The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

[lektrode]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

Okay, but by the same logic we could apply similar culpability to Carter for approving Operation Cyclone, Reagan for doubling down on it, and Bush the First for placing American troops in Saudi Arabia at the invitation of the Saudi royals.

We can play the game all the way back to Roosevelt, if you'd like.....

+1
whatevah floats yer boat, babe.

[Woodsman]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

whatevah floats yer boat, babe.

That's backatcha, baby! Now sing it, Smokey.

[vt]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

In a TNS survey conducted in March 2007 among 17,443 people in 27 European Union member states, a majority of 52% agreed with the statement "We must stop countries like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even if that means taking military action". A majority agreed with the statement in 18 member states, while a majority were against in 9 member states.^[9]
In 2009, a U.S. poll conducted Sep. 30 to Oct. 1 by the Pew Research Center, found 61% agreed it was more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action.^[10]
In 2010, a poll conducted Feb. 23-24 by Fox News and Opinion Dynamics found 60% of Americans believed military force will be necessary to stop Iran from working on nuclear weapons^[11]
In March 2012, a Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed that a majority of Americans, 56%, would support military action against Iran, even if it led to increased gas prices, if there was evidence demonstrating that Tehran was building nuclear weapons. 39% said that they opposed a military strike, while 62% of Americans said that they'd support Israel striking Iran over its nuclear program.^[12]
A poll conducted in July 2012 found that 80% of Americans view Iran's nuclear program as a threat to the United States and its NATO allies. 39% viewed it as a very big threat, 41% viewed it was a moderate threat, 12% viewed it as not much of a threat, and 6% viewed it as not being a threat. In regards to how much of a threat the nuclear program is to Israel, 60% viewed it as a very big threat to Israel while 27% viewed it as a moderate threat. 80% believe that Iran is building nuclear weapons, including 72% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 89% of Republicans.^[13]
A poll conducted in September 2012 by Basswood Research for The Foreign Policy Initiative revealed that Iran was cited as the most dangerous threat to American national security interests, with 45.1% of respondents choosing Iran. In addition, 62% of Americans favored preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, even if this requires the use of military force, as opposed to avoiding a conflict and accepting the prospects of Iranian nuclear weapons.^[14][15]

[don]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

The Israeli tail wagging the American dog has always been a myth. A useful myth, but a myth.


A great deal of drama has been recently evident in the global media portraying a "personal" rift between the US president and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

While it is apparent that racial undertones have accompanied the treatment of President Barack Obama since his election in 2008 both within the United States and among the Israeli population, the widening rift between the US and Israel has far more important reasons than Netanyahu's irrational behavior, pervasive racism in Israel and the US, or even the two leaders' claimed perceptions on Iran's non-existent nuclear "threat".

Back in the mid-1960s, Soviet-backed regimes in Syria, Iraq and Egypt were pitted as part of a Cold War standoff against America's allies in the
region. The Six-Day War in 1967 in particular saw a rise in Israel's military utility for US interests in containing Syria and Egypt, both of which hosted Soviet naval bases.

Iran and Turkey were on board with the pro-US alliance, and played equally important roles in confronting Iraq and the Soviets. US dependence on, and control over the flow of cheap oil through the Persian Gulf was a strong driver for US interventions, and there was no talk of a 'special relationship' with Israel.

However, the US became Israel's main military protector once France withdrew from this role in the aftermath of the 1967 conflict.

Israel played a crucial role for US' Cold War interests in the Eastern Mediterranean region, and even more so following the 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict. Since then, Israel has been the largest recipient of foreign aid in the world on a per capita basis, receiving around US$3 billion a year in official military ($1.8 billion) and economic aid ($1.2 billion) from the US alone over the past 30 years or so, and exceeding $121 billion since the establishment of the State of Israel. [1]

To put this figure in perspective, the amount of official aid provided by the US to each Israeli citizen (including its rising proportion of second class Arab citizens) has in recent years amounted to $360 per person per year.

In contrast, total US aid to the world hovered around $25 billion in 2012 [2], amounting to about $5 per person in recipient countries in that year. To give a more concrete example: Israeli citizens receive close to 10 times more aid from the US alone than Ethiopian citizens get from the whole donor community combined.

