|
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 09 2020 04:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 04:02 JimmiC wrote:
Question, if Iran intentionally did no damage to the US on purpose how does that play internally? Are the Iranian's calling for blood satisfied with property damage in exchange for life of their general?
I hope so because I don't want any escalation but it seems like if it becomes clear they didn't want to hit anything it isn't much of a response, and if it becomes clear that they tried to do damage and didn't do any that does not seem great as well. Is the spin that "we wanted to show the American's and we could hit them and will if they do something like this again"? Iran media reports 80 us troops dead from their strike
Do you have a source on this? Nowhere is reporting American casualties and it's been suggested by multiple news outlets that Iran deliberately avoided casualties to avoid escalation. The intent, from what I have read, was more as a warning to show that they have the means to cause a great deal of damage if they wanted to. This also aligns with Iran's later statements on the issue.
|
On January 09 2020 04:46 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 04:05 Mohdoo wrote:On January 09 2020 04:02 JimmiC wrote:
Question, if Iran intentionally did no damage to the US on purpose how does that play internally? Are the Iranian's calling for blood satisfied with property damage in exchange for life of their general?
I hope so because I don't want any escalation but it seems like if it becomes clear they didn't want to hit anything it isn't much of a response, and if it becomes clear that they tried to do damage and didn't do any that does not seem great as well. Is the spin that "we wanted to show the American's and we could hit them and will if they do something like this again"? Iran media reports 80 us troops dead from their strike Do you have a source on this? Nowhere is reporting American casualties and it's been suggested by multiple news outlets that Iran deliberately avoided casualties to avoid escalation. The intent, from what I have read, was more as a warning to show that they have the means to cause a great deal of damage if they wanted to. This also aligns with Iran's later statements on the issue.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-state-media-claims-more-than-80-us-soldiers-killed-in-missile-barrage/
Super duper state sponsored propaganda to placate the masses, but still relevant.
|
On January 09 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 04:17 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 03:57 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 09 2020 03:44 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 03:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 09 2020 03:22 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 03:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 09 2020 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:On January 09 2020 02:19 Gorsameth wrote:On January 09 2020 02:10 franzji wrote:
[quote]
This isn't television, if a bad guy who has more bad things planned to kill Americans is dead... why should he not be happy. Take some time to read some history. To get you started you should read up on the 1953 coup, might give you some insight into why America is hated. American can be the 100% bad guys, as a whole, of the situation, while Sol dying is also a good thing for the US military. I don't think I follow your logic. 1. USA does a bunch of bad shit to Iran that makes Iran and the whole region way worse 2. Iran and USA end up as huge enemies because of USA interference, basically the US makes things even worse 3. Iran and USA fight and stuff, where Soleimani ends up being a big name and a very well regarded part of Iran's military 4. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 5. Iran blows up some sand and accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost 6. This specific spat seems to have been a net positive for USA military Note: Bad for the world, good for USA military. Yes, the entire situation is their making. But looking at the situation for what it currently is, killing a big name general and not losing a single soldier is a fantastic result for USA military. Trump is entirely incapable of 4d chess but Iran is not. So far everything has gone extremely well for Iran after the assassination. They never wanted to kill any Americans with the strikes (telling the world in advanced they would use conventional military options, posturing the missile launchers and the warning Iraq whom they knew would immediately send the info to the US...) and the managed to do exactly that. 1. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 2. Iran restarts nuclear program. 3. Iran blows up some sand and (maybe) accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost. However Iran demonstrates military capability, diplomatic responsibility and comes out with the diplomatic high-ground. 4. The US decides to let Iran get away with launching a direct military attack against their bases. 5. No one talks about Iranian nukes and other countries are not interested in additional sanctions. Killing 10, 20 or a hundred US soldiers give you nothing except being bombed into oblivion. Far better having an active nuclear program, the US being seen as unstable, destabilizing and dangerous and you having the moral high ground when the time comes for Trump to try to persuade the rest of the world into new harsher sanctions. I mean, it is highly likely that they accidentally shot down a plane leaving their airport, right over their capital.. That's pretty embarrassing considering they try to use the plane that America shot down in the early 80s on accident as anti-American propaganda. Also, a lot of their missiles they launched failed to even explode in Iraq. A lot of news agencies were trying to get close to them but were told they didn't explode... That's really not "extreamly well for Iran" If they shoot down a plane that's bad. But if you don't want to kill anyone missiles not exploding is fine. The strike on the Saudi oilplant was accurate and effective and Iran was supposedly behind that... People focus to much on "how did it go" and not so much on "what did they want". If your desire is to: Show strength to your people. Be seen as reliable. Not get blown back to the stoneage. Then it worked out perfectly. There is going to be so much propaganda going around anyway (80 dead, missiles didn't explode etc) so it hardly matters if the rockets were armed with wet paper bags. T hey launched ~20 rockets at US bases, they hit (something) and the US let them get away with it. Great story internally. It