|
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 March 20 2026 07:10 Hat Trick of Today wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 07:03 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 07:01 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On March 20 2026 07:00 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On March 20 2026 05:15 KwarK wrote:On March 20 2026 05:09 dyhb wrote:
A Japanese reporter asks, simplifying some dialogue here, "Why didn't you tell US allies, like Europe and Japan, about the war?"
"We didn't tell anyone about it, because we wanted surprise. Who knows better about surprise than Japan? Why didn't you tell me about Pearl Harbor?"
I guess it depends on your sense of humor whether you think it's a funny joke or not, or whether you think it's a joke in bad taste and choose not to laugh, or if in fact funny jokes do require a backdrop that isn't the chief architect of the American descent into fascism, the fragmentation of old alliances, and war in the middle east. If you can lay aside the setting for the joke and "state of the world" bit, I don't know if it cracks Trump's top five jokes. It was a little too obvious of a crack to make. It's a Mean Girls style power play joke that bullies make. You invite someone over, joke about something that is a sensitive subject for them, then laugh in their face when they don't call you out on it. For bullies getting away with making the joke is why it feels good, it's at someone else's expense and they just sat there and took it. Nothing is more funny than humiliating a friend. You can tell it's a bully joke and not a funny joke from the way it landed. Trump's group of cheerleading weasels smirked and laughed while the Japanese delegation remained entirely stoic. This is how soft power dies. Yeah, I tried to detail how some people believe a joke can't be funny because of the setting, or the surrounding world of the person making it, but I think you've ultimately done a better job than me in explaining that. We can do all the throat clearing about insensitive jokes and what should and shouldn't be done in diplomacy and this isn't how a world leader should talk. If you really want it. Feels almost rote at this point, given the consistency. We're coming up on the 11th year anniversary for "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." So 11 years of typing the obvious. As always, communication is a two way street. The recipient is part of the conversation. If they feel insulted (even if you didn't mean to insult them) you failed in communication. Do it often enough and people don't want to talk to you. Most people do a mistake here or there and that is forgiven if you simply apologize for it or simply don't do it more than a few times in total. As always the problem with Trump is that he doesn't even realize he made a mistake. Thus he cannot learn from it and will repeat it again. Is it a mistake if you did it on purpose. Depends on the outcome you want. If you want Japan to help you with Iran it is clearly a mistake. If you want Japan to tell your other allies that Iran is a bad deal and stay out, it isn't a mistake. It’s already too late to get allies to help you out in a collision of the willing because Trump and this administration doesn’t believe in even bothering to try manufacturing consent. Like this administration believes in zero sum everything. They believe nations will come help solve this issue because the world economy is cooked if it isn’t resolved and the US believes it js better positioned than other countries to absorb the blow. So I don’t think this administration believes it’s made a mistake or has really made a mistake in the context of their belief system because the only thing this administration believes in is in forcefully coercing people to indulge in their zero sum world view.
From my point of view the issue is resolving itself slowly already. Iran is taking full control of the strait and will put up restrictions on which nations that can send ships through. So the global issues will resolve themselves with or without supporting the US vs Iran based on current trends.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1288 Posts
On March 20 2026 07:14 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 07:10 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On March 20 2026 07:03 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 07:01 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On March 20 2026 07:00 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On March 20 2026 05:15 KwarK wrote:On March 20 2026 05:09 dyhb wrote:
A Japanese reporter asks, simplifying some dialogue here, "Why didn't you tell US allies, like Europe and Japan, about the war?"
"We didn't tell anyone about it, because we wanted surprise. Who knows better about surprise than Japan? Why didn't you tell me about Pearl Harbor?"
