Gyroscopic Investing

Thanks for all the replies.

I had to look up EFPs, but it turns out I was familiar with them (just not by name) from reading about IEDs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive ... penetrator

(kriegs) c'mon. Is it really a slap in the face, or an escalation, when we kill a soldier, in a combat zone, while he is conducting his own military operations?

It’s amazing how long General S has been getting away with this stuff. Maybe that’s why he felt emboldened enough, invincible enough, to conduct operations from outside Iran, where he was probably much safer. Didn’t count on President Wildcard.

Scott Horton’s my go-to on this stuff. He’s leagues better than any shithead Iran hawk New-Con or namby-pamby selectively anti-war (except when Obama does it) liberal. Here’s interview with him on the topic.

https://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/b/1/2/b12917 ... ccfefbc470

The biggest contentions he’d have with the standard narrative is that “Soleimani is responsible for hundreds of American deaths.” He was actually working in favor of Shiite factions that were more pro-American, fighting against anti-American pan-Arab nationalists...

Thank you, Moda!

moda0306 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:46 pm Scott Horton’s my go-to on this stuff. He’s leagues better than any shithead Iran hawk New-Con or namby-pamby selectively anti-war (except when Obama does it) liberal. Here’s interview with him on the topic.

https://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/b/1/2/b12917 ... ccfefbc470

The biggest contentions he’d have with the standard narrative is that “Soleimani is responsible for hundreds of American deaths.” He was actually working in favor of Shiite factions that were more pro-American, fighting against anti-American pan-Arab nationalists...

I'm fifteen minutes in (EDIT: I heard it in full) and, I don't know, not really impressed. Just because Soleimani also fought ISIS at the same time, that doesn't make us allies. He is responsible for American deaths, hundreds of them, hence this cover from an antiwar, liberal British magazine.

Also, he talks like a stoner.

Tyler wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:51 pm
"The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians. As he reportedly told senior aides in 2011: 'Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.'"
https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data

One can certainly make an argument that no president should have these powers, but IMO anyone who suddenly harps about congressional approval only after Trump is in charge is nothing more than a partisan hack.

Not to defend Obama too much, but I would only say that Soleimani is a much bigger deal than all other people killed in those 542 drone strikes. Of course, they have the same value as humans. But Soleimani is more akin to bin Laden. More lives will be saved by taking him out (or will be lost in retaliatory attacks, depending on how it all plays out).

Point being, Obama did have everyone on board for the killing of bin Laden.

And he certainly didn't threaten to destroy cultural sites, because he knows that can work both ways.

What we just saw (are seeing) was/is a classic escalation cycle...eventually someone blinks or you have a war.

Let's just ignore "who started it" recently and for the past several decades. History matters of course to both sides. The current cycle went something like this:

Trump/Bolton initiate by walking from the nuclear deal and uping sanctions
"Mysterious" oil tanker attacks
Iran shoots down a Global Hawk (this isn't a little cheap drone, it's on the order of a couple hundred mil...frankly I was shocked we did nothing at that point)
US tightens the economic screws down more
Iran takes out 1/2 of Saudi oil production
US/Saudi Arabia Blink???
Iranian backed militia mortars US airbase, kills 1 wounds 4
US bombs several Iranian backed Iraqi militia sites
Iranian backed militias overrun the US embassy
US takes out Soleimani and head of Iranian backed militia that overran embassy

Undoubtedly there is other stuff going on in the background none of us know about that may have been a factor(s) as well.

In any event, Iran blinks or raises the ante or both sides decide this is getting out of control and they both need to step away with some face saving for both sides.

Love or hate Trump, the theory behind this type of thing says unpredictability is a good asset to have. Via Twitter and assuming Trump doesn't blink, the US has said, go a head meet our call, we are raising again afterward if you do.

If we go to war in a major way, morality doesn't matter. The winner gets to set the future terms.

It would be nice if both sides would just step away, that's what I'm hoping for.

Personally, I think Iran pushed things too far and thought Trump blinked. That was certainly my read. My guess is shortly after the US thought Iran had pushed things too far old fashioned international power calculations kicked in. And I'm sure there are Iranians out there who think the same thing about breaking the nuclear deal and slapping on hard sanctions.