This exorbitant cost not just in terms of US taxpayer support for propping up the apartheid regime in Israel, but also in terms of frequent proxy wars and the damage to the US' reputation in the world was deemed worthy by US leaders in the Cold War context and against the challenge to US power emanating from the Middle East region's Soviet allies.

In stark contrast to the Cold War allegiances of various countries in the Middle East region, Iran's insistence on an independent path following the revolution in 1979 presented a shock to the established global order. The Iranian revolution necessarily focussed on pushing back US influence in Iran, as the late Shah was largely seen by Iranians as a puppet of the Americans in a disconcerting alliance with the world's only two apartheid regimes - in Israel and South Africa.

In a preemptive bid to avoid a repetition of the US's Operation Ajax in 1953, when the US and UK engineered the fall of Iran's popular prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh and returned the exiled Shah to rule over Iran (the second time he was placed on the throne by foreign powers), a group of revolutionary Iranian students stormed the US embassy in November 1979 and held its staff hostage for 444 days. Thus began a four-decade long enmity between the US and Iran.

At the same time, a strong fear of contagion among the despotic rulers of Iran's neighboring Arab countries aligned them with the hegemonic tendencies of the US in a bid by both camps in the Cold War to defeat the Iranian revolution.

The opportunity presented itself in September 1980 when Iraq's Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, mistakenly believing that the weakness of Iran's decimated military in the immediate aftermath of the revolution would make victory inevitable.

The eight-year war, however, resulted in the consolidation of the power of the Islamic revolutionary forces in Iran, and mass mobilization of the population, whose enormous sacrifices served to further justify their belief in the righteousness of their revolutionary bid for independence and non-alignment with the East or the West.

From the Iranian perspective, the fact that Saddam Hussein was militarily and financially supported by the West, the Soviets, and all but Syria and Lebanon among the Arab states, was further proof of the need for defending Iran's independence and pride in the world. This "unholy" international alliance against Iran's choice to be "neither Eastern, nor Western, but Islamic Republican" effectively aligned most Iranians behind their revolutionary leadership and resulted in a successful defense of the integrity of the country by the time the war was ended in 1988.

The war period can be viewed as a costly test of Iran's stability and viability as a modern nation state - an imposed, deadly challenge that was eventually overcome by the nation at a very high cost.

Unlike Iran, the majority of the region's modern Arab states as well as Israel/Palestine, and, to a lesser extent, Turkey have had their borders determined by foreign colonial powers, a simple fact that can be readily witnessed by the unnaturally straight lines on most of these countries' maps.

Human history teaches us that no border is permanently fixed. History also teaches us that Iran should be viewed as the pivotal and most durable power in the Middle East region.

From the Iranian perspective, it is not just the regional states that are the new kids on the block, but so are their colonial masters that drew up their borders. Such powers come and go in time, be they Greek, Roman, Arab, Mongol, Ottoman, British, Russian or American.

The last time the Persians invaded another country, the US had not even come into existence. Iran left her empire-building ambitions behind a long time ago, and instead opted for peaceful coexistence with her neighbors.

It is therefore with no small measure of comical astonishment to the average Iranian to hear an American politician refer to Iran as some kind of a threat to Iran's own region when American military bases with hundreds of thousands of American troops and untold numbers of deadly weapons of mass destruction are physically encircling Iran, 10,000 miles away from their own home, and having wreaked havoc, death and destruction not just in Iran's neighborhood but all across the globe since the end of World War II.

To the average Iranian, it is simply ludicrous to note that the country with the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons tries to lecture others about the evils of proliferating such weapons. Nuclear proliferators such as Israel and the US in particular appear to have no appreciation of the need for integrity in their policy positions. Legitimacy has become a dirty word in today's international relations.

Regardless, and despite the Ukrainian crisis, the Cold War is over in the Middle East. Russia today, with a population of 146 million, is not the Soviet Union of yesterday that had around 300 million inhabitants in 1991, and it has no capacity to impose its will on countries in the Middle East. Russia has no imperative to block NATO's expansion in the Middle East in the way it does in Ukraine, as Turkey is already a member of NATO.