I guess it depends on your sense of humor whether you think it's a funny joke or not, or whether you think it's a joke in bad taste and choose not to laugh, or if in fact funny jokes do require a backdrop that isn't the chief architect of the American descent into fascism, the fragmentation of old alliances, and war in the middle east. If you can lay aside the setting for the joke and "state of the world" bit, I don't know if it cracks Trump's top five jokes. It was a little too obvious of a crack to make. It's a Mean Girls style power play joke that bullies make. You invite someone over, joke about something that is a sensitive subject for them, then laugh in their face when they don't call you out on it. For bullies getting away with making the joke is why it feels good, it's at someone else's expense and they just sat there and took it. Nothing is more funny than humiliating a friend. You can tell it's a bully joke and not a funny joke from the way it landed. Trump's group of cheerleading weasels smirked and laughed while the Japanese delegation remained entirely stoic. This is how soft power dies. Yeah, I tried to detail how some people believe a joke can't be funny because of the setting, or the surrounding world of the person making it, but I think you've ultimately done a better job than me in explaining that. We can do all the throat clearing about insensitive jokes and what should and shouldn't be done in diplomacy and this isn't how a world leader should talk. If you really want it. Feels almost rote at this point, given the consistency. We're coming up on the 11th year anniversary for "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." So 11 years of typing the obvious. As always, communication is a two way street. The recipient is part of the conversation. If they feel insulted (even if you didn't mean to insult them) you failed in communication. Do it often enough and people don't want to talk to you. Most people do a mistake here or there and that is forgiven if you simply apologize for it or simply don't do it more than a few times in total. As always the problem with Trump is that he doesn't even realize he made a mistake. Thus he cannot learn from it and will repeat it again. Is it a mistake if you did it on purpose. Depends on the outcome you want. If you want Japan to help you with Iran it is clearly a mistake. If you want Japan to tell your other allies that Iran is a bad deal and stay out, it isn't a mistake. It’s already too late to get allies to help you out in a collision of the willing because Trump and this administration doesn’t believe in even bothering to try manufacturing consent. Like this administration believes in zero sum everything. They believe nations will come help solve this issue because the world economy is cooked if it isn’t resolved and the US believes it js better positioned than other countries to absorb the blow. So I don’t think this administration believes it’s made a mistake or has really made a mistake in the context of their belief system because the only thing this administration believes in is in forcefully coercing people to indulge in their zero sum world view. From my point of view the issue is resolving itself slowly already. Iran is taking full control of the strait and will put up restrictions on which nations that can send ships through. So the global issues will resolve themselves with or without supporting the US vs Iran based on current trends.
I'm not sure this is so much resolution, as 'neither actually involved sides see much viability of reaching resolution' so everyone else is trying to find ways around the problem so the world economy can keep chugging along (since they sure as hell can't actually resolve it).
And Iran is just reasonable enough to come to agreements with some third parties (probably because 'everyone else' involves some of their allies).
I'm not sure if this will do anything to actually end the fighting, Iran won't just let all the ships through, because this is their primary leverage towards no longer getting bombed. And even the rest of the world combined can't pressure the US/Israel into meeting Iranian demands.
While the US/Israel can just lose interest/stop bombing Iran, I don't think Iran will trust that it's not just a short reload then they are back in a few months/years again. I don't envision a world where Israel doesn't actually just come back after a short reload, dragging the US back in.
So either ground troops actually go in, or somehow the US pressures other countries into some kind of reparations/rebuild package for Iran (the US is sure as hell not going to pay Iran reparations). Or there needs to be at least a change in attitude on the side of the US, eg telling Israel, 'Next time you bomb them you are on your own'. In which case the fight sort of fizzles out, and Iran eventually believes it's not just a short break to restock munitions.
None of these options look particularly likely.
Either that or Trump gets either China or his russian friends to agree to help Iran rebuild in lieu of actual reparations. They might accept it because it basically guarantees their influence in the region for the forseeable future, and Trump might accept it because compared to not having to deal with either a disastrous ground campaign in Iran or a humiliating meeting of actual Iranian terms probably outweighs actual US geopolitical interest every time.
