But what if the Nazis had fielded thousands of Tiger tanks, and plenty of spare parts, instead of the far smaller numbers they actually did? What if they had given their troops proper winter gear and supplies? And if the US had not been supplying the Soviets (who, in that case, wouldn't have fielded nearly as many T-34s)?
What if the Nazis got the ME 262 into mass production before the war started? Or turned those heavy water operations in Norway into an actual successful atomic bomb project?
Boggles the mind. Too many variables. Fun to ponder though.
Don, what if Germany had sent 250,000 troops into Africa
right after Dunkirk. They sent that many to hold off the
Brits and US from 42-43.
They could have seized Suez Canal and captured the oil
fields of Arabia at the same time flanking Russia's southern
border. They would have all the oil they needed, made the
Mediterraen a Axis 'lake' and threatened India.
OR if they had the 300 subs that Doenitz wanted.
And what if they had not declared war on the US. If
they were honoring their treaty with Japan, they should
have insisted Japan attack Siberia which would have left
Moscow undefended in December 41, when the fresh Siberian
divisions came to defend and attack the Germans at the
gates of Moscow.
I'm trying to reconcile. If we doubled down on the sanctions with the cooperation of the P5 and completely destroyed the Iranian economy and forced the collapse of the mullahs, what or who would replace them? I think that MIGHT open the door to ISIS in Iran or a weakened Iran in disarray unable to fight them in Iraq or Syria. Am I looking at this the wrong way?
I'm trying to reconcile. If we doubled down on the sanctions with the cooperation of the P5 and completely destroyed the Iranian economy and forced the collapse of the mullahs, what or who would replace them? I think that MIGHT open the door to ISIS in Iran or a weakened Iran in disarray unable to fight them in Iraq or Syria. Am I looking at this the wrong way?
Sunni ISIS essentially consider the Shia to be infidels. ISIS in Iran as an invading force with no local support? Surely you jest.
what is in place if we doubled down and destroyed the Iranian economy? I have no idea what would emerge, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be Jeffersonian Democracy, I think a Saddam or Qadfi type dictator. I'm just guessing I don't know if this is a case of the devil we know opposed to the devil we don't know
What could replace a toppled mullah regime is anyone's best guess but it likely won't be a sunni dominated group. It would also depend on how the guard reacts to such an event.
I'd sure love to see the mullahs go down, and would gladly welcome the uncertainty, despite the risks that could come with it.
I think this deal is good in the sense that should the senate approve it, the ball is then in Iran's court for the race to be a douche and we get to sit back and let them either abide or fuck themselves in the international limelight.
Where I really dislike it has little to do with the deal itself at all. I just want the mullahs/guard gone to see what the people would be capable of putting together. The Persians are a very bright people and if there were no such autocratic rulers, I could easily envision them adapting to western governments and lifestyles, negating their support for Hamas and other terror activities.
Doubt the mullahs ever are not a part of the equation. But the Quards might finally see that it's just business. There is a price to pay in this world if you wish to play outside the core monetary, trade and stability "covenants". Who tried to live outside the "system" of controls puts and calls?
Saddam, Iran, Castro, Nk, Russia. China is different imho. They are twisting on the vine collateral damage to their and our elites wanting to play nice in the world but unable to stop wanting power now. So the next guys and generation pays for paying it forward. Meanwhile elements in both nations blame the other for the party ending.
Within that bunch all are kleptocrat except Iran whose view of the world is colored by the idea that they are persecuted for their beliefs minorities surrounded by Sunni and infidels
RE: He and Don just told you pretty clearly an ISIS infiltration
I think this deal is good in the sense that should the senate approve it, the ball is then in Iran's court for the race to be a douche and we get to sit back and let them either abide or fuck themselves in the international limelight.
I think Iran has proven many, many times that it does not worry too much about its international reputation.
1. I don't think you could ever get the whole P5 to double down. In the current negotiations Russia and China were on the Iranian side of negotiations as much as they were the P5+1. The most you could expect from them would be a continuation of the current level of sanctions.
2. You've ignored their national identity as Persians. Iran is not a 20th century creation of European diplomats. From the Quds force and the Revolutionary Guards to the nascent youthful democracy groups there would be unity against an invasion by outsiders. This is not the Iraqi Army that flees and leaves their equipment to ISIS. In the 1980's this was a country that sent teenagers armed with pitchforks up against Saddam's tanks and poison gas. And they went forward!!! Also, this time they would be supported Russian arms.
3. I say 2 possibilities. First would be a tacit agreement between the youth and Quds/Revolutionary Guard allowing more freedom for the former and retention of the economic benefits the latter enjoys in return for both groups fighting the outsiders. Second would be the defeat of a common enemy followed by an internal civil war.
Is that for a complex nation they don't have a rational way to allocate resources or take on long term goals. They live short term and have a weird long informal consensus decision process....further weakened by a tradition of local technocrat/mullah adjustment to national policy. The net effect is a large nation whose core problems and industries require central investment control and execution. And a legal system that prevents investment for future laws are subject to change of mullah interpretation.
The net result is a nation ruled by feelings.
RE: RE: He and Don just told you pretty clearly an ISIS infiltration
I think this deal is good in the sense that should the senate approve it, the ball is then in Iran's court for the race to be a douche and we get to sit back and let them either abide or fuck themselves in the international limelight.
I think Iran has proven many, many times that it does not worry too much about its international reputation.
Maybe rephrased better, it puts us/israel in a much better light when we undoubtedly take the necessary actions if they don't abide
And all attempts at central control vs local mullah
Fail. In the last 125 minutes royalty followed by nationalist technocrats, communists and royalty again all get violently thrown aside by mullahs.
Incidently...don't have time here but the idea that we overthrew the democratic elected Mossedegh is 180 degrees from what happened. One of the self flagellation myths many operate under.
I know you've gone in depth about what really happened with Mossadegh before, but it's been a long time. I hope that, when you have the time in the future, you'll share the history with us again.
gives his thoughts. I would like to know what would happened if we were able to double down and completely destroy Iran economically
You can't destroy them completely.
Humans are alomost always resourceful enough to keep economies going on some level. Particularly one as large as Iran with a wealth of natural resources. The goal of sanctions was always to bring them to the table. Expecting more is not realistic.
There are useful insights gained by thinking of Iran under the local mullahs/guards as similar in local and national affairs as the Black Hand with theology and fear as means of social control.
What happens to a national road that passes the town of Corleone? Or anywhere else? The answer is that cost and crews and concrete all somehow wind up in local vig and corruption. And some roads don't get finished for the money runs out.
