Lets Get Political

[Gfted1]

Wait, not a single living person or physical evidence can verify "god", so this a case of one group of fairy tale believers making fun of another group of fairy tale believers. Weird.

[BruceVC]

22 minutes ago, smjjames said:

Also the same people that think praying constantly during a hurricane makes their leader generate a hurricane proof shield

Anyhow, the crisis with Iran has suddenly escalated as they've managed to shoot down an US drone (lucky shot I suppose) and apparently the WH is scrambling to decide how to respond. I can get the WH scrambling, but I'm slightly surprised that the Pentagon  is scrambling since the military (rightly or wrongly) has a reputation for having contingency plans within contingency plans within contingency plans. But I suppose the saying 'the plan never survives contact with the enemy' (not quite verbatim, but that's the basic idea) applies and they can't do contingency for every possible situation and every possible permutation of everything.

Iran claims the drone was over there territory,  the Pentagon says it wasn't. Either way Iran shouldn't have shot down the drone 

I believe the Pentagon, lets see how it unfolds but the Revolutionary Guard is not thinking clearly to provoke the USA like this and whatever happens is on them 

[smjjames]

It's apparently right inside the strait of hormuz, close to where Omani/UAE waters meet Iranian waters and theres no space for 'international waters' between. It could have been in Omani/UAE waters or it might not, can't tell from the map provided.

[Gromnir]

8 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Wait, not a single living person or physical evidence can verify "god", so this a case of one group of fairy tale believers making fun of another group of fairy tale believers. Weird.

and thus i clothe my naked villany
with odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ,
and seem a saint, when most i play the devil. --richard iii, act 1, scene iii 

is easy to get distracted. the wrong is not 'bout god or religion. example: the rajneesh guy specific stated he weren't selling religion.

sure, use god and religion to exploit the desperate and needy is a common technique, and given US Constitution's First Amendment, do as richard iii is a smart way to run a con. 

but yeah, am not 100% certain what separates a cult from a legit religion. w/o any preconceptions, walk into a midwestern or southern christian church on a sunday morning and listen and watch objective. folks, young and old, chanting in unison. symbolic cannibalism. disturbing iconography. is all kinda weird and creepy.

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

10 minutes ago, smjjames said:

It's apparently right inside the strait of hormuz, close to where Omani/UAE waters meet Iranian waters and theres no space for 'international waters' between. It could have been in Omani/UAE waters or it might not, can't tell from the map provided.

I have just watched an interview with Trump where Justin Trudeau was present, Trump was asked several questions around this incident and he actually played it down

He  made several comments like "  people must wait for his response " , " its not the same as USA soldiers being attacked as its basically a robot "  and " it was probably a mistake from Iran and they didnt mean to it "

So we will have to see how this unfolds ....but it was a mistake from Iran on several levels. They not in a position to be over-zealous and jingoistic with the USA, why provoke countries you cant possibly win a war against. That kind of hubris is really counter productive to Irans future  

[smjjames]

10 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I have just watched an interview with Trump where Justin Trudeau was present, Trump was asked several questions around this incident and he actually played it down

He  made several comments like "  people must wait for his response " , " its not the same as USA soldiers being attacked as its basically a robot "  and " it was probably a mistake from Iran and they didnt mean to it "

So we will have to see how this unfolds ....but it was a mistake from Iran on several levels. They not in a position to be over-zealous and jingoistic with the USA, why provoke countries you cant possibly win a war against. That kind of hubris is really counter productive to Irans future  

I saw on The Guardian liveblog that he said that, couldn't decide whether he was being stupid or if he was subtly trying to give Iran an offramp to de-escalation.

The Iranian Foriegn Minister said something about taking this to the UN along with zealously defending their territory (which is their right) where they'll prove the US wrong. Mistake on several levels or not and hubris or not, taking it to the UN rather than escalating things further is definetly a wise course of action.

[213374U]

56 minutes ago, smjjames said:

It's apparently right inside the strait of hormuz, close to where Omani/UAE waters meet Iranian waters and theres no space for 'international waters' between. It could have been in Omani/UAE waters or it might not, can't tell from the map provided.

