Politics

[RLD]

They did a brilliant job. However, I do not see an analogy with respect to Iran. Who within that country represents the Northern Alliance, and what province of Iran do they occupy that makes insertion of special forces or weaponry remotely possible? I am all for arming an Iranian counterrevolutionary movement, but In Afghanistan, we could fly personnel and weaponry directly into areas controlled by already extant allied Afghani forces. No such alliance or safe area exists in Iran. Should such a force emerge, I am sure we would be delighted and supportive, but it is not there yet.

With respect to the Kurds, modern warfare is not conducted where the enemy offers massed targets for strategic bombers. We would not load up a B1 or B52 with cluster bombs thinking we would find such a target. The SF teams in Afghanistan were calling in pinpoint strikes using JDAMS against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The B52's were very useful because of their long loiter time over the potential target area - not because of the amount of bombs they could carry. Yes we could, likely would, provide air support to the Kurds, but I remain skeptical what they would accomplish.

The Kurds will also be problematic because they are not part of the Iranian population. They would represent a non-Iranian incursion. Yes that would tie up some IRGC and regular army units in the north, but the Kurds are not the sort of threat to the regime around which the Iranian population could rally - indeed they might be seen as an external threat around which the regime could rally the population to them instead.

I think you are right that the Kurds are not the answer. They are clearly outsiders and not at all part of Persian culture.

In addition, I am not sure how well America's partners in Turkey would react to arming Kurds in any numbers.

 

[skydiver386]

This is so wrong/scary in so many levels.

Thankfully, the Courts are not the final arbiter of anything, but are one branch of three that are separate.

Justices Sotomayor and Brown are two of the most ignorant individuals to ever sit on the Supreme Court.

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

Your comments here are almost like an essay.
The idea that something like this could come from D.T. is actually unthinkable.
Get into politics already and don't waste any time.
Greetings from the mountains
Foxi

@Red Leg for President in 2028 representing the Common Sense Party!

But alas, I believe our resident national security advisor is too smart and self-actualized to enter the dark swamp of politics.

I fear that is the problem holding back those operating at the highest level of humanity. Politics is nothing an honorable person desires to endure…

 

[Brent in Az]

This is so wrong/scary in so many levels.

If the Democrats have their way, it will be like Nazi Germany were the goon squads would come kick down our front doors.

 

[RLD]

Thankfully, the Courts are not the final arbiter of anything, but are one branch of three that are separate.

Justices Sotomayor and Brown are two of the most ignorant individuals to ever sit on the Supreme Court.

I thought that was a 9-0 decision was it not? From the far left state of Montana?

And short of clear legislation to the contrary (and even then...) SCOTUS is the final arbiter on what the Constitution means.

 

[skydiver386]

I thought that was a 9-0 decision was it not? From the far left state of Montana?

And short of clear legislation to the contrary (and even then...) SCOTUS is the final arbiter on what the Constitution means.

In U.S. history, the courts have ruled incorrectly many times, and later those decisions were reversed.

Sometimes the Court reverses itself, as we recently saw with Roe v Wade being reversed by Dobbs v Jackson.

The most shameful decision in the Supreme Court’s history was the 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sanford. The 7-2 opinion held that slaves were property and that African Americans — whether enslaved or free — could not be U.S. citizens. This was effectively overturned with the passing of the 13th and 14th Amendments.

If Supreme Court decisions were the final word, we would still have slavery today.

 

[RLD]

The most shameful decision in the Supreme Court’s history was the 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sanford. The 7-2 opinion held that slaves were property and that African Americans — whether enslaved or free — could not be U.S. citizens. This was effectively overturned with the passing of the 13th and 14th Amendments.

If Supreme Court decisions were the final word, we would still have slavery today.

That is exactly what I said right? "short of clear legislation to the contrary."

Even in the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court was and remained the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. The legislature changed the Constitution. Nobody (other than SCOTUS) had the power to say "Dred Scott" was wrongly decided and is not the law of the land.

