domain:natesilver.net
Can you give me some examples of how Turkey is a more Islamic country today than in 2001?
Hagia Sophia. Erdogan keeping interest rates low during could also fall under this but I have a suspicion that he used it so his allies can inflate their debts and buy bankrupts business for cents on the dollar.
What are these “secular people” in Turkey going to do once in power to please you?
Committing to hardline Kemalism. Again. So we can finally accept Turkey in the EU. Before saying something - I don't believe in freedom of religion, but in freedom from religion.
Edit: yeah kebabs are good but they are good literally everywhere. Is Erbil the only place you ever visited in the Middle East or something?
Hmm... here is quick shawarma/kebab comparison from the places I have been. We don't discuss in europe because it is mediocre at best. And in north africa I don't have much impressions. Aside from Erbil - in Istanbul they are meh, in Ankara are really good, ditto in Ismir, bland un Dubai, forgettable in Oman, let's not talk about pakistan, surprisingly decent are the afghani ones, but probably the best are in Uzbekistan. The kazah one i ate them from the other side of the border with china - so can't comment. Lahmacuns, kunefe, gozleme and pide are other beer - the only place in the world they make them right is in Turkey (everywhere).
Turkey is too powerful and Erdogan is eyeing parts of the Balkans and probably Cyprus. So I either want the country to be weaken or to self secularize. I also don't want pro western middle east - weak and busy with infighting also gets the job done. Greece is too weak to be counter balance, so is Bulgaria. And I doubt that NATO will do shit if he attacks any one of those two countries.
So yes. I want Turkey to have problems east and south, as to not look north and east
Bleep
17hr ago
The reason Westerners see an Iranian nuke as a lynchpin is because if Iran proves it has nuclear weapons, then Turkey and Saudi Arabia will quickly also get nuclear weapons and essentially the NPT will fall apart; however, given the US attacked IAEA inspected sites in direct violation of the treaty, I believe they've hastened its demise anyway.
I am skeptical the US used any MOPs or even B-2 bombers. One, of the images/videos I've seen, these attacks look like cruise missiles and the damage appears mostly superficial. Two, the US didn't even use B-2 bombers against the Houthis in the failed campaign against them. If I had to guess, the Trump admin even warned Iran when and where they were going to attack and basically begged them to not retaliate and to allow this to be a one-off attack.
This appears to be a made-for-tv theatrical performance to claim something was done and to hope that's the end of it. In my opinion, this is going to lead to Iran continuing their daily attacks against Israel and withdrawing from the NPT. I don't think they'll directly attack US assets in the area, but I do think they'll close the straight of Hormuz for any European or American traffic. And I also think the Houthis will resume their attacks against any European or American ships in the Red Sea.
Trump admin behavior during this ordeal has been profoundly unserious, counterproductive, and dumb. If this strike leads anywhere other than stopping here, I'm going to predict a major loss for Trump and the GOP in any upcoming elections. This move allows Democrats to pivot from defending criminal illegals being deported and other losing 80-20 issues to claiming the anti-war mantle (however silly that is given recent history) and it will work. Of the MAGA and Trump supporters I know, they are not happy and will simply refuse to show up and vote at all unless Trump manages to deliver something big.
quiet_NaN
17hr ago
There were two main dynamics to the state of geopolitical affairs that let WW1 be WW1.
Another reason for WW1 is that for millennia, being belligerent was a net positive to states in most cases. I mean, obviously having a war was always net negative (unless the alternative was starvation, perhaps), but in earlier times, it had at least been a good deal for the elites (and arguably even some of the commoners, though not the commoners finding themselves in the path of an army) on the winning side. The militant nationalism of the 1800s was a consequence of that.
But by 1910, the underlying reality had changed, because weapon systems had gotten a lot more deadly and railroad logistics limited the land gains made from offensive operations, leading to the trench stalemates. Suddenly being belligerent was maladaptive. Few politicians or populations would have been enthusiastic about starting WW1 if they had known the meat grinder it would become. Instead, they were enthusiastic -- finally a chance to kick some hated foreigner's butt again, like in the good old times. Instead they got Verdun.
When WW2 started, there was a lot less enthusiasm all around, because most participants were not looking forward to more industrialized warfare.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
17hr ago
Iran originally decided to pursue 60% enrichment after Israel attacked their nuclear sites in 2021. This attack happened 3 years after Trump ended an agreement to inspect Iranian nuclear sites, which was criticized by NATO, EU, France, the UK, etc, but was clearly requested by Trump’s Zionist funders. Iran’s radiopharmaceutical industry is genuine — they commercialize isotopes that only Germany has been able to produce. Iran needs to pursue its own cancer treatments because sanctions prevent access to state of the art treatments.
