|
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 January 04 2020 01:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 15:30 Introvert wrote:On January 03 2020 15:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:On January 03 2020 15:23 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2020 14:04 Introvert wrote:
Good on Trump, tha US has been taking to hits for some time now but thankfully even with Trump it cant last forever. And of course we have the usual lefty reaction, which at this point is so reliable it just makes me laugh more than anything. I feel like you didn't actually try to say anything in this post other than "I laugh at how liberals are responding to this" That's usually what trump voters fall back on. I didn't vote for Trump, thanks. No, while everyone here is advancing their latest Trump conspiracy theory, I decided to chime in with some support, as I have made similarly brief comments criticizing Trump's lack of action. I'm not sure any conservative would have a hard time explaining why they think killing high-ranking terrorists is good. On January 03 2020 15:23 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2020 14:04 Introvert wrote:
Good on Trump, tha US has been taking to hits for some time now but thankfully even with Trump it cant last forever. And of course we have the usual lefty reaction, which at this point is so reliable it just makes me laugh more than anything. I feel like you didn't actually try to say anything in this post other than "I laugh at how liberals are responding to this" There were two comments, but admittedly no argument. Maybe instead of re-running the "big bad Republican" greatest hits, someone could advance a more plausible theory. It’s pretty Orwellian that an actively serving general in a recognized sovereign state, albeit a geopolitical rival, is now a “terrorist”. If they started killing our “terrorists” would we be so understanding?
The group he officially led is a designated terrorist group, so no, I have no issue calling him a terrorist. And a look through his bio should convince you of the same. This guy was a spider with a massive web connecting all sorts of horrendous actions and terrible groups.
edit: and Iran's been using proxies and surrogates for a long time now to avoid responsibility. I applaud the administration for putting them on notice that that one side of that line is no longer safe.
|
On January 04 2020 06:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2020 01:46 KwarK wrote:On January 03 2020 15:30 Introvert wrote:On January 03 2020 15:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:On January 03 2020 15:23 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2020 14:04 Introvert wrote:
Good on Trump, tha US has been taking to hits for some time now but thankfully even with Trump it cant last forever. And of course we have the usual lefty reaction, which at this point is so reliable it just makes me laugh more than anything. I feel like you didn't actually try to say anything in this post other than "I laugh at how liberals are responding to this" That's usually what trump voters fall back on. I didn't vote for Trump, thanks. No, while everyone here is advancing their latest Trump conspiracy theory, I decided to chime in with some support, as I have made similarly brief comments criticizing Trump's lack of action. I'm not sure any conservative would have a hard time explaining why they think killing high-ranking terrorists is good. On January 03 2020 15:23 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2020 14:04 Introvert wrote:
Good on Trump, tha US has been taking to hits for some time now but thankfully even with Trump it cant last forever. And of course we have the usual lefty reaction, which at this point is so reliable it just makes me laugh more than anything. I feel like you didn't actually try to say anything in this post other than "I laugh at how liberals are responding to this" There were two comments, but admittedly no argument. Maybe instead of re-running the "big bad Republican" greatest hits, someone could advance a more plausible theory. It’s pretty Orwellian that an actively serving general in a recognized sovereign state, albeit a geopolitical rival, is now a “terrorist”. If they started killing our “terrorists” would we be so understanding? The group he officially led is a designated terrorist group, so no, I have no issue calling him a terrorist. And a look through his bio should convince you of the same. This guy was a spider with a massive web connecting all sorts of horrendous actions and terrible groups. edit: and Iran's been using proxies and surrogates for a long time now to avoid responsibility. I applaud the administration for putting them on notice that that one side of that line is no longer safe.
According to Mohdoo's link they're pointing back at the US.
“It was clearly a terrorist action ... Iran will launch various legal measures at the international level to hold America to account for Soleimani’s assassination,”
|
The dude uses terrorists to do stuff, so I totally consider him a terrorist organizer or whatever. Similarly, Bolton, Pompeo etc do all the same stuff and could also be called terrorists. I'm not bothered by that being true. We can be a terrorist sympathizing state that uses terrorists for our purposes and that Iran does the same thing. Doesn't mean we can't say it's bad. You can be a hypocrite and it doesn't actually change anything. The criticism is still valid regardless of who the messenger is. I don't like that we use terrorism, but we totally do.