Even there I don't think Russia is even in an economic state to help, and China might just not be that interested in cleaning up a US mess.
|
Northern Ireland26785 Posts
On March 20 2026 05:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 05:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 20 2026 05:15 KwarK wrote:On March 20 2026 05:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Dealing directly with your point, the cause of WW2 and the Holocaust is basic high school history You probably should have taken classes a little more advanced than the basic high school ones tbh. I don't disagree that your explanation of events is a basic high school one, albeit one 40 years out of date, but I don't see that as a good thing. you're not dealing directly with any of the points i made. so i'll leave it at that. Because it's fundamentally wrong in a way that is far beyond the effort you deserve. The idea that Versailles was soft on Germany and WW2 was harsh on Germany is simply not historically accurate. After WW2 Germany was partitioned and occupied. It is still occupied. Large chunks of Germany were given away to other countries. Others were completely deindustrialized. The post WW2 settlement was far, far harsher than Versailles. The idea that American money went into rebuilding Germany after WW2 but not after WW1 completely ignores the Dawes and Young plans. Weimar Germany didn't even pay the reparations, they established a triangular system in which the war debts of Britain and France to America were paid by new loans issued to Germany by American banks. By the time WW2 broke out the outstanding US loans to Germany actually exceeded the total reparations imposed upon Germany at Versailles. Germany wasn't being drained of cash, even after the reparations were taken into account Germany was a net recipient of cash during that period. Cash that was never repaid due to the declaration of war. And Versailles was not enforced. If at any time during German rearmament Britain and France had stepped in to enforce the terms of Versailles WW2 would have been averted. Versailles didn't cause WW2, a failure to enforce Versailles caused WW2. Britain and France were far, far too lenient on Germany. But of course this is exactly what commentators at the time said too. That there were fundamental causes for WW1 and that none of those had been addressed in the settlement and so of course there would be a second war. People like simple one line historical explanations that generally go along the lines of "people in the past dumb, people now smart". "If only those foolish allies could have seen that reintegrating Germany into the global economy and treating them with extreme lenience was the way then this all could have been avoided". Having entirely solved the crises of the past at the age of 13 armed only with an introductory hour of study each week for 3 months they move on, confident that they know all that they need to know.
What does Kramer think though?
|
On March 20 2026 11:01 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 05:39 KwarK wrote:On March 20 2026 05:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 20 2026 05:15 KwarK wrote:On March 20 2026 05:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Dealing directly with your point, the cause of WW2 and the Holocaust is basic high school history You probably should have taken classes a little more advanced than the basic high school ones tbh. I don't disagree that your explanation of events is a basic high school one, albeit one 40 years out of date, but I don't see that as a good thing. you're not dealing directly with any of the points i made. so i'll leave it at that. Because it's fundamentally wrong in a way that is far beyond the effort you deserve. The idea that Versailles was soft on Germany and WW2 was harsh on Germany is simply not historically accurate. After WW2 Germany was partitioned and occupied. It is still occupied. Large chunks of Germany were given away to other countries. Others were completely deindustrialized. The post WW2 settlement was far, far harsher than Versailles. The idea that American money went into rebuilding Germany after WW2 but not after WW1 completely ignores the Dawes and Young plans. Weimar Germany didn't even pay the reparations, they established a triangular system in which the war debts of Britain and France to America were paid by new loans issued to Germany by American banks. By the time WW2 broke out the outstanding US loans to Germany actually exceeded the total reparations imposed upon Germany at Versailles. Germany wasn't being drained of cash, even after the reparations were taken into account Germany was a net recipient of cash during that period. Cash that was never repaid due to the declaration of war. And Versailles was not enforced. If at any time during German rearmament Britain and France had stepped in to enforce the terms of Versailles WW2 would have been averted. Versailles didn't cause WW2, a failure to enforce Versailles caused WW2. Britain and France were far, far too lenient on Germany. But of course this is exactly what commentators at the time said too. That there were fundamental causes for WW1 and that none of those had been addressed in the settlement and so of course there would be a second war. People like simple one line historical explanations that generally go along the lines of "people in the past dumb, people now smart". "If only those foolish allies could have seen that reintegrating Germany into the global economy and treating them with extreme lenience was the way then this all could have been avoided". Having entirely solved the crises of the past at the age of 13 armed only with an introductory hour of study each week for 3 months they move on, confident that they know all that they need to know. What does Kramer think though?
