• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 04:56
CEST 10:56
KST 17:56
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20256Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202576RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18
Community News
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced21BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8
StarCraft 2
General
Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 2025 #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time I offer completely free coaching services Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 What tournaments are world championships?
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced $5,000 WardiTV Summer Championship 2025 WardiTV Mondays FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced Dewalt's Show Matches in China BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers [G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft?
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 704 users

US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 113

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 111 112 113 114 115 171 Next
iamthedave
Profile Joined February 2011
England2814 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-12-21 11:12:21
December 21 2018 11:09 GMT
#2241
On December 21 2018 14:31 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 21 2018 05:51 iamthedave wrote:
How is it good for Trump? He couldn't more obviously be setting himself up to be blamed for the shutdown if he walked around with a neon sign pointing at himself reading 'I DID IT, IT WAS ME, BLAME ME AND ONLY ME'. He can't win, and he won't win. Not on this one. The Dems have zero reason to bend.


Border security is a winning issue for Trump. Not only is it popular, but it's a major distinguishing issue that separates him from the Swamp. There's really no reason for him not to play that card as hard as he can. In contrast, Trump is finished as a president if he caves on border security/the wall. Everyone knows this. That's why Pelosi was celebrating last night when she believed that Trump had caved.


This sounds almost exactly like the Tea Party back when they were claiming defunding Obamacare was a winning issue, and the situation here is even worse, as back then there was at least the pretense of an argument that the Democrats were being unreasonable. In this instance there's no doubt Trump's doing it. The optics are 100% against him and the Democrats have 0 reasons to do him a favour.

It isn't going to be a winning issue if he shuts down the government for any length of time over it.

Re: the current discussion

Now that the boys are coming home and Trump's pulling out of Afghanistan slowly, can the US start scaling back military spending? Apparently you don't want to actually use it anymore so what's the point of spending such a huge amount of money on it? Trump seems to think there's too much going on the military as well going by a few of his comments.
I'm not bad at Starcraft; I just think winning's rude.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-12-21 15:14:47
December 21 2018 15:14 GMT
#2242
On December 21 2018 17:38 Jockmcplop wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 21 2018 17:29 ReditusSum wrote:
What is "proper prepration"? What does that mean? How does that look? What does that entail?

If you think Mattis or anyone else has a solid answer to those questions, then find some way to get them to tell everyone else what they're thinking, because otherwise that is just another vaguery. To be fair, Trump wasn't there when troops hit the ground either. He inherited this mess. (Yes I realize that Obama was blasted by conservatives for "cut and running" from the crap he inherited. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)


I'm not trying to blame Trump over anyone else here really. He's responsible for the latest mess about pulling out, but he inherited this, as you say.
Proper preparation involves slowly phasing out involvement while empowering the local allies to step up and fill the gap that is left when you leave. This means things need to be planned, discussed and decided beforehand, not just simply announced with a tweet when something stressful happens at home.

Basically my point is this:
Obama and his friends decided to give the US some responsibility in Syria, and Trump has decided that he doesn't want it. This is going to have some effects in the long term, but Trump doesn't seem concerned about that. I'm saying it should be a concern.

All presidents since Bush decided to conduct Middle East interventions on authorization from Congress made in the early aughts. Now we have boys fighting there who weren’t even born the last time Congress gave the president authority to make the decision himself (or what’s being treated as such).

If you’re invested in the principle of orderly administrative debate and withdrawal, surely you can say it’s past time that it was not “Obama and his friends” or “Trump” deciding ... and rather the war-declaring branch of our seperate powers. Congress. I’m very concerned about that effect in the long term regardless of who occupies the White House and whether or not they pass your bar for proper preparation.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23221 Posts
December 21 2018 15:31 GMT
#2243
On December 22 2018 00:14 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 21 2018 17:38 Jockmcplop wrote:
On December 21 2018 17:29 ReditusSum wrote:
What is "proper prepration"? What does that mean? How does that look? What does that entail?