I hope Iran gets a nuke now. We can’t have religious extremist states have nukes — Israel is well on its way in becoming majority Haredi, whereas Iran is on a clear secularization path. A nuclear Iran would counter the power that Israel exerts in the region and may even prevent the genocide of Palestinians.
Pasha
Defend Kebab
17hr ago
There are many (much much greater) injustices in the Ottoman collapse and many people who constantly try to “fix” them. You see them often standing trial in The Hague or topping CIA most-wanted lists for crimes against humanity. Kurds didn’t get a state because they are a loose combination of mountain tribes who speak a somewhat similar language to each other with zero history of having a state or associating with each other politically. It’s not a coincidence any Kurdish political group immediately becomes a proxy servant for a larger state.
Speaking of proxy politics, did you ever actually wonder why Iraqi Kurdistan is a relatively stable safe and prospering place? Would you mind googling a bit about the Turkish military bases (136 of them according to BBC) in the country providing this security or how much of their economy is based on trade and investment from Turkey or how Iraqi Kurdish politics actually manage to stay stable? (Hint: it’s totally controlled by two clans which are both Turkish state proxies and compete/rotate for offices peacefully via negotiations with Turkish foreign ministry)
I understand you have some personal grudges against Turkey and Iran but how much more do Syria and Iraq need to be weakened for this great pro-western Middle East to emerge in your imagination? Have you by chance checked any news since year 1999?
What are these “secular people” in Turkey going to do once in power to please you? Can you give me some examples of how Turkey is a more Islamic country today than in 2001? Also I am looking forward to some examples of any Islamitising influence out of Turkey that caused anyone ever any trouble. Somehow Sunni jihadi movement is entirely funded and armed and manned by the Saudi and Qatar, both hardcore American allies/clients, but the grand strategies for fighting it never involve fixing any great injustices in those countries
Edit: yeah kebabs are good but they are good literally everywhere. Is Erbil the only place you ever visited in the Middle East or something?
cleverhans
18hr ago
Counter-example: Hezbollah is refusing to help Iran after Israel’s campaign against them.
RollingInMud
18hr ago
actual wars he/Russia involved in since 1991
Also in the article wasn't mentioned intervention in Kazakhstan, behind-the-scenes FSB operations in Belarus, Montenegro etc., or simply acts of terrorism like Skrypal poisoning, or murder of Zelimkhan Khangoshvili in Berlin, or dozens of similar acts around the world. It indicates that Putin is "adventuresome" and prone to risk-taking, even at the cost of worsening relationships with other countries who do not threaten him. Having nuclear weapons is certainly an additional factor of why he is so bold, coupled with masterful utilization of useful idiots in the West, both on the left and the right, who'll cry about escalation every time someone will threaten to respond in kind.
RollingInMud
18hr ago
Ukraine started responding to its economic malaise by stealing gas meant for transit to EU customers to help itself meet its own demand
Wasn't it just propaganda? Just like Russia banned Latvian canned fish imported to Russia every time they had a dispute about Soviet legacy in Latvia and the status of Russian language? On flimsy pretense that the fish was spoiled, or whatever. I still remember numerous reports on Russian state TV about Latvians trying to poison Russian population with their rotten fish, Georgians -- with their vine, Moldavians — with their apples...
The same with "stolen" gas -- you still need to keep "technical gas" inside the pipes to keep the pressure, and as countries westward of Ukraine still consumed their (as they paid for it), Ukraine had to siphon gas off some in order to keep operating the compressor stations. EU also didn't find any proof that the gas was stolen IIRC. But at the core, Russians hated that Yushchenko was the president of Ukraine, and not their puppet Yanukovych. That's why they raised the price of the gas from something like $50 to $250 in the first place -- as to pressure Ukraine to submit.
No hard questions about who shot first.
True. But if you do your diligence, you'll find that we (Russians) were rarely good guys.
Dean
Flairless
18hr ago
Pretty much. People radically overestimate how hard it would have been for the Ukrainians to disassemble the Soviet nukes and make their own triggering device.
Which is what most of nuclear arms security comes down to. When nuclear munitions have unlock codes in the first place, the 'failsafe' mechanisms are failsafes in the sense of 'this trigger device will be borked.' They are not failsafes in terms of rendering the underlying material unable to be used, only unable to be used by the specific device.
Replace the device, and you have a possibly less efficient, but still effective, nuclear device. Which is among the less challenging parts of the nuclear problem.
Dean
Flairless
18hr ago
Specifically, North Korea had enough artillery in range that the casualty estimates for the first day of shelling were on the scale of a Hiroshima/Nagasaki, i.e. a nuclear weapon.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18hr ago
Pro- one country and anti- another is one thing, I thought we were talking about why it's dangerous to antagonize one country, but somehow safer to antagonize a bigger and better armed one.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
19hr ago
Look closely at the comments. The moderator imposed a ban, not on BurdensomeCount, but on the poster of a filtered reply to BurdensomeCount that you can't read.