It's hard to get anything done.
read the indicators above of resistance to central anything interfering with local "anything goes entrepreneurial endeavors"
Then realize that 85% of all non oil corporations belong to the 2000 Guards.
I know you've gone in depth about what really happened with Mossadegh before, but it's been a long time. I hope that, when you have the time in the future, you'll share the history with us again.
Sign me up for this. I apparently missed the first iteration
some very refreshingly accurate depictions of Iran
from Bill and NJM. I wish you guys could talk to much of Congress. If they opened up their minds for a second they might learn something before they open up their mouths. I think one thing to keep in mind about gaining secondary goals from this negotiation such as prisoner releases and punishing the architects of the EFP program is that was not a unilateral negotiation. This involved the P5+1 and we couldn't just ram our goals in there. I know some may see that as a lame excuse, and that the US should lead, but thats the reality. This deal should not be side tracked by these other goals that are being harped on by those that were not in favor of negotiation from the beginning.
That takes awhile to write a post that is convincing enough to bury the canard. Requires going back to the 19th century and then coming forward. I will try tonight. I usually label opinion as opinion, but this one I am certain you will agree is likely far different in reality and many swallow propaganda as history...and while neither belongs in the certainty category the "mossadegh" over throw renders us all stupid and blind to reality in that nation.
Anyway, separate subject for now:
One thing we do not take into account when looking at events from 2000 to 2015 is from a backwards look a century from now.
This century will be about water, food, resources and the reserve currency. And timing. Timing, as the other speculation on the thread about WW2 demonstrates, is often the difference in Empires and their longevity.
In 2000 oil prices and supply and gas prices and supply required an all hands on deck production effort from all existing reasonable extraction cost reserves.
Saddam just cut via constant sabatougue the Trans Arabian 48 inch pipes from Saudi to Europe that ran 6 miles the other side of his legal borders. And then with Chavez challenged the dollar as the means of exchange ( limiting our ability to punish rogues and float through banking crisis of our own making).
China and India and Pakistan were ready outlets for Iranian and Iraqi oil and gas. To the detriment of Europe and the US who needed oil from the Gulf. At the time. Russia was building strength as its oil was selling at a high price. Europe began to panic as Gulf oil was now precious and more expensive and Russian gas and oil was an alternative if it could come through the Caucasus ( Uggh...Azerbijan and Georgia) and the Ukraine ( remember those countries for any particular "reason"?) cheaply without those nations charging a tax that extracted rent from the take the Russians could otherwise have. If it got too expensive...bad for Russia and good for the Gulf.
Since the back up for the dollar was the shipping lanes from the Gulf....and every 5%+ increase in price of oil since 1967 sent our economy in a tailspin 18 months later....the world was precarious in 2000 way before 9/11.
Fast forward. Like the baptism scene in Godfather all the enemies of the family got in the eyeball in the last 15 years. Iranian gas and oil industry is in ruins. Iraq in ruins. Pakistan and India and China no longer the demand they once were. Russia is extracting as fast as it can while prices conspire against its need for cash...and its drain on reserves leaves it within 15 years of all done at any reasonable price point without western willingness to invest.
Meanwhile, reserves equal to Saudi and the worlds second lowest cost to extract and gas equal to nowhere else and liquid condensate ( key building block for vital chemicals) came on stream....in North America due to a new extraction technology still improving at rapid rates that only NA knows how to operate effectively.
Saudi was kept safe, shipping lanes kept open, India and Pakistan delayed. China bled. Russia double bled. Reserve currency intact and now beating the Russians and Chinese with a stick. Europe not down the drain. Yet.
Result? Across the century to come...so far ...we kept the water, the food, the energy, the currency.
Poorer? yes. relative to all the others in the war outside raging in slow motion? Much better cards than anyone else.
Accident of timing? on purpose? luck the residue of design ? or the old adage...95% of life is showing up and good things follow
from Bill and NJM. I wish you guys could talk to much of Congress. If they opened up their minds for a second they might learn something before they open up their mouths. I think one thing to keep in mind about gaining secondary goals from this negotiation such as prisoner releases and punishing the architects of the EFP program is that was not a unilateral negotiation. This involved the P5+1 and we couldn't just ram our goals in there. I know some may see that as a lame excuse, and that the US should lead, but thats the reality. This deal should not be side tracked by these other goals that are being harped on by those that were not in favor of negotiation from the beginning.
Kind words Stu. But beware of falling into the trap of limiting the alternatives to either this deal or war. Obviously none of us were in the room during negotiations, but it certainly seems like Iran wasn't shy about throwing ancillary issues into the negotiations. And it seems like they got a lot of what they were looking for. So the unanswered question in my mind is why the US/P5+1 came away with so little on the ancillary side of things. Perhaps the deal doesn't fly at all if the sanctions are not lifted off of Soleimani. But where is the quid pro quo?
As I've said earlier, there's no way 34 Democratic Senators won't be cobbled together to prevent an override on an Obama veto. But to think we could/should have done better is not to advocate air strikes in Iran's nuclear facilities.
like you I wasn't in there. Who knows how this went down? Was the US strongly at the lead? or were the P5+1 having more say than we think. I agree it probably would have been more beneficial to selling it if they got these things put in. I fear though in many cases members of Congress who would never have supported this any way are going to use them as a crutch. You are right though the administration probably should have worked harder to get some thrown in there.
Maybe Israel and Saudi Arabia are working against US
interests.
I think Saudi's have been in the past a good friend of
US. Particulary during the 'banking crisis' of 1969.
The system could have collapsed and the Saudi's helped
through their deposits to help US banking system.
Israel seems like the only 'civilized' people in the Middle
East. They have shown the region what intelligent people
can do without dependence on oil.
But, today maybe our interest and their's have divurged.
are much more motivated by the Saudi-Iranian tug of war for control of the region, promotion of Sunni vs Shiite Islam etc. than they are about the nuclear issue the US is worried about.
The Israelis are worried about their security. Nukes aside, anything the empowers Iran (including lifting sanctions) is bad for Israel. It just is (though one might believe that sanctions weakening with no deal would be even worse).
I dont think either of them are honest brokers when it comes to whether this deal is good for for the United States. They're looking out for themselves, as you'd expect any rational actor to do.
are much more motivated by the Saudi-Iranian tug of war for control of the region, promotion of Sunni vs Shiite Islam etc. than they are about the nuclear issue the US is worried about.
The Israelis are worried about their security. Nukes aside, anything the empowers Iran (including lifting sanctions) is bad for Israel. It just is (though one might believe that sanctions weakening with no deal would be even worse).