Furthermore, the US's violent addiction to Middle Eastern oil has declined significantly with a steady rise in its domestic production of oil and gas in recent years. Added to this is America's costly military failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Libya and Syria, and the chaos and destruction that US interventionism has brought to the Middle East with no discernible benefits.

And then there is the rise of China, and what American imperialism describes as "a need to pivot to Asia".

In this context, the Obama-Netanyahu drama is no more than a sideshow to a greater reality: apartheid Israel has passed its sell-by date, as the US perceives a strategic need to withdraw from the region. An aid-dependent Israel is in no position to replace America's security role in the region. Israel is in fact seriously concerned about its own failure to establish a stable, economically viable and secure state after seven decades of war and enmity with its neighbors.

It is therefore of no surprise to witness a long and arduous process of negotiations between the US and Iran at this juncture. Contrary to the stated aims, these talks are not about nuclear weapons. In fact, the intelligence services' estimates of both the US and Israel have for some years clearly stated that Iran's nuclear program remains peaceful.

Unless one is to believe that American and other big-power leaders are sitting down for years on end with their Iranian counterparts to discuss a non-existent issue, the talks must be really about wider issues. In brief, they are about recognizing Iran's power and standing in the region, and coming to an agreement on Iran's role in the security of the region, as a non-aligned, independent power.

Iran's apparent confidence in these talks is based on the knowledge that it is the US and its allies that need to come to terms with reality, as they have dug themselves into an irrational and perpetual war quagmire that has brought them to the brink of bankruptcy, and backfired at home with regular "terror" attacks with no end or solutions in sight.

Their main problem is not so much with recognizing Iran's standing in the region. Rather, they do not know how to save face against their own populations, which have been subjugated to their leaders' fear-mongering and lies about Iran's intentions for so long.

Moreover, in a world that has for so long been dominated by the imperial hubris of a few, acceptance of a truly non-aligned state is hard to swallow, as Iran could become a model for other nations aspiring for genuine independence based on a home-grown system of governance.

Until an agreement is reached, we will have to continue to be bewildered by the preposterous theatrics of the likes of Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu and various assortments of absurd American politicians singing and dancing on camera to the tune of war, and making a mockery of international law and order and the long-forgotten Charter of the UN.

Let us hope that rationality will prevail.

Notes
1. Rough calculation based on data here ;and the CRS Report to Congress RL 33222; US Department of State Factsheet of March 2014.
2. Source here

Massoud Hedeshi is an analyst and a freelance consultant with 20 years of work experience in the development aid business.

[Polish_Silver]

Nuclear Program litmus test

It is therefore of no surprise to witness a long and arduous process of negotiations between the US and Iran at this juncture. Contrary to the stated aims, these talks are not about nuclear weapons. In fact, the intelligence services' estimates of both the US and Israel have for some years clearly stated that Iran's nuclear program remains peaceful.

Is Iran's nuclear program peaceful? Is Iran working on Isotope enrichment?

It's the same question, the answer to the first is buried in the minds of Iranian leaders, the second is verifiable, at least to those who are there.

If Iran's program is peaceful, they can do everything they need by buying low enrichment fuel from France, Canada, other countries. I don't know what they are allowed to buy.

If they insist on isotope enrichment, they have a lot of explaining to do.

Apart from the isotope enrichment, the nuclear weapon design and construction is "piece of cake".

[shiny!]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

The Israeli tail wagging the American dog has always been a myth. A useful myth, but a myth.


A great deal of drama has been recently evident in the global media portraying a "personal" rift between the US president and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

While it is apparent that racial undertones have accompanied the treatment of President Barack Obama since his election in 2008 both within the United States and among the Israeli population, the widening rift between the US and Israel has far more important reasons than Netanyahu's irrational behavior, pervasive racism in Israel and the US, or even the two leaders' claimed perceptions on Iran's non-existent nuclear "threat".

I don't disagree with the author's take on the U.S. having dug itself into a hole of permanent war in the ME. That is a deplorable state of affairs, but a state of affairs that is desired by the military industrial complex, and thus it shall ever be. All the talk of desiring peace is just theater.

