A blessed New Year to all the fine people who read and comment on this blog! We couldn’t do it without you. There will be much to discuss in the (hopefully) Roaring Twenties and I’m sure it’s going to be an exciting ride.
In the meantime, I just ran across this article, which explains the words of the perennial New Year’s Day favorite, “Auld Lange Syne”:
Sing it heartily, with a wee dram of whiskey and enjoy!
Auld lang syne = old long since
George, this might be old news, but according to the New York Post, construction of their St. Nicholas ‘temple’ resumes the end of this month: https://nypost.com/2020/01/02/stalled-construction-of-greek-church-at-wtc-site-to-resume/
Well, happy new year didn’t last long, with the prospect of a new pointless Middle East conflict looming.
The assassination of Qasem Soleimani is a pointless act which does no good to anyone. Let’s not forget that Soleimani fought the opium trade in Afghanistan (which America is supporting), assisted in killing high-value Al Qaeda targets after 9/11 (until Bush sperged out and called Iran the axis of evil; recall that 9/11 was orchestrated by Saudi Arabia), and led the Iranian response against ISIS (which the US spent much of the last half-decade funding and arming).
Bravo Trump, really going after those bad guys. How’s the swamp these days?
AS, I’m not pleased either. However, before we cast Soleimani in the role of the Persian Mohandas Gandhi, we should remember that he was responsible for all those IED’s (improvised explosive devices) that killed and maimed thousands of American servicemen in Iraq. (Yeah, I know, we shouldn’t have been there in the first place but we were.)
Anyway, he had it coming. Still, I wish we’d have bugged out of there by now.
Soleimani was ‘the other side’ during my time in the service. I didn’t know any better at the time, but since I woke up to reality, I have grown to respect him. Yeah, he was involved in operations in Iraq against US forces, but it was legitimate resistance. We were the bad guys over there.
He certainly did not ‘have it coming,’ in any case. Does being opposed to the US’s evil foreign policy automatically make someone a legitimate target for extrajudicial execution? Very dark path to go down if you think so.
He was a guest in Iraq, invited by their government and military, some of whom were also killed in that missile strike. Our own ‘allies’! This was a diplomatic and geopolitical absurdity. Trump is either completely stupid, or someone else is pulling the strings.
If Iran is so bad, it would be nice to have a stable adverse power on Iran’s border to maintain a relatively peaceful balance in the region.
Oh wait, his name was Saddam and we had to kill him because reasons. Also a million Iraqis too. Saddam killed his thousands, but Bush killed his hundreds of thousands.
George, nobody is saying any of these people are good. They are objectively not good in most cases (though I don’t fault them for fighting for their country). I don’t think an Iranian general “has it coming” just by virtue of his being an Iranian general. Especially when he was a guest of the Iraqi government. Maybe we’re having second thoughts about this democracy that we so magnanimously bestowed upon Iraq?
Most Iranians are not hardliners, but cowardly drone attacks like this one are not going to endear us to anyone except Netanyahu and maybe some Evangelical “Twelvers”. The UK and most of our real allies are furious. As corrupt as I have come to see America as being, I can’t view any of our foreign policy in such black-and-white terms anymore.
Let me know when Iran is preparing an invasion force off the coast of Oregon, then I’ll be on board with blowing them sky-high. I have literally zero fear of being killed in a jihadist terrorist attack, and any fear I would have could be cured by a sensible immigration policy. Pulling stunts like this are pointless and I am very unhappy with Trump for this. His foreign policy only succeeds when he withdraws and lets Russia handle it, which is what I think he ought to do.
ANTIOCHAN SON, u said it all. And the walking roughshod over iraqi sovereignty which will have repercussions. They all remind me of a builder renovating a house and removing without other support, the main weight bearing beam. And then wondering why the house collapsed. BUT if we are dealing with a genius of amazing ability, events will demand our apology.
“(Yeah, I know, we shouldn’t have been there in the first place but we were.)
Anyway, he had it coming.”
***
Ahem.
“Beware the double-minded man, he is unstable in all his ways.”
(Epistle of James)
((George Michalopulos, 24 hours ago))
Oh, please. If your sons (or daughters, sadly, in modern times) were in the Army or Marines stationed in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, or wherever over there, you’d be thankful that our American president has the balls and will to protect them from the worst and most well-funded terrorist in modern times. As others have noted today, lunatics on the American left love Iranian terrorists who do everything they can to kill Americans more than they want to protect American lives.