Well played.
|
Northern Ireland26785 Posts
On March 20 2026 05:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 04:36 KwarK wrote:On March 20 2026 04:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
the humour is a pressure release valve so that antisemitism doesn't fester under the surface. Of course, we make jokes about Jewish stereotypes so that antisemitism goes away. It's only a pity that jokes about Jews didn't exist before the 1930s, the entire Holocaust could have been avoided. If you have a direct rebuttal to the logical flow of my post... go for it. if you do not think it offers a pressure relief valve... state your case. Dealing directly with your point, the cause of WW2 and the Holocaust is basic high school history. Had the allies (a) given Germany a viable deal at the end of WW1 (b) not totally demoralized the defeated Germans (c) the allies behaved as though Germans were beyond redemption as a people the chance Germans would vote for a leader like Adolf Hitler is a lot lower. The Treaty of Versailles weakened the German economy, created political instability, fueled anger and nationalism. The Germans would be less likely to be open minded about the only leader giving them hope... Adolf Hitler. When you defeat your opponent... and then crush them into dust while laughing at them you create a breeding ground for guys like Adolf HItler, Jesse Van Rootselaar, and Marc Lepine to go into suicide-murder mode. Once they are in murder-suicide mode you're fucked. They want to die. You have nothing to bargain. You must stop it before it happens. Fortunately, the Allies learned this lesson in 1945 and created a completely different kind of peace at the end of WW2 versus WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles. The 1919 deal was about punishing and weakening Germany, short term settlement, economic strain, blame focused. The 1945 peace agreement was about controlling, rebuilding, and integrating Germany, long term strategy, economic recovery, and focused on stability. The Treaty of Versailles imposed stiff reparations, territorial losses, and military limits. This created a politically unstablem, isolated German government. Obviously, this is fertile ground for extremism. After WW2 Germany was occupied and divided, full denazification, military dismantled only initially. Later, a shift towards rebuilding. after WW2 the allies offered the Marshall Plan and a massive US investment in West Germany. This created prosperity and with people living decent lives.. its hard for extremism to take root. West Germany evolved into a stable democracy. In WW1 Germany was isolated while AFTER WW2 Germany was eventually reintegrated into the global system and NATO. So you have a criminal... do you lock him up and throw away the key? or do you rehab the guy? I say you rehab him. The Allies rehabed Germany after WW2. The Allies locked Germany up and threw away the key in 1919.
It’s estimated 15-20 million people died in that conflict, why wouldn’t you punish the loser who triggered it?
Your analogy doesn’t really work here. Criminals don’t skip the punishment part and go straight to rehabilitation
Germans didn’t have to go with Hitler either, plenty of other options.
Instead they picked hyper nationalism and we got what we got. Which ended well with the Red Army sacking Berlin and Germany being generally sensible since
It’s almost like rabid nationalism was the problem there or something
|
On March 20 2026 12:03 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 05:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 20 2026 04:36 KwarK wrote:On March 20 2026 04:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
the humour is a pressure release valve so that antisemitism doesn't fester under the surface. Of course, we make jokes about Jewish stereotypes so that antisemitism goes away. It's only a pity that jokes about Jews didn't exist before the 1930s, the entire Holocaust could have been avoided. If you have a direct rebuttal to the logical flow of my post... go for it. if you do not think it offers a pressure relief valve... state your case. Dealing directly with your point, the cause of WW2 and the Holocaust is basic high school history. Had the allies (a) given Germany a viable deal at the end of WW1 (b) not totally demoralized the defeated Germans (c) the allies behaved as though Germans were beyond redemption as a people the chance Germans would vote for a leader like Adolf Hitler is a lot lower. The Treaty of Versailles weakened the German economy, created political instability, fueled anger and nationalism. The Germans would be less likely to be open minded about the only leader giving them hope... Adolf Hitler. When you defeat your opponent... and then crush them into dust while laughing at them you create a breeding ground for guys like Adolf HItler, Jesse Van Rootselaar, and Marc Lepine to go into suicide-murder mode. Once they are in murder-suicide mode you're fucked. They want to die. You have nothing to bargain. You must stop it before it happens. Fortunately, the Allies learned this lesson in 1945 and created a completely different kind of peace at the end of WW2 versus WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles. The 1919 deal was about punishing and weakening Germany, short term settlement, economic strain, blame focused. The 1945 peace agreement was about controlling, rebuilding, and integrating Germany, long term strategy, economic recovery, and focused on stability. The Treaty of Versailles imposed stiff reparations, territorial losses, and military limits. This created a politically unstablem, isolated German government. Obviously, this is fertile ground for extremism. After WW2 Germany was occupied and divided, full denazification, military dismantled only initially. Later, a shift towards rebuilding. after WW2 the allies offered the Marshall Plan and a massive US investment in West Germany. This created prosperity and with people living decent lives.. its hard for extremism to take root. West Germany evolved into a stable democracy. In WW1 Germany was isolated while AFTER WW2 Germany was eventually reintegrated into the global system and NATO. So you have a criminal... do you lock him up and throw away the key? or do you rehab the guy? I say you rehab him. The Allies rehabed Germany after WW2. The Allies locked Germany up and threw away the key in 1919. It’s estimated 15-20 million people died in that conflict, why wouldn’t you punish the loser who triggered it? Your analogy doesn’t really work here. Criminals don’t skip the punishment part and go straight to rehabilitation Germans didn’t have to go with Hitler either, plenty of other options. Instead they picked hyper nationalism and we got what we got. Which ended well with the Red Army sacking Berlin and Germany being generally sensible since It’s almost like rabid nationalism was the problem there or something
Rehab doesn't mean skip the punishment. The question is what you want to achieve here.
Of course you can go full on US "justice" system, which is all about punishment and vengeance. But it turns out that that actually produces a lot of repeat offenders. Which is good if you are the kind of person running a for-profit prison. Not as good for society.
Or you can do rehabilitation. But that involves hard work, and usually also some sort of forgiveness.
Directly after WW1, Germany was ruled by social democrats. It then slowly (or quickly) shifted further and further to the right, both due to internal bad decisions, but also due to the external pressure of Versailles. Of course that doesn't absolve Germany of the responsibility for those choices, but if you are, for example, France, this may not be the path you would want Germany on either.
The treatment of (west) Germany past WW2 was a lot more effective in actually turning Germany into a country you might want to be a neighbour to. That treatment was occupation, crushing of the old regime and making sure that everyone knew what had happened, but also making sure that (west) Germany could economically recover quickly (so they had a strong friendly country right next to communism).
When the economy is bad, people make extreme decisions. They are still to blame for those decisions, but if you want them to make good decisions, making sure they do okay economically can help. And Versailles was definitively at least partially to blame for the economic problems that helped Hitler rise. The world economic crisis was another reason.
|
United States43987 Posts
After WW1 Germany received huge influxes of American cash and, unkind after WW2, German industry had been untouched by the war. The harsh treaty myth is just that, a myth, the post WW1 settlement left Germany comparatively far stronger than the post WW2 settlement. That was precisely the problem. It didn’t cause WW2 by weakening Germany, it caused WW2 by strengthening Germany.
In WW2, as in WW1, Germany intentionally pursued a policy of war. Neither war was an accident, it was the deliberate result of German policy that hoped to overturn the global balance of imperial powers through direct conflict with the existing powers. The goal was war and they would not settle for less. The generosity of the settlement was again part of the problem. Germans didn’t really understand that they’d lost WW1. In 1917 at Brest-Litovsk they’d carved a million square km out of the Russian Empire, an area roughly three times the size of modern Germany. That’s what Germans understood as what a victor does to their defeated foe. Versailles was more like a ceasefire, Germans did not consider themselves to be conquered.
The reason the post WW2 generous treatment worked while the post WW1 generous treatment failed is not because WW2 was more generous, it was not. Germany in 1946 would have traded places with 1919 Germany in a heartbeat. The post WW2 treatment worked because Germany ceased to be a great power, it was occupied by the two new ascendant powers. Before each world war Germany believed itself to be a great power that had been denied its destiny on the world stage by the existing powers. By 1946 that belief was shattered, not by generosity but by the Red Army. Before WW1 Germany believed that it could fulfill its destiny by fighting the other powers. After WW1 it believed the same and so did it again. After WW2 it realized it could not, and in any event it was occupied.