I dont think either of them are honest brokers when it comes to whether this deal is good for for the United States. They're looking out for themselves, as you'd expect any rational actor to do.
are much more motivated by the Saudi-Iranian tug of war for control of the region, promotion of Sunni vs Shiite Islam etc. than they are about the nuclear issue the US is worried about.
The Israelis are worried about their security. Nukes aside, anything the empowers Iran (including lifting sanctions) is bad for Israel. It just is (though one might believe that sanctions weakening with no deal would be even worse).
I dont think either of them are honest brokers when it comes to whether this deal is good for for the United States. They're looking out for themselves, as you'd expect any rational actor to do.
I think the Iran nuke issue is a part of the Saudi-Iranian tug of war.
And yes, both the Saudi's and Israeli's are looking out for themselves. But I don't think that their self interested point of view automatically means it's a good deal for the US. It could be good, it could be bad, it could be the US could have done better. Their viewpoint is not dispositive with respect to the US in either way(s).
I agree. Obviously the Saudis dont want Iran to get the bomb. But they also dont want the Saudis having client states in Syria and Yemen etc. Their interest is broader.
As I've said throughout this post, I have no idea if the deal is a good one or bad one. I just viscerally reject the notion that all would be better if we were just tougher, or that the status quo was even a viable option. I do think that a lot of the knee-jerk criticism would have come regardless of what the deal was. There are some people who just think that this president is inept and everything he does is inept or worse.
on the treaty monitoring aspects of the agreement. acton - ( New Window )
My initial reaction is that the JCPOA is a little more comprehensive than expected. What I find troubling are the following:
* The assumption of the author that if Iran went "loud and proud" it would simply be solved by US air strikes. First, would the US do it? Second, now that the arms sanctions have been lifted and $150 billion in funds have been unfrozen, COULD the US do it if Iran has hardened the sites on the sly before any nuclear materials are introduced and they've installed the latest in Russian anti-aircraft defenses that the Russians have already offered to sell them?
* Assumption the arbitration process will work through the time period. The members of the Joint Commission right now will almost be certain to vote 5-3, which is necessary to compel inspections. What happens in a few years after what will probably be significant Western European investment in Iran. Will the EU representative or Germany turn it into a 4-4 vote that will preclude inspection of the site in question?
I cannot weave all the parts of this into a coherent and detailed explanation in a step by step basis.
I can provide ways or allegories that while imprecise have visceral impact that shed insights.
and I can give a glimpse into a more layered complex view of Iran so we may understand who is driving and who did what and how much influence we had ( imho very very little) and to quote a famous Aretha song we may better understand just exactly "Who's Zooming Who?"
To start lets first cover the sources of what we know about the "plot to overthrow" the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and how that one sin resulted in the horrible hatred the Iranians have for us and is an object lesson in why we should not interfere.
There are five sources:
1) The long history of Iran since the late 19th Century provides context
2) What the Iranian newspapers said at the time of the coup
3) What the CIA said before
4) What Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA said afterwards
5) What the Brits and US agencies said about it all in 1979 to try to get our people back.
Now one of the things that always amazes me is how vociferously the very same people who insist that the CIA is a bunch of double dealing never honest bureaucratic ass covering liars....insist that the CIAs version of what happened is the version that happened. Which is it? They lie all the time and cant be trusted? or they told the truth about their role in Iran in 1953?
The CIA defends its budget. And its jobs. And the right to more of the same in the future. or to CYA. That's why it says things. Its a bureaucracy. Period. Full Stop. It says things because it lives in the grey zone and is a spy agency. Period. Full stop. it does not record and write history. it does not have any rhyme or reason to be honest. its job is to distort outside the walls and sometimes to clarify within the walls.
If its 1950s and you are amongst the government agencies whose budget and personnel are under review for harboring communists and giving Russia the Bomb...you kind of look for ways to toot your own horn and claim all credit that is not nailed down as the opposite truth.
And if you are the son of Teddy Roosevelt you toot your own horn for you were born to it, learned under a master and need it as well for you will never be the old man.
The most important CIA analysis or report is from 1952 in a report to Eisenhower before the coup and that is where we will start to put it all together once we cover the nature of Iran in 1880 and the context needed to understand how it operates
In the West, since Greece, the religion, the state, the dispense of justice, economic activity and wealth/privledge handed down family lines are all separated with each primarily responsible of aspects of momentum and control/stability of the society. Even with that head start, the West took milleniums and tons of violence to evolve into separating and guarding the religion, the state and the individual rights of the society. We agree on this?
We also agree that in the West, we not longer think of clergy as participants in the wealth generation elites or in the justice system or involved in tax disputes or passionate about the attempts of the state to redistribute wealth or allocate resources to long term objective or infrastructure. Certainly not after the 95 theses were nailed to the door in Wittenberg.
We do need to realize that nothing is monolithic and the nature of Shia world is a very loose but roughly similar experiences of Islam and the world.
We do need to realize that our degree of internal coherence and controls are not anywhere close to life as late as 1965 in most of the world. What most nations experience for all born before 1965 is a nation with a capital. Controlled by the leader. After the radio station, the newspaper, the army is all in control...the rest outside the capital is kind of a no mans land. villages and even cities are kind of controlled. judge, jury, charity, and schools and prime economic engines by warlords. or the law, or the Black Hand. or the mullah.
most nations 80% of the nation is on farms or in small villages. and they do not ever travel more than 25 miles away in their lifetimes.
Iran in 1800 to 1960 was feudal. Elite families had sons in the government, the military, owning businesses in the town,
I don't exist to give laze dumb useless fucks like you a handbook for living in the world.
And proof of that is that in years of posting no one went and found contrary information. I don't make up things you useless piece of shit. I don't give a flying fuck if you stay stupid and pointless. If I do the work and you want to go further its all out there. fucking cunt for brains
for you because unlike you I don't look up and copy other peoples work. its what I learned from many places. or heard.
look you are a below average shit. stay that way. but don't pretend you do anything but troll
if you want to learn... or debate on equal footing....go do the fucking work asswipe. or stay stupid which is you for years now
Bravo, sir, bravo.
Radar's act is one of consistent embarrassment on BBI for years. His unwavering need to play the contrarian on almost every issue to his constant need for links and references wholly supports your description above. The next time he makes a salient point on any topic being discussed will be his first.
undocumented accounts of history hook, line and sinker.
Do you ever wonder why the vast majority of people on BBI think of you as a joke? Or are you so lacking in self awareness that you actually think people don't laugh at your posts but instead take them seriously? Seriously...someone should slap the shit out of you for your tired act.
