| 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 | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
On January 03 2020 23:15 farvacola wrote: When all else fails, liberalism is best understood with reference to individualism imo. I think that's an interesting point but I think you can also support socialism with an individualist outlook (and tbh I think that's where I am). I just think that individualism gets a bad rep because it's conflated with egoism quite often. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18843 Posts
On January 03 2020 23:21 Nebuchad wrote: I think that's an interesting point but I think you can also support socialism with an individualist outlook (and tbh I think that's where I am). I just think that individualism gets a bad rep because it's conflated with egoism quite often. Well there’s a lot to unpack there, but I agree in the sense that liberal ideations of the individual are mostly hollow and a vehicle for other values, whereas socialistic individualism is more of an end goal of raising the floor via collective action such that legitimate autonomy can take root. Those two concepts are always in tension with one another. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
ehhh we're all fucked. bernie won't be allowed to win the dnc nomination, establishment will stay in power, freedoms will continue to slowly disappear as our society becomes more dystopian, and wealth inequality will continue to increase. i give it 30 years until the unpleasant process of global revolutions begin | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
On January 03 2020 23:27 farvacola wrote: Well there’s a lot to unpack there, but I agree in the sense that liberal ideations of the individual are mostly hollow and a vehicle for other values, whereas socialistic individualism is more of an end goal of raising the floor via collective action such that legitimate autonomy can take root. Those two concepts are always in tension with one another. Good post, more nicely put than I would have been able to. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23516 Posts
On January 03 2020 23:17 Nouar wrote: non-governmental actors vs state general of a country recognized by all laws and conventions while not being at war ? You don't see any difference ? The two children were bystanders from the looks of it. They "happened" to be US citizens, which I don't give a damn about. Children from any nationalities should have the same rights, US citizens don't have holy rights granted by god and are not above the others, so if you selectively mention one or two, at least make a footnote about the others. Obama didn't "kill a kid, and no one noticed", administrations have done it constantly, and collateral damage is conveniently omitted each time. This one is different and dangerous. I can understand killing terrorist leaders, if done cleanly (yes it's fucking hard). This however, was clearly a crime against a sovereign nation in the legal sense. And the madness referred to is about the implications of it, not the legality. You were already at war with Al-Qaeda. You were not, officially, with Iran. The consequences could be enormous. Violating international law is a daily occurrence when it comes to US foreign policy but I think we agree it's largely Iran's strength (and regional instability we created) that makes this a particularly dangerous course of escalation we've been on for a while now with the bombings by the US, the attack on the US embassy, and now this as a rapid blip of acceleration that certainly brought us noticeably closer to what could be WW III. EDIT: There are probably people that could speak on this better than myself but this guy was one of the key people fighting ISIS or whatever. This undoubtedly will also strengthen anti-US forces within Iran and globally. We abandoned our treaty inexplicably and assassinated a top general that was key in our fight against ISIS. Pro-US (or just less vociferously anti-US) forces will most certainly lose credibility in Iran as well as globally as a result of this. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9755 Posts
You have to be a moron to be defending this from Trump. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26224 Posts
On January 03 2020 23:28 Nebuchad wrote: Good post, more nicely put than I would have been able to. Yeah I’m rather jealous of the succinctness there. At this stage people use liberalism to mean basically anything, although it does have distinct tenets and pillars. Without using suffixes like social or classical or whatever it’s a mess of a term to inject into discussions these days. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23516 Posts
What court is going to decide whether this fits under the AUMF everything else we've done for the last almost 20 years has been anyway? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26224 Posts
On January 04 2020 00:02 Jockmcplop wrote: This is the most stupid and counter productive idea I've heard since building a big wall to keep Mexicans out. You have to be a moron to be defending this from Trump. His flag tweet was almost worse than the actual action itself. It exposes why Trump does such things and the kind of jingoism that underpins a degree of his support. Meshed with his impulsiveness and not consulting the military that we’ve already soon, where does this road lead? I think tone and rationales are important things, I hesitate to bring up the previous guy in the presence of GH :p There wasn’t this scattergun sabrerattling approach though. If it was a hypothetical other time line where the US just bombed leaders who’d struck at them, then yeah fine I guess. It’s not it’s a mess of a region where Iran is bad for some reason but Saudi Arabia is fine and is an ally. Look I know there are actual reasons but you know what I mean. The American populace are a strange bunch, they like it when an IRA is doing their thing, or people resist Communism/socialism or broadly support the Hong Kong protests from what I’ve seen. The second it’s Iran or anybody pushing back on the US after decades of meddling it’s get the flags out and bomb the sand people style rhetoric. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22008 Posts