(PS...I likely got some events out of sequence feel free to add/correct...substantively it doesn't change the main point that we are in an escalation cycle clear as day)

That’s a good summary.
I have to admit, while I am frustrated by some of Trump’s behavior domestically I like that some of our less friendly fellow nations have to face his unpredictable nature.

I’m pretty sure I read this morning that Obama used to call for an annual count of civilian deaths and that Trump dispensed with that. I’ll try to find the source.

There are all these alarmist reports about Iran striking soft targets.
Short of a cyberattack, I don’t think they’re going to chance that. If they choose to do something physical instead of taking a step back, I bet it will be a military target.

Kbg wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:48 pm What we just saw (are seeing) was/is a classic escalation cycle...eventually someone blinks or you have a war.

Let's just ignore "who started it" recently and for the past several decades. History matters of course to both sides. The current cycle went something like this:

Trump/Bolton initiate by walking from the nuclear deal and uping sanctions
"Mysterious" oil tanker attacks
Iran shoots down a Global Hawk (this isn't a little cheap drone, it's on the order of a couple hundred mil...frankly I was shocked we did nothing at that point)
US tightens the economic screws down more
Iran takes out 1/2 of Saudi oil production
US/Saudi Arabia Blink???
Iranian back militia mortars US airbase, kills 1 wounds 4
US bombs several Iranian backed Iraqi militia sites
Iranian backed militias overrun the US embassy
US takes out Soleimani and head of Iranian backed militia that overran embassy

Undoubtedly there is other stuff going on in the background none of us know about that may have been a factor(s) as well.

In any event, Iran blinks or raises the ante or both sides decide this is getting out of control and they both need to step away with some face saving for both sides.

Love or hate Trump, the theory behind this type of thing says unpredictability is a good asset to have. Via Twitter and assuming Trump doesn't blink, the US has said, go a head meet our call, we are raising again afterward if you do.

If we go to war in a major way, morality doesn't matter. The winner gets to set the future terms.

It would be nice if both sides would just step away, that's what I'm hoping for.

Personally, I think Iran pushed things too far and thought Trump blinked. That was certainly my read. My guess is shortly after the US thought Iran had pushed things too far old fashioned international power calculations kicked in. And I'm sure there are Iranians out there who think the same thing about breaking the nuclear deal and slapping on hard sanctions.

(PS...I likely got some events out of sequence feel free to add/correct...substantively it doesn't change the main point that we are in an escalation cycle clear as day)

Do you have a source or someone you regularly follow on any of this stuff? Also, when there is “stuff we don’t know,” do you make some assumptions as to how much this would tilt us toward or away from escalating a war?

Another thing on the list of stuff we do know:

The occasional hostage.
- Iranian-American Jason Rezian (sp?)
- The Chinese man studying Iranian culture.

moda0306 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 6:26 pm

Kbg wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:48 pm What we just saw (are seeing) was/is a classic escalation cycle...eventually someone blinks or you have a war.

Let's just ignore "who started it" recently and for the past several decades. History matters of course to both sides. The current cycle went something like this:

Trump/Bolton initiate by walking from the nuclear deal and uping sanctions
"Mysterious" oil tanker attacks
Iran shoots down a Global Hawk (this isn't a little cheap drone, it's on the order of a couple hundred mil...frankly I was shocked we did nothing at that point)
US tightens the economic screws down more
Iran takes out 1/2 of Saudi oil production
US/Saudi Arabia Blink???
Iranian back militia mortars US airbase, kills 1 wounds 4
US bombs several Iranian backed Iraqi militia sites
Iranian backed militias overrun the US embassy
US takes out Soleimani and head of Iranian backed militia that overran embassy

Undoubtedly there is other stuff going on in the background none of us know about that may have been a factor(s) as well.

In any event, Iran blinks or raises the ante or both sides decide this is getting out of control and they both need to step away with some face saving for both sides.

Love or hate Trump, the theory behind this type of thing says unpredictability is a good asset to have. Via Twitter and assuming Trump doesn't blink, the US has said, go a head meet our call, we are raising again afterward if you do.

If we go to war in a major way, morality doesn't matter. The winner gets to set the future terms.