If you think Mattis or anyone else has a solid answer to those questions, then find some way to get them to tell everyone else what they're thinking, because otherwise that is just another vaguery. To be fair, Trump wasn't there when troops hit the ground either. He inherited this mess. (Yes I realize that Obama was blasted by conservatives for "cut and running" from the crap he inherited. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)


I'm not trying to blame Trump over anyone else here really. He's responsible for the latest mess about pulling out, but he inherited this, as you say.
Proper preparation involves slowly phasing out involvement while empowering the local allies to step up and fill the gap that is left when you leave. This means things need to be planned, discussed and decided beforehand, not just simply announced with a tweet when something stressful happens at home.

Basically my point is this:
Obama and his friends decided to give the US some responsibility in Syria, and Trump has decided that he doesn't want it. This is going to have some effects in the long term, but Trump doesn't seem concerned about that. I'm saying it should be a concern.

All presidents since Bush decided to conduct Middle East interventions on authorization from Congress made in the early aughts. Now we have boys fighting there who weren’t even born the last time Congress gave the president authority to make the decision himself (or what’s being treated as such).

If you’re invested in the principle of orderly administrative debate and withdrawal, surely you can say it’s past time that it was not “Obama and his friends” or “Trump” deciding ... and rather the war-declaring branch of our seperate powers. Congress. I’m very concerned about that effect in the long term regardless of who occupies the White House and whether or not they pass your bar for proper preparation.


I think it's fair to assess it as careless for generals to find out about a military order from the president from news media by any measure.

That said leaving is the right thing to do and left to a congress that accepts no responsibility but to keep signing the checks (with bipartisan support) it'll never happen.



People seem confident Trump will crack but that seems to presume an awareness by Trump of the negative consequences of shutting down the government and a connection with reality he doesn't appear to have.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-12-21 15:46:38
December 21 2018 15:45 GMT
#2244
Lmao, didn’t read the news for like a week until I saw “Mattis rumored to step down” in passing. Only now caught up to the firestorm surrounding that happenstance.

This was the original reason Trump was aggressively opposed by the powers that be, so I guess the Middle East withdrawals drawing doomsayer talk is no surprise, but... lol.

(And of course to be fair, some supporting voices, but the usual actors do what is expected.)
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
December 21 2018 16:56 GMT
#2245
I have yet to hear a particularly compelling reason for keeping a half-assed military presence in Syria. Getting rid of Assad is not going to happen. I certainly understand that that was almost certainly Obama's goal in arming ISIS and the rebels, but it simply isn't going to happen now (to the extent that it was ever a good idea).
iamthedave
Profile Joined February 2011
England2814 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-12-21 17:52:14
December 21 2018 17:51 GMT
#2246
On December 22 2018 01:56 xDaunt wrote:
I have yet to hear a particularly compelling reason for keeping a half-assed military presence in Syria. Getting rid of Assad is not going to happen. I certainly understand that that was almost certainly Obama's goal in arming ISIS and the rebels, but it simply isn't going to happen now (to the extent that it was ever a good idea).


Wasn't the main reason about interdicting Russia's influence in the region? I mean yes, Assad's a big meanie but that's not why we went over there.
I'm not bad at Starcraft; I just think winning's rude.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
December 21 2018 18:16 GMT
#2247
On December 22 2018 02:51 iamthedave wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 22 2018 01:56 xDaunt wrote:
I have yet to hear a particularly compelling reason for keeping a half-assed military presence in Syria. Getting rid of Assad is not going to happen. I certainly understand that that was almost certainly Obama's goal in arming ISIS and the rebels, but it simply isn't going to happen now (to the extent that it was ever a good idea).


Wasn't the main reason about interdicting Russia's influence in the region? I mean yes, Assad's a big meanie but that's not why we went over there.

Getting rid of Assad meant limiting both Iran and Russia in the region. The problem with the idea, however, is that Obama half-assed it, thereby letting Russia get involved militarily.
iamthedave
Profile Joined February 2011
England2814 Posts
December 21 2018 18:51 GMT
#2248
On December 22 2018 03:16 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 22 2018 02:51 iamthedave wrote:
On December 22 2018 01:56 xDaunt wrote:
I have yet to hear a particularly compelling reason for keeping a half-assed military presence in Syria. Getting rid of Assad is not going to happen. I certainly understand that that was almost certainly Obama's goal in arming ISIS and the rebels, but it simply isn't going to happen now (to the extent that it was ever a good idea).


