@2rafa's banner p

2rafa


				

				

				
24 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 06 11:20:51 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 841

2rafa


				
				
				

				
24 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 06 11:20:51 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 841

Verified Email

For men it’s usually implied when they talk about women in this way, they’re not envisioning an ugly tradwife.

Mostly it’s just a way to learn more about your partner’s life and a jumping off point for further discussion

I bet half of men would accept living a poorer lifestyle if it meant coming home from work to a sweet and stress-free woman who made delicious food with cheap healthy ingredients and beautified the whole house and wants to listen to how their day went.

I bet many women would accept a poorer and more boring lifestyle if it meant a handsome, kind-natured and faithful husband who was good around the house and yard, knew how to repair everything (and did it without being asked) and who devoted themselves fully to providing for and looking after their family (and not drinking or being abusive or cheating).

The reality of traditional marriage, of course, was that many husbands were not honorable or good around the house or happy being providers, many wives were not sweet or good cooks or great mothers. Advocating for traditional marriage is still reasonable, perhaps even desirable, but a simple fantasy it is not.

In the end the economic success of the Gulf states is more about relative rather than absolute stability and quality of life. Dubai’s economic prosperity isn’t really reliant on rich people; most people - even in the ‘expat’ rather than indentured servant class - aren’t rich.

Instead, it just has to be nicer and more convenient than Russia or India or much of Africa. The middle class that sustain demand in Dubai don’t have Monaco or Gstaad or often even Singapore as an alternative - the alternative is Mumbai, Moscow, Nairobi, Baghdad, Baku, Tashkent, Dhaka.

The real question is how many missiles Iran actually has.

The Ukraine conflict has different dynamics - Russia proper isn’t being seriously bombed (the occasional Ukrainian gambit in Moscow aside, it’s just the border; it’s not like drone factories in the far east are being hit), and Ukraine is obviously being heavily supplied by the West, and Russia isn’t bombing German munitions factories either, again the occasional bout of sabotage aside.

In Iran, launchers, factories etc are being hit as soon as they’re identified by Israeli and US intelligence. There may be some resupply from Russia, but Russia is also allies with Saudi Arabia and has extensive diplomatic relations with the Gulf, so the extent of Russian munitions support may be limited by both that and the ongoing war in Ukraine taking priority.

How long can Iran’s conventional forces hold out versus how long can Trump hold out rising oil and LNG prices? That is really the question. For the Gulf, it’s better if oil spikes (this is why Qatar’s energy minister is now alluding to $150/barrel costs, which we’re nowhere near right now), so that Trump is forced to sue for peace, so that the attacks on the GCC nations stop. The ‘worst case’ for the GCC is a protracted collapse and IRGC remnant guerilla forces using Houthi strategies on the Hormuz.

She didn’t have any major wins and she isn’t the architect of the immigration and deportation policy in any case.

He endorsed Kamala last election too, this isn’t new.

I don’t think this is true. We have glimpses into the behind-the-scenes depravity of the Gilded Age; the Maiden Whores of Babylon; the infamous Stanford White scandal, several others besides. And this was when the press was even more corrupt and in many ways deferential than today.

If the US had taken out Saddam, picked another senior Baathist and told them to be a little nicer to the Shiites, and kept the Baathist army mostly in place, that could indeed have happened.

But why don’t you ascribe any agency to Trump, here? You consider it necessary that one must have manipulated the other into war.

From the recent Merz photo call:

The first question Trump's asked about the Middle East is if Israel forced his hand. "No, I might have forced their hand," he responds.

Referring to Iran, Trump says: "We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion they were going to attack first."

"I didn't want that to happen," the US president says. "So, if anything, I might have forced Israel's hand."

It’s certainly a very convenient defense going into midterms. I don’t think it makes a lot of sense though. From an Israeli perspective this is all 6-9 months too late. The IRGC is too deeply embedded to overthrow with a decapitation strike on the civilian/clerical leadership and the biggest protests in 30 years were quickly and mercilessly crushed a few months ago. Nuclear sites and stockpiles are dispersed and deep underground and it would take a nuclear strike or boots on the ground to have any chance of destroying them now.

The timing and other (eg WaPost) reporting suggests that MBS / the Saudis gave their go-ahead last week, which would be a major turnaround from the last two years of rapprochement with Iran on their part.
Possibly something to do with the negotiations; it was very interesting that even Oman and Qatar were hit by Iran.

I don’t think in the end that there will be war with China. The Chinese are more rational than the Iranians or Cubans, and the Taiwanese are not as hostile to unification as many imagine. “The plan” for Taiwan (gradual rapprochement under the KMT or successors) is still viable. The US did not nuke the Soviet Bloc in the Cold War. Iran and Cuba are actually more internationalist than China, much moreso, they both even had Leninist ideas about exporting global revolution.

"How do we fight China" is the question on the mind of American planners, and the answer is "we don't, not really".

We don’t. You semi-dispute that answer but I think you discount it as a full possibility. At the least it is far from certain. Ideologically the zeal is not there. China is a rival in grand terms but not in local ones. China lacks even America’s ideological mission. If the Taiwanese accept peaceful reunification in a moment of crisis for America, what happens? A broken, fractured American government sends an expeditionary force to Taiwan? That is ridiculous.

