@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.

8 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.

8 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

In Morristown I would expect that tats and piercings would be an extension of trendy urban liberalism, because Morristown is a place where trendy urban liberals go if they can't live in NYC for some reason, even if that aesthetic was picked up from "white trash" some time ago.

The Rockaway location would be more likely to have "authentic" white trash pierced-and-tatted locals.

I'm sure Saddam, or Gaddafi never ever raped people, and neither have various Saudi monarchs.

Saddam might not have personally raped anyone, but his son and subordinate Uday did.

There's two Paris Baguette locations in Morris County. It wouldn't be that surprising to find a pierced-and-tatted clerk in Morristown proper; it's the more trendy (i.e. lefty, though Morris County is in general less left than most of NJ) area, and though that particular trend is kinda dated, it's not surprising for the hinterlands to be behind the metropole.

If it was the Rockaway one it would be quite surprising.

(and yeah, piercing and tatting is a case of "degeneracy" trickling up, not down)

To take the Devil's Advocate position, the "paper trail" proves nothing. It's a note 13-year-old Rojas wrote which describes no inappropriate activity on Chavez's part, and reads like a crush on her part. The part about kissing and fondling is not in the paper trail; it's a recent claim.

Afghanistan is in a totally different league to Iran. Afghanistan didn't have much of anything but light infantry in technicals (and that was still enough!) Iran is an industrialized country. They know how to fight.

The US took Iraq also (including defeating the Republican Guard), and they were supposedly a juggernaut as well.

If the goal is just killing lots of Iranians, there's a simple tool for that: H-bombs.

There are lots of tools for that. Daisy cutters, thermobaric weapons, chemical weapons. The former two aren't even technically WMDs. Bombing water infrastructure, cutting off food supplies. Just shooting them. The world's militaries have been killing people wholesale since long before Edward Teller was a gleam in his father's eye. Atomic bombs are special in only two ways -- you can do the same destruction in far fewer bombs, and the persistent radioactive effects.

The US has been evacuating its in-air refuelling aircraft further away after Iran keeps striking them with missiles deep into Saudi Arabia.

Iran struck them once. That Iran's capability to bombard is down doesn't mean it's zero.

The much-vaunted US navy couldn't secure the Red Sea against the Houthis after a whole year of escort operations and bombing

The Houthis were being supplied from Iran.

The whole concept of this war is unfathomably dumb. Even people like Bolton are publicly questioning war with Iran. Do you have any idea how off the rails this has gone if the hawk's hawk, the warmonger's warmonger who's been agitating for this war for decades is criticizing the strategy?

Perhaps it just means Bolton is a reverse weather vane.

The plan was clearly 'quick war', they never anticipated that they'd need to bring in marines or extra THAAD from Korea.

Five weeks to a few months is what the administration has been saying. They haven't been too consistent but we haven't even reached the shortest timeframe.

Every time I read about one of these I think about A Beautiful Mind. Only John Nash WAS Alica's instructor.

It turned out that "Moses of his people" routinely raped underage girls including another famous activist Dolores Huerta.

Well, maybe. I've often heard (from people on the right) that Chavez was, shall we say, an unpleasant person, in various ways. But as far as I'm concerned if you keep something major like that quiet for 60 years (and over 30 after the death of the perp), that in itself is strong reason to disbelieve you.

The grudge is about Iran's hostility towards the US, not the US's hostility towards Iran; it's not America's history that matters there, it's Iran's. US hostility towards Iran does in some way derive from the embassy hostage crisis, but likely wouldn't have lasted if Iran hadn't remained hostile the whole time. Vietnam hasn't spent the time since trying to overthrow Thailand or had its proxies attack Singapore. Nor did it make "Death to America" a slogan, nor refer to the US as "The Great Satan".

There's feminism that revolves around hating men and there's feminism that support women having every advantage a man has and then some. The latter styles itself as supporting legal equality but it does not.

They're not trying to correct men. They're trying to filter them. And the criteria are not legible, not to men and not to them. Any stated criteria will work out to be a brick wall; those aren't real.