Wasn't the main reason about interdicting Russia's influence in the region? I mean yes, Assad's a big meanie but that's not why we went over there.

Getting rid of Assad meant limiting both Iran and Russia in the region. The problem with the idea, however, is that Obama half-assed it, thereby letting Russia get involved militarily.


While I'm far from an interventionist, just working on the principle that he half-assed it... isn't the original reason still valid, and a reasonable one to not-half-ass it?
I'm not bad at Starcraft; I just think winning's rude.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
December 21 2018 19:07 GMT
#2249
On December 22 2018 03:51 iamthedave wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 22 2018 03:16 xDaunt wrote:
On December 22 2018 02:51 iamthedave wrote:
On December 22 2018 01:56 xDaunt wrote:
I have yet to hear a particularly compelling reason for keeping a half-assed military presence in Syria. Getting rid of Assad is not going to happen. I certainly understand that that was almost certainly Obama's goal in arming ISIS and the rebels, but it simply isn't going to happen now (to the extent that it was ever a good idea).


Wasn't the main reason about interdicting Russia's influence in the region? I mean yes, Assad's a big meanie but that's not why we went over there.

Getting rid of Assad meant limiting both Iran and Russia in the region. The problem with the idea, however, is that Obama half-assed it, thereby letting Russia get involved militarily.


While I'm far from an interventionist, just working on the principle that he half-assed it... isn't the original reason still valid, and a reasonable one to not-half-ass it?

The problem is that it’s now too late. What was an unstable situation dominated by anarchy is now a fragile equilibrium sustained by the involvement of foreign nations who happened to deploy significant military hardware in the area. Trying to butt in to both destabilize that and stand against a party that could hit back with significant force is a bad idea.

Whatever the political calculus was back for intervening in 2012 or 2014 or what have you - and in my eyes it wasn’t favorable then - it’s basically a straight worse idea to try again now. The time to act has come and gone.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
December 21 2018 19:13 GMT
#2250
On December 22 2018 03:51 iamthedave wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 22 2018 03:16 xDaunt wrote:
On December 22 2018 02:51 iamthedave wrote:
On December 22 2018 01:56 xDaunt wrote:
I have yet to hear a particularly compelling reason for keeping a half-assed military presence in Syria. Getting rid of Assad is not going to happen. I certainly understand that that was almost certainly Obama's goal in arming ISIS and the rebels, but it simply isn't going to happen now (to the extent that it was ever a good idea).


Wasn't the main reason about interdicting Russia's influence in the region? I mean yes, Assad's a big meanie but that's not why we went over there.

Getting rid of Assad meant limiting both Iran and Russia in the region. The problem with the idea, however, is that Obama half-assed it, thereby letting Russia get involved militarily.


While I'm far from an interventionist, just working on the principle that he half-assed it... isn't the original reason still valid, and a reasonable one to not-half-ass it?

Like everything else, it’s not purely an issue of desire, but also an issue of cost. Russia wasn’t in Syria when Obama decided to destabilize it and arm the rebels. Trump faces a very different cost proposition now that Russia (and Turkey) have a significant military presence in Syria. War with Russia is simply too high of a cost to pay to remove Assad.

And let’s not forget that a consequence of Obama half-assing intervention in Syria was the rise of ISIS and the loss of half of Iraq.
Doodsmack
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States7224 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-12-21 19:56:12
December 21 2018 19:54 GMT
#2251
The cause of ISIS gaining so much territory was our total withdrawal from Iraq. Trump now proposes total withdrawal from that specific region. That removes our ability to quickly respond to the formation of a terrorist organization and take it out. We should be keeping a (small) permanent presence in the area for the purpose of rapid response.

(This is my personal opinion but it's also the pre-Trump conservative opinion.)
Nouar
Profile Joined May 2009
France3270 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-12-21 20:35:38
December 21 2018 20:04 GMT
#2252
On December 22 2018 01:56 xDaunt wrote:
I have yet to hear a particularly compelling reason for keeping a half-assed military presence in Syria. Getting rid of Assad is not going to happen. I certainly understand that that was almost certainly Obama's goal in arming ISIS and the rebels, but it simply isn't going to happen now (to the extent that it was ever a good idea).