Dean
Flairless
19hr ago
The world is in a similar state today
Not really.
There were two main dynamics to the state of geopolitical affairs that let WW1 be WW1. One was the treaty situation, in which most involved states on both sides had staked their security policies / international prestige / credibility that they also needed for other interests into the alliance system. The second was the fact that four great powers (France, UK, Germany, Russia) were competing for influence in a very constrained geopolitical area (peninsular Europe) that they could all project power into. The later is what led to the former is what led to the domino effect.
There is no equivalent concentration of competition or overlap of treaties. As much as the Russians have tried to style a [insert term of choice for grouping] of resistance to the US amongst Iran, Russia, NK, and China, the relationship between them has been fundamentally transactional, not alliance based, and the last few years have emphasized that. The US alliance network similarly does have overlapping effects- there are very few obligations (by design) for out-of-regional issues. Relatedly, most of the non-US actors in the modern system cannot project power to each other if they wanted to, and most US allies in different regions cannot and would not project power to the other as a 'we will fight together' sort of way.
WhateverHappenedToNorman
19hr ago
The mods? The admins? It's seemed like a legitimate, good faith question to me.
Yes, the world at that point was a powder keg, and you can name at least a dozen incidents before the assassination that could have set it off. The assassination was far from the root cause, but it was the proximate event in a spiral.
The world is in a similar state today, and normalcy bias is what prevents us from seeing it. Seemingly minor events can trigger repercussions far out of expectations if conditions are right.
Lizzardspawn
20hr ago
Although it seems far-fetched, it also seemed far-fetched that an assassination of an archduke could spiral to a world wide conflagration.
That is absolutely not what happened. The war was inevitable at this point. It is not surprising that the killing of the archduke lead to the war, it is surprising that it had taken so long for something to lit powder keg.
dogfish
20hr ago
The best way to convince a country not to get nukes is to not be hyper aggressive towards them.
And to not have nukes yourselves. People warn that if Iran gets nukes, it will trigger a regional arms race, and Turkey, Saudi, etc will also have to get them, but that arms race already began when Israel acquired nukes and created an imbalance.
ThenElection
20hr ago
The elites of the USA (who are often to be said to be captured by the left) are pro-Ukraine, pro-Israel, though. A substantial fringe of academics and student protestors doesn't change that.
ThenElection
20hr ago
The risk is that this escalates to a broader conflict. Not Iran vs whoever--Iran is a paper tiger, and all other factors being equal it's good that it's now further from getting nukes than it was (one hopes). But I'm worried this triggers a series of international incidents that leads to a Taiwan war. Although it seems far-fetched, it also seemed far-fetched that an assassination of an archduke could spiral to a world wide conflagration.
Iran needs to respond somehow, for domestic political reasons if nothing else. And, one thing leads to another, and Hormuz ends up mined, and China decides, well, the world is going to suck for a couple years and the US is otherwise occupied, might as well take advantage of the moment.
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
20hr ago
If the context was unimportant, why not include it yourself? Even if we assume that you didn't mean to imply what people think that you were implying, at least you surely understand that your post could easily be read in such a way without that context?
The pro-Ukraine, anti-Israel crowd is not small. It's the default position of the western left.
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
20hr ago
I've long been interested in how people, when talking about Ukraine, use generic terms with little meaning like "increasing escalation" to make comparisons of things that obviously aren't comparable - in this case, the direct use of the American bomber fleet, which obviously hasn't been happening in Ukraine and does not seem like something that is happening.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
21hr ago
I mean the objection is that no one could remain a public figure after suggesting I want to “end” any group other than whites. If he’d been talking about “ending Jewishness” or “ending blackness” or “ending femininity” he’d have been fired rather publicly. In fact, reading his statement he doesn’t say “I object to Jewishness, like other forms of bigotry.” He said “I object to antisemitism, like all forms of bigotry.”
If he’d worked with a group that suggested that treason to blackness is service to humanity, he would never be in a position to have anything else he said taken seriously. He’d probably be banned even on Twitter.
The linchpin is Israel: a country with an undeclared nuclear weapons program in violation of international law, who some speculate killed our President in 1963 in order to secure nuclear weapons, who stole our own uranium to create their weapons, and a country that we provide aid to in violation of our own laws which prohibit us from providing aid to countries with undeclared nuclear programs in violation of the IAEA.
Israel’s illegal nuclear weapons and behavior in the region compels every sane country to pursue nuclear weapons, especially when they see what happened to Iran, a country which could have pursued but did not pursue nukes. Saudi Arabia apparently has some agreement with Pakistan to obtain nukes whenever requested, because they originally invested in its nuclear program. According to Russia yesterday, there are other countries interested in supplying Iran nukes, perhaps China, or perhaps this is a bluff.
More options
Context Copy link