But I strongly discount the author's premise that pervasive racism has hobbled Obama and his conclusion that Israel has passed its "sell-by date."

People oppose and despise Obama because of his policies, not his skin color.

Israel is the only functioning democracy in the middle east, surrounded by people and governments that have missionary zeal to kill Jews and push Israel into the ocean. By this author's yardstick, when Palestinians hide behind schoolchildren to lob missiles into Israel, they are freedom fighters. When Israel defends itself with superior firepower, they're being racist. Apparently the old saying that the best defense is a good offense applies to everyone except Israel.

Israel is flawed in many ways but it's modern society is light years ahead of its neighbors. Israelis actually make things. They write books, they plant trees, they do scientific and medical research. They are innovative and creative. Israeli women vote and drive and travel on their own and can go out of the house with their faces showing. Israelis are willing to fight to preserve their society and are condemned for doing so.

Obviously there is no room in middle east for a civilized democracy. We should stop supporting them now. /sarc

[Polish_Silver]

Supporting Israel

I don't disagree with the author's take on the U.S. having dug itself into a hole of permanent war in the ME. That is a deplorable state of affairs, but a state of affairs that is desired by the military industrial complex, and thus it shall ever be. All the talk of desiring peace is just theater.

But I strongly discount the author's premise that pervasive racism has hobbled Obama and his conclusion that Israel has passed its "sell-by date."

People oppose and despise Obama because of his policies, not his skin color.

Israel is the only functioning democracy in the middle east, . . .

Obviously there is no room in middle east for a civilized democracy. We should stop supporting them now. /sarc

I don't believe the US should help Israel just because it is a democracy or has other virtues. It is not fair to our military men to risk their lives because we approve of a nation's policy. The only legitimate reason to risk their lives is to defend the territory of the United States. Israel's enemies are a threat to Israel, but not to the USA.

(I am using "men" deliberately. Overwhelmingly, the Iraq casualties are men, not women. Men have always been considered more expendable than women, both by themselves and the larger society)

Israel's "sell date" was "first day of issue". It was never in US interests to support Israel.

[Woodsman]

Re: Supporting Israel

I don't believe the US should help Israel just because it is a democracy or has other virtues. It is not fair to our military men to risk their lives because we approve of a nation's policy. The only legitimate reason to risk their lives is to defend the territory of the United States. Israel's enemies are a threat to Israel, but not to the USA.

(I am using "men" deliberately. Overwhelmingly, the Iraq casualties are men, not women. Men have always been considered more expendable than women, both by themselves and the larger society)

Israel's "sell date" was "first day of issue". It was never in US interests to support Israel.

For this disaster you can thank the accidental president Harry S. Truman. David McCullough hagiographies aside,Truman is likely the most unqualified, unprepared character to have ever sat in the oval office. He literally decided to recognize Israel as a favor to his old haberdasher business partner Eddie Jacobson¹. That favor also presented itself as an opportunity to salve his inferiority complex and Harry couldn't resist.

From the memoirs of Yehuda Avner, a longtime Israeli diplomat, speechwriter and advisor to every Israeli prime minister from Levi Eshkol and Golda Meir to Menachem Begin, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin:

In the mid-1960s, Prime Minister Eshkol sent Mr. Avner to deliver a note to Harry Truman to thank him for recognizing Israel in 1948. Then in his 80s, the ex-president was still residing in the Victorian home at Independence, Missouri. Truman invites Mr. Avner for a stroll in the neighborhood and then unexpectedly asks his Israeli guest to join him inside for a bourbon (coffee for Mr. Avner). Turning to the topic of his friend and former haberdashery partner, Eddie Jacobson, Truman acknowledges that he agreed to meet with Chaim Weizmann only because it was the one favor Jacobson ever sought.

“I knew then what I had to do,” Truman said. “I had to handle those stripe-pants boys, the boys with the Harvard [he pronounced it ‘Ha-vud’] accents. Those State Department fellows were always trying to put it over on me about Palestine, telling me that I really didn’t understand what was going on there, and that I ought to leave it to the experts. Some were anti-Semitic, I’m sorry to say. Dealing with them was as rough as a cob. The last thing they wanted was instant American recognition of Jewish statehood.”