It's hard as hell to annoy Bill to the point of him being anything but a gentleman. He is and has always been one of the most patient and cordial gentleman on BBI.
That should tell you, Radar, how tiresome your act has become. Go away, asshole.
Ill give you 2 hours to put forth your referenced or not alternative contrarian ( which is what I was doing) pov on Iranian history and the Mosedegh "coup"
go nuts. let see what you got shithead
Make it good. you have an objection then obviously you can do better.
Not all of us are as lazy spoon fed and stupid as you are.
Come on...expecting really good work now...no looking it up...just what you think from all you have learned.
and to top it off attacks the integrity of someone who never attacked one of the easiest targets on the board day in day out.
rooting for you to show us you got game Chrissy.
54 minutes now...I know you can discuss this in detail from many aspects off the top of your head....you know...so we get curious and do more our own homework
I don't expect anyone to take anything that is said without checking....checking is how you learn. I know the shit asswipe. I don't reference it to know it, And I dont post about what I don't know.
substance. the thread is about Iran. Not about your trolling shithead routine.
post several posts of substance like many others on the thread.
or shut up.
By the way such things like the list of five sources of core information ought to give you a clue.
the 95 thesis on the door at Wittenberg is sourced from the 95 thesis on the door at Wittenberg
Mosadegh you look up yourself. Kermit Washington is the son of TR you can find in 2875 books and 3481 articles and 495 pictures. you do that by typing in Kermit Washington. the source of Kermit Washington is Kermit Washington. The reference is the same as the source dummkopf.
dummkopf is a German word. German is sourced by typing it.
Iran is a feudal society in the 19th century is found in 7,800 books.
the CIA report before the coup is found by looking up CIA reports on Iran before the coup.
Doing your own homework is so so hard
It aint in the sources its in how you understand and make insightful connections between the material.
oh wait a minute...you cant do that. You think copying is thinking. Now I get it.
Full on shit for brains.
still waiting for several substantive contributions to the thread topic
long day dealing with tons of stupid and then this guy.
I dunno....do most people on BBI source what they know if they know it?
to me hiding behind what other people say is a chickenshit out. If you had to just check it to post on it then you don't yet know what you are talking about. ( dates and numbers and spellings to me is another story...that's just being decently accurate enough to not confuse the reader) You either label as your opinion of point of view or as a possibility or insight or way of thinking...or you present it with adequate homework knowing if their is another set of facts someone on BBI will know them
For example, Iran was a "feudal" society or the Wests separation of religion and state and individual started with the Greeks. Is there an opposite possible conclusion that needs to be sourced? Are we going to find a source that says " The leaders of Greece were one and the same as their teenaged virgins at Delphi...especially those Spartan leaders" or "Iran in the 19th century was a diverse moderate democratic society composed of a very large middle class and their top 1% rotated voluntarily to the bottom after a year at the top"
im sorry...I have no idea how many things I have read about Greece nor its legal code nor its early elite democracies nor its tribal leader oligarchy forms of city state governance. I can either post or not. imho if you want books on Greece...that's what Amazon is for.
I dunno...does anyone know how many times and ways they know that religion and state and individual rights are more separated in the West than in Islam? I have no clue anymore how many different ways and sources and places and precise differences I could point out. Should I stop posting?
And its history...its not science where sources might be actually required and customary.
I dunno. I thought we just posted and then discussed it and moved on. Since 2006 no one told me I needed footnotes to post?
If I am annoying tell me. to be honest, I either dont know sources because I read it 57 different ways from Sunday ages ago or I assume if I am wrong I will learn and say thanks.
Greg this is your fault. I actually just wanted to honor your request as favors go back and forth in karma over the years and we are both fans of the same kinds of topics. I think I have your email but if not if Ronnie or Dune can forward me your email I will reply ...but no footnotes or sources Greg. You check and learn more when and if you wish.
Near as I know Lincoln freed the slaves ages ago so we can all learn or consider things at the depth we wish to.
No more chris. Stay away and I will do the same. I do not recall ever challenging your integrity. Much less doing so and having no basis or substance to challenge....just dumpster diving fly over and shit like a pigeon on a thread you have made no contributions or have no horse in the discussion. Life is too short to spend time dealing with free range clowns.
I deliberately wrote that to understand this subject we are going to look in turn in the posts to come at the five possible core sources of facts or context ( does everyone on BBI lay out their case as clearly)....and some cluck escapes and writes that he objects to the lack of sources and references.
then faced with the challenge to be rigorous and substantive ( kind of what he was objecting to ...he flys away.
I know that in econ or finance threads or political ones I don't cite very often...because I heard it from a directly involved person or saw it myself or think it because that's what I think. I didnt look it up. why would I? But I don't make anyone think what I do. Or even care if they do. I don't like to leave wrong stuff on important issues unchallenged but the vast vast majority of all we ever know is uncertain and subject to interpretation.
Especially history. its the history of HUMAN events. Of course its subjective. its about humans.
I dunno. if you are willing to say thanks if you are wrong and debate opinion with respect...this is a discussion board. when did it turn into a conference where we were all giving our academic papers?
I must have missed the memo that chris received.
RE: its unclear to me why BBI swollows Bill2's unreferenced and
undocumented accounts of history hook, line and sinker.
I'm not going to intervene on Bill2's behalf and defend his integrity; even though he's my friend, he can do that on his own.
Instead I want to say something as an audience member. You've just insulted us and in doing so made a seriously stupid assumption. Do you think when Bill2 says (perhaps obliquely), for instance, that we might have had good reasons for invading Iraq in 2003, that I, or anyone else for that matter, automatically buys what he says? That just because Bill2 has said something, I'm convinced he's right?
That's absurd. My line of work (as an academic) involves constant skepticism about people's arguments (this isn't to say academics have a monopoly on skepticism). The reason I listen to Bill2 (without necessarily *always* agreeing with him) is fourfold: a) his facts are always sound; b) he connects his arguments with his facts in persuasive, if not always clinching ways; c) he argues in good faith; d) he puts forward his own opinions, which are always different from what I'll find in the academic and media mainstream (either in conclusions or level of analysis).
We see all three things in bits and pieces on this board. d) is common enough; everybody and their mother on this board is a goddamn sociologist of Islam and everyone and their mother has opinions on the failures of race politics, the Palestinian people, or the poor more generally. I left this board for close many months precisely because I was tired of encountering d) without seeing a), b), and c) come along with it.