It's a matter of definitions, I suspect. Iran is claiming that the drone was inside their "airspace". It's possible it technically wasn't within the customary 12NM area while still remaining inside Tehran Flight Information Region. FIRs aren't interchangeable with sovereign airspace, but countries are still responsible for air traffic control within their respective FIRs.

Edited June 20, 2019 by 213374U
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[bringingyouthefuture]

I do remember Trump being like "we aren't going to give away our strategy" all the time, now with him not talking ever about his plans, its pretty terrifying, almost like he is above accountability.  I have new respect for Presidents who don't equivocate, and I think Trumps secrecy isn't going to play well from here on out when it comes to a potential war starting.  He needs to be upfront, he needs to be upfront about what his next plans our with Iran if he wants to stop a war starting.  He makes some really bad decisions when it comes to international policy ... I am beginning to think him wrapping up Syria had nothing to do with him.

[injurai]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/saudi-arms-sales.html

Senate Votes to Block Trump’s Arms Sales to Gulf Nations in Bipartisan Rebuke

[smjjames]

2 minutes ago, injurai said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/saudi-arms-sales.html

Senate Votes to Block Trump’s Arms Sales to Gulf Nations in Bipartisan Rebuke

How do you get around NYT's paywall? They've figured out how to block it when it's being viewed privately, so, I can't use that route.

 

28 minutes ago, bringingyouthefuture said:

I do remember Trump being like "we aren't going to give away our strategy" all the time, now with him not talking ever about his plans, its pretty terrifying, almost like he is above accountability.  I have new respect for Presidents who don't equivocate, and I think Trumps secrecy isn't going to play well from here on out when it comes to a potential war starting.  He needs to be upfront, he needs to be upfront about what his next plans our with Iran if he wants to stop a war starting.  He makes some really bad decisions when it comes to international policy ... I am beginning to think him wrapping up Syria had nothing to do with him.

'we aren't going to give away our strategy' can be euphenism for 'we have no detailed plans in place, we're winging it into the wind on the fly'. The problem with being upfront NOW about his strategy is that he's supernova'd away his credibility internationally and he's already well known for erratically winging it.

[injurai]

I may have just not hit my monthly quota, but I could read it. I do know there are some websites that will get around it for you.

[Gfted1]

I think "accidentally" Hellfiring a few of the revolutionary guards fishing boats would probably get them to check themselves. "Whoops, you got kinda close to us and we have a hair trigger since youre being all aggressive. Our bad."

[smjjames]

They're now claiming they've recovered pieces of it from the water inside their territory. The problem with this is that unless they recovered it right on the spot where was hit, the debris can plausibly be drifted into Iranian territory in a span of hours (depends on the conditions) and the debris spread from the explosion could end up being quite big, so, this claim solves nothing unless they can demonstrate with proof of where and when exactly the debris was found.

Edited June 20, 2019 by smjjames

[Zoraptor]

4 hours ago, smjjames said:

Anyhow, the crisis with Iran has suddenly escalated as they've managed to shoot down an US drone (lucky shot I suppose) and apparently the WH is scrambling to decide how to respond.

Drones are actually pretty easy to shoot down. The commonly known ones are (basically) for use against people with little to no anti air capability because of that. They probably didn't expect that type of drone to get hit though, as it flies high and is extremely expensive.

3 hours ago, 213374U said:

It's a matter of definitions, I suspect. Iran is claiming that the drone was inside their "airspace". It's possible it technically wasn't within the customary 12NM area while still remaining inside Tehran Flight Information Region. FIRs aren't interchangeable with sovereign airspace, but countries are still responsible for air traffic control within their respective FIRs.

It would be the 'contiguous zone' component of territorial waters rather than FIR which would be relevant there, for Iran they are claimed out to 24NM/ 44km; and the type of SAM used only has a range of ~50km so practically it would have to have been inside that zone at least. FIRs and ADIZ are very regularly violated/ 'violated' (ADIZ at least are completely arbitrary and have no actual legal basis, so they are more ignored than violated).