I'm just happy they aren't escalating. Very amazing news.
|
United States24751 Posts
It is tricky. The USA has taken some very poor action in the Middle East. If Iran declares our current SecDef a terrorist because of a recent operation that was condemned by Iran and called out as improper by our allies, may Iran strike him down at the next opportunity?
|
On January 04 2020 06:12 Mohdoo wrote:
The dude uses terrorists to do stuff, so I totally consider him a terrorist organizer or whatever. Similarly, Bolton, Pompeo etc do all the same stuff and could also be called terrorists. I'm not bothered by that being true. We can be a terrorist sympathizing state that uses terrorists for our purposes and that Iran does the same thing. Doesn't mean we can't say it's bad. You can be a hypocrite and it doesn't actually change anything. The criticism is still valid regardless of who the messenger is. I don't like that we use terrorism, but we totally do.
I'm just happy they aren't escalating. Very amazing news.
I wouldn't consider that an assurance there isn't more coming. The point of calling someone a terrorist is to make extrajudicial actions legitimate.
|
On January 04 2020 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2020 06:05 Introvert wrote:On January 04 2020 01:46 KwarK wrote:On January 03 2020 15:30 Introvert wrote:On January 03 2020 15:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:On January 03 2020 15:23 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2020 14:04 Introvert wrote:
Good on Trump, tha US has been taking to hits for some time now but thankfully even with Trump it cant last forever. And of course we have the usual lefty reaction, which at this point is so reliable it just makes me laugh more than anything. I feel like you didn't actually try to say anything in this post other than "I laugh at how liberals are responding to this" That's usually what trump voters fall back on. I didn't vote for Trump, thanks. No, while everyone here is advancing their latest Trump conspiracy theory, I decided to chime in with some support, as I have made similarly brief comments criticizing Trump's lack of action. I'm not sure any conservative would have a hard time explaining why they think killing high-ranking terrorists is good. On January 03 2020 15:23 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2020 14:04 Introvert wrote:
Good on Trump, tha US has been taking to hits for some time now but thankfully even with Trump it cant last forever. And of course we have the usual lefty reaction, which at this point is so reliable it just makes me laugh more than anything. I feel like you didn't actually try to say anything in this post other than "I laugh at how liberals are responding to this" There were two comments, but admittedly no argument. Maybe instead of re-running the "big bad Republican" greatest hits, someone could advance a more plausible theory. It’s pretty Orwellian that an actively serving general in a recognized sovereign state, albeit a geopolitical rival, is now a “terrorist”. If they started killing our “terrorists” would we be so understanding? The group he officially led is a designated terrorist group, so no, I have no issue calling him a terrorist. And a look through his bio should convince you of the same. This guy was a spider with a massive web connecting all sorts of horrendous actions and terrible groups. edit: and Iran's been using proxies and surrogates for a long time now to avoid responsibility. I applaud the administration for putting them on notice that that one side of that line is no longer safe. According to Mohdoo's link they're pointing back at the US. Show nested quote +“It was clearly a terrorist action ... Iran will launch various legal measures at the international level to hold America to account for Soleimani’s assassination,”
if they are just going to try legal action then their situation at home with the protests must be much worse than it appears. But what is more likely is that all those proxy groups that Iran funds and supports will become even more active. They will try to avoid any direct action (because they would lose) and will stick with making life hell. Still, I would be pleasantly surprised if this were to be a textbook case of "don't get in the ring if you can't take the hit."
The problem is, no one on earth not aligned with Iran is sad to see that guy go. So I don't take a word of what they say as truth, but we'll see.
|
On January 04 2020 06:12 micronesia wrote:
It is tricky. The USA has taken some very poor action in the Middle East. If Iran declares our current SecDef a terrorist because of a recent operation that was condemned by Iran and called out as improper by our allies, may Iran strike him down at the next opportunity?
It would be right in accordance with irans beliefs, just like the Iranian dude was for us. Doesn't mean we wouldn't respond though.
That's the whole point of being enemies. Terrorists vs freedom fighters depending on who you ask.
|
The iranians should just acquire the atomic bomb then the americans will only be able to bark from afar.
|
One way of responding to this from Irans side could be to not do anything aggressive at all and make a diplomatic push towards either a new deal where sanctions are dropped from the rest of the world or they keep working towards a nuclear deterent. Would isolate the US even further no matter what happens which is exactly what China and Russia want.
|
On January 04 2020 06:25 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
One way of responding to this from Irans side could be to not do anything aggressive at all and make a diplomatic push towards either a new deal where sanctions are dropped from the rest of the world or they keep working towards a nuclear deterent. Would isolate the US even further no matter what happens which is exactly what China and Russia want.