That you implicitly charge Bill with not meeting a) or c) is doubly insulting. I'm not going to dwell on c). You have to really just be hardheaded about being a contrarian to seriously charge that. I feel sorry for you. That sort of sensibility must be draining and in such a useless way too.
a) is what particularly annoys me. Do you think that if Bill posted things that were patently false, he wouldn't be called out on them? That there aren't enough curious, literate, and critical adults on this board that a claim such as "Mossadegh sold five Titians and his first born son to the Caliph Abu Bakr" couldn't be challenged? Do you really think you're that much smarter than us? I mean that you're assured of your own intelligence has been blatantly obvious for years. But to assume that we're all Bill2 groupies without the ability to think and factcheck on our own? Go fuck yourself, radar.
I've spent many years in school and I've come to the conclusion that academics are good at some things and horrible at others. I do think academics do exceptionally well at making organized arguments and specific arguments. I think they benefit from rigorous cross checking and generate a lot of data that the rest of us all benefit from. What we don't do well, and this is part of the reason I still stick around and read Bill2's posts, Phil's and a few others, and try to talk to friends who work in business and other "real world' sectors is see how theory fails and how people act and behave on a day to day basis. The great benefits I derive from Bill2's posts (and this is aside from the personal advice he gave me years ago and I still keep today and the model of behavior he's set which I constantly fail to live up to, but hope that perhaps in a decade or so I'll approximate) are i) the expansion of my knowledge base and ii) having another outlook from which to understand the world.
Whenever Bill posts a fact that I do NOT know I go and look it up. It's easy; the internet's right there and I also have institutional access to other reference materials. I don't check each and every claim but that's also because I trust the man. The many facts I have checked have led me to expand my reading and simply learn more. I don't need to take Bill's facts and necessarily end up with his conclusions, even if the man is terrible persuasive.
As for ii), the vast majority of news analysis we read is short-term. It focuses on the micro dynamics of small events over time horizons of a few years, perhaps a decade at most. Bill's time horizons are typically "imperial", to use a distinctly unlovely phrase. That is, he forces me to think about the material foundations of whatever geopolitical system is in place and the continuities and discontinuities of that system. Do you know who else thought on this level? Marx. So does Perry Anderson, Charles Tilly, Michael Mann, Jared Diamond, etc. Some of us do our own reading chris and we listen to Bill for very good reasons.
You've insulted a friend, but that's fine; he can fight his own battles and do so ably. But you've also insulted me as a listener and that's something I can and should respond to.
It's a shame that after a month of fasting on a day of celebration this is how I should start it, but I think it's necessary. I want Bill2 around because selfishly I've become a better thinker (and person) because of him. And I'm not going to let you jeopardize that. I'm jealous of my knowledge.
You're also a Bulls fan who I assume doesn't live in Chicago which makes you the scum of the earth.
What if the Nazis got the ME 262 into mass production before the war started? Or turned those heavy water operations in Norway into an actual successful atomic bomb project?
Boggles the mind. Too many variables. Fun to ponder though.
Don, what if Germany had sent 250,000 troops into Africa
right after Dunkirk. They sent that many to hold off the
Brits and US from 42-43.
They could have seized Suez Canal and captured the oil
fields of Arabia at the same time flanking Russia's southern
border. They would have all the oil they needed, made the
Mediterraen a Axis 'lake' and threatened India.
OR if they had the 300 subs that Doenitz wanted.
And what if they had not declared war on the US. If
they were honoring their treaty with Japan, they should
have insisted Japan attack Siberia which would have left
Moscow undefended in December 41, when the fresh Siberian
divisions came to defend and attack the Germans at the
gates of Moscow.
As I've said before, hindsight is 20/20.
Sunni ISIS essentially consider the Shia to be infidels. ISIS in Iran as an invading force with no local support? Surely you jest.
What could replace a toppled mullah regime is anyone's best guess but it likely won't be a sunni dominated group. It would also depend on how the guard reacts to such an event.
I'd sure love to see the mullahs go down, and would gladly welcome the uncertainty, despite the risks that could come with it.
I think this deal is good in the sense that should the senate approve it, the ball is then in Iran's court for the race to be a douche and we get to sit back and let them either abide or fuck themselves in the international limelight.
Where I really dislike it has little to do with the deal itself at all. I just want the mullahs/guard gone to see what the people would be capable of putting together. The Persians are a very bright people and if there were no such autocratic rulers, I could easily envision them adapting to western governments and lifestyles, negating their support for Hamas and other terror activities.
Doubt the mullahs ever are not a part of the equation. But the Quards might finally see that it's just business. There is a price to pay in this world if you wish to play outside the core monetary, trade and stability "covenants". Who tried to live outside the "system" of controls puts and calls?
Saddam, Iran, Castro, Nk, Russia. China is different imho. They are twisting on the vine collateral damage to their and our elites wanting to play nice in the world but unable to stop wanting power now. So the next guys and generation pays for paying it forward. Meanwhile elements in both nations blame the other for the party ending.
Within that bunch all are kleptocrat except Iran whose view of the world is colored by the idea that they are persecuted for their beliefs minorities surrounded by Sunni and infidels
I think Iran has proven many, many times that it does not worry too much about its international reputation.
It's all speculation but:
1. I don't think you could ever get the whole P5 to double down. In the current negotiations Russia and China were on the Iranian side of negotiations as much as they were the P5+1. The most you could expect from them would be a continuation of the current level of sanctions.
2. You've ignored their national identity as Persians. Iran is not a 20th century creation of European diplomats. From the Quds force and the Revolutionary Guards to the nascent youthful democracy groups there would be unity against an invasion by outsiders. This is not the Iraqi Army that flees and leaves their equipment to ISIS. In the 1980's this was a country that sent teenagers armed with pitchforks up against Saddam's tanks and poison gas. And they went forward!!! Also, this time they would be supported Russian arms.
3. I say 2 possibilities. First would be a tacit agreement between the youth and Quds/Revolutionary Guard allowing more freedom for the former and retention of the economic benefits the latter enjoys in return for both groups fighting the outsiders. Second would be the defeat of a common enemy followed by an internal civil war.
The net result is a nation ruled by feelings.
Quote:
I think this deal is good in the sense that should the senate approve it, the ball is then in Iran's court for the race to be a douche and we get to sit back and let them either abide or fuck themselves in the international limelight.
I think Iran has proven many, many times that it does not worry too much about its international reputation.
Maybe rephrased better, it puts us/israel in a much better light when we undoubtedly take the necessary actions if they don't abide
Incidently...don't have time here but the idea that we overthrew the democratic elected Mossedegh is 180 degrees from what happened. One of the self flagellation myths many operate under.
You can't destroy them completely.