Having listened to the US CentCom (?) statement on the matter two things stood out; that they said Iran was claiming it was shot down over Iran (not Iranian waters as actually claimed by Iran) and they said it was shot down in the Straits of Hormuz in International Waters (in the SoH proper there are no International Waters, you have to be in the Persian/ Omani Gulfs for that, unless you claim the shipping lanes as such which would be... cheeky, for a spy plane).

[ShadySands]

And now for something completely different

Supreme Court: Cross Can Stand On Public Land In Separation Of Church And State Case

I'm confused on how the cross is now to be considered secular but its removal would be hostile to religion but I guess that's why I'm not on the Supreme Court

[Gromnir]

32 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

And now for something completely different

Supreme Court: Cross Can Stand On Public Land In Separation Of Church And State Case

I'm confused on how the cross is now to be considered secular but its removal would be hostile to religion but I guess that's why I'm not on the Supreme Court

of the less activist Justices, alito is the Court's brown

give him the stuff you know folks is gonna ridicule. were no way to dress up this dog.

gorsuch sided with the majority, but he got the line which is gonna be quoted most frequent down the road... when this decision gets corrected. 

"what matters when it comes to assessing a monument, symbol, or practice isn’t its age but its compliance with ageless principles. the Constitution’s meaning is fixed, not some good-for-this-day-only coupon, and a practice consistent with our nation’s traditions is just as permissible whether undertaken today or 94 years ago."

ever have a parent or authority figure use the dreaded "because i said so," to explain why you need finish some chore or exercise which were clear pointless or unnecessary? well, alito resorted to legal equivalent o'. "because we say so," as their explanation for why religious monuments with a long enough history gets a presumption o' Constitutional validity.  is hundreds, if not thousands o' monuments that clear align with a specific religious faith which exist and is maintained on government lands. is no legal authority or precedent to support alito's decision, but the Court were too gutless to admit the seeming impracticality o' rendering the multitudes o' monuments Unconstitutional.

conclusion: the weight of history lends power and vitality to an otherwise unconstitutional edifice.

...

why? will the Court use same reasoning to prop up other unconstitutional practices?  is a dangerously slippery slope if other practices repeated often enough and long enough should enjoy a similarly transformative metamorphosis, no? but the thing is, we don't expect any such hobgoblins to emerge from the metaphorical closet. is no way the Court uses such reasoning to defend those imagined evils all too numerous to count. this were an aberrational one-off which will carry same weight as trump speaking 'bout sexual harassment or kyrie irving opinions on nasa funding. 

oh, and before the more liberal minded folks nod agreement, keep in mind a couple years ago we criticized such bass ackwards nonsense when we got J. Kennedy's obergefell decision. IF there is transformative moments or events which has the ugly lemon-failed peace cross caterpillar transformed to take wing as a Constitutional butterfly, it sure as hell ain't the Court's place to decide such. if a history o' societal acceptance altered the fabric o' the First Amendment, we woulda' expected such an event to be accompanied by fireworks and parades, but we don't recall any such events inspired by the maryland Peace Cross. nevertheless, seven Justices heard the song o' freedom when the rest o' us were deaf to it?

and thus ends our requisite grumpy post for the week... day.

HA! Good Fun!

[smjjames]

And now for something completely and utterly ridiculous all of Oregons Republican state Senators literally fled the capitol in an attempt to evade a cap and trade carbon emissions bill. Rofl. The issue itself isn't utterly ridiculous (some Republicans would say it is though ) and deserves debate, as it should, but the behavior is totally ridiculous, lol....

[Zoraptor]

So apparently strikes against Iran were ordered and then aborted by Trump last minute. NYT/ 'anonymous administration' sources combo, so probably requires a pinch of salt until someone publishes a picture of the Pentagon car park or something.

[Guard Dog]

The irritating thing about this Iran mess is it's absolute needlessness. Yes the deal agreed to by the previous admin was a bad deal. But it was still a deal the US agreed to. Agreements with the United States should be expected to extend beyond the next administration. No matter how little the new POTUS might like it. Now the US is obligated to respond to the drone incident. The only thing worse than a punitive air/missile strike on the air defense battery that shot down that drone would be to do nothing. Doing nothing would only encourage more aggression.  Maybe the next time they shoot down a manned plane. Or attack a ship. Then we WILL be in a war. But the worst part of all is it is so stupid that we're even in this bind to begin with. 