What will likely happen is Trump gets a deal slightly worse than the original Iran deal, Pat's himself on the back and then Fox news can talk about how Trump brought peace to the middle east
|
On January 03 2020 15:30 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 15:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:On January 03 2020 15:23 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2020 14:04 Introvert wrote:
Good on Trump, tha US has been taking to hits for some time now but thankfully even with Trump it cant last forever. And of course we have the usual lefty reaction, which at this point is so reliable it just makes me laugh more than anything. I feel like you didn't actually try to say anything in this post other than "I laugh at how liberals are responding to this" That's usually what trump voters fall back on. I didn't vote for Trump, thanks. No, while everyone here is advancing their latest Trump conspiracy theory, I decided to chime in with some support, as I have made similarly brief comments criticizing Trump's lack of action. I'm not sure any conservative would have a hard time explaining why they think killing high-ranking terrorists is good. Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 15:23 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2020 14:04 Introvert wrote:
Good on Trump, tha US has been taking to hits for some time now but thankfully even with Trump it cant last forever. And of course we have the usual lefty reaction, which at this point is so reliable it just makes me laugh more than anything. I feel like you didn't actually try to say anything in this post other than "I laugh at how liberals are responding to this" There were two comments, but admittedly no argument. Maybe instead of re-running the "big bad Republican" greatest hits, someone could advance a more plausible theory.
Usually the people who support trump are the ones who voted for him.
And if you are all for war, by all means please be the first person in line to put on that uniform, grab a gun and fly across the world to start shooting people... the army will gladly take you. If you support it, I think you and the other people who support it should be the ones going to get the job done.
My understanding is that most trump supporters voted for him to stay out of world conflicts and focus on "making America great." I'm pretty sure the man himself ran on that very same idea... bring the troops home, etc...
And this is where you all got conned and continue to get scammed.
Here it is from the mans own mouth, a projection... projecting his own self onto another person (one of his special talents). You can be sure if you want to know what trump is actually doing, you just need to pay attention to what he blames and judges other people for doing... and you will find what is shadow is or will be acting out.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/03/video-trump-warning-our-president-will-start-war-iran-because-he-has-absolutely-no
Scary af.
|
On January 04 2020 02:16 IgnE wrote:
What happens?
I mean it’s not just land access. From the wiki it sounds like Iran won by “going dark.” We also have nearly two decades of improved surveillance technology and we are twenty years further removed from the WW2 low-tech methods used in the simulation. I don’t think the US has learned nothing about fighting low tech armies in the Middle East since 2002.
You ever see the movie 300?
Point being that the arrogant ass usually is the one who loses, by overestimating their position. In this situation, who do you think the US is, the arrogant one, or the one taking the situation very seriously?
I'm pretty sure we've been wrong about all our middle east conflicts, maybe with the acceptation of desert storm. That seemed to play out fast, and decisive... Look at Afghanistan, what ever we learned hasn't help us win there.
|
Canada5565 Posts
Does anyone know of a list of politicians pushing for war with Iran? My guess is mostly Republican and a fair number of Democrats. I like to think (maybe naively) the pro-war/anti-war divide is a more meaningful long-term distinction than party allegiance.
|
On January 04 2020 07:42 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2020 02:16 IgnE wrote:
What happens?
I mean it’s not just land access. From the wiki it sounds like Iran won by “going dark.” We also have nearly two decades of improved surveillance technology and we are twenty years further removed from the WW2 low-tech methods used in the simulation. I don’t think the US has learned nothing about fighting low tech armies in the Middle East since 2002. You ever see the movie 300? Point being that the arrogant ass usually is the one who loses, by overestimating their position. In this situation, who do you think the US is, the arrogant one, or the one taking the situation very seriously? I'm pretty sure we've been wrong about all our middle east conflicts, maybe with the acceptation of desert storm. That seemed to play out fast, and decisive... Look at Afghanistan, what ever we learned hasn't help us win there.
If the goal is to take land, destroy opposing forces or quick strike a target the US is unparalleled in its ability to do all of those things. What the US sucks at, has always sucked at, and will continue to suck at is occupations. It's why Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq part II were disasters. If the US wants to waste $$$ and material on a conventional war or just go in and fuck things up there isn't a country out there that could meaningfully challenge its might. The fact the US military is so good at doing these things is also a domestic disaster because it emboldens idiotic politicians and Presidents to unilaterally use it at their convenience or whim. It's why many of our Founders were suspicious of standing armies and executive waging of war by fiat.
|
On January 04 2020 10:29 Xxio wrote:
Does anyone know of a list of politicians pushing for war with Iran? My guess is mostly Republican and a fair number of Democrats. I like to think (maybe naively) the pro-war/anti-war divide is a more meaningful long-term distinction than party allegiance.