Humans are alomost always resourceful enough to keep economies going on some level. Particularly one as large as Iran with a wealth of natural resources. The goal of sanctions was always to bring them to the table. Expecting more is not realistic.
What happens to a national road that passes the town of Corleone? Or anywhere else? The answer is that cost and crews and concrete all somehow wind up in local vig and corruption. And some roads don't get finished for the money runs out.
It's hard to get anything done.
read the indicators above of resistance to central anything interfering with local "anything goes entrepreneurial endeavors"
Then realize that 85% of all non oil corporations belong to the 2000 Guards.
Sicily.
Sign me up for this. I apparently missed the first iteration
Anyway, separate subject for now:
One thing we do not take into account when looking at events from 2000 to 2015 is from a backwards look a century from now.
This century will be about water, food, resources and the reserve currency. And timing. Timing, as the other speculation on the thread about WW2 demonstrates, is often the difference in Empires and their longevity.
In 2000 oil prices and supply and gas prices and supply required an all hands on deck production effort from all existing reasonable extraction cost reserves.
Saddam just cut via constant sabatougue the Trans Arabian 48 inch pipes from Saudi to Europe that ran 6 miles the other side of his legal borders. And then with Chavez challenged the dollar as the means of exchange ( limiting our ability to punish rogues and float through banking crisis of our own making).
China and India and Pakistan were ready outlets for Iranian and Iraqi oil and gas. To the detriment of Europe and the US who needed oil from the Gulf. At the time. Russia was building strength as its oil was selling at a high price. Europe began to panic as Gulf oil was now precious and more expensive and Russian gas and oil was an alternative if it could come through the Caucasus ( Uggh...Azerbijan and Georgia) and the Ukraine ( remember those countries for any particular "reason"?) cheaply without those nations charging a tax that extracted rent from the take the Russians could otherwise have. If it got too expensive...bad for Russia and good for the Gulf.
Since the back up for the dollar was the shipping lanes from the Gulf....and every 5%+ increase in price of oil since 1967 sent our economy in a tailspin 18 months later....the world was precarious in 2000 way before 9/11.
Fast forward. Like the baptism scene in Godfather all the enemies of the family got in the eyeball in the last 15 years. Iranian gas and oil industry is in ruins. Iraq in ruins. Pakistan and India and China no longer the demand they once were. Russia is extracting as fast as it can while prices conspire against its need for cash...and its drain on reserves leaves it within 15 years of all done at any reasonable price point without western willingness to invest.
Meanwhile, reserves equal to Saudi and the worlds second lowest cost to extract and gas equal to nowhere else and liquid condensate ( key building block for vital chemicals) came on stream....in North America due to a new extraction technology still improving at rapid rates that only NA knows how to operate effectively.
Saudi was kept safe, shipping lanes kept open, India and Pakistan delayed. China bled. Russia double bled. Reserve currency intact and now beating the Russians and Chinese with a stick. Europe not down the drain. Yet.
Result? Across the century to come...so far ...we kept the water, the food, the energy, the currency.
Poorer? yes. relative to all the others in the war outside raging in slow motion? Much better cards than anyone else.
Accident of timing? on purpose? luck the residue of design ? or the old adage...95% of life is showing up and good things follow
All of the above. The debate is over the percentages to be assigned to the various components.
Kind words Stu. But beware of falling into the trap of limiting the alternatives to either this deal or war. Obviously none of us were in the room during negotiations, but it certainly seems like Iran wasn't shy about throwing ancillary issues into the negotiations. And it seems like they got a lot of what they were looking for. So the unanswered question in my mind is why the US/P5+1 came away with so little on the ancillary side of things. Perhaps the deal doesn't fly at all if the sanctions are not lifted off of Soleimani. But where is the quid pro quo?
As I've said earlier, there's no way 34 Democratic Senators won't be cobbled together to prevent an override on an Obama veto. But to think we could/should have done better is not to advocate air strikes in Iran's nuclear facilities.
interests.
I think Saudi's have been in the past a good friend of
US. Particulary during the 'banking crisis' of 1969.
The system could have collapsed and the Saudi's helped
through their deposits to help US banking system.
Israel seems like the only 'civilized' people in the Middle
East. They have shown the region what intelligent people
can do without dependence on oil.
But, today maybe our interest and their's have divurged.
The Israelis are worried about their security. Nukes aside, anything the empowers Iran (including lifting sanctions) is bad for Israel. It just is (though one might believe that sanctions weakening with no deal would be even worse).
I dont think either of them are honest brokers when it comes to whether this deal is good for for the United States. They're looking out for themselves, as you'd expect any rational actor to do.
The Israelis are worried about their security. Nukes aside, anything the empowers Iran (including lifting sanctions) is bad for Israel. It just is (though one might believe that sanctions weakening with no deal would be even worse).
I dont think either of them are honest brokers when it comes to whether this deal is good for for the United States. They're looking out for themselves, as you'd expect any rational actor to do.
Precisely.
acton - ( New Window )
The Israelis are worried about their security. Nukes aside, anything the empowers Iran (including lifting sanctions) is bad for Israel. It just is (though one might believe that sanctions weakening with no deal would be even worse).
I dont think either of them are honest brokers when it comes to whether this deal is good for for the United States. They're looking out for themselves, as you'd expect any rational actor to do.
I think the Iran nuke issue is a part of the Saudi-Iranian tug of war.
And yes, both the Saudi's and Israeli's are looking out for themselves. But I don't think that their self interested point of view automatically means it's a good deal for the US. It could be good, it could be bad, it could be the US could have done better. Their viewpoint is not dispositive with respect to the US in either way(s).
As I've said throughout this post, I have no idea if the deal is a good one or bad one. I just viscerally reject the notion that all would be better if we were just tougher, or that the status quo was even a viable option. I do think that a lot of the knee-jerk criticism would have come regardless of what the deal was. There are some people who just think that this president is inept and everything he does is inept or worse.
My initial reaction is that the JCPOA is a little more comprehensive than expected. What I find troubling are the following:
* The assumption of the author that if Iran went "loud and proud" it would simply be solved by US air strikes. First, would the US do it? Second, now that the arms sanctions have been lifted and $150 billion in funds have been unfrozen, COULD the US do it if Iran has hardened the sites on the sly before any nuclear materials are introduced and they've installed the latest in Russian anti-aircraft defenses that the Russians have already offered to sell them?
* Assumption the arbitration process will work through the time period. The members of the Joint Commission right now will almost be certain to vote 5-3, which is necessary to compel inspections. What happens in a few years after what will probably be significant Western European investment in Iran. Will the EU representative or Germany turn it into a 4-4 vote that will preclude inspection of the site in question?
