EPTThe US has almost no credibility left when it comes to scenarios like this even with it's own allies (apparently even with many of it's own citizens). There has to be rock hard evidence before anyone is getting on this wagon again.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1554
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2837 Posts
The US has almost no credibility left when it comes to scenarios like this even with it's own allies (apparently even with many of it's own citizens). There has to be rock hard evidence before anyone is getting on this wagon again. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On June 14 2019 23:20 xDaunt wrote: I don't see Trump invading Iran. He might do some (or even a lot of) airstrikes, but that's about it. He's clearly uninterested in getting the US engaged in a protracted shooting war. And that's not his style, anyway. The Trump doctrine is to use economic might to bludgeon geopolitical foes. Did not, in anyway, answer the question he asked. He asked if you supported an Invasion of Iran. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On June 15 2019 02:26 Danglars wrote: Don't attribute rational actor hypotheses to murderous Islamic states. That's one reason why Iran should not be dismissed. Assuming the predicate as Mohdoo does, it's a win on plausible deniability. The vague "ships were attacked" reasserts by proxy their very long term disputed claim on the strait of hormuz/surrounding areas, and delivers on threats they've made on ships operating there. Not the full "we have control" statement, just "maybe your ship gets mined and suffers damage around this area." And it drives the price of oil up, which Iran exports. Simultaneously, fears of backlash did not dissuade them from imprisoning navy personnel two years. None of this means you should approach Pompeo's conclusion with anything but extreme skepticism. See one grainy video, analysis + Show Spoiler + There's not reason to suppose that Iran is not an rational actor, as much as you can attribute hamn qualityioes to a country. Is USA a rational actor? Is UK an rational actor? Many would say that many recent actions of either countries are not rational and rational actor hypothesis cannot be attributed to them either. Furthermore, whether or not a country can be called a rational actor or not, for a country is made up of people and actions are taken by those who hold power, political or otherwise, which may or may not pull in different directions, which makes no sense to treat as a whole, you attribut rational actor hypothesis to Iran in the next sentence. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On June 15 2019 04:15 JimmiC wrote: I think it is equally crazy to assume the US did it as it is to assume Iran did it. Whoever did it, in today's world is likely to be found out. And would anyone be that surprised if it was SA or Israel in a attempt to get a US Iran war? Or some warlord within Iran who is hoping to take control after the US blew up Iran? Or some ISIS type organization that is just trying to create chaos? Or a new rebel organization that believes they need to ignite a world war to start a new socialist revolution? There is a dozen theory's that can be thrown out there. Assuming that anyone of them is true with how little information there is out their right now, and the history of multiple parties putting out false information is crazy. Yeah my current thought in terms of % chance is: 1. Israel 2. Saudi 3. USA 4. Russia 5. Iran | ||
|
JoinTheRain
Bulgaria409 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24137 Posts
On June 15 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: Yeah my current thought in terms of % chance is: 1. Israel 2. Saudi 3. USA 4. Russia 5. Iran I haven't looked into the logistics of the attack myself but geopolitically I think that list looks about right. I think there's much less motive for Russia or Iran and that speculation is based more on opportunity (like a free sucker punch but to something like the thigh or whatever) I think that list also accurately reflects the order in which they would be most likely to get away with it (takes a while for this stuff to come to light typically) with Israel being most likely and either Iran or Russia taking 5th. But yeah, about that Vietnam era like anti-war movement I mentioned a while back...? Sounding more and more appealing to folks, no? Saudi Barbaria How is this the first I've seen this? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On June 15 2019 04:25 JoinTheRain wrote: I read today in Wikipedia about this incident. I decided to give my opinion although it seems as useless as anybody else's. The thing that is unknown is who is responsible, as far as I see. So if we apply the age-old rule "Who gets profit from it?", I think Iran and Japan are out of the situation. So this leaves USA, Russia, Israel and Saudi Barbaria. Now, how can I reason who actually is behind? I don't know yet, there is too little information yet. This is a good starting point, we just gotta wait for further info I guess. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
This comes after he accused his White House counsel of lying under oath. Of course, no one believes trump over McGahn, because the words that come out of trumps mouth are not credible. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9319 Posts
On June 15 2019 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: Yeah my current thought in terms of % chance is: 1. Israel 2. Saudi 3. USA 4. Russia 5. Iran I don't think Saudi Arabia is competent enough to do something like that without making it completely obvious it was them. Israel > US war hawks trying to provoke Trump > some random terrorist group > Saudis > Iran | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22463 Posts
