|
wtf the muslim brotherhood of mohammed morsi was not a salafist organisation - had it been it might've been able to marshal saudi support what the gently caress
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 11:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
The Salafists were the second biggest party during Morsi's time in charge, and they actually ended up supporting both the coup and Sisi's reelection campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 12:46
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:I think the nasty arguement over one's preferrence of Egyptian dictatorship (Sisi or Morsi) that I had a few months ago, revolved around my dissapointment of Morsi and then fear of what he and the Brotherhood would do in terms of foreign policy (Yom Kippur 2.0, Suez embargo, that sort of thing) back in 2013. I think my main mistake was pinning Morsi as the center figure of the (salafist) Brotherhood, and thinking that Sisi was the protagonist of that fight considering it was mostly liberal voters who wanted his aid. I think it says a lot about you that you saw Morsi as a "preferrence (sic) of Egyptian dictatorship", and as other say, that you equivocate the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafism. Also I didn't get the impression from Israeli media at the time that any of those things were likely, and if anyone were to big up that option, it would be them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 14:11
|
|
|
Reports going around that Morsi was hastily buried at 5 am this morning in Cairo after the government blocked his burial in his hometown, and only 5 people were allowed to attend, including some family and his lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/glcarlstrom/status/1140861232435662848 The boys who cried invasion swing and miss again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:https://twitter.com/glcarlstrom/status/1140861232435662848 Fuckin A.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:https://twitter.com/glcarlstrom/status/1140861232435662848 One time, years ago now, I was going back through past posts on a different forum. To my surprise, back in 2008 I was pretty sure the US and Iran were going to war. I talked about the Strait of Hormuz, the range of Iranian missiles, and the number of nuclear sites built under mountains. All this stuff. But it all blew over, and if it wasn't for forums I would have forgotten all about it (it's easy to forget when you're wrong) and probably continued to hold the same ideas. Instead I made money off a naive person I know, who was willing to bet 20 bucks that the US was going to bomb Iran. I collected several times before giving them a break. The US can't afford a war with Iran, it would be far too difficult. That may be wrong some day, but it didn't seem like that day is today. We'll see what Trump says when Iran goes over their enrichment limit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
I love the part where Trump claims credit for imaginary accomplishments. If that's what it takes to keep us out of war, cool I guess? Still seems kind of bad that we have a delusional narcissist in charge of the most powerful country in the world though. https://twitter.com/dandrezner/status/1141014966922862593
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I love the part where Trump claims credit for imaginary accomplishments. If that's what it takes to keep us out of war, cool I guess? Still seems kind of bad that we have a delusional narcissist in charge of the most powerful country in the world though. It sounds a little like bait in my opinion. "Someone in the Iranian government, please say 'Death to America' out loud and in public."
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
The rhetoric hasn't changed a bit. He's lying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:One time, years ago now, I was going back through past posts on a different forum. To my surprise, back in 2008 I was pretty sure the US and Iran were going to war. I talked about the Strait of Hormuz, the range of Iranian missiles, and the number of nuclear sites built under mountains. All this stuff. While you're right that there's such an overwhelmingly strong case against war that it's very hard to imagine one being triggered intentionally, I think the more serious concern is that with all the posturing the situation could slip out of control and escalate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonnyc/status/1140727925345570821?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RobbieGramer/status/1141048650115756032
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
All the big state owned egyptian papers ran the same 42 word article on Morsi's death, that was on the third or fourth page. And a state owned TV news report on the subject ended with "sent by a Samsung device," which is a pretty hilarious slip up. https://twitter.com/torkyat/status/1140915442732740608
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
The United States Is A Force For Good In The Middle East
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
Helsing posted:While you're right that there's such an overwhelmingly strong case against war that it's very hard to imagine one being triggered intentionally, I think the more serious concern is that with all the posturing the situation could slip out of control and escalate. Yes, but people tend to overestimate the likelihood of escalation, and forget that de-escalation is also a thing. Even if shooting stars, I'm still of the opinion it would last a few days or weeks before dying down again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
I don’t understand the argument that the Iranians attacked the tankers. What could they possibly hope to gain by doing so? Just attack because blarg crazy Iran