was a measured military response and not a terrorist attack. Great story diplomatically. And they didn't kill anyone so the US could not bomb the shit out of them with a straight face. Not blown back into the stoneage. = Great success. If I had posted 1 week ago that any country on earth just launched 20 rockets against a US military base as an official attack and the response was "this is fine" people would have thought I was mad so I think Iran is pretty happy about the outcome. They didn't shoot 20, stop spreading misinformation, it was 15, with 4 of them failing in the air, unsure how many reached the target and failed to explode. The bases are also not US bases, but are Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops. Oh no it was 15 rockets not 20. Does that make even the slightest difference? And does anyone care if it was technically a US base or not. There was American soldiers on site and they took a shot at it. If they had hit a full barracks and killed 100 marines shit would have hit the fan regardless of it being an "Iraqi" base. That didn't happen and it was clearly intentional. It does matter, for reasons I shouldn't have to explain. I hope you take this same need for precision and accuracy when you read Trumps tweets and watch fox news.
I don't watch fox news so.
|
On January 09 2020 05:05 franzji wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 09 2020 04:17 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 03:57 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 09 2020 03:44 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 03:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 09 2020 03:22 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 03:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 09 2020 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:On January 09 2020 02:19 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Take some time to read some history.
To get you started you should read up on the 1953 coup, might give you some insight into why America is hated. American can be the 100% bad guys, as a whole, of the situation, while Sol dying is also a good thing for the US military. I don't think I follow your logic. 1. USA does a bunch of bad shit to Iran that makes Iran and the whole region way worse 2. Iran and USA end up as huge enemies because of USA interference, basically the US makes things even worse 3. Iran and USA fight and stuff, where Soleimani ends up being a big name and a very well regarded part of Iran's military 4. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 5. Iran blows up some sand and accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost 6. This specific spat seems to have been a net positive for USA military Note: Bad for the world, good for USA military. Yes, the entire situation is their making. But looking at the situation for what it currently is, killing a big name general and not losing a single soldier is a fantastic result for USA military. Trump is entirely incapable of 4d chess but Iran is not. So far everything has gone extremely well for Iran after the assassination. They never wanted to kill any Americans with the strikes (telling the world in advanced they would use conventional military options, posturing the missile launchers and the warning Iraq whom they knew would immediately send the info to the US...) and the managed to do exactly that. 1. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 2. Iran restarts nuclear program. 3. Iran blows up some sand and (maybe) accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost. However Iran demonstrates military capability, diplomatic responsibility and comes out with the diplomatic high-ground. 4. The US decides to let Iran get away with launching a direct military attack against their bases. 5. No one talks about Iranian nukes and other countries are not interested in additional sanctions. Killing 10, 20 or a hundred US soldiers give you nothing except being bombed into oblivion. Far better having an active nuclear program, the US being seen as unstable, destabilizing and dangerous and you having the moral high ground when the time comes for Trump to try to persuade the rest of the world into new harsher sanctions. I mean, it is highly likely that they accidentally shot down a plane leaving their airport, right over their capital.. That's pretty embarrassing considering they try to use the plane that America shot down in the early 80s on accident as anti-American propaganda. Also, a lot of their missiles they launched failed to even explode in Iraq. A lot of news agencies were trying to get close to them but were told they didn't explode... That's really not "extreamly well for Iran" If they shoot down a plane that's bad. But if you don't want to kill anyone missiles not exploding is fine. The strike on the Saudi oilplant was accurate and effective and Iran was supposedly behind that... People focus to much on "how did it go" and not so much on "what did they want". If your desire is to: Show strength to your people. Be seen as reliable. Not get blown back to the stoneage. Then it worked out perfectly. There is going to be so much propaganda going around anyway (80 dead, missiles didn't explode etc) so it hardly matters if the rockets were armed with wet paper bags. T hey launched ~20 rockets at US bases, they hit (something) and the US let them get away with it. Great story internally. It was a measured military response and not a terrorist attack. Great story diplomatically. And they didn't kill anyone so the US could not bomb the shit out of them with a straight face. Not blown back into the stoneage. = Great success. If I had posted 1 week ago that any country on earth just launched 20 rockets against a US military base as an official attack and the response was "this is fine" people would have thought I was mad so I think Iran is pretty happy about the outcome. They didn't shoot 20, stop spreading misinformation, it was 15, with 4 of them failing in the air, unsure how many reached the target and failed to explode. The bases are also not US bases, but are Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops. Oh no it was 15 rockets not 20. Does that make even the slightest difference? And does anyone care if it was technically a US base or not. There was American soldiers on site and they took a shot at it. If they had hit a full barracks and killed 100 marines shit would have hit the fan regardless of it being an "Iraqi" base. That didn't happen and it was clearly intentional. It does matter, for reasons I shouldn't have to explain. I hope you take this same need for precision and accuracy when you read Trumps tweets and watch fox news. I don't watch fox news so.
