|
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 17:23 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 12:43 Aquanim wrote:On January 09 2020 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 09 2020 12:21 Aquanim wrote:On January 09 2020 07:57 IgnE wrote:
is GH a 9/11 truther? that doesnt seem right I suggest you read (for instance) the conversation following this post and draw your own conclusions. I'm amazed you somehow dug that up. How in the world did you find a post from 2018? I remembered linking the conversation sometime in 2019 and found that instead. The conversation we're having now has reoccured a few times (up to and including the question you just asked). That is amazing - and doesn't it kind of support my point that this thread needs new, in this case right-wing, perspectives to be interesting and not only an echo-chamber?
You say this but you really don't want this. You can look at the convos between JimmiC and GH for the experience.
On January 09 2020 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 13:24 JimmiC wrote:On January 09 2020 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 09 2020 12:21 Aquanim wrote:On January 09 2020 07:57 IgnE wrote:
is GH a 9/11 truther? that doesnt seem right I suggest you read (for instance) the conversation following this post and draw your own conclusions. I definitely didn't take the position that "9/11 was the CIA." as can be read there. To argue I did is simply dishonest. My apologies ... ...My apologies, again. Apology accepted.
Now Gh knows that JimmiC had a full post with context and sarcasm. But why give him the tiniest respect and not look like a douche when he can snip the post, misinterpret what he said, and assert that this is the reality of what JimmiC posted.
Repeat 30+ times until you 1. Lose interest and stay around like a creepy uncle who keeps coming to thanksgiving despite no one giving a shit about him 2. Lose interest and just never show up again or 3. Go off the deep end and get baned.
Especially in this discourse climate there really isn't anything other then what you think is an "echo chamber". TL is still probably the best there is out there.
In lighter news, The ohio state Medical board is accepting a petition for weather being a sports fan of the browns or bangles qualifys for medical pot.
|
On January 09 2020 23:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 23:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 09 2020 22:49 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 09 2020 22:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 09 2020 22:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 09 2020 22:18 Slydie wrote:
Theoretical question but how would Hillary have dealt with Iran? She probably would not have redrawn from the treaty but the middle East is a hard nut for any president. Obama and Clinton were very far from perfect... As you say, not leave the treaty and allow relations to slowly improve? Is any more 'dealing with' needed? I don't know if Iran would have been particularly cooperative though. Say what you want about Trump, he makes some reasonable points about Iran. They aren't the innocent little children here, they are waging quite a vicious anti-coalition war in the ME (whether or not its their right to do so is another question, but I can't imagine Hilary disagreeing with Trump on anything except the operational specifics). I don't know that Hilary would have been much better than Trump in this, just more competent at the disaster management that is a natural part of US policy in the ME. Bad actors exist in the region, it’s harder to find a decent one it’s not really a reasonable point if you’ll let Saudi Arabia kill journalists and not give them so much as a slap on the wrist. Or refrain from criticising Israel on anything. Added to the backdrop of the Trump administration’s continual attacks on multilateral institutions, traditional allies in NATO, cheerleading Britain leaving the EU, leaving the Kurds to it etc etc. I think his and his administration’s actions thus far represent far more than a mere difference in methodology, they’re a clear break from what we saw under Obama in both rhetoric and action. I was talking mostly about the difference between Hilary and Trump specifically regarding Iran, rather than taking into account their ME foreign policy as a whole. I could have made that clearer. I think if you look at a 4 year term, Hilary and Trump's main difference would be in what they said about Iran, rather than what they did about Iran. Honestly I think they would both be as vulnerable as each other to being led by senior military figures in their attitude to foreign policy. Hilary would just figure out a way to explain it that seems justified, whereas Trump doesn't give a fuck. Obviously I can't actually know that. Do you think Hilary would have left the Treaty? I think she would have remained in, which would be a major difference in policy. I think Trump left not because it was necessarily bad but because it was Obama. Not unlike what he did with NAFTA, which worked marginally at least in getting some concessions from Mexico. I think he thinks everyone will make new better deals with him because America is such a big market and they need him more than he needs them. And this was true with Mexico and Canada, but not with Iran or China. Non Democratic countries can play a much longer game.
The deal was not sustainable unless both parties fully believed in it, and I think even with Hilary in charge neither side actually would have believed in it.
I don't think she would have been as aggressive as Trump, but given that they both probably want broadly the same things from the region Trump's strategy is more likely to work imo than both sides trying to pretend that they trust each other.
Iran already made a good deal with Trump. He gets to claim a huge kill while portraying to Americans how bad and evil Iran is and all they did in return was blow up some stuff.