It’s astounding. I wish we could arrest them for treason.
I highly recommend this piece from TheFederalist.com (https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/03/the-killing-of-qassem-suleimani-is-a-reminder-that-iran-is-weak):
“Contrary to the hand-wringing of some liberal media outlets in the wake of the Suleimani strike, President Trump hasn’t started a war with Iran. Rather, it means the United States has recognized and responded to a conflict that’s been going on for some time now, and that Iran has fueled.
If anything, the Suleimani strike might well prevent the outbreak of a new Mideast war that was looking increasingly inevitable after eight years of the Obama administration’s feckless foreign policy.
The airstrike itself should be uncontroversial, despite the craven protests of some Democrats now defending Iran. As David French explained on Twitter, the strike was duly authorized, justified, and needed no separate congressional authorization. “American troops are lawfully in Iraq—there by congressional authorization and with the permission of the Iraqi government. Moreover, they have a right of self-defense.
In any case, the parallel between the killing of Suleimani and Operation Praying Mantis in 1988 is straightforward. If you mine the Persian Gulf and nearly sink a U.S. warship, the United States will destroy your navy. Likewise, if you plan and execute attacks against U.S. troops and outposts, the United States will take out the man behind those attacks with an airstrike.
In 1988, that was the takeaway for Tehran, whose burning ships and oil platforms testified above all to America’s military might and resolve. Faced with more of the same, Iran backed down. Today, faced with the prospect that its top terrorists and military commanders could at any time be taken out by U.S. forces, perhaps Tehran will reconsider its current course and back down once again.
If that’s Iran’s takeaway from the Suleimani strike, then it will have been well worth it.”
No. I want them to not murder and die on behalf of the Zionists, because I am a Christian.
Have a blessed Nativity.
As a result of an American warship in Iranian waters blowing a jumbo jet loaded with harmless Mecca bound Iranian pilgrims out of the sky (testimony to America’s might and resolve, to be sure), a small Scottish town (Lockerbie) was almost wiped out when another jumbo jet was exploded.
Now Trump authorises assassination of one of one country’s leaders on the territory of another. I expect Hillary will be proud of him…
OK, Boomer.
Best way to protect American lives is to KEEP THEM IN AMERICA. We have no right to go around stomping all over other peoples’ countries.
Basil, as an America-firster, I don’t disagree with you at all. Until that happy day happens, and let’s be honest, it’s going to take a tyrant on the order of Pisistratus or Cromwell rising up and shutting down Congress (or the people rising up and doing the same thing), then we’re stuck with a “reluctant surgeon” at the helm of our foreign policy. Which is better than anybody else running for president (except for Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders).
I’m not happy by any means but Soleimani had it coming. And to be honest, I think somebody in Iraq or even an enemy in Iran fingered him to our Intel.
As for Iran itself, I think we should engage them in peace talks. Guess what? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that this is now more likely. Remember all that supposed belligerent talk by Trump about “Little Rocket Man”? Now they’re besties.
Stranger things have happened.
Such Iranian hubris. Putting their country next to our military forces who are occupying a part of the world that they don’t belong in based on pathetic lie (incubator babies) after pathetic lie (9/11) after pathetic lie (Saddams WMD’s) after pathetic lie (we are not a Zionist controlled country). True love for our troops is to call out the false pretenses that they are being put into harms way for.
Wake up.
To all: this is a rather sober analysis of what transpired with the killing of Soleimani:
https://outline.com/nemWny
If you read between the lines, you can discern that perhaps he was given up by his enemies in the Iranian regime. His unpopularity factor increased last month when he brutally put down the massive protests that had transpired in that country.
In fact, he may have decapitated the Iranian regime. Soleimani was their top dog. Now we see what Iran does (if anything).
In any event, Trump massively upped the stakes. This is what people mean when they call him The Disruptor.
George no doubt suleiman was a bastard and no doubt Obama wobbly words gets u a war but we all need to stand back and think WHAT IS ACTUALLY in USA main interest? And should not the actors in region be forced to sort themselves out without USA or Russia behind them?
I take it another step. After the assassination, it seemed striking to me that the greatest outrage came from many Democrat politicians. I had to step back and ask myself “why?”.
The reason I believe is not because of the outrage in question but because the Obama wing of the Democrat Party has an investment in Iran that is most definitely not in our interests. While I believe that the US and Iran (as well as the US and Russia) should be on friendly terms, the treaty that Obama executed with Iran in the last days of his administration was most very curious (as were the circumstances and processes involved in its execution).
