The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Sailer 1-Point Plan
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
  1. Let’s not start a war with Iran.
 
Hide 194 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. a says:

    You better run that by John Bolton first.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
    , @Desiderius
  2. But they sunk the Maine. Well, the Saudi’s Maine. Damaged, not sunk.

    The principle holds.

  3. Anti-semitism! Lot was right!

  4. Well, I dunno. The dude with the magnificent mustache will probably cry if we don’t start a war with Iran.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  5. JimDandy says:

    Trump’s presidency comes down to this. I keep telling myself there’s a reason why the very worst of the worst Neocons–Kristol, Boot, Jennifer Rubin, etc.–have been frothing at the mouth in perpetual nervous breakdowns over him. But I guess we will see.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  6. El Dato says:

    It’s a good plan, but John “Wrath of God” Bolton is pushing hard, because Jehova commands it.

    White House Reviews US Military Plan for 120,000 Troops for Iran War: Plan doesn’t envision invasion, which would involve far more troops

    From Reuters:

    The Times said among those attending the Thursday meeting were Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton, CIA Director Gina Haspel, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford.

    Several plans were detailed, the Times said, and “the uppermost option called for deploying 120,000 troops, which would take weeks or months to complete.”

    Sounds like this will be “Cakewalk II – Son of Cakewalk!”, now in “agressive war” mode the like of which hasn’t been seen since the dispute over Danzig. We already have the false flag, which may or may not have happened or might have involved an explosion or not.

    At least there would not need to be plans to bring the boys home.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    , @Bill H
  7. Anon[346] • Disclaimer says:

    One of the first things that seemed fishy to me about the Jussie Smollett case was the noose. Black people obsess about lynching; white people don’t really know or care much about it. To white people nooses vaguely evoke the Wild West, Saddam Hussein, … or criminal execution.

    https://www.latimes.com/resizer/_-O9pVa6zYBYGGVVYarYaY_V00o=/800×0/www.trbimg.com/img-5cd5bab1/turbine/la-1557510826-arokzs41m3-snap-image

    https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-noose-teacher-photo-20190513-story.html

    So when I saw a story about three white public school teachers and a principal holding a noose and laughing, it struck me as weird. Noose. Plus middle aged women, an added weirdness. Anti-black racist suburban moms and grandmas … in Palmdale?! Call the SPLC!

    One of the teachers in the photo is Jennifer Garcia. Garcia was the first-grade teacher of Gabriel Fernandez, the 8-year-old boy who was tortured and murdered by his mother, Pearl Sinthia Fernandez, and the mother’s boyfriend, Isauro Aguirre, in 2013.

    A law enforcement source told The Times that according to someone connected with Gabriel’s family, the photo was taken in celebration of Aguirre’s death penalty sentencing.

    Man sentenced to death in torture, murder of boy he thought was gay

    https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/man-sentenced-death-torture-murder-boy-he-thought-was-gay-n881101

    And of course, I bet Isauro Aguirre’s immigration papers were in order. If not, it’s racist to taunt him with a noose!

    • Replies: @HammerJack
  8. Maybe President Trump should have thought a bit more about issues like US-Iranian relations before becoming, you know, president?

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
  9. Lot says:

    You’re missing several important points:

    1. War with Iran is what St. McCain would have wanted to honor his memory.

    2. We have a ton of cruise missiles about to expire. You don’t want them to go to waste do you?

    3. Iran’s Sunni minority is being oppressed. We have an opportunity to finally fix this situation.

    4. Iran has a lot of oil, the whole thing will probably turn a profit.

    5. The only realistic option for some awesome F-16 v F-16 battles.

    6. We have to protect our allies the Kurds, who we owe so much to, though I can’t think of why at the moment.

    7. After 30 years of being 5 years away from having nukes, Iran is now only 4 years away.

    8. They burn our flag all the time. Can’t let that happen.

  10. @Stolen Valor Detective

    Maybe you should have thought a a bit more about how stupid you would look before posting.

  11. Tusk says:

    What’s with the anti-semetic canard here? Israel deserves to be safe from Iran, hence we must go to war.

  12. anon[150] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot

    6. We have to protect our allies the Kurds, who we owe so much to, though I can’t think of why at the moment.

    We need the Kurds. They have shown us the Whey.

    • LOL: jim jones
    • Replies: @Simon Tugmutton
  13. J.Ross says: • Website

    Let’s not start a war with Iran even as Jared assures Congress that people concerned about immigration make up a negligible fraction of Trump’s base, and Trump does nothing to stop the aggressive censorship, defamation, and disenfranchisement of his own base.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
  14. CCZ says:

    Which Democrat wins in 2020 when Trump leads us into a war with Iran?

    • Replies: @bomag
  15. Iran is an ancient Zoroastrian civilization whose people are getting incrementally more Westernized and de-Islamified every year. Top-shelf Iranian STEM types are coming to Europe and North America in droves.

    So what’s the point of bringing a war now? The West is winning the culture war against Iran, both in Iran and elsewhere.

    Iranian women may have the best-proportioned bodies around. At least 50% of them hover around the 0.7 ratio. Not many American Marines were bringing sloppy Iraqi women back home with them. Iranian women, however, can make for some high-quality war booty.

  16. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    But a war with Iran would basically ensure Trump’s reelection. Even if you’re not satisfied with Trump’s performance on immigration so far, would you be willing to risk a Democrat winning the election, with all that would entail for immigration, just to avoid war with Iran? Iran would bear virtually all of the casualties of a conflict.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    , @Anonymous
  17. This will be a big test of Trump. My guess is he’ll do anything he can to prevent US troops being sent to Iran, since one of his big campaign platforms was “Iraq was a stupid war.” And declaring war is essentially entirely in his purview, unlike some trade and immigration policies. Like with Syria, the uniparty can’t really force him into sending troops. They may be able to draw out some missile strikes though, particularly against “uranium enrichment facilities.”

    Of course, this being Trump, the instant the whole “force a war in Iran” plan reaches a climax, he could just call Haiti a shithole and reorient the entire news cycle for weeks.

  18. Anonymous[378] • Disclaimer says:

    • Replies: @Lagertha
  19. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    War with Iran is Lindy:

  20. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

  21. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    On the plus side, destroying Iran would mean that all the world’s hydrocarbon energy resources would be under the control of the US or US allies, except for Russia’s supplies.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  22. The sad thing is that we’ve made not actually winning wars one of our core competencies.

    • LOL: HammerJack
  23. JimS says:

    B-but the War Machine must be stopped, Mr. Sailer!
    https://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/08/iranian-war-machine.html?m=0
    I’m sure Iran has become a much more existential threat to the U.S. in the last 13 years, right?

  24. @Anonymous

    with all that would entail for immigration,

    Ha! When will people start noticing Trump has done almost nothing to actually stop immigration? It‘s all posturing. We would actually be better off with a lib in office who is scared of alienating the center by moving too far left. A Bernie Sanders, willing to attack immigration from a pro-worker left wing point of view, would be ideal.

    • Troll: IHTG
  25. @Lot

    2. We have a ton of cruise missiles about to expire. You don’t want them to go to waste do you?

    Missiles are rotting in the siloes!

    3. Iran’s Sunni minority is being oppressed.

    Baha’is even worse. We need them in Wilmette!

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
  26. @Anon

    The Current Year in a nutshell. The media are forever in a 24/7 frenzy to locate and publicize the Great White Racist.

    Over and over it turns out they’ve distorted the truth well beyond recognition, or simply made up the “facts” outright. Then they affect fury at being called “fake news”.

    I’m sure they’ll issue a correction or “clarification” in some obscure place, the online equivalent of fine print on the back pages. But not to worry, they got what they wanted.

  27. @Peter Akuleyev

    Agreed, but if you don’t think the immigration situation can get worse, just wait.

  28. Anonymous[398] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Ha. “Do a war with Iran or the ebil Demonrats will take ur guns”

    Yeah, no. This is not 2004. The people who voted for Trump specifically voted to end foreign wars.

    Try again, jidf.

  29. Mr. Blank says:

    Agreed.

    I have no love for Iran’s leadership. I want to see the mullahs fail and fall.

    But as with Venezuela, I see no reason to expend my country’s blood and treasure to make it happen. Putting our men and money into the equation will just make it easier for the leaders to blame someone else when the collapse comes — thus softening and watering down the reckoning that will need to happen.

    • Agree: Old Prude, MBlanc46
  30. Anonymous[154] • Disclaimer says:

    Indeed.

    The massive emigration potential from Iran – which, make no mistake will be triggered by war and regime change – is simply enormous.

    You’re speaking of a massive rapidly growing population with endemic unemployment and huge frustration amongst its young about their stunted lives.

    Of course, The Economist will see the emigration as a feature, not a bug.

    • Agree: Peter Johnson
  31. Anonymous[154] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    Sutton Hoo Ship Burial Helmet.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  32. @anon

    Report at once to your nearest political committee for re-education!

  33. Svigor says:

    Let’s not start a war with Iran.

    Whoa, whoa, whoa, cool it with the antisemitic remarks!

