|
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 |
On May 10 2018 00:47 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 23:06 iamthedave wrote:On May 09 2018 18:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 09 2018 18:10 iamthedave wrote:On May 09 2018 17:59 Acrofales wrote:On May 09 2018 17:44 iamthedave wrote:On May 09 2018 04:37 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Nah. No war. The military gamed out a conflict with Iran 10 years ago and it went badly. Our military position against Iran has not improved in 10 years. Further, we don't have the resources in place for anything but a pinprick strike like we do with Syria/Assad. This is just Trump wrecking Pax Americana and withdrawing America from its global leadership role. Countries will now be free to pursue their own bilateral deals without America wrangling the global powers into any kind of consensus. Iran can resume its weapons production freely now since the USA won't do anything and Europe doesn't care. Trump just made America smaller so that other countries can pursue their interests at their discretion. Can you expound on this? Isn't the US military like 100x more powerful than Iran's? I mean, the 'war' part of the war in Iraq was over in about two days, and the US steamrollered everything they ran into. I seem to recall there were more casualties from friendly fire than military action. If the US went in just to crush Iran and not to stick around waving signs with 'hi, I'm a target you hate and don't need a foreign holiday to shoot at, come have a go', I'd have thought it'd be much the same story. If that's your endgame, why bother invading at all? Just drop a nuke on Teheran and hang out the mission accomplished banner... Out of curiousity, what exactly do you think 'the endgame' of an invasion actually would be? It might be my european sensibilities talking, but I don't think a military invasion is undertaken with the express purpose of delivering tea and biscuits to our enemies and laying them down into feather beds with goosedown pillows. I'm not sure how European sensibilities leads to "blow shit up, run away and pretend we accomplished something". Not many European invasions that fit that description. Nations are actually really good at rebuilding after wars, in a general sense. If the endgame is to prevent nuclear development, then you probably picked the most expensive and least effective method of trying. For the record, the initial question - which everyone seems to have forgotten - was centred on the US military projection against Iran supposedly being negative, which seems very odd to me. This lot is a tangent as far as I'm concerned. Also, I'm sensing that you missed the sarcasm. My guess would be the US 'objective' in going into Iran would be the usual two: 1) prevent/slow down nuclear development 2) regime change, because 2) is why we do wars these days, apparently. But on a purely military level, I don't see what Iran could do to stop the US from making it happen. On May 09 2018 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On May 09 2018 18:10 iamthedave wrote:On May 09 2018 17:59 Acrofales wrote:On May 09 2018 17:44 iamthedave wrote:On May 09 2018 04:37 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Nah. No war. The military gamed out a conflict with Iran 10 years ago and it went badly. Our military position against Iran has not improved in 10 years. Further, we don't have the resources in place for anything but a pinprick strike like we do with Syria/Assad. This is just Trump wrecking Pax Americana and withdrawing America from its global leadership role. Countries will now be free to pursue their own bilateral deals without America wrangling the global powers into any kind of consensus. Iran can resume its weapons production freely now since the USA won't do anything and Europe doesn't care. Trump just made America smaller so that other countries can pursue their interests at their discretion. Can you expound on this? Isn't the US military like 100x more powerful than Iran's? I mean, the 'war' part of the war in Iraq was over in about two days, and the US steamrollered everything they ran into. I seem to recall there were more casualties from friendly fire than military action. If the US went in just to crush Iran and not to stick around waving signs with 'hi, I'm a target you hate and don't need a foreign holiday to shoot at, come have a go', I'd have thought it'd be much the same story. If that's your endgame, why bother invading at all? Just drop a nuke on Teheran and hang out the mission accomplished banner... Out of curiousity, what exactly do you think 'the endgame' of an invasion actually would be? It might be my european sensibilities talking, but I don't think a military invasion is undertaken with the express purpose of delivering tea and biscuits to our enemies and laying them down into feather beds with goosedown pillows. Well, the game plan for Afghanistan and Iraq, however misguided it turned out to be, was