You should. It brings perspective even if it's complete bullshit.
As cliche as it sounds truth is the first casualty of war so take absolutely everything with a huge grain of salt. That is why I don't think the exact number of anything is even remotely important in scenarios like this because on one hand it's going to be 15 (and 4 were duds!) and on the other side it's 22 and they killed 80 people.
|
On January 09 2020 04:02 JimmiC wrote:
Question, if Iran intentionally did no damage to the US on purpose how does that play internally? Are the Iranian's calling for blood satisfied with property damage in exchange for life of their general?
I hope so because I don't want any escalation but it seems like if it becomes clear they didn't want to hit anything it isn't much of a response, and if it becomes clear that they tried to do damage and didn't do any that does not seem great as well. Is the spin that "we wanted to show the American's and we could hit them and will if they do something like this again"?
You mean, something like "we hit US bases directly, openly. Their missile defense system didn't catch any of them, and they did not retaliate because we are in the right !" plays bad internally ?
They could also have gone ham, started a war, and that would have played very badly since they would lose.
Some of them may not think it's enough, but they saved face and showed their people that they had the balls to attack the US frontly. It's enough I guess.
|
|
|
On January 09 2020 05:36 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 05:30 Nouar wrote:On January 09 2020 04:02 JimmiC wrote:
Question, if Iran intentionally did no damage to the US on purpose how does that play internally? Are the Iranian's calling for blood satisfied with property damage in exchange for life of their general?
I hope so because I don't want any escalation but it seems like if it becomes clear they didn't want to hit anything it isn't much of a response, and if it becomes clear that they tried to do damage and didn't do any that does not seem great as well. Is the spin that "we wanted to show the American's and we could hit them and will if they do something like this again"? You mean, something like "we hit US bases directly, openly. Their missile defense system didn't catch any of them, and they did not retaliate because we are in the right !" plays bad internally ? They could also have gone ham, started a war, and that would have played very badly since they would lose. Some of them may not think it's enough, but they saved face and showed their people that they had the balls to attack the US frontly. It's enough I guess. I think what you are saying is logical but from what I have read about what the government has said and the glory of Jihad and Martyrdom it is better to die fighting for the Jihad than make a logical calculated move. This is not close to eye for an eye. I'm not saying that I don't think that Iran played this well strategically, I'm just thinking that the zealots that want blood won't be remotely appeased by this action. But then again I don't know how much access to information the people in Iran have and if it is controlled like in China, they could be getting a completely different story than we are.
The majority of citizens of Iran are not mindless zealots, it's not Daesh or anything. It's a pretty cultural and litterate country, though they are for sure getting news tilted towards their side with a large bit of propaganda. There are quite a lot of madmen of course... But they are mainly fighting for regional influence for their country, not holy war (despite the rethoric against US/Israel, since they mainly see them as a death threat against themselves).
Religion is usually more of a means to keep people's beliefs in check to control them, except in extreme cases like Daesh/ISIS.
These guys are experienced politicians, and to stay in power, you need to be alive. Taking reckless moves against an overwhelming force is... questionable. Same case for NK.
I really believe it's fine. The speech from their leader was pretty harsh (needed for their public), but they clearly mentioned to the rest of the world that is the US was not going to retaliate, that's the end of it. (militia, another matter.)
Now, everything is not over. There are still sources of tension :
- The US decided on more sanctions. Will Iran take it with only complaining ? Probably...
- The plane that went down. It's fishy. Iranians will give their government hell if they shot it down themselves, so in this case, they are going to try to conceal what's possible. It may have started already. While the US and others will push for an open investigation in hope to uncover dirt (and also, the truth. But mostly, dirt on Iran.)