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
  34. @Anonymous

    Iran does not have a rapidly growing population. Quite the opposite: its birth rates are below replacement.

  35. Nothing really changed from the 1916 Elections – except that Florida & Maine, and California & Kentucky used to carry the equal number of electoral votes:

  36. Cortes says:

    Perhaps it’s time for someone to explain to Bolton and others that the scenes from Mt Olympus they remember seeing in “Jason and the Argonauts” and “Clash of the Titans” wherein the Gods shuffle their mortal pawns around aren’t, you know, real? Lots of focus on the Persian, sorry now Arabian, Gulf. Of course the muddled Mullahs couldn’t possibly mess around in Afghanistan, could they?

  37. utu says:

    Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi with liberal media will do everything to push Trump to the point where war with Iran will be his and his family only salvation.

  38. In a related story….

    WhatsApp urges 1.5billion users to update app after discovering a ‘targeted’ surveillance attack to inject Israeli spyware on phones

    App discovered a vulnerability that allowed attackers to install malicious code

    They would ring up target device and transmit code even if users did not answer

    The app discovered a vulnerability that allowed attackers to install malicious code on iPhones and Android phones by ringing up a target device.

    The code could be transmitted even if users did not answer their phones and a log of the call often disappeared, according to reports.

    The company, which is owned by Facebook, said the attack bore a resemblance to spyware developed for intelligence agencies.

    There are concerns that the software was used in attempts to access the phones of human rights campaigners, including a UK-based lawyer…

    According to the Financial Times, the spyware was developed by NSO Group, an Israeli cybersecurity and intelligence company.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7026177/WhatsApp-rolls-security-fix-amid-spyware-fears.html

    Skullduggery I tells ya! Nefarious skullduggery! [checks phone] Chicanery!

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @jim jones
  39. IHTG says:

    There’s no time for a war in Iran, the US is too busy fighting the “Rocket Man” in North Korea.

    • Replies: @Adam Grant
  40. @Anonymous

    Now it’s the northern European man’s turn and his vehicle of empire the USA.

    Nice try, oliveonymous.

    In reality, that man is busy overdosing on fentanyl and Game of Thrones in the backseat of the vehicle .

    In reality, y’all buckle up for just another absolute knockout of Selznick-Sole Distribution :

  41. @Mr McKenna

    I’ve long theorized that more than a few of the Russian Hackers we hear about so much have a cousin in Tel Aviv or North Hollywood.

    • Replies: @Hans
    , @Kibernetika
    , @Mr McKenna
  42. @Anonymous

    And the Shia will double plus good hit the fans all over the Beverly Hills :

  43. @Canadian Observer

    That’s why the lack of a ground invasion is disturbing. Maybe Melania is worried about competition.

  44. @Lot

    9. Freedom for Baluchistan!

  45. So, will NRO accuse Steve of a: spitting; b: urinating; c: defecating; or d: all of the above on John McCain’s grave?

    • Replies: @tyrone
  46. TTSSYF says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Trump hasn’t exactly had a lot of Congressional help with stopping illegal immigration.

  47. jim jones says:
    @Mr McKenna

    Several people have tried to get me to install WhatsApp on my Android phone but I do not like the company that owns it

  48. Danindc says:

    I think Trump will know enough to avoid war with Iran despite being pressured by the usual suspects and that is due to your ideas filtering through the mainstream media. This will be a great legacy for you Steve and of course PJB among others.

  49. 100% it’s coming:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/google-translate-now-with-kinsley-gaffes/#comment-2795609

    Btw, Steve: afro hair is also an Irish thing, just as being blonde is

    Two of my nephews have the Irishfro just like you did when you were young.

    WAIT A MINUTE…One for you Steve:

  50. Anonymous[422] • Disclaimer says:

    War with Iran will be ZOG’s waterloo.

  51. SFG says:

    Agree wholeheartedly.

    This is one of those issues that splits the populists on both sides, who have to do the dying and pay the taxes, from the elites up top who make money from the wars.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
  52. SFG says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I agree a left-populist willing to attack immigration because it’s bad for the workers would sweep large sections of the electorate that are currently pretty discouraged. That whole socially-conservative, economically-liberal quadrant has a lot of votes but nobody pays them any mind–Trump got elected by pretending to, basically, and then the GOP tried to take away their healthcare and give their donors a giant tax cut.

    (See the Voter Study Group’s graph on the quadrants if you don’t believe me.)
    https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond

    Big problem is, it ain’t gonna be Bernie, and nobody else would even be interested. Bernie has had basically the same positions for 40 years, which is both a plus and a minus–he predates the woke era of leftism, but you’re also not going to get him to change his mind. Thing is, this isn’t a major issue for him–he wants national healthcare (which I actually agree with him on) and free college (I’d rather see a lot of the lefty-factories shut down, but I digress). Open borders are basically Democratic holy writ at this point, and any Dem president is going to have staff who will implement them.

    Your best chance is to hold the line with Trump for another four years while you build a few think tanks to staff the Deputy Undersecretary for Interior Affairs-type posts that fill out any administration and without which Trump has been left relying on libertarian and neocon mainstream Republicans. Basically, you need a hundred more Stephen Millers (parentheses or otherwise).

  53. I am Captain Tripps, and I heartily endorse the Sailer 1-Point Plan.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @captflee
  54. @Lot

    You know, I initially endorsed the Sailer 1-Point Plan, but after reviewing and contemplating your remarkable list of weighty and persuasive facts and observations, I STILL heartily endorse the Sailer 1-Point Plan!

    • Agree: ic1000
  55. ==SAILER 2020==

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
  56. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:

    You’re a racist, sexist, homophobe.

    Attacking foreign nations with bombs and guns is who we are.

  57. Ibound1 says:

    Never ever gong to happen. We don’t need two Pat Buchanans Trump isn’t invading anyone. It’s completely against his nature. Iran probably threatened Saudi and this is our response. End result: more Saudi orders for weapons from the US. Mark it: there will be no war and Saudi will buy another 50 billion in weaponry.

  58. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Captain Tripps

    The corollary is forward deployment of US Army into Mexico to prevent entry and settlement of criminal aliens in The United States. A military zone where foreign nationals cannot pass without approval.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
  59. Dr. X says:
    @a

    You better run that by John Bolton first.

    Er…. don’t you mean, “you better run that by Bibi first?”

  60. @IHTG

    Trump is trying to change the nature of our enemy, North Korea, which is smart. We should do the same with Iran, by bringing it into Western civilization.

    Strategic genius Gregory R. Copley should be Trump’s top foreign policy advisor, IMO. Trump needs a fully conscious grand strategist.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  61. @JimDandy

    My only worry about Trump was his starting a war with Iran. The rest of the stuff was just politics.

    Now the damn fool is going to go ahead and do it.

  62. istevefan says:
    @Lot

    5. The only realistic option for some awesome F-16 v F-16 battles.

    Iran doesn’t have F-16s.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
  63. @Peripatetic Commenter

    Try writing substantive comments instead of contentless taunts.

  64. istevefan says:
    @El Dato

    Plan doesn’t envision invasion, which would involve far more troops

    People should pay close attention to this statement, for it says a lot. We wasted too much since 9-11 invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq because our betters told us bombing was not enough.

    Now they tell us an invasion of Iran is unnecessary. Apparently we can accomplish our goals from above. Why then the need to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Why couldn’t we just bomb them from above and be done with it?

    This is a huge admission that the ongoing occupations were, and are, unnecessary. We can’t go back and prevent the invasions that have taken place. But we should use this to justify ending our occupations now. And if questioned, just point out how they have just admitted occupations are not necessary. I would hope that people would be held to account for promoting and authorizing those invasions, but I know they won’t.

  65. Arclight says:

    What’s the point of selling all those planes, tanks, and missiles to our ‘friends’ in the ME if they won’t use them?

    There is no upside to participating in wars in the ME or Asia for us, unless you happen to be an ambitious officer who needs some combat/command experience to round out your resume. I suspect that’s the only reason we are still in Afghanistan.

  66. We ground-invaded Afgh and Iraq so we could install and support democratic regimes modelled on Thomas Jefferson and James Madison’s. Yeah, crazy, but if it weren’t so futile and bloody I’d have to admire America’s idealism.

    A pure bombing-from-above attack on Iran would be the Israeli approach (as evidenced in their destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1982, Syria’s in 2007, and the continued bombing of Iranian assets in Syria). The idea there is: we’ll disarm you, but how you govern yourselves is your business.

    Israel’s one foray into regime-change — Lebanon 1982 — ended badly.

  67. We can only pray. Maybe Trump will awaken and fire Bolton.

  68. Anonymous[103] • Disclaimer says:

    Starting that war will be starting a war with a Russian proxy. Those Iranians will have lots of weapons coming their way and avery determined friend. The lessons of Iraq are not lost on Middle Easterners.

    Did it ever occur to anyone that the cheapest, fastest, and least defensible way to deliver 50 lb HE on target (+/- 50 meters at 30 klicks) is with 150mm artillery? You don’t need fancy missiles to close Hormuz. Yes, radar tracks arty, but shoot & scoot is perfectly good doctrine.