If Iran really are de-escalating now that's a massive win. The wildcard I suppose is how much the population of Iran wants revenge.
|
On January 10 2020 00:36 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 17:23 Elroi wrote:On January 09 2020 12:43 Aquanim wrote:On January 09 2020 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 09 2020 12:21 Aquanim wrote:On January 09 2020 07:57 IgnE wrote:
is GH a 9/11 truther? that doesnt seem right I suggest you read (for instance) the conversation following this post and draw your own conclusions. I'm amazed you somehow dug that up. How in the world did you find a post from 2018? I remembered linking the conversation sometime in 2019 and found that instead. The conversation we're having now has reoccured a few times (up to and including the question you just asked). That is amazing - and doesn't it kind of support my point that this thread needs new, in this case right-wing, perspectives to be interesting and not only an echo-chamber? You say this but you really don't want this. You can look at the convos between JimmiC and GH for the experience. Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 09 2020 13:24 JimmiC wrote:On January 09 2020 13:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 09 2020 12:21 Aquanim wrote:On January 09 2020 07:57 IgnE wrote:
is GH a 9/11 truther? that doesnt seem right I suggest you read (for instance) the conversation following this post and draw your own conclusions. I definitely didn't take the position that "9/11 was the CIA." as can be read there. To argue I did is simply dishonest. My apologies ... ...My apologies, again. Apology accepted. Now Gh knows that JimmiC had a full post with context and sarcasm. But why give him the tiniest respect and not look like a douche when he can snip the post, misinterpret what he said, and assert that this is the reality of what JimmiC posted. Repeat 30+ times until you 1. Lose interest and stay around like a creepy uncle who keeps coming to thanksgiving despite no one giving a shit about him 2. Lose interest and just never show up again or 3. Go off the deep end and get baned. Especially in this discourse climate there really isn't anything other then what you think is an "echo chamber". TL is still probably the best there is out there. In lighter news, The ohio state Medical board is accepting a petition for weather being a sports fan of the browns or bangles qualifys for medical pot.
'
Lots of reasons not to waste everyone's time arguing with him and some others anymore.
|
|
|
On January 10 2020 01:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 09 2020 23:56 JimmiC wrote:On January 09 2020 23:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 09 2020 22:49 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 09 2020 22:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 09 2020 22:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 09 2020 22:18 Slydie wrote:
Theoretical question but how would Hillary have dealt with Iran? She probably would not have redrawn from the treaty but the middle East is a hard nut for any president. Obama and Clinton were very far from perfect... As you say, not leave the treaty and allow relations to slowly improve? Is any more 'dealing with' needed? I don't know if Iran would have been particularly cooperative though. Say what you want about Trump, he makes some reasonable points about Iran. They aren't the innocent little children here, they are waging quite a vicious anti-coalition war in the ME (whether or not its their right to do so is another question, but I can't imagine Hilary disagreeing with Trump on anything except the operational specifics). I don't know that Hilary would have been much better than Trump in this, just more competent at the disaster management that is a natural part of US policy in the ME. Bad actors exist in the region, it’s harder to find a decent one it’s not really a reasonable point if you’ll let Saudi Arabia kill journalists and not give them so much as a slap on the wrist. Or refrain from criticising Israel on anything. Added to the backdrop of the Trump administration’s continual attacks on multilateral institutions, traditional allies in NATO, cheerleading Britain leaving the EU, leaving the Kurds to it etc etc. I think his and his administration’s actions thus far represent far more than a mere difference in methodology, they’re a clear break from what we saw under Obama in both rhetoric and action. I was talking mostly about the difference between Hilary and Trump specifically regarding Iran, rather than taking into account their ME foreign policy as a whole. I could have made that clearer. I think if you look at a 4 year term, Hilary and Trump's main difference would be in what they said about Iran, rather than what they did about Iran. Honestly I think they would both be as vulnerable as each other to being led by senior military figures in their attitude to foreign policy. Hilary would just figure out a way to explain it that seems justified, whereas Trump doesn't give a fuck. Obviously I can't actually know that. Do you think Hilary would have left the Treaty? I think she would have remained in, which would be a major difference in policy. I think Trump left not because it was necessarily bad but because it was Obama. Not unlike what he did with NAFTA, which worked marginally at least in getting some concessions from Mexico. I think he thinks everyone will make new better deals with him because America is such a big market and they need him more than he needs them. And this was true with Mexico and Canada, but not with Iran or China. Non Democratic countries can play a much longer game. The deal was not sustainable unless both parties fully believed in it, and I think even with Hilary in charge neither side actually would have believed in it. I don't think she would have been as aggressive as Trump, but given that they both probably want broadly the same things from the region Trump's strategy is more likely to work imo than both sides trying to pretend that they trust each other. Iran already made a good deal with Trump. He gets to claim a huge kill while portraying to Americans how bad and evil Iran is and all they did in return was blow up some stuff. If Iran really are de-escalating now that's a massive win. The wildcard I suppose is how much the population of Iran wants revenge. Depends if the de-escalating means getting a nuke and what that means for the future. But in the short term agree. And @ GH at this point it just amuses what you take from what people say =-)
As long as we're all having fun, it's a win in my book
|
On January 09 2020 22:18 Slydie wrote:
Theoretical question but how would Hillary have dealt with Iran? She probably would not have redrawn from the treaty but the middle East is a hard nut for any president. Obama and Clinton were very far from perfect...