The Middle East is the grand arena for Anglo civilization, as it has been for centuries, arguably for a millennium; the English were after all among the most zealous crusaders. Taiwan doesn’t have an influential diaspora preaching war (Jensen Huang would rather a peaceful, quick reunification so that he can resume frontier GPU sales to China), it doesn’t have a hundred million Americans who believe its fate portends the eschaton.

The heart of American warmongering simply isn’t in conflict with China. Nobody really cares about the Chinese. The racial insults are about as bland and unprovocative as “cracker”. They are not some terrifying martial enemy. You can read Islamic propaganda about a global caliphate. A Chinafied America just looks like America with longer working hours and less visible homelessness. What is scary there? Social credit? We have it at home. Even being responsible for the pandemic didn’t move the needle, not really.

The only reason to fight China is out of boredom.

It’s hard to picture exactly what a failed state in Iran looks like. Certainly it doesn’t look like Libya, Iraq or Syria.

Why? Firstly, the specific dynamics of Sunni sectarianism that drove conflict in Syria and Iraq don’t exist. Iraq is not ethnically homogenous but it is mostly Shia. Secondly, the longstanding, centuries old tribal dynamics of postwar / civil war Libya also don’t apply.

There are ‘factions’ in Iran. There are the Azeris. There are the Kurds (although more assimilated and pacified, even compared to their neighbors). There is a small Sunni minority. There are some Afghan refugees, although many have been returned recently. It has been a relatively contiguous polity for a very long time, unlike much of the Levant.

What does “failed state” Iran look like? Kurdish and Azeri militias fighting each other in the ruins of Tehran? Bourgeois university professors squaring off against remnants of the IRGC? It all seems pretty unlikely.

Bombing is a strategy, the objective is what’s relevant. Is the objective here bad? Yes, that’s why I opposed this action. But that doesn’t make the strategy impossible.

It really feels like the usual parade of cope and trope about China that has been circulating in the public discourse ever since it bootstrapped its way up from worse than sub-Saharan poverty to a world power in 45 years

Or, alternatively:

After a brief, less-than-century-long catastrophe largely of its own making, China - historically one of the oldest, most developed, highest IQ, most populous, most civilized places in the entire world - recovered to its natural position in the hierarchy of nations, much in the same way that Czechia becoming prosperous again 30 years after communism ended should not surprise us in the slightest.

China being rich and prosperous is its default state for most of the last 3000 years.

You can dynamically align the interests of the local elite with yourself. The US and UK did this with large parts of the Middle East (not least the Gulf) already, and quite successfully.

Don’t kid yourself that these people are ideological zealots. Every few years there’s a scandal in Iran because senior IR regime figures are caught on vacation, wives unveiled, chilling in some vacation destination. The son of the ayatollah is a westernized property developer. There are a lot of people even at the top whose devotion to the revolutionary crusade is limited at best. The reason they didn’t concede wasn’t ideological zealotry but the knowledge that if the whole regime was overthrown, which is possible in a kind of Gorbachev-cascade, they’d have nowhere to hide from the people angry about 50 years of domestic repression.

That said, this will go badly because the most zealous anti-government protestors were killed months ago.

Of course it’s still possible but the attacking force need to go back to premodern offensive tactics like killing or relocating entire villages to prevent the existence of any civilian population that could give succor to guerilla fighters. This makes it nonviable in our civilized age.

But it’s also why Trump’s tactics are smarter than anything in the War on Terror. In Venezuela and Iran, he leaves open the door to regime change but doesn’t seek it - he just wants to kill enough leaders that the next guy is willing to deal. He doesn’t have the humanitarian aims that the neocons did where on some level they did imagine that Afghanistan could become a Western democracy.

The US carved out a state in Korea despite the endless onslaught of millions of Chinese bodies in a zerg rush and the risk that the Soviets would send millions more. That’s very impressive. There was no need at the time to fight further and harder to get a few more map inches up the Korean Peninsula, which was broadly seen as just another offshoot of communist China.

Houthi air defenses were, to be fair, constantly being replenished by Iran. The Houthis are also a tribe who spent decades hiding out in the caves and mountains of Yemen, and still have forces concentrated there. The Iranians have a conventional military built along standard lines with standard bases, supply chains, etc.

In addition, there were ways of defeating the houthis but they involve a return to the brutal counterinsurgency tactics of the mid-20th century that are still considered, for now, too inhumane.

Israel already sells its technology to third-party powers that can easily export it onward to Iran (and already have trading relationships with Iran), this isn’t really a gotcha, there’s no defense against that happening.

According to the Washington Post it was also a sudden burst of last-minute Saudi support:

“Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made multiple private phone calls to Trump over the past month advocating a U.S. attack, despite his public support for a diplomatic solution, the four people said.”

After the strikes last year, attacks on proxies, the mass protests, the calculation by Iran’s enemies (principally Saudi Arabia and Israel) seems to have been that this is as weak as they’ll ever be, so might as well attack now. Unfortunately, that they’re as weak as they’ll ever be doesn’t mean they’re weak enough to be overthrown.

It actually seems impressive how many Iranian missiles the Gulf states have seemingly shot down. A few casualties here and there, but nothing crazy yet.

^ something every Motte regular has thought at one point or another

Most Lebanese expats in America are Christian Maronite elites, many of them even left before the civil war blew everything up. Places that received more Muslim immigrants - especially Australia where about 40% of the Australian Lebanese population are hardline Sunni Muslims - have problems with them.