    Don’t forget about assymetric response.

    Physically attacking Iran is … well, isn’t it obvious?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  69. Bill H says: • Website
    @El Dato

    The Pentagon also has plans for the military invasion of Canada, and even one for bombing Iceland into the Stone Age, but Bolton did not ask for a discussion of those.

    The Pentagon is in the business of making plans for everything that might need to be done, and for everything that will never need to be done. That’s what they do. They make plans. The only weapons in the Pentagon are the sidearms carried by the guards at the front door.

    When my father was buried at Arlington, I was greatly relieved to see that a row of trees blocked any view of the Pentagon from his gravesite.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @dfordoom
  70. @Lot

    #5 should be:

    5. The only realistic option for some awesome F-14 v F-16 (or F-14 v F-15, or F-14 v F-18, F-22, F-35) battles.

    The Iranians have a fleet of maybe 20 or so F-14 Tomcats, but they don’t have F-16s. Unfortunately, the US doesn’t have Tomcats any more (though the Tomcats were more awesome than the F-18, which is probably good enough, anyway; aside from one of them having been shot down by a 1960s Soviet air-to-air missile launched from a 1960s Soviet fighter operated by an Iraqi pilot), so no F-14 v F-14 battles either.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
  71. Mr. Anon says:
    @Canadian Observer

    Iranian women, however, can make for some high-quality war booty.

    War booty! Indeed.

  72. Mr. Anon says:
    @International Jew

    We ground-invaded Afgh and Iraq so we could install and support democratic regimes modelled on Thomas Jefferson and James Madison’s. Yeah, crazy, but if it weren’t so futile and bloody I’d have to admire America’s idealism.

    No, that’s what the US Government said it was doing. I don’t believe they were being honest, nor that they were motivated by idealism or a zeal for fostering Jeffersonian democracy. I don’t entirely know what their motives were. But subsequent events have pretty clearly demonstrated that those motives were not innocent and high-minded.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    , @Anonymous
  73. Anonymous[224] • Disclaimer says:

  74. Mr. Anon says:

    No Persian ever called me “White”.

    • Replies: @Marty
  75. LondonBob says:
    @Anonymous

    Just like the Iraq war established US control of Iraqi oil, oh wait.

    We had you all looking the wrong way with that Russian stuff.

  76. Jack D says:

    As Trotsky said (or did not say), “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

    So you agree with Obama that it’s okey-dokey for the Ayatollahs to have nuclear weapons?

    (And yes I know that the Israelis have nuclear weapons already but I trust them not to use them against the US a lot more than I trust a bunch of crazy mullahs.)

    Putting aside the whole nuke thing, Iran would like to assert itself as a regional power (and one that is aligned with Russia and maybe in the future with China). One that has power over the oil supply of the West. Middle Eastern oil is not as big a thing as it used to be but it’s still a big thing. I don’t think it’s in America’s interest (even if Israel didn’t exist) for Iran under current management to become the dominant regional power in the Middle East. It’s unrealistic to think that we can just assume an isolationist stance and let Iran fight it out with the Saudis and Israel for regional dominance. We DO have a dog in that fight whether you like it or not.

    Iran has now taken intentionally provocative actions (blowing up ships). While they have (as usual) tried to preserve deniability their fingerprints are all over this. The US cannot just ignore these things – that would only be asking for further escalation. And Trump is right to try to (REALLY , unlike Obama) choke off the Iranian nuclear effort – a nuclear Iran is NOT in the US interest. Some people here wouldn’t mind if the Iranians blew up Washington (so long as they took Tel Aviv with it) but I don’t think that it’s such a hot idea.

  77. @Anonymous

    What about the Medes? Are they on our side now?

  78. Anon[581] • Disclaimer says:

    Iran is the largest shia country. While sunnis have been increasingly influenced by wahhabi fundamentalism because of Saudi money and influence, enabled by the US, sunnis haven’t splintered into dozens of sects.

    Shias seem far more prone to schism, even calving off entire new religions like the Bahai. Invading Iran and disrupting its society could result in splintering and creation of multiple messianic cults, and combined with the shia embrace of taqiyyah could result in unprecedented chaos in the west as “friendly” Iranian shias play the long con.

  79. TheJester says:

    Why do the so-called democracies even bother with false flags these days? The pretense is so obvious. This is vacuous virtue signaling … signaling sans virtue since its all fake. Who are they fooling? On second thought, a lot of sheeple get their news from Facebook, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. They believe whatever they are told by the MSM.

    Do you see what’s coming?

    1. Saudis expose a secret plan for the Iranians to attack US forces in the Middle East.
    2. The US sends a carrier task force and bombers to the Middle East to be ready to repel the Iranians … promising 120,000 ground troops if needed (update: Trump says this is fake news).
    3. Saudis claim two oil tankers were sabotaged … “but don’t worry; no real damage”.
    4. Saudis claim two oil pipelines were damaged by drones … “but don’t worry; no real damage”.
    5. This could be a repeat of Desert Storm II to “free” the Iranian people and introduce democracy to the Middle East. What more could the world hope for? At least, on this go-round, they didn’t waste our time and attention over ‘weapons of mass destruction”.

    Who is sponsoring this war? Israel and Saudi Arabia. Who will fight it? The United States. Who will pay for it? The United States. Another trillion dollars here and another there. Does it really matter anymore?

    The United States didn’t win the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war in Syria. What could possibly go wrong?

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    , @istevefan
  80. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @International Jew

    Israeli Army is not well regarded. Essentially civilians playing soldier.

  81. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill H

    All except preventing mass invasion of the US by itinerant desperate men, criminals, terrorists relentlessly storming the Mexican border. That got buried the Madagascar amphibious assault dossier.

  82. @Jack D

    Okay, smart guy, so do you want us to make war on Iran, to suit YOU and Whatever your interests Truly are?

    (And yes I know that the Israelis have nuclear weapons already but I trust them not to use them against the US a lot more than I trust a bunch of crazy mullahs.)

    You are goddamed right that Israel has nukes. They stole them undercover and have never admitted to having them. Does that make them somehow more trustworthy than the sand people? NO. It does not, anymore than what they did to the USS Liberty or all the spying they have been doing here approximately forever.

    Israel is not a friend of the United States. It USES the US. It is simply more similar to us than countries like Iran are. This is the only deceit that allows people like you to make any moral comparisons at all.

    This is not America’s conflict, but your people have made it such.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  83. istevefan says:
    @Jack D

    One that has power over the oil supply of the West. Middle Eastern oil is not as big a thing as it used to be but it’s still a big thing. I don’t think it’s in America’s interest (even if Israel didn’t exist) for Iran under current management to become the dominant regional power in the Middle East.

    What difference does it make to a White American whether Iran has such power when we are being replaced in our nations? If me and mine are not going to be the core of America and even the West, what difference does it make to us whether America and the West are still dominant? What difference does it make to us who has power in the middle east when our lands are increasingly becoming not ours?

    a nuclear Iran is NOT in the US interest.

    Neither is a non-White America in our interest.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    , @Jack D
  84. CMC says:

    Can you make cell phone calls from aircraft carriers?

    • Replies: @International Jew
  85. Hunsdon says:
    @SFG

    As a friend used to quote “A rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight. “

  86. Hunsdon says:
    @TheJester

    Why come up with new tricks, when the old tricks keep working so well?

  87. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

  88. Not Raul says:
    @Mr. Anon

    The main reason Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq was to transfer trillions of Dollars from taxpayers to well-connected plutocrats.

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    , @Mr. Anon
  89. theMann says:

    Going to war with a country that has even limited Naval Forces could be a bad idea. I don’t want to find out what even one Kilo class sub could do to East Coast shipping, much less several attacking our surface vessels. In any case, I am certain Iran has more mining capacity than we have mine-sweeping capacity. And the Russians may have already slipped them a few hypersonic missiles.

    Oil prices likely to go up.

  90. Not Raul says:
    @istevefan

    If the number one and number two state sponsors of terrorism against the US (Saudi Arabia & the UAE) get a little bit weaker relative to Iran, how would that be so bad for regular Americans? The Bush network, major defense contractors, and the Neocons would squeal; but that’s a feature, not a bug. We should worry more about the Saudi nuclear program than the Iranian one.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    , @J.Ross
  91. @reiner Tor

    Sorry to be a bit pedantic but there would be no awesome fight between an F14 and F16 – even aside from as you correctly say, the US doesn’t use the F14 anymore.

    The F-14 (aka “The Turkey”) was a big missile platform. The more modern versions had wingspans of 64 feet and fully loaded could weigh in excess of 35 tons. It was designed to shoot missiles at aircraft threatening the fleet, preferably from beyond visual range (BVR). It was never really tested but by all accounts would have performed its role fairly well. It had excellent radar and missile control systems, etc. Turning with another jet in a close-in fight? Not so much, not its job.

    It was basically 2/3 the size of a 737 and relatively underpowered (compared to other 4th generation fighters). There was no other fighter it could hope to turn with. In a non-missile fight (e.g. gone to guns, a dogfight) the F14 would be almost as defenseless as a bomber. Especially against an F16 – which has definite weaknesses but lack of agility is not one of them. The Viper would turn circles around a F14 (literally in some cases – I’ve seen radar tracks of F16 v F4 “dogfights” from Red Flag in which the Viper had turned more than 360′ before the F14 had gotten to 180).