“I had my own second thoughts and doubts, too. But I’d made my commitment to Dr. Weizmann. And my attitude was that as long as I was president, I’d see to it that I was the one who made policy, not the second or third echelons at the State Department. So, on the day the Jewish State was declared, I gave those officials about thirty minutes notice what I intended to do, no more, so that they couldn’t throw a spanner into the works. And then, exactly eleven minutes after the proclamation of independence, I had my press secretary, Charlie Ross, issue the announcement that the United States recognized Israel de facto. And that was that.”

"How Applause for Netanyahu Echoes When Harry Truman Conquered Doubts on Israel." March 10, 2015

The year prior bumbling Harry signed into law the National Security Act of 1947. By that act we traded republican government and popular sovereignty for the national security state.

You gave us Hell, Harry.

¹ "Because Jewish leaders in the U.S. knew Jacobson was a friend of the President, they approached him to lobby Truman with even more fervor...Truman had been increasingly irritated by lobbying from Zionists, and had issued instructions that he did not want to see any more Zionist spokesmen, but Jacobson reminded him about his admiration for Andrew Jackson, and said "Your hero is Andrew Jackson. I have a hero too. He's the greatest Jew alive. I'm talking about Chaim Weizmann. He's an old man and very sick, and he has traveled thousands of miles to see you. And now you're putting him off. This isn't like you, Harry". Truman then decided to meet with Weizmann. Partly as a result of Jacobson's efforts, the United States became the first nation to grant diplomatic recognition to the new state of Israel on 14 May 1948."

[don]

Re: Supporting Israel

Ah yes, Harry Truman, the first of the "never again an FDR President" policy.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Supporting Israel

(I am using "men" deliberately. Overwhelmingly, the Iraq casualties are men, not women. Men have always been considered more expendable than women, both by themselves and the larger society)

From my anecdotal experience, I've found at the micro level that there is pretty much nothing deemed more expendable than females within the socioeconomic poor in the region. Sadly, a goat or a donkey is typically viewed as having more value to a family than a female.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

The last time the Persians invaded another country, the US had not even come into existence. Iran left her empire-building ambitions behind a long time ago, and instead opted for peaceful coexistence with her neighbors.

Define invasion?

Of course Iran hasn't invased another country in the conventional sense, doing so would be incredibly silly with an associated one sided conclusion.

But what of asymmetric "invasion"?

How many direct Iranian state backed terrorist attacks and those conducted by proxy on behalf of Iran are needed to get on the author's radar to achieve just a passing reference and acknowledgement?

It is therefore with no small measure of comical astonishment to the average Iranian to hear an American politician refer to Iran as some kind of a threat

Iran and it's proxies have attempted a considerable number of asymmetric attacks against the US/Israel that the author neglects to mention.

And the US/Israel have likely conducted a considerable number of clandestine attacks on Iran, including:

06/01/2006 General Ahmad Kazemi IRGC Commander plus 10 other top military commanders died in aviation accident.

2006 April, 50 centrifuges destroyed in explosion

18/01/2007 Ardeshir Hassanpour dead *possibly accidental nuclear related

07/02/2007 Brigadier General Ali-Reza Asgari Defected/Disappeared

2009 Northern Spring Shahram Amiri "abducted"/repatriated

01/06/2009 APPROXIMATE DATE STUXNET highly targeted cyberwar attack sabotaging Iranian centrifuges

18/10/2009 Pishin & Sarbaz bombings, 44 dead up to 150 wounded including Brigadier General Nourali Shoushtari Deputy Commander IRCG, Rajab Ali Commander Sistan-Baluchistan Province, other commanders/tribal leaders.

12/01/2010 Professor Masoud Alimohammadai killed

2010 July Shahram Amiri repatriated/re-defected to Iran

08/10/2010 Amir Hossein Shirani uranium enrichment facility employee, Abducted

29/11/2010 Dr Majid Shahriari killed ; Fereidoun Abbasi(VP & Head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran) wounded in separate attack same day

23/07/2011 Darioush Rezaeinejad killed

12/11/2011 Industrial accident Ghadir Steelworks, possible supplier for nuclear centrifuges and ballistic missiles. 7 killed.