I can provide ways or allegories that while imprecise have visceral impact that shed insights.
and I can give a glimpse into a more layered complex view of Iran so we may understand who is driving and who did what and how much influence we had ( imho very very little) and to quote a famous Aretha song we may better understand just exactly "Who's Zooming Who?"
To start lets first cover the sources of what we know about the "plot to overthrow" the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and how that one sin resulted in the horrible hatred the Iranians have for us and is an object lesson in why we should not interfere.
There are five sources:
1) The long history of Iran since the late 19th Century provides context
2) What the Iranian newspapers said at the time of the coup
3) What the CIA said before
4) What Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA said afterwards
5) What the Brits and US agencies said about it all in 1979 to try to get our people back.
Now one of the things that always amazes me is how vociferously the very same people who insist that the CIA is a bunch of double dealing never honest bureaucratic ass covering liars....insist that the CIAs version of what happened is the version that happened. Which is it? They lie all the time and cant be trusted? or they told the truth about their role in Iran in 1953?
The CIA defends its budget. And its jobs. And the right to more of the same in the future. or to CYA. That's why it says things. Its a bureaucracy. Period. Full Stop. It says things because it lives in the grey zone and is a spy agency. Period. Full stop. it does not record and write history. it does not have any rhyme or reason to be honest. its job is to distort outside the walls and sometimes to clarify within the walls.
If its 1950s and you are amongst the government agencies whose budget and personnel are under review for harboring communists and giving Russia the Bomb...you kind of look for ways to toot your own horn and claim all credit that is not nailed down as the opposite truth.
And if you are the son of Teddy Roosevelt you toot your own horn for you were born to it, learned under a master and need it as well for you will never be the old man.
The most important CIA analysis or report is from 1952 in a report to Eisenhower before the coup and that is where we will start to put it all together once we cover the nature of Iran in 1880 and the context needed to understand how it operates
"how that one sin resulted in the horrible hatred the Iranians have for us and is an object lesson in why we should not interfere.
We also agree that in the West, we not longer think of clergy as participants in the wealth generation elites or in the justice system or involved in tax disputes or passionate about the attempts of the state to redistribute wealth or allocate resources to long term objective or infrastructure. Certainly not after the 95 theses were nailed to the door in Wittenberg.
We do need to realize that nothing is monolithic and the nature of Shia world is a very loose but roughly similar experiences of Islam and the world.
We do need to realize that our degree of internal coherence and controls are not anywhere close to life as late as 1965 in most of the world. What most nations experience for all born before 1965 is a nation with a capital. Controlled by the leader. After the radio station, the newspaper, the army is all in control...the rest outside the capital is kind of a no mans land. villages and even cities are kind of controlled. judge, jury, charity, and schools and prime economic engines by warlords. or the law, or the Black Hand. or the mullah.
most nations 80% of the nation is on farms or in small villages. and they do not ever travel more than 25 miles away in their lifetimes.
Iran in 1800 to 1960 was feudal. Elite families had sons in the government, the military, owning businesses in the town,
I don't exist to give laze dumb useless fucks like you a handbook for living in the world.
And proof of that is that in years of posting no one went and found contrary information. I don't make up things you useless piece of shit. I don't give a flying fuck if you stay stupid and pointless. If I do the work and you want to go further its all out there. fucking cunt for brains
look you are a below average shit. stay that way. but don't pretend you do anything but troll
if you want to learn... or debate on equal footing....go do the fucking work asswipe. or stay stupid which is you for years now
look you are a below average shit. stay that way. but don't pretend you do anything but troll
if you want to learn... or debate on equal footing....go do the fucking work asswipe. or stay stupid which is you for years now
Bravo, sir, bravo.
Radar's act is one of consistent embarrassment on BBI for years. His unwavering need to play the contrarian on almost every issue to his constant need for links and references wholly supports your description above. The next time he makes a salient point on any topic being discussed will be his first.
Hope all is well, sir.
Do you ever wonder why the vast majority of people on BBI think of you as a joke? Or are you so lacking in self awareness that you actually think people don't laugh at your posts but instead take them seriously? Seriously...someone should slap the shit out of you for your tired act.
That should tell you, Radar, how tiresome your act has become. Go away, asshole.
Ill give you 2 hours to put forth your referenced or not alternative contrarian ( which is what I was doing) pov on Iranian history and the Mosedegh "coup"
go nuts. let see what you got shithead
Make it good. you have an objection then obviously you can do better.
Not all of us are as lazy spoon fed and stupid as you are.
Come on...expecting really good work now...no looking it up...just what you think from all you have learned.
Let see the full power of the chris.
let me know if you need help babygirl
rooting for you to show us you got game Chrissy.
54 minutes now...I know you can discuss this in detail from many aspects off the top of your head....you know...so we get curious and do more our own homework
I don't expect anyone to take anything that is said without checking....checking is how you learn. I know the shit asswipe. I don't reference it to know it, And I dont post about what I don't know.
What you did was the reverse. Took off your pants in the town square and showed you got nothing of substance.
post several posts of substance like many others on the thread.
or shut up.
By the way such things like the list of five sources of core information ought to give you a clue.
the 95 thesis on the door at Wittenberg is sourced from the 95 thesis on the door at Wittenberg
Mosadegh you look up yourself. Kermit Washington is the son of TR you can find in 2875 books and 3481 articles and 495 pictures. you do that by typing in Kermit Washington. the source of Kermit Washington is Kermit Washington. The reference is the same as the source dummkopf.
dummkopf is a German word. German is sourced by typing it.
Iran is a feudal society in the 19th century is found in 7,800 books.
the CIA report before the coup is found by looking up CIA reports on Iran before the coup.
Doing your own homework is so so hard
It aint in the sources its in how you understand and make insightful connections between the material.
oh wait a minute...you cant do that. You think copying is thinking. Now I get it.
Full on shit for brains.
still waiting for several substantive contributions to the thread topic
I dunno....do most people on BBI source what they know if they know it?
to me hiding behind what other people say is a chickenshit out. If you had to just check it to post on it then you don't yet know what you are talking about. ( dates and numbers and spellings to me is another story...that's just being decently accurate enough to not confuse the reader) You either label as your opinion of point of view or as a possibility or insight or way of thinking...or you present it with adequate homework knowing if their is another set of facts someone on BBI will know them
For example, Iran was a "feudal" society or the Wests separation of religion and state and individual started with the Greeks. Is there an opposite possible conclusion that needs to be sourced? Are we going to find a source that says " The leaders of Greece were one and the same as their teenaged virgins at Delphi...especially those Spartan leaders" or "Iran in the 19th century was a diverse moderate democratic society composed of a very large middle class and their top 1% rotated voluntarily to the bottom after a year at the top"
im sorry...I have no idea how many things I have read about Greece nor its legal code nor its early elite democracies nor its tribal leader oligarchy forms of city state governance. I can either post or not. imho if you want books on Greece...that's what Amazon is for.