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @istevefan
    , @reiner Tor
  92. I say we let Bolton take them on mano a mano.

    • LOL: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @SFG
    , @Lagertha
  93. As long as we keep losing these proxy wars quickly and without a shot it really saves on nation-building expenses.

  94. Hans says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Unz.com republished this excellent article on behind the scenes in the “Nigerian” scam centers: http://www.unz.com/article/is-israel-turning-a-blind-eye-as-israeli-scammers-swindle-victims-in-france-us-elsewhere/

    “In 2010 seven Israelis were charged with scamming tens of millions of dollars from U.S. pensioners in a so-called “Nigerian scam,” according to Ha’aretz. Eventually, 12 Israelis were charged in the scheme to swindle elderly Americans.” etc., etc., ad nauseum…

    Ms. Weir’s Against Our Better Judgment is one of the best short books on our situation ever done. The “hate citations” are extensive. One to handout on street corners.

    http://againstourbetterjudgment.com/

  95. Marty says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Next time you’re talking to a persian, say “See-Ya HA! modagenday.” It’ll get a big laugh.

  96. Good plan. Unfortunately, this may be one those “they’re already at war with us and we just didn’t notice”-type deals. Hopefully things resolve themselves in a way that liberates the Iranian people from the mullahs before something big like a 9/11 or EMP attack occurs…

  97. istevefan says:
    @William Badwhite

    You could also add that the Iranian F-14s are the old model A version with the crappy engines. The latest USN version, the F-14D, had new engines and avionics and would have had a much better chance against the more nimble F-16. But the Iranian models are terribly old, pre 1979 revolution, and I doubt have had much in terms of upgrades.

  98. istevefan says:
    @Not Raul

    how would that be so bad for regular Americans?

    The number one threat to regular Americans is their ongoing demographic replacement. If we cannot correct that, what happens halfway around the world is immaterial.

  99. @CMC

    Depends on your carrier. I hear Verizon has a good network.

    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
  100. istevefan says:
    @TheJester

    Who is sponsoring this war? Israel and Saudi Arabia. Who will fight it? The United States. Who will pay for it? The United States.

    I’d like to see Trump tweet that he is going to pay for this war with the $38 billion the US has pledged to Israel over the next decade. Do you think the Israelis would forgo this sum in exchange for Trump taking out Iran?

  101. @Lot

    7. After 30 years of being 5 years away from having nukes, Iran is now only 4 years away.

    8. They burn our flag all the time. Can’t let that happen.

    9. Because “Trump Tower Tehran” The triple “T” just sounds right.

  102. Jack D says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    They stole them undercover

    Fool, the Jews didn’t need to steal nuclear weapons. They INVENTED THEM in the 1st place. They invented them once in Los Alamos and different Jews could re-invent them at will elsewhere. That’s what really smart people can do. All the tricky high-IQ stuff that white people can do, Jews can do too and sometimes even better. The Iranians (thank God) are still trying to figure it out after many decades.

    From the wiki,

    “by 1953, Machon 4, working with the Department of Isotope Research at the Weizmann Institute, developed the capability to extract uranium from the phosphate in the Negev and a new technique to produce indigenous heavy water.[21][35] The techniques were two years more advanced than American efforts. Bergmann, who was interested in increasing nuclear cooperation with the French, sold both patents to the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique (CEA) for 60 million francs.

    Skip a few paragraphs ahead and the French help the Israelis build a reactor at Dimona. The cooperation is a 2 way street as the French hope to get access to Jewish expertise. The British, the Belgians and the Argentines also sell the Israelis heavy water and uranium. America is kind of lukewarm toward Israel at that time (the old State Dept. Arabists were no Jew lovers) and not much help. The Israelis may or may not have “stolen” some more uranium from a processing plant near Pittsburgh. Maybe the owner of the plant, Zalman Shapiro (valedictorian Passaic HS 1938, PhD. Johns Hopkins) was not so good at math and lost track of the count. Who knows?

    In any case, the Israelis, without help from anyone else, developed laser enrichment and designed their own thermonuclear weapons (aka hydrogen bombs).

  103. captflee says:
    @Captain Tripps

    As a fan of both Jerry G. and Wolfgang von,( last seen alive tangling with Jim Clark on the Monza banking), though not so much Mr. King, not to mention a fellow captain, I heartily endorse your endorsement

  104. Jack D says:
    @istevefan

    Oh, woe is me. The sky is falling. Why bother even getting out of bed in the morning if there are Kneegras in the White House?

    One has nothing to do with the other. If you think things are bad now, you just wait and see how much worse they will get if everyone adopts your attitude.

    • Replies: @donut
    , @istevefan
    , @AnotherDad
  105. @Jack D

    You left out the part where the ones at Los Alamos gave the information to the communists they so admired in the Soviet Union, thus kickstarting the whole arms race.

    BTW, when you are representing Jewish defendants, Wikipedia is inadmissible evidence.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Lagertha
  106. Anon[384] • Disclaimer says:

    “As Trotsky said (or did not say), “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

    Trotsky was murdered by the same ideology he once supported. So, I wouldn’t take his word as the final say on any issue considering the man’s blindness to what was in front of him. Nice quote-mine, though. Besides, Iran is a small country that doesn’t threaten the US. Of course, being an Israeli ethnic activist who has in the past advocated limiting American speech rights to criticize Israel*, your motivation is clear: you think tricking my country into attacking your country’s rival is good, but my motivation is “Is it good for the Americans?”

    “So you agree with Obama that it’s okey-dokey for the Ayatollahs to have nuclear weapons?”

    He never said any such thing. I dare you to produce the quote if he did. In fact, his nuclear agreement assured such an event wasn’t even a remote possibility, and that agreement followed a decade’s worth of CIA assessments saying Iran had no serious nuclear weapon’s program.

    “(And yes I know that the Israelis have nuclear weapons already but I trust them not to use them against the US a lot more than I trust a bunch of crazy mullahs.)”

    USS Liberty Attack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjOH1XMAwZA

    “Putting aside the whole nuke thing, Iran would like to assert itself as a regional power (and one that is aligned with Russia and maybe in the future with China).”

    Scaremongering to get my country to attack Israel’s enemy. Saudi Arabia outspends Iran maybe 8 to 1 on defense alone, and they have comparatively much better weapons. The US also has enormous naval and air assets in the region apart from allied resources. China won’t be a blue water navy for decades and Russia is no longer in the top 5 of global defense spenders. Explain to me how a country with a GDP 2% of the US GDP or smaller, a country with zero nuclear weapons and mostly Soviet era weaponry, is an existential threat to the USA, especially considering the fact that they are surrounded on all sides and are a small religious minority in a large Sunni Muslim ocean.

    “One that has power over the oil supply of the West.”

    Laughable scaremongering. Iran is Shiite (and divided at that with only about 50% of the country’s population being ethnic Persians) and the Middle East is majority Sunni. Taken together with US assets in the region and massive defense spending by nations such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey, and Iranian domination of Middle Eastern oil isn’t even a remote possibility. Even closing the Straight of Hormuz wouldn’t be a possibility unless they were directly attacked. Iran hasn’t seriously attempted to close the shipping lanes of the Middle East within living memory of probably anyone posting here, but yet this ethnic activist wants you to think it’s a serious possibility (hint: it isn’t as it would also destroy Iran’s own economy in the process, ensuring the overthrow of their government).

    “I don’t think it’s in America’s interest (even if Israel didn’t exist) for Iran under current management to become the dominant regional power in the Middle East.”

    That country is weak and surrounded on all sides by rivals. They aren’t dominating anything any time soon. They can’t even beat the Saudis in Yemen. Explain to me how a Shiite dominated country is supposed to dominate a Sunni majority Middle East.

    “It’s unrealistic to think that we can just assume an isolationist stance and let Iran fight it out with the Saudis and Israel for regional dominance. We DO have a dog in that fight whether you like it or not.”

    We have no dog in any of Israel’s fights. This guy immediately resorts to slurs like “isolationist” to prod posters into thinking they have some duty here to support an attack on that country on behalf of his country of Israel. No, they don’t. And like I said, we already have enormous resources in the region, so there is little threat. He just wants to goad you into supporting an Iraq War repeat on Israel’s behalf.

    “Iran has now taken intentionally provocative actions (blowing up ships).”

    They’ve done no such thing. You must be referring to the obviously staged Saudi oil tanker sabotage that conveniently killed exactly zero people. No evidence beyond reports obviously leaked by John Bolton and company substantiate any Iranian connection to those relatively minor incidents; guys like Bolton (specifically, Cheney) did exactly the same thing leading up to the Iraq War – cherry pick intel, leak it to the press, quote press reports of the leak as evidence.

    “While they have (as usual) tried to preserve deniability their fingerprints are all over this. The US cannot just ignore these things – that would only be asking for further escalation.”