If invasions don't result in US friendly regimes, why would we be invading then?

To destroy an unfriendly regime's capacity to act on their unfriendliness.

The problem with that is it's too exploitable -- it can be used for things which are hard but NOT necessary, done only because the entity doing it has other less-noble motives for it.

Obviously this would be a terrible choice; I don't know if it would be better or worse than not preventing Iran from getting nukes. Depends on whether it makes them North Korea or they actually start a nuclear war or attempt nuclear blackmail (e.g. "Israel's Jews all leave or we nuke things") over it. I don't think these are the only two choices, but if they were, the choice of committing genocide upon Iran would be available.

Their long-range stuff is largely blown up. There's a lot of Gulf stuff much closer than 1500 miles, which they can still blow up.

You also ignore the fact that Iran's hostility towards the US is downstream from our alliance with Israel.

Because it's not. It's downstream of the US supporting the Shah over the current government, which is not about Israel.

I don't think it's that clean. "Chicks dig" the whole dark triad, not just confidence.

Yes, the legislation says you need a real ID which shows citizenship. Some real IDs do not. Other real IDs do. A US Passport card is a Real ID which shows your nationality. An enhanced driver's license shows your nationality. But there's no law preventing other states from putting citizenship on their IDs (though as far as I know, none do).

How is it a different matter? What we learned from Afghanistan is that even 20 years of boots on the ground didn't make for anything sustainable, the system we created collapsed within a year.

It's a different matter because the question was whether we could successfully invade, not whether we could successfully build a US-friendly regime.

"If you don't count the US stocks that have done really well, foreign stocks have done pretty well too!" isn't such a great argument.

People talk a lot about not paying the Danegeld, but the Vikings did have a long successful run.

If the choice is between reducing Iran to Afghanistan-esque hodge-podge of pre-industrial warring tribes and giving the IRGC access to nuclear missiles we choose to turn Iran into another Afghanistan.

This is where the issue appears - the US is not strong enough to do this without using H-bombs. And even if it were possible, it would be extremely costly and dangerous.

Of course the US is strong enough to do this without H-bombs. Bombing all of Iran's industry and infrastructure can be accomplished conventionally. Oil, electrical, manufacturing and water. The last being quite critical -- it'll be hard for Iran to rebuild while its population is dying of thirst. It wouldn't be all that costly or dangerous (except to Iran); the expensive part was taking out air defenses, B-1 missions with gravity bombs are much cheaper. And this isn't WWII; the US can hit the targets a lot better. It would kill a LOT of Iranians, however.

The US does not have the necessary ground forces for a ground invasion of Iran. It's extremely mountainous, difficult terrain on the other side of the world.

This US did that before. The US took Afghanistan, as you may recall. And held it for 20 years. Couldn't quash the insurgency (partially because it was based in Pakistan) but that's a different matter.

The US navy doesn't even dare enter the straits of Hormuz because of all the drones and ballistic missiles.

The US navy will enter the straits of Hormuz.

Those bases are being bombed and shelled.

Not much, not anymore. The US evacuated the bases, but now that Iran's capability to bombard them is way down, the US COULD use them for staging.

Iran could attack with dirty bombs if they so chose, against the US or Israel.

Maybe. If they can still get their nuclear material. And if they don't mind starting a nuclear war with two nuclear powers when all they've got is nuclear waste.

What if actually trying to bomb Iran into the pre-industrial age would result in Iran retaliating by destroying every oil refinery, oil field, and desalinization plant within 1,500 miles? Still worth it?

They now lack that capacity.

When you cede the field of good advice for getting girls to assholes, then you end up with boys listening to assholes.

You can't avoid that without changing girls. Because, in the parlance of an older generation, "Chicks Dig Jerks".

The manosphere Is Problematic because it convinces young men to get off the path of contributing to society in the way that society wants men to contribute to it

Yes, but what "society" wants is unreasonable. Not because what it wants in terms of contributions, but because of what it's willing to provide in return -- which is that they can keep some of the money they earn, and that's it.