Mrs. Morch sometimes feels a similar sentiment.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, porphyry said:

Name a successful US attempt "install a new order" within the last 50 years??????

The only winners being the MIC

 

Why would I? Did I post anything in favor of such policies?

 

[billd766]

14 minutes ago, porphyry said:

Name a successful US attempt "install a new order" within the last 50 years??????

The only winners being the MIC

Can I ask a friend?

 

I am sure that Morch has the answer to that question.

[Credo]

This is a situation which requires international consensus.  Unfortunately, US credibility in the area is low after the Iraq WMD fiasco.   The current president has a track record of truthfulness that leads a lot to be desired.   

 

I suspect that other than the UK, the US will have little help from the traditional allies.   

[Morch]

8 hours ago, billd766 said:

Can I ask a friend?

 

I am sure that Morch has the answer to that question.

 

Awww...I'm flattered, touched, if confused.

Are we friends? Does the bogus question got anything to do with my posts?

[Morch]

8 hours ago, Credo said:

This is a situation which requires international consensus.  Unfortunately, US credibility in the area is low after the Iraq WMD fiasco.   The current president has a track record of truthfulness that leads a lot to be desired.   

 

I suspect that other than the UK, the US will have little help from the traditional allies.   

 

The first part, yes.

The second, depends. If the evidence regarding Iranian complicity/responsibility for attacks is indeed "compelling", and/or if Iran pushes the boundaries of non-compliance too far - things may change.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, bristolboy said:

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.

 

How very Trumpian.

 

Bad historians, journalists and scholars may opt to quote things out of context, cherry-pick and whatnot. In my experience, they are often called out by peers when attempting such practices. The more amusing bit is you yourself often point out such issues with regard to others' posts.

 

For three of the disciplines mentioned, the expected norm is to address such differences, rather than gloss over or ignore them. I think attorneys often practice what you currently preach, but that's not say much in favor of the "argument".

 

Carry on.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

How very Trumpian.

 

Bad historians, journalists and scholars may opt to quote things out of context, cherry-pick and whatnot. In my experience, they are often called out by peers when attempting such practices. The more amusing bit is you yourself often point out such issues with regard to others' posts.

 

For three of the disciplines mentioned, the expected norm is to address such differences, rather than gloss over or ignore them. I think attorneys often practice what you currently preach, but that's not say much in favor of the "argument".

 

Carry on.

Nonsense. Scholars and researchers of all stripes and viewpoints assemble facts to support an argument. You think that they get to own those facts? That the only legitimate use of them is in support of their viewpoint? That using the facts against them is unfair? So in a debate, you can't use a fact cited by opponents against them? Most people would consider that a particularly effective use of facts. Not you, apparently.  In and of themselves, facts don't have a viewpoint. That's why they're facts.

One could certainly argue with my thesis, such as it is. I myself didn't offer it as a sure thing, But that's a different matter entirely.

And of course in this case I wasn't even disputing or agreeing with what the author write. Simply using a quote from an authority about the difficulty of America going it alone in the Gulf. I kind of doubt that the author of the piece thinks he gets to own a quote from someone else.

 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. Scholars and researchers of all stripes and viewpoints assemble facts to support an argument. You think that they get to own those facts? That the only legitimate use of them is in support of their viewpoint? That using the facts against them is unfair? So in a debate, you can't use a fact cited by opponents against them? Most people would consider that a particularly effective use of facts. Not you, apparently.  In and of themselves, facts don't have a viewpoint. That's why they're facts.

One could certainly argue with my thesis, such as it is. I myself didn't offer it as a sure thing, But that's a different matter entirely.

And of course in this case I wasn't even disputing or agreeing with what the author write. Simply using a quote from an authority about the difficulty of America going it alone in the Gulf. I kind of doubt that the author of the piece thinks he gets to own a quote from someone else.

 

 

Which, as per script, isn't quite what I posted, but a tailored version used to deflect.

Nothing was said about "ownership" of facts, in my posts.

Deflect away.

 

[metisdead]

A troll post containing a trolling meme has been removed. 

[bristolboy]

On 6/19/2019 at 2:41 PM, Morch said:

 

Which, as per script, isn't quite what I posted, but a tailored version used to deflect.

Nothing was said about "ownership" of facts, in my posts.

Deflect away.

 

Your position is still absurd. On the one hand you apparently believed I quoted this out of context "Bad historians, journalists and scholars may opt to quote things out of context, cherry-pick and whatnot." How did I misrepresnet the meaning import of the following quote:

"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

How would the context have changed the meaning or import of what the general said? He said the US would need help. I wrote it's no sure thing that the US will get that help.  You've got nothing.