    We can absolutely afford to not rush to attack a huge country on behalf of your country of Israel, especially considering the dubious nature of the incident and the fact that no one was killed. But that’s what guys like this want. They want you to rush into this without thinking because if you do, you might reconsider. That says quite a bit about their true motivation.

    “And Trump is right to try to (REALLY , unlike Obama) choke off the Iranian nuclear effort”

    Uh, Obama already did that before Trump foolishly tore up that agreement. It drastically reduced enrichment levels, shipped out nuclear materials to third parties, and imposed draconian inspections for over a decade.

    “– a nuclear Iran is NOT in the US interest.”

    By “nuclear” I’m sure you mean “nuclear weapons.” Well, they aren’t “nuclear” now, and they weren’t going to be before Trump threw away Obama’s agreement. Even now they haven’t started back enrichment. Stop scaremongering.

    “Some people here wouldn’t mind if the Iranians blew up Washington (so long as they took Tel Aviv with it) but I don’t think that it’s such a hot idea.”

    Some people here pose as Americans and pretend like they have my country’s best interests at heart. Those same people wouldn’t care if American soldiers died on behalf of Tel Aviv because that’s where their true loyalties lie. Guys like this exemplify the dangers of the Israel Lobby. You have guys in this country who disingenuously advocate (or blatantly lie) on behalf of another country to advance that country’s interests – millions of them. As long as they are a significant force in politics, we will always be on the verge of some disastrous war somewhere; and when they aren’t promoting war, they are promoting illegal restrictions on the First Amendment on behalf of their home country. Eventually, they will lead this country to ruin. Maybe we’ll get a huge and devastating war or maybe Europe will kick us out of the continent and join up with the Chinese one day if we keep pushing things. But hey, these activist types will always have Israel, so I guess they aren’t all that worried. We only have one country though, and destroying our alliances and impoverishing our youth on behalf of Israel isn’t going to do anything to make it a better place to live.

    *In typical disingenuous fashion, this poster once used one of these synagogue shootings to advocate against First Amendment rights to criticize Israel and Jews. He claimed that he’d always supported the First Amendment up until that point but then had reservations (a clear emotional ploy to get other people to feel the same way in the wake of tragedy). What he forgot to mention: he had repeatedly advocated the same speech restrictions long before any shooting, specifically supporting one of Trump’s early – and foolish – attempts to limit criticism of Israel on college campuses. As I’ve said before, “All Jews are Lawyers. They continually lie and twist words while hiding their true, self-interested or other-interested, reasons for doing so.” These people aren’t your allies. They work against your interests even if they claim common ideological belief. Ironically, you’d be better off with a lot of left-wing extremists over these people. They aren’t nearly as dangerous…or as smart.

  107. Anon[384] • Disclaimer says:

    “Fool, the Jews didn’t need to steal nuclear weapons. They INVENTED THEM in the 1st place.”

    The Israelis directly stole US nuclear weapons technology, including fissile material. Jews aren’t the Borg dipshit.

    “Meanwhile, Israeli agents charged with buying fissile material and state-of-the-art technology found their way into some of the most sensitive industrial establishments in the world. This daring and remarkably successful spy ring, known as Lakam, the Hebrew acronym for the innocuous-sounding Science Liaison Bureau, included such colourful figures as Arnon Milchan, a billionaire Hollywood producer behind such hits as Pretty Woman, LA Confidential and 12 Years a Slave, who finally admitted his role last month.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal

  108. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Bolton is basically a classic nationalist, and he’s always been honest and open about it:

    https://www.ft.com/content/9ba83ab2-2e34-11e8-9b4b-bc4b9f08f381

    Mr Bolton has no patience for US democracy promotion, which gels with Mr Trump’s worldview. Contrary to popular opinion, Mr Bolton is not a neoconservative. Neocons believe US values should be universal. Mr Bolton believes in aggressive promotion of the US national interest, which is quite different. In a Lunch with the FT interview more than a decade ago, he argued that the Iraq war, which he strenuously supported, had been distorted by the neocon democracy agenda. “What we should have done is said to the Iraqis: ‘You’re on your own. Here’s a copy of the Federalist Papers. Good luck’,” he said,referring to philosophical treatises that inspired the US constitution. Mr Bolton was arguing for “America first” policies long before Mr Trump ran for office.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Mr. Anon
    , @Not Raul
  109. @Jack D

    Even though your Wikipedia-sourced defense of Israel getting nukes does not address the point of my comment, and therefore does not disprove it, I am going to be an even bigger fool and weaken my own argument:

    The US has meddled in Iran since at least the coup d’état of 1953. You of course know all about this, so it is surprising that you did not mention it. Oil and the overall chess game in Eurasia have always been at play.

    Israel fits into this now. Whether or not it was involved in 1953 seems an irrelevant question, the answer to which is probably “not at all.” Today, however, one has to wonder if our leaders would be so eager to attack Iran if not for the protection of Israel. Once an unfriendly neighbor has nukes, the situation would change to something like, oh I dunno, what the Jewish spies at Los Alamos created for America when they gave nuclear secrets to their communist friends in the Soviet Union.

    The fact remains that Iran would not be any concern of ours if the United States had not strayed from its original purpose as a nation. Unfortunately, that train left the station a long ago.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @nebulafox
  110. @International Jew

    We ground-invaded Afgh and Iraq so we could install and support democratic regimes modeled on Thomas Jefferson and James Madison’s.

    Well, yeah, sure, that’s what it said on that glossy cover of the corporate annual report with that pretty Iraqi lady holding up the purple finger and the smiling Afghani farmer giving the thumbs up sign standing next to his poppy, er, corn field with his son by his side. I think there was a blurb in the ExSum on the inside cover written by the Chairman of the Board and the CEO about “republican ideals” and the “right of self determination” something something but my eyes glazed over.

    You have to go to the SEC’s EDGAR portal and download the actual boring 10K document to see how the sausage is really made. In that you’ll find the “statement of risk” where they they discuss how “we can’t foresee how the market for republican democracy will affect future production of actual republics”, yada, yada, to cover their butt when the investment goes sour. Then you have to find the Income Statement, Balance Sheet and Statement of Shareholder Equity. Read the fine print in the Notes to the Balance Sheet, particularly where they note the YUUUGE write down on goodwill, owing to unforeseen events like when they had to artillery-strike and bomb half of Fallujah to rubble to prevent the Islamic Extremists from taking the place over, and the big hit to goodwill from accidentally bombing the wedding party trying to take out one of the Taliban warlords. Its all in the fine print.

    That’s why I am fairly conservative and skeptical with my investments; the big wigs tend to sell you a song and dance without actually telling how how they are really going to get from here to there, and what’s in it for you, the potential shareholder, and why its a good idea to go around the world planting the flag like your the Roman Empire while spinning a yarn for the locals about how you are saving them from themselves.

    I need to stop now before I drown in my cynicism…

  111. @International Jew

    Wow, cool; where do I sign up to serve on the Verizon aircraft carrier? It would be a lot more fun to travel around the globe providing cellphone service to folks instead of dropping smart bombs and JDAMs on people…

  112. Jack D says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Then when the Soviet Union fell apart, Israel got a whole bunch of top Russian -Jewish nuclear scientists to beef up their own expertise so it all came out in the wash.

    The Russians (equipped with Jews of their own not to mention some really smart Russians too) would have figured nuclear weapons out sooner or later with or without atomic spies. When it came to the hydrogen bomb they were ahead of the US. Stalin (in common with a lot of Russians) always assumed that Western stuff was better than Russian and preferred stolen Western technology over homegrown Russian stuff even when the Russian stuff was better (which it sometimes was). Sometimes this even held the Russians back because it was harder to steal and copy stuff than it was just to invent it in the first place. Stalin’s paranoia also meant that you generally had to steal the same thing from more than one source just to make sure that the West wasn’t feeding you disinformation.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Lagertha
  113. @Buzz Mohawk

    Yes, it seems to be the case that the two viable options for the time being are American empire or Post-American empire with the former being preferable.

    If that is the case, stirring shit with Israel seems counterproductive. I’d rather have the Mossad on side rather than off, especially vs the Chinese.

    • Agree: Jack D
  114. donut says:
    @Jack D

    “(And yes I know that the Israelis have nuclear weapons already but I trust them not to use them against the US a lot more than I trust a bunch of crazy mullahs.)” . Between the two countries only one of them has ever attacked us and only one has coordinated a terror campaign against US businesses overseas only one of the two has interfered in our political process to the detriment of our national interests . To call Israel an ally is akin to classifying a malignant tumor as an organ of the body .

  115. donut says:
    @Jack D

    It’s not the Negros that were in the White House that worry me , they come and go , it’s the Jews who never seem to leave from one administration to the next that I worry about .

    ” If you think things are bad now, you just wait and see how much worse they will get if everyone adopts your attitude.”

    Believe that .

  116. @istevefan

    And we no longer have F-4s and F-14s. Maybe C-130 crews can throw bricks at each other like in the early days of WW1!