a gradual trajectory towards a stable democracy. That requires the invader's presence to provide that stability and not turn it into Libya, where any two-bit warlord bumped into the power vacuum to rule over his corner of the country. Iran is a lot more homogeneous than Iraq or Libya, but even so, the only thing that you'll accomplish by swooping in, murdering the Ayatollah and calling it a day, is to plunge Iran into chaos, destabilize the region even further and cause world-wide resentment of the US' warmongering. So if that's your goal, you might as well nuke Tehran and save yourself a load of money and loss of your own soldiers' lives. E: invading Iran now sends a very clear signal that what they did wrong wasn't to pursue a nuclear program. It was to trust that the US wouldn't invade upon halting their nuclear program. Add that to the Ukraine, and I am willing to bet that half a dozen previously peaceful nations, such as Brazil or Nigeria will start researching how to build their own nuclear missiles... E2: not to mention that if you think that whoever consolidates power eventually in Iran is going to be more friendly to the western "invaders", then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Oh yes, it's a stupid idea. That isn't what I'm saying. It's hardly a newfangled observation that American foreign policy is a bit short sighted, and that was when Trump wasn't the guy steering the ship, when he hadn't gutted the foreign office to being a shadow of its former self. But given that the US took... what, less than 500 casualties in the initial invasion? it seems quite feasible to me that an invasion of Iran would go the same way. But I don't know. I know very little about Iran's military, save that it isn't the US, and there are very few western nations that would last longer than a long weekend if the US chose to actually invade them. The only powers likely to stand up for any length of time - and they'd still probably lose in shortish order - are Russia and China. And I can see the American public eating up a quick in-and-out, handful of war hero casualties, victory accomplished, everyone's home and we are winners affair while those middle eastern losers can suck it. So my musings aren't on whether it's a good idea, it's the initial observation that the US military thought it would be a bad idea on a military level. Unless I misread his post, which is entirely possible. Secondarily, how to you feel the Ukraine fits into this? The problem there, from what I've read and seen, is more that Russia dared us to actually follow through on the rhetoric, and nobody had the guts to do it and go with all the implications that would come from a de facto ground war against the Russians, in Ukraine. https://www.quora.com/What-would-be-the-nature-of-a-US-led-invasion-of-IranWhile this is, imho, a bit negative towards the US' chances, it's definitely not an easy stroll into Tehran. And even if it is, what then? Mission accomplished banner out and home in time for Christmas? Because from that same answer/article, something that is definitely true: Show nested quote +Even if we allow ourselves to assume a swift defeat of Iran’s conventional forces, keep in mind that Iran has been deeply linked to anti-US insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. If there is any country in the world that is prepared to take on the US in a post-invasion, asymmetrical fight, it’s Iran; and I’m not sure the US, with all the lessons it’s learned from its recent conflicts, would be prepared for the vehemence of Iranian resistance. As for what the Ukraine has to do with it: the reason the Ukraine doesn't have nukes is because when the soviet union fell apart, they agreed to denuclearization. At the time, the Ukraine had a large number of nukes stationed in the country, and while operational control was held by the Kremlin (even after independence), having physical ownership they could probably rejigger it all and make their own command and control infrastructure. Of course, the whole country was collapsing, and they needed to connect to the international economy. So they bargained away their nuclear power (that they couldn't use anyway) in return for a hell of a lot of stuff they needed... and also a "promise" from various countries, including Russia, to uphold Ukraine's sovereignty (the Budapest Memorandum). That treaty was violated with the invasion of Crimea, something that, one can speculate, might not have happened if Ukraine had not bargained away their nuclear weapons.
Very interesting article that, thanks. I did assume when I read the initial comment that cost might factor into it, since large-scale US military operations seem to be disgustingly expensive these days. And I never even once thought it would happen with the idea of an occupation in mind. That'd be insanity, as I imagine an awful lot more Iranians would get in on the action than Iraqis did, not to mention all the holidaying anti-US groups who'd drive on over the border to have some fun.