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:That's still a whole third of entire petrol supply for the entire world. Uh, the 70s peak price was still less than $4 a gallon inflaiton adjusted. Either it's "not as bad as the 70s" or it's $5/gallon, it can't be both. galagazombie posted:Something like 70's prices/shortages would be catastrophic. The amount of sprawl and suburbia in America today is several orders of magnitude more than it was in the 70's. The average 2019 American has to drive a farcical amount of mileage to get to work, let alone run any errands or procure even basic necessities. The current logistics chain that makes America functional is so complex, fragile, and based on cheap fossil fuels for more than just cars. Take for instance that the invention of Air Conditioning/Central Cooling. The economic growth of the Southeast and Southwest that started after the 70's is in large part due to widespread AC making those areas livable. That power is maintained by cheap fuel and the second it falters armies of pasty white folk are going to be moving north in such numbers it will look like a refugee crisis. Garbage, garbage, garbage. The 70s was pretty much the nadir of american public transit and planning, and for most major cities that had a post-WWII population collapse the 70s were around the peak of said collapse. That's kinda why the impact was just so big in the 70s, and concerns of this happening again are behind things like American public transit expanding again, people moving back into the cities that were relatively depopulated then, massive amounts of more oil being sourced from the US and Canada (which ain't exactly good on its own) and so on. Also the US barely uses any petroleum based fuel for electric generation either. The primary fossil fuels we use for power are easily sourced within the country - under 1% of American coal usage is imported coal, and we export far more coal than we import, let alone how we're continuously converting stuff off coal. And natural gas imports are almost entirely via Canadian pipelines, so when you add in how Canada is basically America's puppet on these sorts of things to Canada's minimal means for choosing another export target, we can basically just treat that as an American asset in event of all the oil blowing up in the middle east. I'll also point out that we had fuel and oil prices that pretty handily exceeded the 70s-early 80s oil prices for a bit around 2008, and people barely even remember that, that's how little impact it put up against everything else that was happening. Or you know, how the Canadians and Australians basically have the same development patterns as America (often even worse) but the current average fuel price in Australia is higher than any American gas crisis has yet reached nationally, and Canada's current average is another about 13% over that, for the average Canadian gas costing 167% the price of the average American gas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
So... A modern American-Iran War wouldn't have a significant impact on domestic consumer energy consumption? I'll admit that's a good argument but I still find it hard to swallow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:https://twitter.com/glcarlstrom/status/1140861232435662848 Volkerball posted:The rhetoric hasn't changed a bit. He's lying. lol this sure is a tale of two posts, what with going from "see there isn't going to be a war because Trump said so" directly to "look at Trump lying again".
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
Shanahan is out as acting Secretary of Defense: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/18/politics/shanahan-out-defense-secretary/index.html quote:President Donald Trump said Tuesday that acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan has "decided not to go forward with his confirmation process." Shanahan's withdrawal was announced shortly after the Washington Post published a report detailing a violent incident in 2011 in which his son attacked his own mother with a baseball bat. its over some weird bullshit domestic drama, idk. Anyway, hopefully they aren't going to start bombing anyone immediately after replacing the SoD. No idea if Shanahan is a hawk or what.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
See, Trump said there shouldn't be a war! Dpesn't it make you horny for dropping some white phosphorus over major population centers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
He tends to lie with his supporting evidence, particularly when it comes to arguments and policies that revolve around how great he is, but not about what he wants. For instance, I have no doubt that Trump wants to build a wall on the border. I also have no doubt that a ton of what he claims regarding the wall, and why we need it, are outright lies. He doesn't want a war with Iran, and he's lying about how they're already trembling in his face to justify why he's right about that. The policy itself jives with a ton of other poo poo he's said previously that had a bunch of anti-imperialist types jumping into his corner rather than Killary's back during the election. There's not going to be any invasion, so there's 0 incentive for the US to try and fabricate justifications for such a thing, outside a handful of figures who's influence is debatable, and who own themselves on a daily basis. There's another explanation for what happened to those tankers, and Iran hasn't done much to argue their case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:He tends to lie with his supporting evidence, particularly when it comes to arguments and policies that revolve around how great he is, but not about what he wants. For instance, I have no doubt that Trump wants to build a wall on the border. I also have no doubt that a ton of what he claims regarding the wall, and why we need it, are outright lies. He doesn't want a war with Iran, and he's lying about how they're already trembling in his face to justify why he's right about that. The policy itself jives with a ton of other poo poo he's said previously that had a bunch of anti-imperialist types jumping into his corner rather than Killary's back during the election. There's not going to be any invasion, so there's 0 incentive for the US to try and fabricate justifications for such a thing, outside a handful of figures who's influence is debatable, and who own themselves on a daily basis. There's another explanation for what happened to those tankers, and Iran hasn't done much to argue their case. tl;dr: "I realize that I contradicted myself so I'm gonna waffle together a paragraph of unsupported claims and vague psychoanalysis of a sundowning old man and conclude that it all must still be the wily Persian's fault somehow." If you had the ability to stretch this poo poo out to a couple of thousand words you'd be a shoo-in at the NYT.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