  117. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Russian stuff was rarely better than Western stuff. It was occasionally almost as good while being more cost effective and simpler to make but usually lacked refinement. Ask any airshow pilot with time in both the MiG 15/17 and the F-86, they’ll tell you both were effective war machines and a blast to fly today but the MiG is fussy and has to be flown with due caution whereas the Sabre can be tossed around almost like a Pitts or a four aileron big engine Stearman. It’s almost Cadillac like in smoothness and a lot simpler to fly.

    US submariners watching Russian sub videos on RT tell me those boats look a lot less refined than US ones as well.

  118. istevefan says:
    @Jack D

    And, as expected, you failed to give any reason why Whites should care about this issue when they are being displaced at home.

  119. Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders – The most famous of which is ‘never get involved in a land war in Asia’

    And indeed who since Clive of India has profited from one?

  120. 1. Let’s not start a war with Iran.

    That’s a great plan… for Iranians. And it’s no doubt of some modest benefit to Americans. And i support it on those grounds and on the general–human decency–grounds of not messing with people when we don’t need to.

    However, as an American it doesn’t seem to be critical to me or my children’s and their children’s future, quality of life.

    My one point plan is more along the lines of:

    1. Stop letting foreigners–and inviting them to–invade the United States.

    Do that and i’m sure my descendants’ lives will be much, much, much better, regardless of whatever the hell happens in Iran.

  121. SFG says:

    Anyone here think it’s kind of funny none of the commenters actually disagree with Sailer that we don’t want a war with Iran and we still got into a fight about Jews?

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    , @tomv
    , @J.Ross
  122. Lagertha says:
    @Anonymous

    I find Jared so annoying and dangerous for Trump to actually win 2020.

  123. @a

    Pretty sure his plan is to let Iran start it.

  124. SFG says:
    @Desiderius

    Here’s a bit of German ingenuity working on this problem:

    “Kropp on the other hand is a thinker. He proposes that a declaration of war should be a kind of popular festival with entrance-tickets and bands, like a bull fight. Then in the arena the ministers and generals of the two countries, dressed in bathing-drawers and armed with clubs, can have it out among themselves. Whoever survives, his country wins.”

  125. Lagertha says:
    @Not Raul

    THIS.

    invasion of Iraq was to transfer trillions of Dollars from taxpayers to well-connected plutocrats.

    This is why I despise both parties. I voted for Trump so he would stay out of wars in the Middle East….or anywhere. Starve the Beast and let it die already….let all the Neocons & Neoliberals just hurry up and die. The “deplorables” will soon, never send their kids to any stupid war and die for nothing, as they have been, so corrupt DC swamp people can keep getting rich off the bodies of the Deplorables who are on the ground in a dumb-ass quagmire. Grrrrr…I am so angry.

  126. Lagertha says:
    @SFG

    Par for the course.

  127. Lagertha says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    hahahaaa, I’ve missed your ripostes! No More Wars! And, abandon the Middle East – we don’t need to be associated with people who must go thru a Reformation, on their own. So sick of the MENA – just get out and stay out. Let them fight eachother’s tribes and factions. Stay out.

  128. nebulafox says:
    @Jack D

    It’s not a matter of not knowing how to make a bomb: that’s been an open secret for a long time. Pakistan managed to figure it out when it still had a mostly illiterate populace. It’s a matter of having the resources and money to create it, as well as the geopolitical ability to get it off the ground. Iran has had problems with all of the above.

    Had the Shah remained in power and the mullahs not gotten the chance to launch an Islamic version of the Cultural Revolution in the 1980s in tandem with the war, Iran would probably have gotten the bomb multiple decades ago. The CIA and Mossad knew what was going on, and before 1979, Iran had no problem attracting and cultivating the talent. For big science, it can take decades to recover from ideologically motivated stupidity. Sometimes you never do, a la Germany.

  129. Lagertha says:
    @Jack D

    Stalin was a paranoid psychopath.

  130. Lagertha says:
    @Desiderius

    He has the mustache of seriousness: https://youtu.be/_7iXw9zZrLo

    He, and all the other armchair warriors of the USA, are not brave or capable of taking on Iran…..they have screwed up in all the MENA countries. Everything is horrible in the EU and USA due to the migration stemmed by stupid wars and stupid decisions by both parties.

  131. MBlanc46 says:
    @J.Ross

    He does nothing. He must be clueless about who put him into office and why they did it.

  132. Humbles says:

    Endorsed. We already are in a low intensity war with Iran, not quite a Cold War, and have been for a while. They have Hezbollah and IRGC teams all over the Middle East, Central Asia, Europe, North Africa and South America. We have JSOC and CIA hit squads all over the same places. It’s a relatively low-threat and low-cost war that we are winning. The Iranian regime gets weaker by the day. We should be targeting the Iranian people with full-bore propaganda and information operations, and keep killing Hezbollah operatives in their sleep throughout the world. It’s working.

    I don’t want to destroy Iran. I still have high hopes of one day sleeping with a beautiful Persian woman.

  133. MBlanc46 says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    There’s something to supporting Sanders for some action on mass immigration. Trump has been simply awful.

  134. @Jack D

    Oh, woe is me. The sky is falling. Why bother even getting out of bed in the morning if there are Kneegras in the White House?

    One has nothing to do with the other. If you think things are bad now, you just wait and see how much worse they will get if everyone adopts your attitude.

    Actually, i think if everyone adopted istevefan’s attitude, then things would quickly get a lot better, because they’d be focused politically on what actually matters.

    On board with your basic point here that you can–and should–be able to do multiple things at once. That’s called “dealing with life”.

    But if your house is burning down … you get your family the hell out, you don’t run to fridge and check if you’re out of milk.

  135. nebulafox says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Mossadegh largely took himself down, contrary to the left-wing Cold War narrative. He’d alienated a lot of people in Iran, especially in the middle class. The imagery of AJAX was more significant and damaging than the reality, not least for the Shah’s psychology.

    With that said, Bibi’s howling of how Israel is on the verge of being wiped out needs to be taken for the propaganda that it is. Israel has never been more secure in its existence, and the mullahs are very aware that Israel’s nuke capacity exceeds anything they could ever hope to get. Their main goal is political-and an Iranian bomb would damage Israel’s geopolitics, no question about it.

    Which leads us to ask: since when was supporting Israel’s geopolitical power the main foreign policy interest of the US government, at the cost of anything else? I can’t recall the American people being asked that, in those terms. Most Americans support Israel. They don’t support Israel that much.

  136. MBlanc46 says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Please, no. Enough nonsense on the north shore as it is.

  137. nebulafox says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    We can’t have nice things like Denmark, eh?

    If I had to take wager, to the extent that there is any coherence in their views, I’d guess the average American voter in 2019 is significantly more economically left wing and socially right wing and non-interventionist than our elites. Who benefits from a more atomized society? The affluent.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Lagertha
  138. @Steve Sailer

    Steve, you forgot to put “Russian Hackers” in air quotes. In the West, even the hideous Masha Gessen is passed off as a Russian. Not to go all ad hominem, but Gessen looks like a meth-addled Rachel Maddow who got “rode hard and put away wet*.”

    * Motocross term, borrowed from equestrians. Always clean your bike after a race; and always check in with the ship’s doc after shore leave.

  139. @Jack D

    Then grab a rifle. Enlist your sons.

    I’ll stay out of it and content myself with a 4 cylinder.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  140. nebulafox says:

    It’s funny. All this obsession over Israel, and everybody misses the truly scary part about Iranian nuclear ambiguity: the Sauds will want that too. They can easily enlist Pakistan’s help, and money is never an issue with them. And who knows, perhaps Trump/Kushner would turn a blind eye. Given the mutual pathological obsession the two Islamic regimes have with each other, it is hard to see how that doesn’t end in escalating games…

    Even leaving that aside, do you want the Sauds to have a nuke, or the ability to instantly assemble one? Or worse yet, do you want whatever comes after the Sauds to have that?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  141. tomv says:
    @SFG

    Jack D actually does disagree and he’s Jewish. Is it okay to get into a fight about Jews now?

  142. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Jack D

    Nobody believes this, partly because it’s the same lies from years and years ago, there is no popular support for this or Venezuela at all.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  143. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Not Raul

    You don’t care about keeping Yemen bombed flat, do you?

    • Replies: @Not Raul
  144. J.Ross says: • Website
    @SFG

    See Jack D. And I don’t see what trite or quaint about discussing the root cause of the problem.

  145. Mr. Anon says:
    @Not Raul

    I think there were a number of reasons for the Iraq War. The one you cited is an important one.

  146. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jack D

    So you agree with Obama that it’s okey-dokey for the Ayatollahs to have nuclear weapons?

    I don’t particularly care.

    (And yes I know that the Israelis have nuclear weapons already but I trust them not to use them against the US a lot more than I trust a bunch of crazy mullahs.)

    The mullahs aren’t crazy. And I see virtually no circumstance in which they’d use them against the US, so – in that sense – I trust them not to.

    Putting aside the whole nuke thing, Iran would like to assert itself as a regional power (and one that is aligned with Russia and maybe in the future with China).

    If we weren’t such dicks about it, maybe Iran could be aligned with us. They used to be.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  147. @Jack D

    the persians are coming right at you, goyim. quick, kill them before they get you! kill them all!!!!