- Militia have started their retaliation despite Iraki government's call for calm. Several rockets have just landed in the green zone, looks like they missed the US embassy. If there is real damage, are the US going to hold Iran responsible for not holding them on a tighter leash ? Could be. Depends on the damage I guess.
|
Completely unrelated, but I love how the Iranian state controlled media outlet is called Fars (farce...).
Also, someone should really re-invite xDaunt and that other guy back to this thread. As a frequent lurker here, I have to say that it has gone stale ever since GH is the only extremist here. And it's generally good to get the "other side's" point of view presented in an intelligent way.
|
Now the dust has settled, this really was textbook Trump.
1. Start a fire
2. Stoke the fire
3. Blame someone else
4. Allow it to die down
5. Claim to have put it out.
We can expect a lot more of this leading up to the election, and that is a huge issue. The world is extremely lucky Iran was proportionate in their response, but the next party Trump gaslights may not be.
|
On January 09 2020 06:37 Elroi wrote:
Completely unrelated, but I love how the Iranian state controlled media outlet is called Fars (farce...).
Also, someone should really re-invite xDaunt and that other guy back to this thread. As a frequent lurker here, I have to say that it has gone stale ever since GH is the only extremist here. And it's generally good to get the "other side's" point of view presented in an intelligent way.
Maybe xDaunt. I'm happy Danglars is gone. I've rarely seen someone use so many words to say so little.
|
United States43968 Posts
On January 09 2020 06:37 Elroi wrote:
Completely unrelated, but I love how the Iranian state controlled media outlet is called Fars (farce...).
Also, someone should really re-invite xDaunt and that other guy back to this thread. As a frequent lurker here, I have to say that it has gone stale ever since GH is the only extremist here. And it's generally good to get the "other side's" point of view presented in an intelligent way.
I can do a fair simulacrum of xDaunt. Would you like me to be pointlessly obtuse and then insist you’re not understanding my point or insist you’re not understanding first, then follow it with being obtuse?
|
On January 09 2020 06:52 Belisarius wrote:
Now the dust has settled, this really was textbook Trump.
1. Start a fire
2. Stoke the fire
3. Blame someone else
4. Allow it to die down
5. Claim to have put it out.
We can expect a lot more of this leading up to the election, and that is a huge issue. The world is extremely lucky Iran was proportionate in their response, but the next party Trump gaslights may not be.
The Iranians are also lucky.
|
|
|
Canada5565 Posts
On January 09 2020 06:37 Elroi wrote:
Completely unrelated, but I love how the Iranian state controlled media outlet is called Fars (farce...).
Also, someone should really re-invite xDaunt and that other guy back to this thread. As a frequent lurker here, I have to say that it has gone stale ever since GH is the only extremist here. And it's generally good to get the "other side's" point of view presented in an intelligent way. There are plenty of extremists in this thread.
|
If you count the extremely delusional then even more.
|
On January 08 2020 23:51 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2020 23:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:...
If democrats really want to win, they would endorse Sanders... His fundraising, his backing by the youth, and the excitement that has always been behind him I believe would overwhelm trump's campaign ez, and bring real change to the US.
...
I find it very difficult to believe Sanders would defeat Trump easily; in practice a left-wing candidate probably needs significantly more than 50% to win and I doubt even half the American voting public is politically closer than Sanders than Trump (which is not to say that Sanders cannot be carried over the line by sheer personal distaste for Trump). It's possible he's the strongest candidate but that is more a condemnation of the others than a compliment to Sanders.
trump won riding Sanders coat tails in 2016. Nobody wanted the status quo to continue, Sanders and trump both represented the non-status quo. Since Sanders was forced out by the dem party, we lost... Also with tons of cheating by republicans, and so many other factors... it was a perfect storm of so many things for trump to get into office.
But things haven't really changed, people still don't want to go back to the way things were... they want meaningful and large change in regard to the climate, healthcare, etc... The ideas Sanders supports are quite popular even amongst republicans.
Literally the only appeal Joe has is that he's a "strong male" and can out bulldog trump. Besides getting trump out of office, does anyone really want a Biden presidency?
Sanders can appeal to the people who voted trump because they wanted something truly different, but then realized they got scammed and grifted by the man.
Hell amazon only increased their wages to 15 per hour because Sanders went around the country talking to people and holding gathering to apply pressure and it worked. Helping people working at amazon increase their wages is something that appeals to all the working class, not just the left.
Biden hasn't done anything like that.
Plus we simply already tried the centrist approach... it failed, I don't think it will work this time.