On January 04 2020 00:09 GreenHorizons wrote: No, congressional approval would have probably made it worse, since then the American people wouldn't be able to point at a rogue Trump as the reason.It's weird to me people (Senator Murphy in this case) think congressional approval would have made this better and not just indicative of them all being just as stupid/malicious as Trump on this? https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1212913952436445185 To me it looks like an attempt to wash his hands of it, but the sentiment is a logical one. If the President technically needs congressional approval to start a war (I know things have gotten a little more fuzzy since 9/11) then surely an action that is likely to 'force' the other side to declare war on you should require it aswell. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26224 Posts
On January 04 2020 00:09 GreenHorizons wrote: It's weird to me people (Senator Murphy in this case) think congressional approval would have made this better and not just indicative of them all being just as stupid/malicious as Trump on this? https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1212913952436445185 Well, I mean it seems sensible to basically require anything foreign policy related go through Congress. ‘Can we think about this for a moment?’ seems not a structural necessity here, but a necessity to deal with Trump’s whims specifically. Leaving the Kurds to it is another case in point. Even if Congress had ultimately supported doing so (more debatable than this one IMO), merely moving slower would have been desirable. They didn’t even have the logistics in place to just enact what Trump wanted when he snapped his fingers. The man doesn’t appear to understand much about the fragile politics of the region, nor even basic military logistics. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23516 Posts
| ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On January 04 2020 00:22 Gorsameth wrote: No, congressional approval would have probably made it worse, since then the American people wouldn't be able to point at a rogue Trump as the reason. To me it looks like an attempt to wash his hands of it, but the sentiment is a logical one. If the President technically needs congressional approval to start a war (I know things have gotten a little more fuzzy since 9/11) then surely an action that is likely to 'force' the other side to declare war on you should require it aswell. Congress has ceded power to the executive branch for the past 20 years so they can throw their hands up and say we don't approve of this action. They're powerless by design so they don't have accountability. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23516 Posts
This is what happens when none of the people that lied us into Iraq are held accountable (some now have shows on MSNBC). | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On January 04 2020 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote: Pompeo is already giving his version of "we'll be greeted as liberators" https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1213109661219663872 This is what happens when none of the people that lied us into Iraq are held accountable (some now have shows on MSNBC). How much I'd want to post a "freedom+bomb" meme... Congress approval, while technically would be logical and respect the separation of powers, is realistically impractical, or plain impossible, since these missions are usually decided based on last-minute intel. There is probably a few hours, maximum 1/2 days, between the arrival of intel, evaluation and planning of the mission, decision by the executive, and subsequent execution. It is not realistic to expect congress to chime in. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9262 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
My question is, why in the world was this guy there? What an awful idea. Almost makes this feel like he martyred himself. What are Iran's real options here? Nothing goes well for them. I really think their best option is to let this go. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10825 Posts
We are talking about people that openly celebrate the killing of supposed enemies like some primitive tribe. | ||
|
Vivax
22106 Posts
On January 04 2020 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote: Pompeo is already giving his version of "we'll be greeted as liberators" https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1213109661219663872 This is what happens when none of the people that lied us into Iraq are held accountable (some now have shows on MSNBC). No point in believing anything of that until you see an actual inhabitant of the region in a crowded street saying something along those lines in front of the camera. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
OSC
IPSL
Dewalt vs Bonyth
OSC
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Patches Events
|
|
|
EPT