  148. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jack D

    Fool, the Jews didn’t need to steal nuclear weapons. They INVENTED THEM in the 1st place. They invented them once in Los Alamos………..

    Is that merely ignorance speaking or just jewish triumphalism. In any event, it’s wrong.

    The Israelis may or may not have “stolen” some more uranium from a processing plant near Pittsburgh.

    Hey, “stolen” is just a word. There are lot’s of ways they could have gotten it. It could have been donated to the Plant a Tree in Israel Foundation. Or maybe it was just lost. Wikipedia says there’s nothing to see here, and there’s never any reason to doubt that unimpeachable source.

  149. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Adam Grant

    We should do the same with Iran, by bringing it into Western civilization.

    I just don’t hate the Iranians enough to wish that on them.

  150. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Bill H

    The Pentagon also has plans for the military invasion of Canada

    No reasonable person could object to that. We need regime change in Canada!

  151. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    There’s a theory the Saudis have less oil than we think, or they claim, because they are very short sighted and want to keep whoring it up internationally as long as possible before going back to the tents in the desert. So they present the facade for now.

    Saudi running out of oil would, of course, be a great blessing, as we’d be forced to quit our idiotic and short sighted energy policies and go to what works. I hope to live to see the day they do. We are sluts for that light sweet cheap to lift crude.

    If the West still had balls, we would put the kibosh on Saudi funding of nastiness by kicking the house of Saud out, slaughtering the Wahhabi root and branch (simply kill them all, efficiently, and haul their dead carcasses into blue water after slicing them open so they sink) and running things our way, but for our benefit. But when and if the oil runs out, why would we care about this backward patch of losers anyway? We would pull out and leave them to their nastiness, which would not affect us so long as we weren’t stupid enough to let any come over here.

    The House of Saud could buy a nuke and there isn’t much to stop them, but I don’t think they will.
    They are in bed with Israel and this would upset this relationship. Iran will get a nuke sooner or later, but knows if it used it we would unload on them with a full SSBN or two and while thye’re nuts, they are not THAT nuts. It’s probably to our benefit if Iran were in that category of, not actually having a deployable nuke but Israel and everyone else having no doubt that if sufficiently provoked they could cobble something together that would flatten Tel Aviv.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  152. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @SimpleSong

    Buy a vehicle that runs on CNG. We have all of that we need from domestic sources.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  153. Let’s not start a war with Iran

    I like it. Not that the Iranian mullahs don’t deserve it – it is just that we do not need another stupid war. And make no mistake, it would be another stupid war.

  154. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Starting that war will be starting a war with a Russian proxy.

    Russia cannot permit the invasion or the destruction of Iran. It would be tantamount to admitting not only to no longer being a superpower, but to being no longer even a significant regional power. Russia would very soon have no allies at all. It would be the end of the line for Russia. It would be an existential threat to Russia’s continuing independence.

    It would also be the end of the line for Putin. He would become a joke.

    • Replies: @indocon
    , @reiner Tor
    , @Jack D
  155. indocon says:
    @dfordoom

    Agree, unlike the Iraq war, any attack on Iran will has potential for WWIII like situation. Think of the possible chain of events:
    – Iran armed with enough Russian weapons and sufficiently capable military commanders (unlike dumb Arabs) launches counter strikes on all type of targets – hormuz, Saudi Arabia, and possibly Israel
    -Israel launches missiles back, can’t go nuclear and going distance from Iran prevents them from doing anything big
    -Arab countries start revolting against their rulers, one by one, starting with Saudi Arabia
    -Hormuz shuts down and with that oil spikes >150
    -China says the hell with it and starts buying crude through Iran and Pakistan…yes right now Iran and Pakistan are enemies but events can make strange bedfellows
    -US does what…attack China tankers?
    -Which leads to China sending an expedition force top take Taiwan
    -….which leads to…..

    • Replies: @Jack D
  156. Anon[409] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Yes, if you must to this, go in, overthrow the bad guy, declare victory and get out. Let the locals deal with the rest.

    The same should have been done in 1991-92: get the Iraqis out of Kuwait, declare victory, and get out. Let the Saudis and their local allies deal with Saddam. If this had been followed there would have been no 9/11 and no 2003 invasion.

  157. @William Badwhite

    Of course you are correct.

    Maybe F-16 v Su-30SM battles?

  158. @dfordoom

    Or Russia could retaliate elsewhere, like occupying Ukraine citing the Iran precedent, or mockingly using the exact same language (“risk of nuclear proliferation,” “missile program capable of reaching Moscow,” etc.), which might in turn lead to a nuclear war. Or simply Russia helping Iran destroy some US ships (maybe even a carrier) by supplying anti-ship missiles and even targeting information, while perhaps maintaining some plausible deniability. But maybe it wouldn’t be enough after Russiagate or Obstructiongate.

  159. nebulafox says:
    @J.Ross

    Iran’s government is hostile to the US on a basic, core ideological level.

    Iran’s government does not want war with the US.

    The two statements, shockingly enough, are not mutually exclusive.

    The Persians are like the Chinese: they’ve been around for a long time and normally (i.e, when not controlled by a man like Mao or Khomeini) plan in terms of decades and centuries, not in terms of 2 or 4 year election cycles. They’ve already got most of the Shi’a belt that they need to reach the Mediterranean, with Assad remaining in the saddle. The Saudi house of cards is going to fall someday: not as quickly as they’d like, but it will eventually, as neither CENTCOM or the oil money is going to last forever. They’ve got some nice connections to Turkey. Who else is there? Egypt? A perpetual near failed state. Bar the Israelis, there’s nobody else.

    About the only thing they could do to screw up their long term hegemonic ambitions in the region is provoke a fight with Israel or the USA that they can’t win. (Though make no mistake: IRANIAN FREEDOM would be hundreds of times nastier than Iraq ever was.) They know that. They don’t want that. And the US, for its part, does not need ME oil like it used to: we’d need it even less if we went on a nuclear plant building spree immediately. Wouldn’t it be nice to not be dependent on the whims of the players in that nutty region?

    But then again, we’re the country that has managed to put the Russians, Iranians, and the Chinese all in alliance with each other-even barring the natural and inevitable Newtonian shift against hegemonic US power after the Cold War, it takes a lot of geopolitical stupidity to make that happen. And the presence of John Bolton near the White House proves we have a lot more left.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  160. @Jack D

    The Middle East is a wilderness of mirrors but it seems likely that Iran has already acquired nuclear wespons, beginning with weapons acquired from Kazakhstan when the Soviet Union broke apart. I was reading about this in 1992. Seems possible that in subsequent years a cash hungry North Korea might have been a motivated seller. We know that Iran tried to buy nukes from Pakistan. How many Ukrainian nukes never made there way back to Russia?

  161. Mr. Anon says:
    @Anonymous

    “What we should have done is said to the Iraqis: ‘You’re on your own. Here’s a copy of the Federalist Papers. Good luck’,” he said,referring to philosophical treatises that inspired the US constitution. Mr Bolton was arguing for “America first” policies long before Mr Trump ran for office.

    Then he’s a fraud, because whenever he has an official position, he advocates endless military involvement. Bolton is a war-monger. The real “America First” policy would be to not involve ourselves in the affairs of other countries to begin with.

  162. Jack D says:
    @indocon

    – Iran armed with enough Russian weapons and sufficiently capable military commanders (unlike dumb Arabs)

    The Iran-Iraq War was pretty much a draw. Iran used human wave attack tactics in which tens of thousands of child soldiers were mowed down like cattle so who’s dumb?

    The Iranians fought the Iraqis for years with little result while the US chewed thru the Iraqi Army in a matter of days – this should give you a clue as to how a US-Iranian War would go.

    Iran is one of those places where the people who are competent are not motivated and the people who are motivated are not competent.

    You spin a long chain of fantasy but most likely it would go like the Iraq War – we could take Tehran in a week but THEN what do you do?

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  163. Jack D says:
    @nebulafox

    we’d need it even less if we went on a nuclear plant building spree immediately.

    Not going to happen and rightly so. If the Japanese can’t manage nuclear (they made a royal mess at Fukushima) then what chance do we have in Clown World America? Maybe they can get the guys from the Boeing 737 Max project to write the control software?

    What genius sited this plant?

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
  164. Jack D says:
    @dfordoom

    Putin doesn’t really have any true allies to begin with. He has paid lackeys who are his allies for as long as the money keeps coming. Putin doesn’t have to worry about loss of face in Russia because he controls what the Russian public sees. Any loss can be spun as a victory of some sort. “We never liked those guys anyway.”

    • Disagree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  165. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous

    That’s a great idea. You can conveniently refill your vehicle… nowhere.

  166. Jack D says:
    @Mr. Anon

    If we weren’t such dicks about it, maybe Iran could be aligned with us.

    Not under current management. Russia, China and Iran have very little in common with each other but what they do have in common is that their ruling cliques are incompatible with Western democracy. Their people (or at least a very substantial portion of them) would have no problem with it, but their rulers do because they rule by undemocratic means. This puts them all in fundamental opposition to the US. The American model cannot be allowed to stand as a model for their people because this would endanger their Mafia rule.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  167. The Sailer 1-Point Plan

    1. Let’s not start a war with Iran.

    There is beauty in simplicity, morality and common sense.