It would be nice if both sides would just step away, that's what I'm hoping for.

Personally, I think Iran pushed things too far and thought Trump blinked. That was certainly my read. My guess is shortly after the US thought Iran had pushed things too far old fashioned international power calculations kicked in. And I'm sure there are Iranians out there who think the same thing about breaking the nuclear deal and slapping on hard sanctions.

(PS...I likely got some events out of sequence feel free to add/correct...substantively it doesn't change the main point that we are in an escalation cycle clear as day)

Do you have a source or someone you regularly follow on any of this stuff? Also, when there is “stuff we don’t know,” do you make some assumptions as to how much this would tilt us toward or away from escalating a war?

I do have a source for stuff like this but it is part of a closed group I belong to. The source is available to the public at a pretty high cost but I get it for free with the expectation that those who are part of the freebie group make comments/point out errors or if there is disagreement with an assessment or fact. A form of crowd sourcing if you will. Actually, I don't really follow current events as so much of what one reads is utter crap made for selling news. I pretty much despise US news venues of any kind because they are just awful.

However, it is pretty tough to shut out the world and I have enough nose and experience in these types of things that I know when something is serious vs. hyped up news designed to sell commercials. Following events was pretty much my profession for a long time and it isn't something that interests me enough anymore to use my personal spare time on it. If I think something is serious I start to pay attention, but if you will note by what I wrote above I mainly look for the facts of what happened. As evidenced, by several comments in this thread people tend to lead with their opinions and then try to frame what happened inside of their pre-decided opinion/world view.

https://reason.com/podcast/trumps-irani ... peachable/

Good podcast from Reason on the topic.

Kbg wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 8:19 pm

moda0306 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 6:26 pm

Kbg wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:48 pm What we just saw (are seeing) was/is a classic escalation cycle...eventually someone blinks or you have a war.

Let's just ignore "who started it" recently and for the past several decades. History matters of course to both sides. The current cycle went something like this:

Trump/Bolton initiate by walking from the nuclear deal and uping sanctions
"Mysterious" oil tanker attacks
Iran shoots down a Global Hawk (this isn't a little cheap drone, it's on the order of a couple hundred mil...frankly I was shocked we did nothing at that point)
US tightens the economic screws down more
Iran takes out 1/2 of Saudi oil production
US/Saudi Arabia Blink???
Iranian back militia mortars US airbase, kills 1 wounds 4
US bombs several Iranian backed Iraqi militia sites
Iranian backed militias overrun the US embassy
US takes out Soleimani and head of Iranian backed militia that overran embassy

Undoubtedly there is other stuff going on in the background none of us know about that may have been a factor(s) as well.

In any event, Iran blinks or raises the ante or both sides decide this is getting out of control and they both need to step away with some face saving for both sides.

Love or hate Trump, the theory behind this type of thing says unpredictability is a good asset to have. Via Twitter and assuming Trump doesn't blink, the US has said, go a head meet our call, we are raising again afterward if you do.

If we go to war in a major way, morality doesn't matter. The winner gets to set the future terms.

It would be nice if both sides would just step away, that's what I'm hoping for.

Personally, I think Iran pushed things too far and thought Trump blinked. That was certainly my read. My guess is shortly after the US thought Iran had pushed things too far old fashioned international power calculations kicked in. And I'm sure there are Iranians out there who think the same thing about breaking the nuclear deal and slapping on hard sanctions.

(PS...I likely got some events out of sequence feel free to add/correct...substantively it doesn't change the main point that we are in an escalation cycle clear as day)

Do you have a source or someone you regularly follow on any of this stuff? Also, when there is “stuff we don’t know,” do you make some assumptions as to how much this would tilt us toward or away from escalating a war?

I do have a source for stuff like this but it is part of a closed group I belong to. The source is available to the public at a pretty high cost but I get it for free with the expectation that those who are part of the freebie group make comments/point out errors or if there is disagreement with an assessment or fact. A form of crowd sourcing if you will. Actually, I don't really follow current events as so much of what one reads is utter crap made for selling news. I pretty much despise US news venues of any kind because they are just awful.