Pretty sure she'd not have put the US' embassy to Israel in Jerusalem as a fuck-you to the muslim world, Iran included. Pretty sure she wouldn't have withdrawn the US from the nuclear deal. Pretty sure she wouldn't have bombed leading figures of the Iranian government on diplomatic mission. Pretty sure she wouldn't have left the kurds in the dust, giving Iran and Russia free room to play about in the kurdish region in Turkey, Iraq and Syria. She probably also wouldn't have kept undermining global military networks such as the UN or NATO, giving rogue actors such as the covert branch of the Iran military more leeway. She also probably wouldn't press sovereign nations, who's helped the US by allowing bases, for money, making their actual effect questionable.
But it's all pointless babbling anyhow. "What would Hillary do" is a worthless mind experiment. What's worth considering, is what Trump's already done, and what he will keep doing if he's not removed.
|
GH was actually talking about himself in that post. Hes remarkably self-aware.
|
On January 09 2020 22:18 Slydie wrote:
Theoretical question but how would Hillary have dealt with Iran? She probably would not have redrawn from the treaty but the middle East is a hard nut for any president. Obama and Clinton were very far from perfect...
I think there would be 75-90% chance she doesn't pull out of the Iran deal in her first term, but remains hostile towards the country. Main reason why I think she wouldn't try to do anything is that stability is better than chaos and the last decade's Middle East is nothing but chaos.
The other 10-25% is that she decides escalation is necessary and starts preparations to withdraw from the deal, that is: A - tries to convince the UK and a few other countries to support the withdrawal, and B - orchestrates something like the Strait of Hormuz incidents to make it look like Iran was the first to escalate.
|
Sec. of State Pompeo says that the US will be revoking and denying visas of ICC personnel investigating their war crimes.
He went on to threaten the International Criminal Court with sanctions if they persisted in investigating war crimes
“These visa restrictions will not be the end of our efforts,” he said. “We’re prepared to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course.”
www.reuters.com
|
On January 10 2020 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Sec. of State Pompeo says that the US will be revoking and denying visas of ICC personnel investigating their war crimes. https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1215285229063155713He went on to threaten the International Criminal Court with sanctions if they persisted in investigating war crimes Show nested quote +“These visa restrictions will not be the end of our efforts,” he said. “We’re prepared to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course.” www.reuters.com
This is a real 'Are we the baddies?' moment
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 10 2020 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Sec. of State Pompeo says that the US will be revoking and denying visas of ICC personnel investigating their war crimes. https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1215285229063155713He went on to threaten the International Criminal Court with sanctions if they persisted in investigating war crimes Show nested quote +“These visa restrictions will not be the end of our efforts,” he said. “We’re prepared to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course.” www.reuters.com
Does a good job at highlighting one of the many issues with conservative philosophy. They are fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea that the US is one of many countries rather than "the primary country" relative to everyone else. The idea of being accountable to the outside world is offensive to them.
|
Canada5565 Posts
The Ukrainian flight that crashed just outside the Iranian capital of Tehran was struck by an anti-aircraft missile system, a Pentagon official, a senior U.S. intelligence official and an Iraqi intelligence official told Newsweek...One Pentagon and one U.S senior intelligence official told Newsweek that the Pentagon's assessment is that the incident was accidental.
https://www.newsweek.com/iranians-shot-down-ukraine-flight-mistake-sources-1481313
|
On January 10 2020 01:34 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Sec. of State Pompeo says that the US will be revoking and denying visas of ICC personnel investigating their war crimes. https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1215285229063155713He went on to threaten the International Criminal Court with sanctions if they persisted in investigating war crimes “These visa restrictions will not be the end of our efforts,” he said. “We’re prepared to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course.” www.reuters.com This is a real 'Are we the baddies?' moment + Show Spoiler +
It is amazing that someone can look at that and think that this is a good and reasonable thing to do. Threatening the ICC to stop them from investigating war crimes. How can you do that and still believe that you are on the right side of this issue?