But when the decision is 9-0 from Montana it is a bit of a stretch to make this a Dem-Repub issue. Unless Thomas, Alito and friends are now suddenly leftist in some way.

What do you think the chances are for the Constitution to be amended to deal with this issue?

 

[Tanks]

The Kurds will also be problematic because they are not part of the Iranian population. They would represent a non-Iranian incursion. Yes that would tie up some IRGC and regular army units in the north, but the Kurds are not the sort of threat to the regime around which the Iranian population could rally - indeed they might be seen as an external threat around which the regime could rally the population to them instead.

Yep. My personal trainer is Iranian, very smart guy who came here after winning a green card lottery with his family, his wife is a pharmacist and he got his PhD in project management. Also, being a body builder decided to start a concierge resistance training company and also teaches part time at Chapman University.

Hates the current government and the mullahs, his wife dresses the same as everyone else here (no hijab etc.). You know who he hates more than the mullahs? The Kurds, when it came up a few days ago his comment was "dirty barbarians".

 

[Red Leg]

Yep. My personal trainer is Iranian, very smart guy who came here after winning a green card lottery with his family, his wife is a pharmacist and he got his PhD in project management. Also, being a body builder decided to start a concierge resistance training company and also teaches part time at Chapman University.

Hates the current government and the mullahs, his wife dresses the same as everyone else here (no hijab etc.). You know who he hates more than the mullahs? The Kurds, when it came up a few days ago his comment was "dirty barbarians".

Exactly

 

[Brent in Az]

Yep. My personal trainer is Iranian, very smart guy who came here after winning a green card lottery with his family, his wife is a pharmacist and he got his PhD in project management. Also, being a body builder decided to start a concierge resistance training company and also teaches part time at Chapman University.

Hates the current government and the mullahs, his wife dresses the same as everyone else here (no hijab etc.). You know who he hates more than the mullahs? The Kurds, when it came up a few days ago his comment was "dirty barbarians".

Maybe some barbarian's at the gate would be good medicine for Iran right now.

 

[pilar]

Maybe some barbarian's at the gate would be good medicine for Iran right now.

I don’t know if they are barbarians or not but I don’t agree with how they are treated
Massacred , rape camps , crimes against humanity, the Middle East has Kurds, Europe has Gypsies, British isles Irish travelers/ pikiey’s
North Americas had Indian nations ,
Racism, tribalism, colonialism, unfortunately history is domed to repeat itself over and over . I’m no saint and live in a glass house ( as I have issues with the influx of foreigners that invaded the country for the worse IMO , when Biden was the POTUS )

“”
Key Reasons for Anti-Kurdish Sentiment:

• Separatism and Nationalism: The desire for a unified, independent "Kurdistan" is viewed as a direct threat to the territorial integrity of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, leading to intense state crackdowns.
• Conflict with Turkish State:Since the establishment of modern Turkey, the state has historically denied Kurdish ethnic identity, leading to widespread resentment and armed conflict, notably with the PKK
  .
  • Political Instability: Kurdish uprisings and attempts at autonomy (e.g., in Iraq and Iran) have resulted in wars, instability, and, consequently, anti-Kurdish sentiment among central authorities and allied groups.
  • Geopolitical Alliances: Kurdish reliance on foreign powers (like the US or Israel) to gain autonomy has sometimes caused distrust or hostility from regional governments, as seen in the Iraqi–Kurdish conflict.
  • Conflict with ISIS: While fighting ISIS, Kurdish groups increased in global awareness, but this also sparked, at times, increased anti-Kurdish sentiments from opposing ideologies
  • “”

 

[BJH65]

This is so wrong/scary in so many levels.

I don’t believe so. They are simply reaffirming what law enforcement has been doing all along including myself during my LE career. Entering a home without a warrant is something that is done when there is an exigency whereupon a person may need emergency aid. Nothing new here, the Supreme Court is simply reaffirming.