[Chilloutman]

I thought that whole point of having drones instead of manned planes is that you are not pissed and start war if its get shot down.... but what I know right?

[213374U]

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

The only thing worse than a punitive air/missile strike on the air defense battery that shot down that drone would be to do nothing. Doing nothing would only encourage more aggression.  Maybe the next time they shoot down a manned plane. Or attack a ship. Then we WILL be in a war. But the worst part of all is it is so stupid that we're even in this bind to begin with. 

Is it though? Seems to me that's exactly how you escalate the situation. One or two dead SAM operators, and next week they are the ones saying that doing nothing is how you encourage further aggression. And so they try a massed missile strike against the destroyer that launched the tomahawks. See where this is going? Do not lose sight of the fact that, even if they broke your expensive toys, no one has been killed yet.

Call me crazy, but wouldn't it be more effective to present a clear case with indisputable evidence that Iran is the bad guy here, to try and get broad support before banging the war drums? That's assuming the goal here is to avoid war, of course.

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

The irritating thing about this Iran mess is it's absolute needlessness. Yes the deal agreed to by the previous admin was a bad deal. But it was still a deal the US agreed to. Agreements with the United States should be expected to extend beyond the next administration. No matter how little the new POTUS might like it. Now the US is obligated to respond to the drone incident. The only thing worse than a punitive air/missile strike on the air defense battery that shot down that drone would be to do nothing. Doing nothing would only encourage more aggression.  Maybe the next time they shoot down a manned plane. Or attack a ship. Then we WILL be in a war. But the worst part of all is it is so stupid that we're even in this bind to begin with. 

Iran or rather the more influential conservatism  element ,who has the real power in Iran, like the Republican Guard have always been in contempt of the previous Nuclear deal

Remember they  agreed after much USA flag burning and belligerent anti-Western rhetoric to the Nuclear deal in 2015 and then continued to destabilize the region through proxy wars, funding brutal dictatorships like Syria and  deploying there Quds special forces. But worst of all  after agreeing to not develop Nuclear they tested Ballistic missiles....how is this  in keeping with the spirit of peace and regional stability in the region?

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/23/middleeast/iran-ballistic-missile-test/index.html

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-30/did-iran-just-break-nuclear-deal-again-ballistic-missile-test-launch

I agree that Iran will continue to push the boundaries but they also seem to want to provoke the USA so as I mentioned earlier whatever happens is on them 

 

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

 

Call me crazy, but wouldn't it be more effective to present a clear case with indisputable evidence that Iran is the bad guy here, to try and get broad support before banging the war drums? That's assuming the goal here is to avoid war, of course.

No you not crazy but merely mistaken, you dont need irrefutable evidence when Iran is clearly disinterested in peace and stability in the region as we can see from there actions over the last 2-3 years 

Edited June 21, 2019 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Chilloutman said:

I thought that whole point of having drones instead of manned planes is that you are not pissed and start war if its get shot down.... but what I know right?

Drones are very expensive hardware devices and when one is shot down over international waters it is considered an aggressive act, yes its not the same as shooting down a plane and killing pilots but its still considered a belligerent act 

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, Chilloutman said:

I thought that whole point of having drones instead of manned planes is that you are not pissed and start war if its get shot down.... but what I know right?

It was a very expensive drone- in the order of USD120 milllion, no typo, and excluding R&D costs that add nearly another $100 million. If there's a drone you'd get really annoyed about losing it's one of those; most drones are pretty cheap and pretty disposable, it wasn't.

[Malcador]

17 hours ago, smjjames said:

How do you get around NYT's paywall? They've figured out how to block it when it's being viewed privately, so, I can't use that route.

Looks like NoScript and not letting anything run on that page does it.  Apparently a script called "dock-gateway" may the the critical one, but I didn't see that.