if anyone cares Iran said it was Israel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
Squalid posted:if anyone cares Iran said it was Israel. Funny enough, I believe them without needing to see any evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:tl;dr: "I realize that I contradicted myself so I'm gonna waffle together a paragraph of unsupported claims and vague psychoanalysis of a sundowning old man and conclude that it all must still be the wily Persian's fault somehow." You seem confident. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and toxx that the Trump administration will invade Iran? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
I misspoke about prices, I meant of a similar price increase adjusted for inflation so way more than $5. I'll have to disagree about most of your point though. The U.S is way worse than the 70's as far as being spread out. in the 70's the country was around a third suburban. Today it's the majority of the country and inching toward 2/3rd's. And that's not to mention that the suburbs of today are much more spread out than they used to be. As far as power, you are right that most of our biggest source (because of fracking) natural gas, is drilled locally. However thats why I got into the worldwide logistics of everything. It's all lumped in one pool as far as the stock market is concerned, and theres nothing like a war to spark a panic that rises prices despite real world conditions being unchanged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:You seem confident. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and toxx that the Trump administration will invade Iran? drat dude you sound very shook take a breath
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:So... Like it would affect it. But it's nothing close to what the OPEC embargo was capable of doing in the early 70s. We're certainly not going to be running out of plastic feedstocks or stuff like that. galagazombie posted:I misspoke about prices, I meant of a similar price increase adjusted for inflation so way more than $5. I'll have to disagree about most of your point though. The U.S is way worse than the 70's as far as being spread out. in the 70's the country was around a third suburban. Today it's the majority of the country and inching toward 2/3rd's. And that's not to mention that the suburbs of today are much more spread out than they used to be. To help hammer this home, take a look at this, and remember that rural population as of 2010 was over 97% of the country:  Suburban areas are somewhat larger now, but overall they are much more densely packed, especially close in to the cities. You could never really hope for them to not expand at all with how the urban population has grown. There's been 99.6 million people added to the urban areas since 1970, while only 6 million people have been added to the other 97% of the land. This is not from mere copying of mid-century suburban designs my dude. And again to say nothing of the massive amount of new and revived public transport service compared to the 60s-70s nadir, as those were basically the time period when the government at large still refused to step up to governmentizing public transit instead of leaving it as primarily a private enterprise nationally. Now on the topic of natural gas and other commodities, it's not all lumped into one pool. For example, American natural gas exports are approximately 0.75% of US natural gas production and more than half of that is pipeline export to Mexico - not readily reroutable. Even if we desperately wanted to expand that, we'd be looking at shelling out billions upon billions on an ongoing basis to build out LNG export capable terminals and associated infrastructure to start taking a serious dent out of US slash NAFTA area usage. Similarly let's say the whole middle east just disappears tomorrow and everyone has to use new sources of oil - even if the NAFTA oil producing bloc wanted to start selling off all our oil from the arctic circle to the edge of Guatemala, we don't have the infrastructure to haul all that much more out to like China and Spain on short notice. These are the kinds of things that would merely mean the North American price of crude becomes highly detached from the "global" price, similar to how right now natural gas prices are somewhere on the order of half the price in the United States as it is in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Now on the topic of natural gas and other commodities, it's not all lumped into one pool. For example, American natural gas exports are approximately 0.75% of US natural gas production and more than half of that is pipeline export to Mexico - not readily reroutable. Even if we desperately wanted to expand that, we'd be looking at shelling out billions upon billions on an ongoing basis to build out LNG export capable terminals and associated infrastructure to start taking a serious dent out of US slash NAFTA area usage. Similarly let's say the whole middle east just disappears tomorrow and everyone has to use new sources of oil - even if the NAFTA oil producing bloc wanted to start selling off all our oil from the arctic circle to the edge of Guatemala, we don't have the infrastructure to haul all that much more out to like China and Spain on short notice. These are the kinds of things that would merely mean the North American price of crude becomes highly detached from the "global" price, similar to how right now natural gas prices are somewhere on the order of half the price in the United States as it is in Europe. The LNG stuff is happening - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/05/business/energy-environment/qatar-exxon-mobil-gas-export.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:The LNG stuff is happening - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/05/business/energy-environment/qatar-exxon-mobil-gas-export.html Yeah that's still going to mean very tiny export capability in comparison to current production, let alone known-capable production if we really start to spin up the extraction. It's the kind of thing that's going to take a decade to reach the point where so much export is both permitted and possible that it really messes with the domestic/NAFTA market.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yeah that's still going to mean very tiny export capability in comparison to current production, let alone known-capable production if we really start to spin up the extraction. It's the kind of thing that's going to take a decade to reach the point where so much export is both permitted and possible that it really messes with the domestic/NAFTA market. That's fair. I don't know your background but if there was a major Middle Eastern Conflict what's your armchair estimate on the impact to the US Economy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:That's fair. I mean probably a horrible recession, it's just not going to look anything like the oil embargo years. Largely because the US and the region at large has embarked on large scale work in the past 40 years to make that something that can't happen again without something crazy like Canada going completely rogue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 05:50