12/11/2011 Brigadier General Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam +16 additional IRGC pers killed

28/11/2011 Blast near Isfahan Uranium Conversion site

11/01/2012 Dr Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan killed, *Iran officially accuses CIA & MI6

20-24/01/2012 Cluster of dead IRGC Commanders over a 4 day period: Wafe Afrian (52), Abbas Mahari (52), Ahmed Siafzadeh (55) and Mansour Turkan (50)

21/01/2012 Raze Ali Fimani killed

To the average Iranian, it is simply ludicrous to note that the country with the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons tries to lecture others about the evils of proliferating such weapons. Nuclear proliferators such as Israel and the US in particular appear to have no appreciation of the need for integrity in their policy positions. Legitimacy has become a dirty word in today's international relations.

In the case of the US, it has dramatically reduced it's nuclear weapons stockpiles since the end of the Cold War. Eliminating circa 85+% of weapons from Cold War peak until today. While there's still plenty to obliterate everything, the trend is significant enough for a blind person to see.


Their main problem is not so much with recognizing Iran's standing in the region. Rather, they do not know how to save face against their own populations, which have been subjugated to their leaders' fear-mongering and lies about Iran's intentions for so long.

Western leaders are not the only leaders with a need to save face.

What about Iranian leaders? And the failure of the author to mention the "Israel doesn't exist, destroy the great satan(USA)" type of messaging produced for domestic consumption?

How is that acceptable? Especially when it eminates from the centres of gravity that control Iran's conventional and asymmetric force projection.

What about the IRGC's self-serving need to promote fear and loathing within Iran? Not worthy of mention?

Moreover, in a world that has for so long been dominated by the imperial hubris of a few, acceptance of a truly non-aligned state is hard to swallow, as Iran could become a model for other nations aspiring for genuine independence based on a home-grown system of governance.

Until an agreement is reached, we will have to continue to be bewildered by the preposterous theatrics of the likes of Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu and various assortments of absurd American politicians singing and dancing on camera to the tune of war, and making a mockery of international law and order and the long-forgotten Charter of the UN.

Let us hope that rationality will prevail.

Rationality is a two way street.

Certainly it's worth repeating US/UK/Israeli and even Soviet era policy towards Iran post WWII, as so few have ANY understanding of it.

And certainly the more people know about incidents such as the 53 Iranian Coup(and it's origins), the Iranian Revolution, US Embassy seizure and hostage taking, the USS Vincennes and IranAir flight shootdown, the rise of the IRGC/Hezbullah proxy, etc the better.

The author's belief that policy towards Iran stems from some sort of fear of "sovereign state level Arab Spring" of non-alignment of states is a bit silly isn't it?

Especially when you look at India.

I certainly don't think the "balance of blame" is equal between US/Iran, but I definitely don't naively belief it is entirely one sided either.

[don]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

Balanced reporting, right.

Bye the bye, I believe Woody posted that, not Don.

[Woodsman]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

Balanced reporting, right.

Bye the bye, I believe Woody posted that, not Don.

Haven't you heard? Woods was judged by the star chamber to be a useful fool whose loyalties are suspect.

So put your trust in the cloak and dagger boys. They wouldn't steer you wrong.

Have they ever lied or misled you before? Or put their parochial and bureaucratic interests above the people's.

Why (almost) never!

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Supporting Israel

Fascinating. I wonder how many (dumb) presidential decision are made in opposition to state department, military, or intelligence experts. I once talked to someone who had an uncle in the CIA. He told me that before the Iraq war, the CIA overwhelmingly did not believe Iraq had WMD.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

Balanced reporting, right.

Bye the bye, I believe Woody posted that, not Don.

I think therein likes a chunk of the problem.

Some here claim "propaganda" and "information operations" in both blatant and subtle flavours.

Yet they also produce some of the same to support their own arguments. Which is a bit ironic.

I think the old adage of "We get what we pay for" applies to most news.

Maybe we should all be more open to paying a bit more for a bit more balance.