However, it is pretty tough to shut out the world and I have enough nose and experience in these types of things that I know when something is serious vs. hyped up news designed to sell commercials. Following events was pretty much my profession for a long time and it isn't something that interests me enough anymore to use my personal spare time on it. If I think something is serious I start to pay attention, but if you will note by what I wrote above I mainly look for the facts of what happened. As evidenced, by several comments in this thread people tend to lead with their opinions and then try to frame what happened inside of their pre-decided opinion/world view.

What’s the source or are you not allowed to say? I’m willing to pay good money for good news.

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 12:16 pm

moda0306 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:46 pm Scott Horton’s my go-to on this stuff. He’s leagues better than any shithead Iran hawk New-Con or namby-pamby selectively anti-war (except when Obama does it) liberal. Here’s interview with him on the topic.

https://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/b/1/2/b12917 ... ccfefbc470

The biggest contentions he’d have with the standard narrative is that “Soleimani is responsible for hundreds of American deaths.” He was actually working in favor of Shiite factions that were more pro-American, fighting against anti-American pan-Arab nationalists...

I'm fifteen minutes in (EDIT: I heard it in full) and, I don't know, not really impressed. Just because Soleimani also fought ISIS at the same time, that doesn't make us allies. He is responsible for American deaths, hundreds of them, hence this cover from an antiwar, liberal British magazine.

Also, he talks like a stoner.
sol-bedfellows.png

I think you misunderstood the point I was making. I’m not saying that made him an ally, and even if I was I wasn’t talking about ISIS. I was talking about the Shia (ISIS is Sunni) militias that actually opposed the US and fought us. I should have been more clear on that. These are the group 1) responsible for the largest number of Shia-caused American deaths that make up the “hundreds to thousands” and 2) Soleimani opposed these groups in favor of other more pro-American Shia groups.

That said, I think Iran’s opposition to ISIS is a pretty big reason to hesitate to escalate tensions with them.

And Horton could be wrong about all that, but he comes with a wealth of facts and sources that the articles I’ve read that quote the “Soleimani killed hundreds of Americans or more” do. The only source I’ve seen on that is the Pentagon, per a WaPo article I believe, and I usually don’t trust the Pentagon as a source. Even if they’re telling the truth, they’re usually leaving out a lot of context that would be a threat to their position.

And yes he sounds like a pothead. However I’ve become disillusioned with folks in the punditry who lean on their ability to sound articulate and smart without actually knowing anything. Now I trust potheads more than British accents. My political spirit animal is Doug Stanhope and pothead would be a step up for him.

moda0306 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:18 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 12:16 pm
...
Just because Soleimani also fought ISIS at the same time, that doesn't make us allies. He is responsible for American deaths, hundreds of them, hence this cover from an antiwar, liberal British magazine.

Also, he talks like a stoner.
sol-bedfellows.png

I think you misunderstood the point I was making. I’m not saying that made him an ally, and even if I was I wasn’t talking about ISIS. I was talking about the Shia (ISIS is Sunni) militias that actually opposed the US and fought us. I should have been more clear on that. These are the group 1) responsible for the largest number of Shia-caused American deaths that make up the “hundreds to thousands” and 2) Soleimani opposed these groups in favor of other more pro-American Shia groups.
...

My comment wasn't in response to anything to you wrote, really, but to Horton's repeated statement, with incredulous tone, that we were fighting for Soleimani's side at one time. While true, it just didn't explain away the damage he has also done to us.

But I agree, Horton brings a ton of facts.

And yes he sounds like a pothead. However I’ve become disillusioned with folks in the punditry who lean on their ability to sound articulate and smart without actually knowing anything. Now I trust potheads more than British accents. My political spirit animal is Doug Stanhope and pothead would be a step up for him.

It's so funny that you invoked Doug Stanhope. That's specifically who I was picturing while listening to the show!

Some things are simple...the invasion in 2002 did "break" Iraq and removed the existing Sunni dominated power structure in Iraq. Iraq's Shia majority and Iran have been the benefactors primarily of the US invasion to the Sunni world's great chagrin.

Sunni's were killing US servicemen in the north of Iraq, Shia in the south and somewhere around Baghdad it was both.

If you think we have or ever had any allies over there other than the Kurds (who really need us more than like us), you know nothing about the situation.