I dunno...does anyone know how many times and ways they know that religion and state and individual rights are more separated in the West than in Islam? I have no clue anymore how many different ways and sources and places and precise differences I could point out. Should I stop posting?
And its history...its not science where sources might be actually required and customary.
I dunno. I thought we just posted and then discussed it and moved on. Since 2006 no one told me I needed footnotes to post?
If I am annoying tell me. to be honest, I either dont know sources because I read it 57 different ways from Sunday ages ago or I assume if I am wrong I will learn and say thanks.
Greg this is your fault. I actually just wanted to honor your request as favors go back and forth in karma over the years and we are both fans of the same kinds of topics. I think I have your email but if not if Ronnie or Dune can forward me your email I will reply ...but no footnotes or sources Greg. You check and learn more when and if you wish.
Near as I know Lincoln freed the slaves ages ago so we can all learn or consider things at the depth we wish to.
No more chris. Stay away and I will do the same. I do not recall ever challenging your integrity. Much less doing so and having no basis or substance to challenge....just dumpster diving fly over and shit like a pigeon on a thread you have made no contributions or have no horse in the discussion. Life is too short to spend time dealing with free range clowns.
We are done. All the best. Take care.
I deliberately wrote that to understand this subject we are going to look in turn in the posts to come at the five possible core sources of facts or context ( does everyone on BBI lay out their case as clearly)....and some cluck escapes and writes that he objects to the lack of sources and references.
then faced with the challenge to be rigorous and substantive ( kind of what he was objecting to ...he flys away.
I know that in econ or finance threads or political ones I don't cite very often...because I heard it from a directly involved person or saw it myself or think it because that's what I think. I didnt look it up. why would I? But I don't make anyone think what I do. Or even care if they do. I don't like to leave wrong stuff on important issues unchallenged but the vast vast majority of all we ever know is uncertain and subject to interpretation.
Especially history. its the history of HUMAN events. Of course its subjective. its about humans.
I dunno. if you are willing to say thanks if you are wrong and debate opinion with respect...this is a discussion board. when did it turn into a conference where we were all giving our academic papers?
I must have missed the memo that chris received.
I'm not going to intervene on Bill2's behalf and defend his integrity; even though he's my friend, he can do that on his own.
Instead I want to say something as an audience member. You've just insulted us and in doing so made a seriously stupid assumption. Do you think when Bill2 says (perhaps obliquely), for instance, that we might have had good reasons for invading Iraq in 2003, that I, or anyone else for that matter, automatically buys what he says? That just because Bill2 has said something, I'm convinced he's right?
That's absurd. My line of work (as an academic) involves constant skepticism about people's arguments (this isn't to say academics have a monopoly on skepticism). The reason I listen to Bill2 (without necessarily *always* agreeing with him) is fourfold: a) his facts are always sound; b) he connects his arguments with his facts in persuasive, if not always clinching ways; c) he argues in good faith; d) he puts forward his own opinions, which are always different from what I'll find in the academic and media mainstream (either in conclusions or level of analysis).
We see all three things in bits and pieces on this board. d) is common enough; everybody and their mother on this board is a goddamn sociologist of Islam and everyone and their mother has opinions on the failures of race politics, the Palestinian people, or the poor more generally. I left this board for close many months precisely because I was tired of encountering d) without seeing a), b), and c) come along with it.
That you implicitly charge Bill with not meeting a) or c) is doubly insulting. I'm not going to dwell on c). You have to really just be hardheaded about being a contrarian to seriously charge that. I feel sorry for you. That sort of sensibility must be draining and in such a useless way too.
a) is what particularly annoys me. Do you think that if Bill posted things that were patently false, he wouldn't be called out on them? That there aren't enough curious, literate, and critical adults on this board that a claim such as "Mossadegh sold five Titians and his first born son to the Caliph Abu Bakr" couldn't be challenged? Do you really think you're that much smarter than us? I mean that you're assured of your own intelligence has been blatantly obvious for years. But to assume that we're all Bill2 groupies without the ability to think and factcheck on our own? Go fuck yourself, radar.
I've spent many years in school and I've come to the conclusion that academics are good at some things and horrible at others. I do think academics do exceptionally well at making organized arguments and specific arguments. I think they benefit from rigorous cross checking and generate a lot of data that the rest of us all benefit from. What we don't do well, and this is part of the reason I still stick around and read Bill2's posts, Phil's and a few others, and try to talk to friends who work in business and other "real world' sectors is see how theory fails and how people act and behave on a day to day basis. The great benefits I derive from Bill2's posts (and this is aside from the personal advice he gave me years ago and I still keep today and the model of behavior he's set which I constantly fail to live up to, but hope that perhaps in a decade or so I'll approximate) are i) the expansion of my knowledge base and ii) having another outlook from which to understand the world.
Whenever Bill posts a fact that I do NOT know I go and look it up. It's easy; the internet's right there and I also have institutional access to other reference materials. I don't check each and every claim but that's also because I trust the man. The many facts I have checked have led me to expand my reading and simply learn more. I don't need to take Bill's facts and necessarily end up with his conclusions, even if the man is terrible persuasive.
As for ii), the vast majority of news analysis we read is short-term. It focuses on the micro dynamics of small events over time horizons of a few years, perhaps a decade at most. Bill's time horizons are typically "imperial", to use a distinctly unlovely phrase. That is, he forces me to think about the material foundations of whatever geopolitical system is in place and the continuities and discontinuities of that system. Do you know who else thought on this level? Marx. So does Perry Anderson, Charles Tilly, Michael Mann, Jared Diamond, etc. Some of us do our own reading chris and we listen to Bill for very good reasons.
You've insulted a friend, but that's fine; he can fight his own battles and do so ably. But you've also insulted me as a listener and that's something I can and should respond to.
It's a shame that after a month of fasting on a day of celebration this is how I should start it, but I think it's necessary. I want Bill2 around because selfishly I've become a better thinker (and person) because of him. And I'm not going to let you jeopardize that. I'm jealous of my knowledge.
You're also a Bulls fan who I assume doesn't live in Chicago which makes you the scum of the earth.