Also, interesting take on Ukraine situation. Though I doubt it would have worked as a deterrant in that particular instance (nuking one's own neighbour, given the way nukes work, might not be the best idea...)
|
On May 10 2018 02:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 01:49 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2018 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
Disregarding the unethical (and possibly illegal) nature of these payments, the I'm kinda curious what all these companies actually got, or what they think they were going to get, for those payments.
I have a friend at AT&T's compliance department, I'm gonna give her a bunch of shit. This is another issue. One cannot be the president's lawyer and consult for companies seeking the president's favor at teh same time. Even if he wasn't Trump's lawyer, his constant contact with Trump could make this lobbying? And I have no idea why these companies thought this was a good idea. Lets pay the president's attorney money and hope no one notices. This is part of what is weird to me as well. This seems so blatant that I am having a hard time seeing what AT&T thought people would think about this whole ordeal. Reading the article, I am realizing I don't have a good idea as to how secret certain types of payments and whatnot are. Was this a really secret payment? Seems probably not. Just so strange. These payments also support the core idea that Trump's wealth is likely much, much lower than he claims.
Folks in my office were joking that there are a lot off pissed off attorneys in AT&T's legal department right now, who have a whole need job to deal with the investigation and clean up. I seriously doubt that payments were widely known throughout a company that large. Its small money for them too, so it could be anyone with reasonable authority in their lobbying department that can spend 200K monthly for "government consulting" on their budget.
|
Typically procurement would also require legal & compliance review in addition to having a sponsor/ business owner with the authority to sign off on a deal of that size. I am guessing whatever department or individual who made the order skipped the legal bit though, and essentially didn't stop to question that just because they could, should they do this.
...and somehow this happened at like a dozen different companies.
This piece by StatNews (highly recommend their newsletter if you're interested in healthcare) has some detail on Novartis' decision to pay Cohen.
In March 2017, a group of Novartis employees, mostly from the government affairs and lobbying teams, met with Cohen in New York to discuss specific issues and strategies. But the meeting was a disappointment, the insider explained, and the Novartis squad left with the impression that Cohen and Essential Consultants — the firm controlled by Cohen that Novartis was making payments to — may not be able to deliver.
“At first, it all sounded impressive, but toward the end of the meeting, everyone realized this was a probably a slippery slope to engage him. So they decided not to really engage Cohen for any activities after that,” the employee continued. Rather than attempt to cancel the contract, the company allowed it to lapse early in 2018 and not run the risk of ticking off the president. “It might have caused anger,” this person said.
It looks like more or less a bet (a small one for an entity that spends hundreds of millions on PR, lobbying, etc.) to try and get something useful, rather than a guarantee of a meeting or true influence/ insight or something. Cohen likely sold them on how tight he was with Trump, but when it came time to deliver the goods he wasn't able to do much more than tell them about Trumps mood and bowel movements.
|
NPR just had a more detailed breakdown of our exit from the Iran deal. The administration is imposing the highest possible sanctions on Iran, which means that we will also sanction EU companies that do business with Iran after 90 days. By doing this, we are forcing the EU countries and their companies to exit an agreement against their will or have limited access to US markets. Trump has created a situations where he is threaten to sanction our closest and oldest allies.
|
On May 10 2018 05:03 Plansix wrote:
NPR just had a more detailed breakdown of our exit from the Iran deal. The administration is imposing the highest possible sanctions on Iran, which means that we will also sanction EU companies that do business with Iran after 90 days. By doing this, we are forcing the EU countries and their companies to exit an agreement against their will or have limited access to US markets. Trump has created a situations where he is threaten to sanction our closest and oldest allies.