Why is the US government even the ones coming out with a guilty verdict? From what I understand it was not an attack on a US target, the ship was Japaneses. Isn't normal protocol for the victim nation to talk about causes and suspected parties? Did Japan publicly ask the US for information? or did the US just run to the front of the class shouting 'It was Iran, I saw it". | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 15 2019 03:38 Mohdoo wrote: Right, this all makes sense, but there is still no clear objective. Why attack the Japanese ship? Are you saying attacking, but not sinking, a Japanese ship gets them a small step closer to cleaning the Earth of Christians and Jews? That they may as well attack it if they can? I went over the most clear objective in the original post, and didn’t see you dispute that portion of the post in the slightest. The same is true of the one you’re directly responding to: direct attack on an American vessel and American deaths brings about a higher risk of destruction of their navy. I’m not clear about what you’re saying. | ||
KwarK
United States44190 Posts
On June 15 2019 03:29 Mohdoo wrote: So why do anything at all if you want plausible deniability? Iran is a murderous Islamic state, 100%. But there is a reason they haven't gone to war with the US yet. They don't want to be blown to pieces. There is no situation where Iran actually wants to go to war with the US. Its just that their loony religious factions in their military/government see Muslim global dominance as an eventual certainty and are anxious to get out from under the foot of whitey This take ignores the historical abuses of Persia by imperialist powers. Their motives are much the same as those of the PRC. Get back autonomy and regain their position as regional hegemon over the Middle East. Iran isn't an especially irrational or confusing actor and this suggestion that they're some unknowable lunatic group is absurd. Most of the stuff Iran does is directly in response to something an imperialist power in the region does. The US invades Iraq and says Iran is next, Iran tries to get nukes. Saudi Arabia spreads Sunni influence into Iraq, Iran spreads Shia. There's a reason that Kerry's deal with Iran was so good and so important. The rest of the world got together and staged an intervention telling the US to stop shooting itself in the foot with Iran and Iran agreed to stop making nukes in a deal that should have calmed the whole region down. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9233 Posts
On June 15 2019 04:44 Gorsameth wrote: Something else that popped into my head. Why is the US government even the ones coming out with a guilty verdict? From what I understand it was not an attack on a US target, the ship was Japaneses. Isn't normal protocol for the victim nation to talk about causes and suspected parties? Did Japan publicly ask the US for information? or did the US just run to the front of the class shouting 'It was Iran, I saw it". It's not just Japan involved, one ship was Norwegian and the combined crews were 2/3 Filipino and 1/3 Russian. None of the countries involved pointed fingers at Iran with no investigation completed, only the US immediately decided to go on a tirade. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 15 2019 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote: Well unless you count the people guiding the weapons/platforms, they tend to get extremely messed up by it (which typically spirals into their surrounding relationships). www.npr.org You seem to be centering the experiences of (mostly white mostly male) western observers instead of considering the subjects of surveillance. Consider what you are suggesting here: the best thing we can do is look away from the horror outside the West. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On June 15 2019 04:41 Doodsmack wrote: Funnily enough trumps own re-election campaign has leaked his internal polling data, exposing him in more lies. It's this type of thing where trumps own people undermine and contradict him that really does not help his re-election chances. https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1139603994014298115 This comes after he accused his White House counsel of lying under oath. Of course, no one believes trump over McGahn, because the words that come out of trumps mouth are not credible. https://twitter.com/Santucci/status/1139467241785843713 Nobody on the left believes him. On the right he's still predominantly believed over everyone round him, unless something dramatic has shifted recently. Is it enough to get him re-elected? Impossible to say at this point. The US economy isn't doing badly enough for it to be a talking point that'll work though, unless the hits on the working class I've heard about are bigger than they sound, or the rust belt workers are sick of waiting for their jobs to come back and hold Trump's feet to the fire over it. On June 15 2019 08:32 IgnE wrote: You seem to be centering the experiences of (mostly white mostly male) western observers instead of considering the subjects of surveillance. Consider what you are suggesting here: the best thing we can do is look away from the horror outside the West. That's irrelevant to the point GH was making and an inapplicable argument to XDaunt's core position on the subject (albeit a good point in and of itself). | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Warren might look like she had it too easy, or might just look great. All the puns about the Orange "kiddie table" are coming out in the media. I'm hoping for some good Biden vs Sanders moments in Purple group. Pete's at the adult table, and will look youthful compared to Biden & Sanders. Harris can play on the old white dude factor as much as she wants, and maybe the base really values the diversity more than current polling shows it. It probably goes without saying, but candidates like Klobuchar, Beto, and Booker are looking to have a great performance to revitalize their campaigns. | ||
| ||