There is no good solution in Syria. There hasn't been for years, like in Afghanistan and Irak.
The US is involved in this region only for oil, it has been a warzone for foreign powers for nearly a century, and we fucked up the region trying to push democracy (including in Iran) for oil. Which has ultimately brought terrorism against the west, and more war.

Leaving now, after botching the intervention, is handing the keys to the region to Iran, Russia and Turkey, and weakening your influence in the region (the US reputation is already down in the gutter everywhere but in Israel, I'm pretty sure even Saudi Arabia is looking down on the US at this point).
Europe has tried not to go too deep there, as we already fucked up a lot of times long before the US repeated the same mistakes.

The only good solutions about Syria should have been taken in the first 6 monthes of the conflict. Now, nobody can do anything to exit the status quo without serious consequences. Trump is doing it (french expression is "mettre les pieds dans le plat") like an *****, making even more enemies (you do not want to have the Kurds as enemies) and purely benefiting "enemy" nations (don't tell me Turkey is an ally please).
The timing is awful, but there isn't really a good timing. It's just... being a noob at geopolitics.

ReditusSum stop with your "bringing the boys home" anthem. The US isn't there for humanitarian reasons, it's there for oil, contracts and influence. The end. Maybe you feel you have enough at home with fracking, so just hand it over to Russia, they will be perfectly happy to get all the contracts. Which is why Trump's decision is even less understandable, as these interventions are about $$$. It might cost a lot for the military, but private companies make a huuuuuuge amount of money rebuilding the country and the power infrastructures afterwards.

Trump handed Africa over to China already (economically), it's over and done with, and is now graciously gifting the middle east to Russia (military and economically afterwards).

Source : me, being in the military and formerly NATO.
NoiR
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12172 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-12-21 20:10:40
December 21 2018 20:09 GMT
#2253
Interventionism is a terrible idea in the context of fighting terrorism. It only becomes profitable when you account for strategical questions, like fighting Russia's influence, and external profits, because eternal war is obviously profitable in itself as long as it happens far away from you. Trump is making (part of) the right move, probably for the wrong reasons, probably not at the best time, and he says a bunch of dumb things in the middle of doing it, but hey, it's Trump, I'll take a move in the right direction.
No will to live, no wish to die
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
December 21 2018 22:18 GMT
#2254
On December 22 2018 04:54 Doodsmack wrote:
The cause of ISIS gaining so much territory was our total withdrawal from Iraq. Trump now proposes total withdrawal from that specific region. That removes our ability to quickly respond to the formation of a terrorist organization and take it out. We should be keeping a (small) permanent presence in the area for the purpose of rapid response.

(This is my personal opinion but it's also the pre-Trump conservative opinion.)

Well, this is sort of true. ISIS formed and got strong because Obama and other nations armed them in Syria and otherwise destabilized the Assad regime. Pulling out of Iraq made Iraq vulnerable to an organized, armed force like ISIS taking large swaths of it over. So stated another way, ISIS taking over Iraq was the result of two Obama-era policies that combined to create a giant error.

Furthermore, it is a mistake to compare pulling out of Syria to pulling out of Iraq. The US had complete control of Iraq at the time that it withdrew and had made massive investments into the country to take take it over and then rebuild it. We have never had that type of relationship with Syria. There's nothing particularly valuable or worthwhile in Syria for the US to preserve by remaining there.
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13925 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-12-22 00:28:11
December 22 2018 00:25 GMT
#2255
Its important to note that we didn't invade iraq so we could get the oil we invaded iraq so that the global supply of oil would be stable. It's an important distinction beacuse the "you only invaded for oil" sends the message that we did it so we could get the oil contracts when we clearly allowed the locals to decided that and they specifically gave those contracts to other nations oil companies.


The problem with withdrawing from syria isn't per say the syrian part but the kurdish part. Turkey has threatened constantly with rather colorful language about the things they want to do to the kurds in syria and iraq. Simply pulling out people out of the area so russians and turkish supported forces can sweep them from the area is the issue people have with the whole thing.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23221 Posts
December 22 2018 03:33 GMT
#2256
On December 22 2018 09:25 Sermokala wrote:
Its important to note that we didn't invade iraq so we could get the oil we invaded iraq so that the global supply of oil would be stable. It's an important distinction beacuse the "you only invaded for oil" sends the message that we did it so we could get the oil contracts when we clearly allowed the locals to decided that and they specifically gave those contracts to other nations oil companies.


