Generals are on record saying that they would lie to Trump to keep troops in the ME. Trump would give the military deadlines to win or get out of the ME, and they would always beg for an extension.
If anyone talked Trump out of starting a war, it was Tucker Carlson vis-a-vis Iran. Trump did have a bone to pick with Iran, but he did pretty much nothing except kill Rouhani (want to compare that with I'm-pretty-good-at-this-killing-business Obama's kill list?)
2. He called the Russians to make sure the missiles didn't do anything
3. Do you remember the context of those missiles? A possibly fake flag chemical attack (tactically the official story makes zero sense) used to goad him into intervening.
Wars Obama gets to own (100%) (that is wars that would not have occurred without the Obama's administration encouragement, logistical support, and military intervention):
Lybia - (the US went in, as HRC infamously crudely paraphrased Ceser)
Yemen - massive logistical support (stat and intel) and sale of weapons. Probably foreign mercenaries (unconfirmed)
Syria - weapons and US boots on the ground (there still there). Probably funded and aided groups that became ISIS (relax, I don't think he did it on purpose. It was the same DC hubris that made Taliban out of Mujahadeen).
You can also add Honduras into the list of Obama's "Hope" and "Change" hypocrisy. You can't pin any of that on Trump, since these are conflicts he inherited.
As to Trump's 55 tomahawk missiles, taken out of context, is that the worse of it? Then Trump is the most benign (!!) president since at least Carter [1]. When you consider context, specifically that Trump called the Russians to make sure that the 55 pencils didn't start anything (they were launched to placate calls on CNN), then Trump comes out more favorably still.
As to Jerusalem, that was stupid and an unforced error. However, the ME didn't blow up as expected (unless you consider Lebanon self-destructing a consequence of that?). Also, he was executing the decades old bipartisan desire of Congress that previous presidents had, un-democratically, ignored. Stupid decision, for sure, but Congress gets most of the blame there.
Finally, you can't ignore that every time Trump tried to pull out of the ME, the military stymied him. They even directly disobeyed orders and they are on record as saying that they would misinform the president to keep the troops in.
[1] Carter, like Trump, didn't start a major war. However, his Iran intervention was much worse than anything Trump did (troops on the ground). Therefore, Trump might have been the most benign president for foreign countries since WW2 (when you consider colonialism, possibly far before that).
So you also believe that its too bad that Ghosn escaped trial and punishment? And that it's particularly nasty that the guys who engineered his escape ended up worse than the root criminal?
If so, we agree. But that there are no consequences of breaking another country's sovereignty the way Ghosn and those American goons believe they're entitled to, is ridiculous. Actually, it's American exceptionalism.
Look, I happen to have a very high opinion of Iranians and Iranian society. I think you are one of the most sophisticated people in the world (though, note, sophisticated and sophism share the same root ;). I think the Ayatollahs have, in many ways, perverted Iranian society (in others ways ensured it's independence). But your statement is too simple, too lacking in nuance. It is, frankly, dangerous (but I'll defend your right to share them with my life!) in the same way that statements about Iraqi's perception of America were 20 years ago.
Long Version:
"I was born and grown up in Iran "
I figured, but I didn't want to bring it up; if you're going to talk about "lived experiences" then it's fair that I ask you what your social class you belong to in Iran. Were you the son/daughter of an engineer? Or were you the child of a manual laborer? Did you grow up in Tehran, or Shiraz? Or did you grow up in a small village in the middle of nowhere? Did you have foreign DVDs when you grew up?
More succinctly, did your class make or was it depicted in "Children of Heaven"? (deserved the Oscar, btw. It was brilliant)
"First, a massive portion of the population (middle and upper class) are also considerable"
Well, doesn't that implies that the Ayatollahs did well by Iran? In the times of the Shah the middle class was proportionally small, certainly not large enough to make OP's comment wrong. (The answer is no, the Ayatollahs were a disaster and Iran's middle class, even if it numbers in the millions, is still a small fraction of the total population)
" and they _dont_ hate America."
OK, here I'll concede you're probably partially right but only because "America" is very ill defined. How can someone "hate" Akron OH? You can despise them, but hate? Ohioans are the nicest people I've met in the world (lived experience from growing up in four continents)! But, typically, when ppl talk about hating "America" they are referring to DC and DC's policies.
The implication of pointing out the US' high incarceration rate is that the US justice system and society are particularly malevolent.
This point was used to defend Japan's justice system as being far more benign than the US.
However, Japan's justice system may in fact be far more unforgiving that the US' if Americans are, in general, more likely to commit crime. Which is perfectly fair point to make (although inconclusive for various reasons).
If (for whatever reason) Americans are more likely to commit more crimes, they are, all else being equal, more likely to be in jail.
Of course many things can be true at the same time. Japan can have a brutal justice system and have a very docile, law abiding population. Maybe the brutality caused them to be docile. Or, America can have an abusive justice system, and a population that needs to be more incarcerated than others.
Either way, the criminality of the Japanese is a relevant factor if America's incarceration rate is made relevant
"Middle and upper class Iranians absolutely love America."
So, as a generalization for most of the country, his statement is correct. Unless you dismiss the lower classes as disposable riffraff as the Shah did.
That's a key qualifier though, energy we can extract.
I don't think energy recovery from sewage is feasible, not in the short term, not with our current infrastructure. But either way we should be treating our waste more deferentially in an attempt to recover the minerals 6 billion people poop every day. Except for water, everything in pee and poop is valuable if recovered (urea ->energy, phosphate ->mineral, sulphur ->mineral, starch ->energy)
Instead it all gets dumped to the oceans and the ocean dies from too much nutrients
Ya, but I would guess the story is a bit more complicated. Consider (off the top of my head):
I imagine there's a real concentration problem there. Sewage is incredibly diluted if you think about it (divide your estimate of how much organic waste you generate by the amount of water used in your water bill).
If, instead, houses had grey water systems (i.e. the sink in you bathroom is used to fill up your toilet tank), or if black waters had a separate sewer (sure, not feasible in suburbia), the energy budget would change considerably.
Either way, the affluent is full if nutrients even if we can't recover the energy. Nutrients our soil is rapidly being depleted of (thanks to our modern use of sewers!)
- exec order forcing hospital transparency billing
- exec order forcing lower insulin and adrenaline prices [2]
hate the guy, that's fine. Argue he could have done more, I won't disagree.
But now (unless you're a hospital exec.) you have THREE good things you've heard of the bastard.
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/06/27/2019-13... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20210116081750/https://www.white...