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:You seem confident. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and toxx that the Trump administration will invade Iran? Volkerball tell me more about how Trump is a pathological liar except for all the times when your narrative requires him not to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 06:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No you're just flat out wrong about the US being more spread out now then it was in the 70s. You're deeply missing how a lot of places that were still counted as "rural" in the 70s have been developed up to the point of being suburbs now, while there's been massive remigration to most of the big cities that emptied out midcentury. And by census rules, as of 2010 we had 80.7% of the population living within the urbanized areas compared to 73.6% as of 1970 - and the census says that urbanized area still takes up less than 3% of the country's land. I'm confused as to what you're saying, if urban population growth is because of suburb growth than by definition the suburbs are where people have moved to since the 70's. It's just plain statistical fact that suburbs have gone from around a third of the population in the 70's to more than half now. You're chart doesn't even separate urban into actually urban and suburban so I'm not exactly sure what you want me to see. Like one of the big things behind the suburbs was that you could leech off the cities without having to live in them. And I've known enough people involved in real estate to know that the current trend has been ever more spread out developments. Hell I've seen it happen real time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 06:27
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:I'm confused as to what you're saying, if urban population growth is because of suburb growth than by definition the suburbs are where people have moved to since the 70's. It's just plain statistical fact that suburbs have gone from around a third of the population in the 70's to more than half now. You're chart doesn't even separate urban into actually urban and suburban so I'm not exactly sure what you want me to see. They didn't move to the suburbs largely, although those fleeing rural areas do. They were simply born there and the suburbs themselves have grown into edge city level employment centers of their own right. And meanwhile we still have tons of people moving back to the old city limits and especially the inner ring suburbs around them. And through all that, the urbanized area still hasn't passed 3% of the land area in the country even as it crept over 80%of the population. You are seeing densification in action, no matter how many lovely large lot developments you see tacked to outer edges. They're statistically negible. Also the census doesn't split up suburban from urban for a drat good reason: you can't make meaningful statistics from that. It basically would require arbitrary definition for things how the "city part " in Dallas may be densely populated, but also random suburbs in Connecticut and New Jersey maintain that same level of density of population and robust amounts of jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 06:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I mean probably a horrible recession, it's just not going to look anything like the oil embargo years. Largely because the US and the region at large has embarked on large scale work in the past 40 years to make that something that can't happen again without something crazy like Canada going completely rogue. Worse than ‘08?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 06:43
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Worse than ‘08? Could be if it gets really big.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
Delthalaz posted:I don’t understand the argument that the Iranians attacked the tankers. What could they possibly hope to gain by doing so? Just attack because blarg crazy Iran from back a bit, but firstly, there aren't a lot of actors with the capability to pull this off. The only plausible options are USA, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. Eh maybe Israel too, though I dunno. UAE has publicly backed the Saudi line, however I've also heard indications that they are pretty fearful of confrontation with Iran as they would basically be on the front line. They seem to have subtly opposed escalation after this event, which makes them unlikely to be the perpetrator. Saudi Arabia has a motive, but lets be honest, they probably aren't competent enough to pull it off and get away with it. I mean I wouldn't put it past them to try, but I doubt they could keep it secret from the NSA or other US intelligence organs. That leaves either the US or Iran as pretty much the only two states with the motive and capability to blast these ships. Or least if it was the Saudis, the USA probably has to be complicit too. As to why Iran would do it? Well to speculate, Iran sees US sanctions as unwarranted aggression, and considers itself justified in striking back. Attacks on oil tankers could also increase the value of the oil they are still able to sell. Attacks in the Gulf and by Iranian proxies in places like Iraq could be part of an attempt to bring the US back to the negotiating table. There is also a long and tragic history of the US and Iran clashing in the Gulf, and other places. This would hardly be the first time Iran blew something up without explanation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 06:56
|
|