The sad part is that the EU or the US has to back down or we are at an economic downturn similar to the 2008 one or worse very quickly. Not sure if I am in favour of creating that to break the US hold on what countries are sanctioned globally or not...
|
Congress has also started to roll back anti discrimination regulations in the auto lending. For folks looking for a lasting impact of the Republican leadership, this could be viewed as a test balloon for biggest roll back of civil rights protections: HUD regulations preventing discrimination in real estate lending. The most powerful tool racists used to preserve segregation. Nothing could do more damage to race relations long term that gutting HUD.
|
They still discriminate on applications for house loans... from what I can tell.
|
On May 10 2018 05:25 ShoCkeyy wrote:
They still discriminate on applications for house loans... from what I can tell.
Redlining is specifically illegal under HUD regulations. It is why they say “Equal Housing Lender” every time you see an ad for a mortgage. And of course Wikipedia has the Color of Money in the lead. At some of that site is good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
This is a level of discrimination which most of us have no context for.
|
I think Trump scuttled the Iran deal in part to improve the bargaining process with North Korea. He wants North Korea to know that he will gladly burn down his own house (sanctions against European countries that should utterly destroy our economy) for the sake of punishing people who don't play by the rules.
I think it is also likely that Trump will, once North Korea appears somewhat "complete", revisit the Iran deal, make some silly demand about terrorism, they will comply, then Trump will be like "I just made us an Iran deal that wipes out Terrorism!"
|
On May 10 2018 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Trump scuttled the Iran deal in part to improve the bargaining process with North Korea. He wants North Korea to know that he will gladly burn down his own house (sanctions against European countries that should utterly destroy our economy) for the sake of punishing people who don't play by the rules.
I think it is also likely that Trump will, once North Korea appears somewhat "complete", revisit the Iran deal, make some silly demand about terrorism, they will comply, then Trump will be like "I just made us an Iran deal that wipes out Terrorism!"
That is such a huge gamble that it just might be what he is thinking lol.
Trump: I WILL SHOW NK THAT I CAN'T BE FUCKED WITH!!!!
NK: Well fuck you, we see you dont honor deals
Trump: That was not what I expected.....
|
There is also the problem that NK developed a nuke and then we came to the table to talk to them. Helps those in Iran who think they need nukes to force America to the table.
|
On May 10 2018 06:18 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Trump scuttled the Iran deal in part to improve the bargaining process with North Korea. He wants North Korea to know that he will gladly burn down his own house (sanctions against European countries that should utterly destroy our economy) for the sake of punishing people who don't play by the rules.
I think it is also likely that Trump will, once North Korea appears somewhat "complete", revisit the Iran deal, make some silly demand about terrorism, they will comply, then Trump will be like "I just made us an Iran deal that wipes out Terrorism!" That is such a huge gamble that it just might be what he is thinking lol. Trump: I WILL SHOW NK THAT I CAN'T BE FUCKED WITH!!!! NK: Well fuck you, we see you dont honor deals Trump: That was not what I expected.....
My impression of the situation is that Trump is saying the deal isn't good enough. So long as Iran is still being an ass in some way, fuck Iran. I am being very generous here, but I think it is a feeling shared by a lot of conservatives.
"Why should we ease ANYTHING on Iran when they are still funding (some random ass Muslim terrorist group) which kills US troops??"
And while the obvious answer is "because this is still a notable net positive", people who are religious tend to be overly rigid and are well accustomed to "you are either good or you are bad" types of thinking.
And it is a perspective I can somewhat appreciate, but it assumes a manifest destiny'esque impression/perspective of the US and its place in the world. It assumes we can make demands like "Stop being an ass in ANY way whatsoever, then we deal" and have it go well. Many of these people simply don't understand the US only gained as much influence as it did because everyone else was kind of a mess. With Europe and Asia cranking it up, limitless demands will eventually not be possible for us. But Trump wants to see if we still got it.
So you could say Trump's Iran rhetoric is intended to show Kim that NK needs to *actually* stop being shitbags. It won't be good enough for Kim to be like "ok, no more tests, but we keep our nukes?". Either NK joins the world or it doesn't. No matter half ass bullshit.
And you could argue that when Iran sees North Korea suddenly being pleasant with the US, they will know we mean it when we say we'll encourage trade and give a bunch of money and shit like that, so long as you COMPLETELY follow the rules and you are ACTUALLY not being a shitbag anymore.