    Sláinte

  168. Thea says:
    @Canadian Observer

    American troops were expressly prohibited from fraternizing with Iraqi women unless they converted under the assumption they were all Islamic. That millions of Christians lived there( but not so many now) goes unremarked upon to this day.

  169. @Jack D

    If the Japanese can’t manage nuclear (they made a royal mess at Fukushima) then what chance do we have in Clown World America?

    I used to think Japan developed into a first rank economy because the leaders were geniuses. Now I think their leaders stink, but the country is populated by really smart people, so they developed in spite of that leadership. Fukushima isn’t a sign that nuclear power can’t be made safe – it’s a sign that the competence of Japanese government bureaucrats is way overrated.

  170. @Jack D

    “most likely it would go like the Iraq War – we could take Tehran in a week but THEN what do you do”

    Well, obviously, watch chaos unfold as various internal scores are settled, dismantle anything that looks like nuclear installations or even any sort of advanced science facilities, and generally make a complete shambles of the place. And, of course, send young Americans out there to get killed in the process of killing Iranians who might object to being invaded – or “patriots” as we call them.

    That’s what happened in Iraq, and I thought they’d just got it horribly wrong. Then they did it in Libya with the same results.

    So when they tried to do it in Syria, I knew that a complete shambles was obviously the desired outcome.

    “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”

    I can’t see how the US benefits from making a mess out of previously functional MENA states, but that obviously shows how little I know.

  171. @Jack D

    This puts them all in fundamental opposition to the US. The American model cannot be allowed to stand as a model for their people because this would endanger their Mafia rule.

    This is Dubya-tier wisdom. They hate us for our freedom!

  172. @Jack D

    Iran had very little weapons supplies back then, very little industry to speak of, etc. It was also much smaller back then, just as Iraq was much smaller in 1991 (when its armed forces were destroyed) than it is now.

  173. @Jack D

    Putin doesn’t have to worry about loss of face in Russia because he controls what the Russian public sees. Any loss can be spun as a victory of some sort.

    That’s untrue. Russians have internet, especially in Moscow (where a revolution could start), many can now speak English, etc. It’s not North Korea.

  174. Lagertha says:
    @nebulafox

    Who benefits from a more atomized society? The affluent

    .

    That is it: The Shadow Elites and their evil cohorts want to destroy the U.S. Constitution; they want Americans divided and hostile against each other so a phony “National Emergency” can be enacted ( the usual Pravda: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC NYT, WaPo, will all chatter the same words, pushing for regime change/Martial law, UN intervention, lies, lies, lies, etc.) when all hell breaks loose. And, there will be a continuous busing of the thousands of poor people from Central America to the border, as it is now. I just read Camp of Saints, ugh, so I am wound up over this Iran bs.

    Ergo, securing (really, just closing) the border is far more important than getting conned into a silly and destructive (regrettable quagmire) war with Iran. Leftist journalists would be salivating to get photos and film of mass dead bodies of Iranian women & children, and, blame the whole thing on Trump. I hope Trump does not get duped into making this Yuge mistake.

    I feel so nervous about another stupid, bs war (egged on by Israel) because I am horrified that even my little state is just filling up with illegals, who all are given tax payer funded welfare/housing, medical care/education/tuition. Build the Wall. This (millions of migrants coming in year after year) is a far greater threat than Iran.

    And, next year: Get out of Afghanistan, Iraq, wherevah. Let Muslims settle their differences however they see fit – isn’t that what Osama wanted? If any war begins, the election is lost for Republicans, forever….and the USA will become a socialist experiment.

  175. Lagertha says:
    @Anonymous

    yes; this should be a focus for Miller and Trump. Much more important as far as preventing the eminent destruction of the cohesive fabric of American society. Leftists (and Never Trumpers) want a war in the Middle East in order to destroy the USA by border destruction in the south. Don’t Let this Happen, Mr. President! or, you will lose and the country (not to mention your family) is destroyed – the stakes are that high.

  176. Not Raul says:
    @J.Ross

    God forbid the war in Yemen ends.

    While the Saudis and UAE are committing genocide in the Western half of Yemen, Al Qaeda is taking over the Eastern half.

    It’s almost as if Trump is turning out to be a cuck.

  177. Not Raul says:
    @Anonymous

    Sure Bolton is a nationalist. But I’m not sure if he’s a Saudi nationalist, or an Israeli nationalist.

  178. vinny says:
    @Jack D

    ” Iran would like to assert itself as a regional power..”

    And what a shitty region it is. We shouldn’t stop them.

  179. vinny says:

    It’s such an utter failure of American statecraft that we’re not playing the Iranians and Gulf Arabs against each other. Instead we constantly demonize Iran and let the worthless Saudi boss us around. Imagine Riyadh and Teheran competing to give us the best deal on oil, but alas.

  180. Anonymous[422] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Didn’t the Jews also put Persians to the sword?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  181. Yngvar says:

    The great thing with having a great military is that you can do a lot of sabre-rattling to smith events.

  182. nebulafox says:
    @Anonymous

    Nah, the Persians were the ones who liberated the Jews from Babylon. On the whole, they’ve been a rather philo-Semitic people for most of their history. It’s a testament to how depraved the mullahs were that they’ve turned the land of Cyrus the Great into a hotbed of anti-Semitism.

    Meanwhile, the long-time fiscal backers of every intifada is now tacitly allied with Israel. That should really underline how screwed the Palestinians are.

  183. nebulafox says:
    @Jack D

    Considering that Saddam was being openly backed by both superpowers and most of the rest of the world, along with the regime purging the Shah’s officer corps right at the moment they were most desperately needed (not to mention deeply screwing up Iranian society in general, including sending equally desperately needed scientists and engineers-especially women and religious minorities-fleeing for America), the Iranians did better than first meets the eye.

    Iran is bigger and more populous than Iraq. It has significantly deeper military infrastructure and more hostile terrain and strategic depth. It has a cohesive national basis that no other nation in the region except for Israel has. The US would “win” in the purely tactical (aka, worthless in the end) sense, no doubt about that. But it’d be much uglier and longer than Iraq, and the aftermath even moreso.

  184. nebulafox says:
    @Anonymous

    Well, no one ever accused Americans of being long sighted, the curse of being such a young nation. It’s inertia and commitment to our allies. The US has its own energy supplies now. The only thing preventing us from fully exploring them are a bunch of aging hippies who’ll hopefully die soon.

    Tehran would like nothing better to run out the clock with as little incident as possible and have the Saudis return to being the irrelevant pastoralist nomads they were when Persia was already a great civilization. Time is on their side geopolitically. As I’ve mentioned, even if they get a nuke, Israel’s capacity and technological abilities would dwarf theirs: the primary purpose would be political, both globally and domestically concerning the often corrupt rivalries between different factions that is typical of authoritarian regime’s like in Tehran, secondarily preemptive against a couple of scenarios I can think of.

    But that’s not likely to happen, not with the governmental changes that have happened in Riyadh since MbS came to power, and they know it. Being short sighted isn’t the same thing as not thinking at all, and the young man is determined to do things his way. He’s ambitious and focused on asserting Saudi power. He’s destroyed the power sharing agreement of the previous generation and centralized power around him to get the unpopular things he wants to do-including closer ties with the Zionist entity that he can’t officially recognize-and he’s also made sure that he knows the right people in Washington. And who knows, maybe greenie power preventing nuclear plants might end up giving them a new lease on life. So, I wouldn’t count the Sauds out for the foreseeable future.

    As for Israel, Bibi Netanyahu himself has his own issues with thinking things through, so who knows… maybe he’d offer his own version of the nuclear umbrella if the Sauds call Rawalpindi as the US leaves? Actually, that would be a better scenario as it’d put the onus on them and prevent any post-Saud radicals in Riyadh from having access.

  185. nebulafox says:
    @Canadian Observer

    Muslim women can’t marry non-Muslim men, at least in most Muslim dominated societies. The men, by contrast, are allowed to marry acceptably monotheist women. It is assumed in these socially conservative societies that the children will be whatever religion the father is, so the practical incentive is obvious.

    (Christianity worked similarly not too long ago: my Presbyterian grandfather could only marry my Catholic grandmother after he signed a legal waiver for the Vatican waiving any right to religious influence over any resulting children. All five kids, my mother included, were duly raised as Catholics. Judaism, by contrast, is passed down by the mother, which might be part of why it is so small compared to Christianity and Islam, historically.)

    My family has some experience with this. My cousin is married to an Iraqi Muslimah, and he didn’t have to convert. They love each other, but it only works because they met and live together in the United States. She’d already managed to get out and get a job in the US (the rest of her family was in a refugee camp in Jordan and was in no position to dictate anything to her) before meeting him. It wouldn’t have worked if he was a Marine and they were in Iraq. Unlike in Europe, Latin America, or Asia, they likely wouldn’t have even had a realistic chance to meet and date in the first place.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?