Foreign policy is about the only bi-partisan consensus (just look at how Ron Paul was treated on this issue). The "grassroots" anti-war movement only shows its face whenever the President is a Republican. Clinton, Obama, Johnson/Kennedy, Roosevelt, Truman, W. Wilson, etc. all awful war-mongers, but they get a pass for some reason. Better than no opposition at any time I suppose, but let's not pretend it's ideological and not partisan opposition.
|
On January 04 2020 10:52 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2020 10:29 Xxio wrote:
Does anyone know of a list of politicians pushing for war with Iran? My guess is mostly Republican and a fair number of Democrats. I like to think (maybe naively) the pro-war/anti-war divide is a more meaningful long-term distinction than party allegiance. Foreign policy is about the only bi-partisan consensus (just look at how Ron Paul was treated on this issue). The "grassroots" anti-war movement only shows its face whenever the President is a Republican. Clinton, Obama, Johnson/Kennedy, Roosevelt, Truman, W. Wilson, etc. all awful war-mongers, but they get a pass for some reason. Better than no opposition at any time I suppose, but let's not pretend it's ideological and not partisan opposition.
I'm gonna need a citation on Franklin Roosevelt being an "awful war-monger" and Johnson getting a pass for it. And that's just for starters.
|
How would you guys feel if Iran would somehow manage to blow up some US equivalent rank of this commander Suleimani as a 1 on 1 response? (in a targeted attack not some big damage wave) Would that warrant a big military escalation, even if it would basically be a tit for tat?
|
On January 04 2020 11:59 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
How would you guys feel if Iran would somehow manage to blow up some US equivalent rank of this commander Suleimani as a 1 on 1 response? (in a targeted attack not some big damage wave) Would that warrant a big military escalation, even if it would basically be a tit for tat?
Justified in my opinion, but I can't see most politicians sticking their head out and not calling for escalation as a result of a citizens death at the hands of a foreign nation unfortunately.
Pretty sure most of the higher ranks are white and not brown unlike khashoggi, and also not killed by a nation that has trump by the balls. Just a sad state of affairs unfortunately.
Smartest thing Iran could do on all honesty is not retaliate militarily as nobody wins there except the warmongers.
|
On January 04 2020 11:59 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
How would you guys feel if Iran would somehow manage to blow up some US equivalent rank of this commander Suleimani as a 1 on 1 response? (in a targeted attack not some big damage wave) Would that warrant a big military escalation, even if it would basically be a tit for tat?
there really isn't currently a guy equivalent to him. Hes the guy who basically runs the Iran sponsored militias outside of Iran not the regular army groups not a regular army general or a minister of defence. Without going into the recent history of religious militias in response to ISIS an equivalent to him would be a CIA or Jsoc (join special operations command) general who, for fairly obvious reasons, will probably be deep inside of an airforce base in florida or fort bragg in north Carolina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Clarke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_A._Howell
One of these two is probably the closest. All due respect to them neither is a national hero or notable commander of events that someone on a news channel can easily point to.
Iran has a selection of fairly effective responses that don't involve a tit for tat assassination. any threatening of the straight of Hormuz means a massive spike to global oil price and a strategic threat to China and India's economy causing friction with the trade war already going on with china and the us. Going to the UN and making a large hooplah about international assassinations would create a lot of space for them to finally get the bomb.
My money is on them making the case that this is why they need the bomb. Its what they want and china won't risk them threatening the straight of Hormuz, expecialy when it would only help america. A military escalation plays into trumps hand and throws them into the mud. They made sure the Militias came off looking nonviolent and a public international assassination doesn't play well.
|
On January 04 2020 06:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2020 06:12 micronesia wrote:
It is tricky. The USA has taken some very poor action in the Middle East. If Iran declares our current SecDef a terrorist because of a recent operation that was condemned by Iran and called out as improper by our allies, may Iran strike him down at the next opportunity? It would be right in accordance with irans beliefs, just like the Iranian dude was for us. Doesn't mean we wouldn't respond though. That's the whole point of being enemies. Terrorists vs freedom fighters depending on who you ask.
That in itself is a good reason to drop both terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