In my eyes, so long as Iran is funding groups that shoot at Americans, the entire thing could be said to be a sham. It is still a net positive and I still totally support the Iran deal because I am not a dumbass. But it is easy to appreciate the perspective that it is somewhat of a sham and that Iran still actively kills Americans.
What if Iran could just be some normal-ass country trading with everyone and generally being peaceful and nice? I think Trump is so ignorant of the history that he's like "I can't believe we let Iran just be an asshole and we do nothing about it"
|
On May 10 2018 05:03 Plansix wrote:
NPR just had a more detailed breakdown of our exit from the Iran deal. The administration is imposing the highest possible sanctions on Iran, which means that we will also sanction EU companies that do business with Iran after 90 days. By doing this, we are forcing the EU countries and their companies to exit an agreement against their will or have limited access to US markets. Trump has created a situations where he is threaten to sanction our closest and oldest allies.
I'd think we'd call his bluff on that. Didn't he put in so many exceptions on his big steel tariffs thing that it became basically meaningless? I have to believe that he'll start making exceptions if the EU doesn't follow suit, since I imagine they'll be happy to do tit-for-tat sanctions, just like they began to a month or so ago.
|
Norway28784 Posts
On May 10 2018 06:20 Plansix wrote:
There is also the problem that NK developed a nuke and then we came to the table to talk to them. Helps those in Iran who think they need nukes to force America to the table.
Part of me genuinely wants Iran to get one. I'd rather have Iran with a nuke than an american invasion, for sure.
|
On May 10 2018 06:48 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 05:03 Plansix wrote:
NPR just had a more detailed breakdown of our exit from the Iran deal. The administration is imposing the highest possible sanctions on Iran, which means that we will also sanction EU companies that do business with Iran after 90 days. By doing this, we are forcing the EU countries and their companies to exit an agreement against their will or have limited access to US markets. Trump has created a situations where he is threaten to sanction our closest and oldest allies. I'd think we'd call his bluff on that. Didn't he put in so many exceptions on his big steel tariffs thing that it became basically meaningless? I have to believe that he'll start making exceptions if the EU doesn't follow suit, since I imagine they'll be happy to do tit-for-tat sanctions, just like they began to a month or so ago.
I would pay money to watch Trump try to slap sanction on Deutsche Bank or HSBC. There is a reason Mitch McConnell said that the Senate is “very interested in the next step” like three times when asked about backing out of the deal. This is all fun and games until right up until some of our EU allies say “Sanction us Bitch, you won’t?”
On May 10 2018 06:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 06:20 Plansix wrote:
There is also the problem that NK developed a nuke and then we came to the table to talk to them. Helps those in Iran who think they need nukes to force America to the table. Part of me genuinely wants Iran to get one. I'd rather have Iran with a nuke than an american invasion, for sure.
I do not want to see how Israel would respond to that, TBH.
|
On May 10 2018 06:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 06:20 Plansix wrote:
There is also the problem that NK developed a nuke and then we came to the table to talk to them. Helps those in Iran who think they need nukes to force America to the table. Part of me genuinely wants Iran to get one. I'd rather have Iran with a nuke than an american invasion, for sure.
Look at what happened like the fucking DAY after NK was proven capable of nuking half the planet. Things sure do get a lot more peaceful. Mutually assured destruction is the key to peace.
|
On May 10 2018 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 06:18 IyMoon wrote:On May 10 2018 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think Trump scuttled the Iran deal in part to improve the bargaining process with North Korea. He wants North Korea to know that he will gladly burn down his own house (sanctions against European countries that should utterly destroy our economy) for the sake of punishing people who don't play by the rules.