The problem with withdrawing from syria isn't per say the syrian part but the kurdish part. Turkey has threatened constantly with rather colorful language about the things they want to do to the kurds in syria and iraq. Simply pulling out people out of the area so russians and turkish supported forces can sweep them from the area is the issue people have with the whole thing.


The US did get the 2nd largest contract behind China, bigger if you add the UK. So no US companies didn't take all of the oil, but we did take a big share while doing a piss poor job of sorting out the distribution. Something like Kuwait makes more sense but that's basically socialism when most% of the governments income comes from oil (including companies like Exxon).
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Nouar
Profile Joined May 2009
France3270 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-12-22 12:19:22
December 22 2018 08:15 GMT
#2257
We shouldn't forget as well a change between the Iraq war era and now : the domestically-produced oil in the us has increased my leaps and bounds.
Before that, the main focus was having a stable supply at a reasonable price, and trying to maintain some kind of control.

There has been a slight change now : fracking and other schist (is that the correct English word?) oil production methods are only profitable when the price is not too cheap. There is an even thiner line to tread now, and this changes things on the level of involvement required abroad.
This is also why the relationship with Saudi Arabia is complicated and they need to be kept as an Ally despite atrocities. If they decide to increase production to lower prices too much, it is going to affect jobs and industry in the us (though never at the level of what it contributed to do to Venezuela)

We can no longer apply the reasoning used during Koweït/Iraqi War to the current time.
NoiR
iamthedave
Profile Joined February 2011
England2814 Posts
December 22 2018 09:15 GMT
#2258
I thought that trying to prevent the massive unending refugee crisis was also a part of the considerations. I doubt that'll stop now that we've left.
I'm not bad at Starcraft; I just think winning's rude.
Nouar
Profile Joined May 2009
France3270 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-12-22 10:30:17
December 22 2018 10:29 GMT
#2259
On December 22 2018 18:15 iamthedave wrote:
I thought that trying to prevent the massive unending refugee crisis was also a part of the considerations. I doubt that'll stop now that we've left.


These refugees don't go to the us, do you think Trump would care?
NoiR
iamthedave
Profile Joined February 2011
England2814 Posts
December 22 2018 11:23 GMT
#2260
On December 22 2018 19:29 Nouar wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 22 2018 18:15 iamthedave wrote:
I thought that trying to prevent the massive unending refugee crisis was also a part of the considerations. I doubt that'll stop now that we've left.


These refugees don't go to the us, do you think Trump would care?


That is a fair point.
I'm not bad at Starcraft; I just think winning's rude.
Prev 1 111 112 113 114 115 171 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 4m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 249
IndyStarCraft 78
ProTech74
Rex 16
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 4390
Hyuk 3669
firebathero 1861
Hyun 835
Larva 690
Backho 143
EffOrt 103
Mind 99
Noble 79
zelot 71
[ Show more ]
scan(afreeca) 52
ZerO 41
Free 40
Bale 32
sorry 24
soO 21
Sacsri 16
NaDa 10
IntoTheRainbow 10
Sharp 8
yabsab 6
Shinee 5
Dota 2
XcaliburYe498
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K775
shoxiejesuss128
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor251
Other Games
gofns6385
Happy429
SortOf183
ZerO(Twitch)3
Organizations
StarCraft 2
ComeBackTV 74
StarCraft: Brood War
lovetv 14
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH307
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV209
• lizZardDota2183
Upcoming Events
FEL
4m
Krystianer vs sOs
SKillous vs ArT
MaNa vs Elazer
Spirit vs Gerald
Clem vs TBD
uThermal vs TBD
Reynor vs TBD
Lambo vs TBD
IndyStarCraft 78
Rex16
CranKy Ducklings14
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5h 4m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
9h 4m
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
WardiTV European League
2 days
Online Event
2 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
The PondCast
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Korean StarCraft League
5 days
[ Show More ]
CranKy Ducklings
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
BSL 20 Team Wars
FEL Cracov 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.