This Montana case involved a Montana army vet who his girlfriend said was suicidal, who had a gun and had previous mental health issues known to LE. I have personally been involved with similar types of call for service so many times I couldn’t even possible begin to count them.

Regarding warrantless entries into a home, my response varied as an officer, supervisor and manager depending on the information obtained. Could be a simple welfare check on an elderly person whose family or friends are worried about them, depending on the information obtained and totality of circumstances, this could lead to forced entry to check on them, walking away if reasonably concluding nobody is home or making contact and all is well.

Regarding an armed potentially suicidal subject like the Montana case, could be information obtained that the GF is lying or a doxing type call. We in LE do realize that often we are lied to so we always seek additional information to corroborate.

Regarding tactics used. Maybe we simply make a phone call and have him step outside unarmed, securing and checking for weapons before assessing his mental state. Maybe a surround and call out first. Maybe he doesn’t respond? Maybe passed out drunk?

Whether I decide to force entry depends. Is he an active threat to the public? Is he an active threat to his wife or GF? Is he an active threat to himself? Has he committed a crime? What type of crime, misdemeanor or felony? Introducing LE into this equation with an armed subject in his home greatly enhances the likelihood that deadly force may used.

I am conducting a risk benefit analysis. LE may simply decide to walk away and I have decided to do just that at times realizing the risk isn’t worth the benefit. Depending on the information obtained it could also involve an immediate tactical entry if someone’s life was threatened or a SWAT callout.

In my opinion, if he was a “potentially” suicidal armed subject who has committed no crime or an insignificant crime and is no active/present threat to the public and his spouse/GF, family members, etc. then we’ll most likely walk away because introducing LE into this equation will greatly increase the chance deadly force will be used and while case law and department policy allow me to forcibly enter, It doesn’t mean we are going to based on all the information obtained.

If he is not actively trying to harm himself and is no threat to others, we’ll walk away and contact him at a later time under more favorable conditions where we are less likely to use lethal force.

Each scenario is unique unto itself however. Any AH member may conduct a test by loading up a gun and telling your wife and/or family members you’re suicidal and gauge the police response. lol

 

[skydiver386]

They did a brilliant job. However, I do not see an analogy with respect to Iran. Who within that country represents the Northern Alliance, and what province of Iran do they occupy that makes insertion of special forces or weaponry remotely possible? I am all for arming an Iranian counterrevolutionary movement, but In Afghanistan, we could fly personnel and weaponry directly into areas controlled by already extant allied Afghani forces. No such alliance or safe area exists in Iran. Should such a force emerge, I am sure we would be delighted and supportive, but it is not there yet.

Training and arming an insurgency OUTSIDE the borders of Iran is a perfectly viable option. As a matter of fact, if we had thought this one out, we would have already formed a core of insurgents, and inserted them when and where we wanted, rather than try to do it inside Iran.

The Allies took people from all over Occupied Europe and put them through training by the OSS in England, then infiltrated them behind enemy lines to form resistance groups, or join groups already operating in that theater. Similar operations were conducted in the Pacific and CBI theaters.

History provides hundreds of examples where guerrilla forces were trained and equipped outside of their target area and infiltrated by land, airborne operations or by sea. Iran has a total coastline of approximately 1,749 miles of coastline, and a total land border length of approximately 3,662 miles bordering 7 countries. I could think of more than one way to skin this cat.

Infiltration into an area controlled by forces friendly to your cause is preferred, but certainly not the only way to do the job.

 

[mdwest]

I guess my question is “who”?

There are millions of “Iranians” living abroad whose families fled the current regime in 1979 and for the next few years after…

But at this point those that fled are old men.. and the next generation are all pretty comfortable living in the US, Europe, and other parts of the Middle East… I don’t think many would have much interest in returning to a mother country that they’ve actually never known.. especially after finding such a good life elsewhere…

The Kurds are an option… but shy of “Kurdistan” they don’t have much interest in the rest of Iran… I definitely don’t see them marching into Tehran or trying to occupy any land outside of what they have already seen as Kurdish land for decades.. and, as others have pointed out, aligning ourselves with the Kurds could have political fall out in other parts of the region and in Europe (although I personally really liked working with Kurds back in the early days of GWOT when I had a bunch of them working for me)…

There are fundamentalist Sunni groups that hate the Iranian Shiites… but it’s probably not in our interests to align ourselves with ISIS, etc…

So who do we train and equip?