I think it is also likely that Trump will, once North Korea appears somewhat "complete", revisit the Iran deal, make some silly demand about terrorism, they will comply, then Trump will be like "I just made us an Iran deal that wipes out Terrorism!" That is such a huge gamble that it just might be what he is thinking lol. Trump: I WILL SHOW NK THAT I CAN'T BE FUCKED WITH!!!! NK: Well fuck you, we see you dont honor deals Trump: That was not what I expected..... My impression of the situation is that Trump is saying the deal isn't good enough. So long as Iran is still being an ass in some way, fuck Iran. I am being very generous here, but I think it is a feeling shared by a lot of conservatives. "Why should we ease ANYTHING on Iran when they are still funding (some random ass Muslim terrorist group) which kills US troops??" And while the obvious answer is "because this is still a notable net positive", people who are religious tend to be overly rigid and are well accustomed to "you are either good or you are bad" types of thinking. And it is a perspective I can somewhat appreciate, but it assumes a manifest destiny'esque impression/perspective of the US and its place in the world. It assumes we can make demands like "Stop being an ass in ANY way whatsoever, then we deal" and have it go well. Many of these people simply don't understand the US only gained as much influence as it did because everyone else was kind of a mess. With Europe and Asia cranking it up, limitless demands will eventually not be possible for us. But Trump wants to see if we still got it. So you could say Trump's Iran rhetoric is intended to show Kim that NK needs to *actually* stop being shitbags. It won't be good enough for Kim to be like "ok, no more tests, but we keep our nukes?". Either NK joins the world or it doesn't. No matter half ass bullshit. And you could argue that when Iran sees North Korea suddenly being pleasant with the US, they will know we mean it when we say we'll encourage trade and give a bunch of money and shit like that, so long as you COMPLETELY follow the rules and you are ACTUALLY not being a shitbag anymore.In my eyes, so long as Iran is funding groups that shoot at Americans, the entire thing could be said to be a sham. It is still a net positive and I still totally support the Iran deal because I am not a dumbass. But it is easy to appreciate the perspective that it is somewhat of a sham and that Iran still actively kills Americans. What if Iran could just be some normal-ass country trading with everyone and generally being peaceful and nice? I think Trump is so ignorant of the history that he's like "I can't believe we let Iran just be an asshole and we do nothing about it"
That is the problem though isn't it? According to the world Iran was following the rules. And to them they are not being shitbags at all. One mans shitbag is another mans freedom fighter or something like that
|
Per this story, one of the companies who we just learned made payments to Cohen's shell company admitted that Cohen went to them offering "access to the administration." Even if this ends up being all above water, which I find unlikely given Cohen's apparent incompetence, this definitely is more evidence of what we already knew; that this administration is as corrupt as it is inept.
Expect SDNY to tear those payments apart. I can't see Cohen coming out of this with anything less than bank fraud/money laundering charges. Why create a shell company for these if they were on the up and up?
|
On May 10 2018 06:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 06:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 10 2018 06:20 Plansix wrote:
There is also the problem that NK developed a nuke and then we came to the table to talk to them. Helps those in Iran who think they need nukes to force America to the table. Part of me genuinely wants Iran to get one. I'd rather have Iran with a nuke than an american invasion, for sure. Look at what happened like the fucking DAY after NK was proven capable of nuking half the planet. Things sure do get a lot more peaceful. Mutually assured destruction is the key to peace.
Israel is the size of a postage stamp and has always been terrified that Iran or another enemy nation would get a nuke. We do not want that reality. We already had to deal with India vs Pakistan desire to have a close range exchange of nukes, and that shit was terrifying in its time. Some of these nations do not have our fear of the bomb.
|
On May 10 2018 06:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2018 06:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 10 2018 06:20 Plansix wrote:
There is also the problem that NK developed a nuke and then we came to the table to talk to them. Helps those in Iran who think they need nukes to force America to the table. Part of me genuinely wants Iran to get one. I'd rather have Iran with a nuke than an american invasion, for sure. Look at what happened like the fucking DAY after NK was proven capable of nuking half the planet. Things sure do get a lot more peaceful. Mutually assured destruction is the key to peace.
not sure what you're talking about here, as the peace situation in korea didn't really change at all. only rhetorical changes that have happened before and mean little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