|
Does imposing sanctions in the ICC even make sense?
|
On January 10 2020 01:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 01:34 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On January 10 2020 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Sec. of State Pompeo says that the US will be revoking and denying visas of ICC personnel investigating their war crimes. https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1215285229063155713He went on to threaten the International Criminal Court with sanctions if they persisted in investigating war crimes “These visa restrictions will not be the end of our efforts,” he said. “We’re prepared to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course.” www.reuters.com This is a real 'Are we the baddies?' moment + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JOpPNra4bw It is amazing that someone can look at that and think that this is a good and reasonable thing to do. Threatening the ICC to stop them from investigating war crimes. How can you do that and still believe that you are on the right side of this issue?
Bolton can:
On September 10, 2018, John R. Bolton, in his first major address as U.S. National Security Advisor, reiterated that the ICC lacks checks and balances, exercises "jurisdiction over crimes that have disputed and ambiguous definitions," and has failed to "deter and punish atrocity crimes." The ICC, said Bolton, is "superfluous" given that "domestic judicial systems already hold American citizens to the highest legal and ethical standards." He added that the U.S. would do everything "to protect our citizens" should the ICC attempt to prosecute U.S. servicemen over alleged detainee abuse in Afghanistan. In that event, ICC judges and prosecutors would be barred from entering the U.S., their funds in the U.S. would be sanctioned and the U.S. "will prosecute them in the US criminal system. We will do the same for any company or state that assists an ICC investigation of Americans", Bolton said. He also criticized Palestinian efforts to bring Israel before the ICC over allegations of human rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza.
|
I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that impression. "Stop questioning our commission of horrible acts, or we'll punish you" is some real fucking shit. It also sounds so stupid that it might as well have come from Trump's own mouth. "Best people" indeed.
|
On January 10 2020 02:13 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that impression. "Stop questioning our commission of horrible acts, or we'll punish you" is some real fucking shit. It also sounds so stupid that it might as well have come from Trump's own mouth. "Best people" indeed.
As was pointed out by someone before this announcement, the US has never accepted the premise of their existence. Trump's taken it from ignoring them, to openly interfering and threatening them
|
On January 10 2020 01:48 Xxio wrote:The Ukrainian flight that crashed just outside the Iranian capital of Tehran was struck by an anti-aircraft missile system, a Pentagon official, a senior U.S. intelligence official and an Iraqi intelligence official told Newsweek...One Pentagon and one U.S senior intelligence official told Newsweek that the Pentagon's assessment is that the incident was accidental. https://www.newsweek.com/iranians-shot-down-ukraine-flight-mistake-sources-1481313
You mean what was insanely obvious from the beginning turned out to be exactly true?
I view the blood as being distributed 50/50 between Iran and Trump. Trump started the whole mess to begin with but Iran's extreme incompetence sealed the deal.
|
On January 09 2020 23:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Trump doesn't have a foreign policy for USA. What short term gain has he gained for the US foreign policy wise? He has made all American nationals less safe in the region. Iraq has issued a demand for American troops to leave the country. Even Isreal and Saudi Arabia is alarmed by the assassination.
A)Iraq parliment passed a resolution asking government to throw Americans out. Iraq government is not bound by it as far as i understand and they are not likely to do such step.
B)Trump:
-abandoned Kurds to get on Edrogans good side
-assasinated Soleimani which was thorn in their back for a long time
-declared trade war on China (which many considers sound but long overdue) move
-is constantly treatning other countries for small concessions
|
On January 10 2020 01:34 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2020 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Sec. of State Pompeo says that the US will be revoking and denying visas of ICC personnel investigating their war crimes. https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1215285229063155713He went on to threaten the International Criminal Court with sanctions if they persisted in investigating war crimes “These visa restrictions will not be the end of our efforts,” he said. “We’re prepared to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course.” www.reuters.com This is a real 'Are we the baddies?' moment + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU
No it's not, the US has always been extremely protective of what they do and their nationals. It's not a surprise, I've told it multiple times in this thread. The US do not accept any overseer, nor international jurisdiction that could target americans. Laws and treaties apply to others.
Remember that the US has rendered the WTO appeals court useless as it blocked appointments there, rendering it non functional and unable to investigate US malpractices.
https://time.com/5746978/wto-appeals-court/
Among the disputes left in limbo are seven cases that have been brought against Trump’s decision last year to declare foreign steel and aluminum a threat to U.S. national security and to hit them with import taxes.
(as it has the FEC, domestically, by denying it quorum :-p)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