Sanders did a town hall on Fox News, check out the responses he gets... It could be somehow the town hall just got packed with sanders supporters, but I think that isn't extremely likely.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 09 2020 00:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2020 23:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On January 08 2020 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Does anyone have an idea of how we get from where we are to this Scandinavian social democracy (which as practiced is still unsustainable) in the decade we have to get there if we want to keep the probability of mass extinction under ~50%?
When I entertain electoralism the closest I can come is.
Sanders wins 2020. First 2 years are nothing but roadblocks, and like Obama, he's handed an economy in free fall. During that time disillusioned Sanders supporters and socialists unite to replace the entirety of congress and the Senate and in Sanders second term he can sign the radical legislation necessary to avert what the best available science tells us is near certain doom otherwise.
People that aren't supporting Sanders as that sort of last hope seem to completely avoid reconciling how voting for anyone but Sanders keeps us on a trajectory toward irreversible (on a non geological time scale) and catastrophic ecological collapse.
As far as I can tell the science says anyone accepting anything less radical than Sanders is supporting not only dooms the global south (as the Scandinavian model does) but makes global catastrophic climate collapse certain.
I can't imagine and don't think anyone can, a scenario where Biden wins the nomination and we make the radical changes in the time needed through any other explanation than magic and hope. Your description of a Sanders win sounds pretty ideal to me. I'm even starting to lose faith in Warren, the way she seems to pander to the center. Faltering on medicare for all, and seeing Castro endorse her, while not at all a bad thing (I think they are both rather progressive), was extremely depressing to me... and felt mostly like a statement of how desperate the democratic power structure is to hold onto the way things are. If democrats really want to win, they would endorse Sanders... His fundraising, his backing by the youth, and the excitement that has always been behind him I believe would overwhelm trump's campaign ez, and bring real change to the US. I don't at all trust the democratic party to do anything but split the party between the center and his supporters. We tried the center in 2016 and we lost, despite that... they will fight to the last to desperately hold onto the status quo. I think at this point everyone knows it... yet... They do EVERYTHING but acknowledge him, for anything... at the very least they could acknowledge him as someone running in the race. The only way Sanders can lose is if the establishment consolidates around 1 candidate before super Tuesday. Otherwise no one has the combination of money, volunteer infrastructure, and polling to compete with Sanders in the super Tuesday states that Democrats will rely on in November. What needed to happen for a candidate to supplant Biden or Sanders was an Obama like campaign and none of them managed to put it all together. It's not something that can manifest in the time they have, even with good performances leading up to super Tuesday. The only way for the Dems to stop Sanders at this point is to get it to a 3-way race with Sanders, Warren, and an establishment consolidating pick. That or banking on their defense of 2016 that they can pick the nominee without consideration for primary votes if they wish (it would be politically absurd).
The way they abused the electoral college in 2016 was disgusting.
States Sanders won by 80% of the vote, would have 4 delegates 3 which would go to Clinton and 1 which would go to Sanders.
I think what really needs to happen is Warren to show she is a true liberal, and concede just before the race and throw all her support behind Sanders. He makes her the VP, and it changes the country.
I actually believe both of them have a good enough heart to make the right choice regardless, but seeing Warren's drop in the polls and her leaning toward the center as of late has me truly lose faith in her as a primary runner.
Up until lately I didn't care if it was Warren or Sanders who stepped aside for the other person, but now I think it has to be Sander getting backed by Warren. He's got all the excitement, the fundraising, climbing in the polls...
Coming back to my earlier point... If the dem party threw their money behind Sanders, the fundraising would be insane... but they never really will do that, because they at their core right now are greedy fucks, clinging to power. I'm sorry to say, but it's true.
Biden looks just mediocre at BEST right now... Sanders looks phenomenal... If they really cared most about winning why wouldn't you draft the best performing player?
Because you care more about losing power, and you are beholden to the people who funded you.
|
Distinguishing between extremist and radical would be helpful for this conversation. I don't know that anyone here is an extremist (including Daunt and GH)
|
|
|
On January 09 2020 01:39 Xxio wrote:No retaliation from U.S., sanctions remain, wants peace with Iran. Great speech by Trump just concluded on the White House YT channel.
Great speech...? In what way?
Iran was a forest fire trump started himself, then claims to put it out... though I would give more credit to Iran for that. Then says, "all is well..." as if that was part of his plan.
Unless sarcasm... I don't get how that was a great speech.
trump wants to win the election, I don't think he cares at all about peace. He knows that if he doesn't win, there is a good chance he'll spend the rest of his life in jail. Being president is the only thing preventing that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