This has to make one wonder why Obama and his acolytes are so invested in a peace and any cost strategy. One reason is because a certain major banking institution/family (who shall remain nameless) wanted to set up shop in Tehran. That is why even pro-Israel Democrats were all in favor of doing this bank’s will. That is also why we are still in Afghanistan for that matter.
Let me repeat: the deal struck by Obama was a horrible one from the national interest of America’s perspective. Cui bono if not us?
Somebody else.
Here is Dr Steve Turley’s take:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYPsRgy-Pc&t=492s
Upshot: 4D chess to take on all the present “globalisms”. Iran was a player in Islamic globalism.
BREAKING: United Methodist Church officially splits over gay ‘marriage,’ clergy: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-united-methodist-church-officially-splits-over-gay-marriage-clergy
“The United Methodist Church..will be …formally splitting, with the formation of a new denomination for Methodists who hold to a Biblical understanding of sex and marriage.”
Why don’t they have a new denomination for those that
“…don’t hold to a Biblical understanding of sex and marriage.”
It would be less dishonest.
This split has been almost 50 years in the making. I happened to have worked in theater back in 1970 who had been a Methodist minister. He had been defrocked because of his same sex affairs.
His defrocking was somewhat controversial even then as it made the old Esquire Magazine’s Dubious Achievement Awards.
The Stonewall Riots acted as a galvanizing force for same sex folk to become an active political/cultural force that has been enormously effective. Now, in some sectors, same sex activity is better, more normal than what God ordained.
Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush and Margaret Thatcher were all Methodists. christchurchnyc.org looks very Byzantine, icons and domes. It is under renovation, maybe if they go broke Karloutsos can buy it. They mention Mary plenty. Pokrov says the Methodists are the best at dealing with abuse. Mormons, Salvation Army, and Pentecostals all came out of Methodists, who themselves resisted splitting with the Church of England. But UMC recently merged with the anabaptist Brethren. Generally they have been the most “ordinary, regular” denomination. If we don’t mess up (as usual), this may be a great chance to bring them into our faith.
Unlike the other “Mainlines”, the Methodists never voted in their governing assemblies to allow gay clergy and same-sex marriage. They most recently defeated it again by about 53% to 47%, but the situation was so intractable that the split was still inevitable. In any event, it was African and Asian bishops and representatives that filled out the ‘conservative’ majority. In effect, the ‘inclusive’ US Methodists put themselves in the position of rejecting their long-time overseas converts– the Methodists were a big missionary denomination.
This struggle has gone on for decades. The Presbyterians (I was one for 66 years) voted on the issue for decades at their biannual General Conventions. Gradually the traditionalists lost ground, eventually they lost, period, six or eight years back.
The now-dominant insurgents let the trads go without fighting over church property, at least. (In Presbyterianism, the larger church, not the congregation, owns the real estate.)
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/477462-methodist-church-racist-lgbtq/
This is certainly a unique take on the issue!
When one enters the realm of foreign policy in the national interest one is treading on a dark and evil bog. Humanity and truth are the first casualties.
Thus it has always been.
Try defining the idea of national interest some time. Interestingly enough, the more power and influence a country has the more difficult it becomes to identify what it’s national interest is and the more difficult it becomes to actually defend it without many horrible unintended consequences…and that is when their is a broad general consensus which we have not had in this country since Hiroshima.
Thus surrogate states are born and the idea of plausible deniability. But those states often have or develop their own agendas. Nobody wants to be known as a “client state.” Nothing is as it seems. No one can be trusted and Franz Kafka is the voice of clarity in an M.C. Escher-dropping-acid-world.
Add to that the massive destructive power of modern weapons and the thing has gotten completely out of hand.
“To be or not to be…” Do our leaders even know which is which? Do they care? Only the ideologues are certain. Certain that “the other side(s) is wrong”. “The facts prove it!!!!”. 1984 a Pollyanna story.
Bravo, well said Michael (as always).
Thank you, Ioannis. It is one of the chief reasons that the one idea of Symphonia has never been attractive to me.
Michael, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that last point. It’s possible that my idea of symphonia might not be your idea is. Let’s discuss it soon. I may be coming to Wichita at the end of the month.
“To be or not to be…” said Hamlet.
“To be is to do” said Sartre.
“Do be do be do” said Sinatra.
George (tongue in cheek). I cannot ever allow you to disagree. You MUST change your mind!