I’m all for a proxy war with a handful of 5th Group teams and a few ISA bubbas mixed in making sure everything is going as planned…

But I can’t figure out where we find the 10,000 “G’s” to lead in a regional UW operation…

 

[USN]

Michigan synagogue, car attack and gun fire. Gun fire maybe security or the car driver. Rapid conflicting reports.

 

[Scott CWO]

Fkn Chinese surveillance systems....

‘Invasive’ AI-led mass surveillance in Africa violating freedoms, warn experts | Global development | The Guardian https://share.google/gW9Oy5w2aIxg9Uri4

Yeah just wait until they give you a little white card you have to swipe to get into everywhere you go like Chinese people have to do. Saw it firsthand on my two weeks in China.

 

[Aaron N]

I don’t believe so. They are simply reaffirming what law enforcement has been doing all along including myself during my LE career. Entering a home without a warrant is something that is done when there is an exigency whereupon a person may need emergency aid. Nothing new here, the Supreme Court is simply reaffirming.

This Montana case involved a Montana army vet who his girlfriend said was suicidal, who had a gun and had previous mental health issues known to LE. I have personally been involved with similar types of call for service so many times I couldn’t even possible begin to count them.

Regarding warrantless entries into a home, my response varied as an officer, supervisor and manager depending on the information obtained. Could be a simple welfare check on an elderly person whose family or friends are worried about them, depending on the information obtained and totality of circumstances, this could lead to forced entry to check on them, walking away if reasonably concluding nobody is home or making contact and all is well.

Regarding an armed potentially suicidal subject like the Montana case, could be information obtained that the GF is lying or a doxing type call. We in LE do realize that often we are lied to so we always seek additional information to corroborate.

Regarding tactics used. Maybe we simply make a phone call and have him step outside unarmed, securing and checking for weapons before assessing his mental state. Maybe a surround and call out first. Maybe he doesn’t respond? Maybe passed out drunk?

Whether I decide to force entry depends. Is he an active threat to the public? Is he an active threat to his wife or GF? Is he an active threat to himself? Has he committed a crime? What type of crime, misdemeanor or felony? Introducing LE into this equation with an armed subject in his home greatly enhances the likelihood that deadly force may used.

I am conducting a risk benefit analysis. LE may simply decide to walk away and I have decided to do just that at times realizing the risk isn’t worth the benefit. Depending on the information obtained it could also involve an immediate tactical entry if someone’s life was threatened or a SWAT callout.

In my opinion, if he was a “potentially” suicidal armed subject who has committed no crime or an insignificant crime and is no active/present threat to the public and his spouse/GF, family members, etc. then we’ll most likely walk away because introducing LE into this equation will greatly increase the chance deadly force will be used and while case law and department policy allow me to forcibly enter, It doesn’t mean we are going to based on all the information obtained.

If he is not actively trying to harm himself and is no threat to others, we’ll walk away and contact him at a later time under more favorable conditions where we are less likely to use lethal force.

Each scenario is unique unto itself however. Any AH member may conduct a test by loading up a gun and telling your wife and/or family members you’re suicidal and gauge the police response. lol

Really great breakdown of the thought process many of us don’t get a glimpse into!

 

[Tanks]

Yeah just wait until they give you a little white card you have to swipe to get into everywhere you go like Chinese people have to do. Saw it firsthand on my two weeks in China.

Start with the polling booths and go from there. Maybe the Democrats have a point?

 

[Brent in Az]

It has been reported by the Detroitistan press, that the synagogue attacker was shot and killed during a shoot out with security.
One security guard was knocked unconscious when hit by the truck

 

[tinktink12]