I try not be cynical but in that part of the world internationally and internally, there aren't "sides" that anyone adheres to. The culture, necessarily so, is all about figuring out who is the strongest now, how can that fact help "me" now. And you can bet your life on the fact that as soon as the power equation changes everyone is going to adapt to the new read/reality of things.

As Americans I think a lot of people grossly underestimate the value of civil discourse, compromise and the rule of law. When you don't have that, politics is literally a blood sport.

Kbg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:22 am I try not be cynical but in that part of the world internationally and internally, there aren't "sides" that anyone adheres to. The culture, necessarily so, is all about figuring out who is the strongest now, how can that fact help "me" now. And you can bet your life on the fact that as soon as the power equation changes everyone is going to adapt to the new read/reality of things.

As Americans I think a lot of people grossly underestimate the value of civil discourse, compromise and the rule of law. When you don't have that, politics is literally a blood sport.

At the same time, what I would add to paragraph one is that concessions are often viewed as weakness, which really complicates things when you are willing to compromise.

Horton leans ancap, so I doubt he ever sees any country as a legitimate “ally.” I think he’s just accurately describing the role of Iran in Iraq considering who we were also supporting.

Further, here’s another good podcast on the topic. And the guy doesn’t sound like a pothead... just a touch of cotton mouth or a bad mic.

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/jacobi ... e/66387588

Though I’d recommend the whole thing, If you fast forward to the 27 minute mark, this guy lays out in mostly similar fashion the accounting of the death toll in Iraq.

1) Vast majority were from Sunni, who Iran was fighting (doesn’t make them good or an “ally” but worth mentioning when ratcheting up war).

2) A few hundred were from Shia forces, which DoD accounts under Soleimani, but were Mahdi Army guys that had nothing to do with Soleimani/Iran.

There are other really good gems in there.

The lies are already being spun for our next war. I’m amazed people believe anything out of DoD or the Whitehouse right now.

Facts are good things...take a look at the data yourself.

Iranian caused or Iranian supported American deaths in the hundreds, easy, and accurate.

http://icasualties.org/App/Fatalities?c ... 64&rows=10

Sunni caused American deaths in the thousands also accurate.

I guess in today's world for what passes as a valid point, Italy not killing as many Americans in WW 2 as the Germans made them OK.

Trump has been doing two "good" things as of late:

1) Raising the gold price.
2) Doing dumb things that raise probability of him not getting re-elected.

Everything else is awful.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:48 pm

Smith1776 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:42 pm Trump has been doing two "good" things as of late:

1) Raising the gold price.
2) Doing dumb things that raise probability of him not getting re-elected.

Everything else is awful.

You are going to be very surprised in November. But of course as a Canadian I’m sure you get at least as much fake news as we get here.

I'll take your word on that one, my friend.

My heart says Bernie, but I never seem to bet on the winning horse in the race. Maybe that's why I like a portfolio that is asset class agnostic!

I really don't think Bernie has a chance.

dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:47 pm I really don't think Bernie has a chance.

Probably not, but a guy can hope.

Smith1776 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:52 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:47 pm I really don't think Bernie has a chance.

Probably not, but a guy can hope.

Yep. Anything's possible.

Kbg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:30 pm Facts are good things...take a look at the data yourself.

Iranian caused or Iranian supported American deaths in the hundreds, easy, and accurate.

http://icasualties.org/App/Fatalities?c ... 64&rows=10

Sunni caused American deaths in the thousands also accurate.

I guess in today's world for what passes as a valid point, Italy not killing as many Americans in WW 2 as the Germans made them OK.

Where are you getting those numbers? Your link doesn’t provide that information.

We are talking about escalating a war with Iran while we are conducting all sorts of wars around their borders. Even if your stats are correct, which I can’t glean off of your source whatsoever (on a phone so maybe the site shows more on desktop), there is still a massive amount of burden of proof on our perma-war surveillance state to justify escalating a war with Iran. There are murderous assholes all over. Using war powers to execute some of them at the risk of escalating war is way, way beyond the pale unless it can be justified on multiple other levels.

And again, you’ve got a subscription-based news source I’m all ears. I don’t mind paying for quality content.