| 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 | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23660 Posts
On June 22 2025 02:31 Velr wrote: Uhm, guys... Hate to tell you, but if a countries military is bombing another country thats called war. Ackchyually, Congress has the sole power to declare war and they haven't done that since WWII, so it can't be war. That would be unconstitutional. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10852 Posts
Maybe he still will. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5901 Posts
On June 22 2025 02:31 Velr wrote: Uhm, guys... Hate to tell you, but if a countries military is bombing another country thats called war. These are different things: -A nuclear superpower invading 20% of its neighbor -Going to a country on the other side of the world, destroying its military, toppling its government, occupying it and fighting an insurgency for 20 years -Dropping bombs on someone who can't attack you back and you are in total control of when and where you fight them, if at all People do not necessarily want the 3rd but they recognize that it's a harsh reality that could need to occur, and aren't dogmatically opposed to it just because the 2nd was universally panned and they think opposing the 3rd is an expression of their opposition of the 2nd. | ||
|
Yurie
12037 Posts
Or continuous spy work and bombing, costly. Or multilateral agreements (which we had until the US broke them) that puts pressure from all sides to enforce it. So you need China and Russia, preferably more parties, to sign and mean it as well. This is possible but the geopolitical situation isn't exactly good for it right now. Or break the nation so they cannot afford it and thus killing a few million people due civil war and no good places to evacuate to. Or get lucky with a government transition, where there are no reliable candidates without massive external support. Even with external support they probably go the route of Afghanistan. | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway472 Posts
On June 22 2025 02:16 Mohdoo wrote: Yeah I’m in the same boat. But after Iran even rejected an offer to be provided with the uranium they need for non-weapons purposes, I’m entirely on board with doing whatever is needed for their enrichment to be wiped out. I think Israel should deal with all the other stuff themselves. But I’m cool with the US stepping in to deal with deep underground facilities to prevent any chance of Iran getting nukes What is the evidence that Iran presented an immediate (nuclear) threat that warrants a war? What's changed from the past ~10 years? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
On June 22 2025 02:31 Velr wrote: Uhm, guys... Hate to tell you, but if a countries military is bombing another country thats called war. The label isn’t really important to me, but I do appreciate the correction. I honestly have no idea what is and isn’t considered a war. So I suppose I meant I’m ok with a war where our involvement ends after their entire nuclear program is wiped out. From there, Israel and Iran can do whatever. | ||
|
Billyboy
1465 Posts
On June 22 2025 03:53 blomsterjohn wrote: What is the evidence that Iran presented an immediate (nuclear) threat that warrants a war? What's changed from the past ~10 years? They have made a whole bunch of enriched uranium (enough for 10 bombs) well beyond the need for non weapons grade. Also the reports keep coming out of them hiding and lying from the IAEA | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
On June 22 2025 03:53 blomsterjohn wrote: What is the evidence that Iran presented an immediate (nuclear) threat that warrants a war? What's changed from the past ~10 years? Micronesia explains it well here: On June 19 2025 09:37 micronesia wrote: The 12 June IAEA Resolution makes it clear that IAEA has found evidence of non-compliant behavior, and Iran has not made a good-faith effort to rectify the situation despite being given every opportunity. However, the 13 June IAEA Statement makes it clear that IAEA does not agree with current military strikes on relevant facilities as appropriate. There’s nothing other than weapons they’d be using 60%+ for. The IAEA doesn’t recommend military action because blowing it up could cause radiation contamination and whatnot. Additionally, the US already offered to handle all uranium stuff for them if they kill all the bomb stuff. Iran rejected that, so Iran is (understandably) committed to getting a nuke. I don’t blame them for trying. It’s basically essential for full, actual sovereignty. But I also don’t want a redneck like Khameini having control over nukes. He cranks the jihad yeehaw up a little too high for my taste | ||
|
Turbovolver
Australia2396 Posts
On June 22 2025 00:40 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm not going to play this game with you. Anyone with any integrity can see what you did, are doing now, and understands why I find it disgusting. At least one of them should call it out. I'll leave it there. And so the cat, who mewled at us so many times to discuss primarying better Democrats, turned and left with tail in the air once more when people actually tried to. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17267 Posts
https://www.aol.com/news/blue-collar-wage-growth-under-141632384.html however, stats like this can be doctored by including and excluding certain sectors based on changing definitions. The last measurement of the US economy is that it was contracting at 0.2%. WHen Trump took over 6 months ago it was expanding by 2.5%. " Reaganomics is working... " :D | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23660 Posts
On June 22 2025 06:56 Turbovolver wrote: And so the cat, who mewled at us so many times to discuss primarying better Democrats, turned and left with tail in the air once more when people actually tried to. I appreciated the discussion and welcome it to continue. As far as electoral politics and appealing to "blue no matter who" Dems/"swing voters" go, I pretty much just agree with what Zam has been saying Setting any politics aside, there are too many math/data people here to not know exactly what I'm talking about with Light's bs. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26270 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2157 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
1465 Posts
I was thinking that maybe the "best" path is taking out all of the IRGC and QUDs leadership, end the nuclear program and then leave and hope the Iranians deal with Khamenei themselves. Mossad clearly has an oversized presence with Iran so they could support whatever local force appears to be strong enough and take over. That the Iranians could have actual self determination, maybe Yemen and Lebanon as well could be great for the region. You are going to be left with UAE, SA, Turkey and Israel as the major powers in the region and well they do not get along they are not openly talking about destroying each other and killing the entire populous. Then again TACO has sure turned out to be Trumps strategy so the more time that passes the more chance it is likely he does not do anything. How that works out seems just as chaotic. Edit: LOL that timing of mine all time bad. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4908 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
1465 Posts
On June 22 2025 10:10 Introvert wrote: Very good decision from Trump and despite the constant bleating of some, consistent with years of Republican policy re:Iran. Meanwhile, others are surely watching. Trump's always been OK with using limited actions to achieve very specific goals (like taking out Soleimani, which also had some breathlessly predicting escalation). One of those times where, for all his faults, it's good to have a Republican in the White House rather than a Dem (or JD Vance possibly lol). Also not as talked about, but bad for Putin, as have been a number of Trump's other actions and statements in the past 2 months or so. It does seem like the best of a bunch of bad options. Now the question is will he be able to resist going all into another long pointless war against insurgents when Iran attacks US bases with their proxies. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
I recall more than a few tankies insisting Fordow is beyond what the US can hope to bust, even with bunker busters. Turns out it took about 14% of our B2 fleet a single trip to clean the whole place up. Delicious. Israel normalizing with Saudi Arabia is gonna be a gigantic win for Trump. The hegemony is basically locked in after this. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
CasterMuse Showmatch
Light vs Queen
WardiTV Winter Champion…
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
SC Evo Complete
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