Blaming Versailles for Germany’s woes and for forcing Germany into war was one of the main Nazi narratives. But they also insisted that international Jewry was responsible for their economic woes and forcing them into war. We wouldn’t seriously argue the latter today, even though they insisted upon it at the time, and yet somehow the former explanation persists. Nazis are liars.
|
On March 20 2026 09:30 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 07:14 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 07:10 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On March 20 2026 07:03 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 07:01 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On March 20 2026 07:00 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On March 20 2026 05:15 KwarK wrote:On March 20 2026 05:09 dyhb wrote:
A Japanese reporter asks, simplifying some dialogue here, "Why didn't you tell US allies, like Europe and Japan, about the war?"
"We didn't tell anyone about it, because we wanted surprise. Who knows better about surprise than Japan? Why didn't you tell me about Pearl Harbor?"
I guess it depends on your sense of humor whether you think it's a funny joke or not, or whether you think it's a joke in bad taste and choose not to laugh, or if in fact funny jokes do require a backdrop that isn't the chief architect of the American descent into fascism, the fragmentation of old alliances, and war in the middle east. If you can lay aside the setting for the joke and "state of the world" bit, I don't know if it cracks Trump's top five jokes. It was a little too obvious of a crack to make. It's a Mean Girls style power play joke that bullies make. You invite someone over, joke about something that is a sensitive subject for them, then laugh in their face when they don't call you out on it. For bullies getting away with making the joke is why it feels good, it's at someone else's expense and they just sat there and took it. Nothing is more funny than humiliating a friend. You can tell it's a bully joke and not a funny joke from the way it landed. Trump's group of cheerleading weasels smirked and laughed while the Japanese delegation remained entirely stoic. This is how soft power dies. Yeah, I tried to detail how some people believe a joke can't be funny because of the setting, or the surrounding world of the person making it, but I think you've ultimately done a better job than me in explaining that. We can do all the throat clearing about insensitive jokes and what should and shouldn't be done in diplomacy and this isn't how a world leader should talk. If you really want it. Feels almost rote at this point, given the consistency. We're coming up on the 11th year anniversary for "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." So 11 years of typing the obvious. As always, communication is a two way street. The recipient is part of the conversation. If they feel insulted (even if you didn't mean to insult them) you failed in communication. Do it often enough and people don't want to talk to you. Most people do a mistake here or there and that is forgiven if you simply apologize for it or simply don't do it more than a few times in total. As always the problem with Trump is that he doesn't even realize he made a mistake. Thus he cannot learn from it and will repeat it again. Is it a mistake if you did it on purpose. Depends on the outcome you want. If you want Japan to help you with Iran it is clearly a mistake. If you want Japan to tell your other allies that Iran is a bad deal and stay out, it isn't a mistake. It’s already too late to get allies to help you out in a collision of the willing because Trump and this administration doesn’t believe in even bothering to try manufacturing consent. Like this administration believes in zero sum everything. They believe nations will come help solve this issue because the world economy is cooked if it isn’t resolved and the US believes it js better positioned than other countries to absorb the blow. So I don’t think this administration believes it’s made a mistake or has really made a mistake in the context of their belief system because the only thing this administration believes in is in forcefully coercing people to indulge in their zero sum world view. From my point of view the issue is resolving itself slowly already. Iran is taking full control of the strait and will put up restrictions on which nations that can send ships through. So the global issues will resolve themselves with or without supporting the US vs Iran based on current trends. I'm not sure this is so much resolution, as 'neither actually involved sides see much viability of reaching resolution' so everyone else is trying to find ways around the problem so the world economy can keep chugging along (since they sure as hell can't actually resolve it). And Iran is just reasonable enough to come to agreements with some third parties (probably because 'everyone else' involves some of their allies). I'm not sure if this will do anything to actually end the fighting, Iran won't just let all the ships through, because this is their primary leverage towards no longer getting bombed. And even the rest of the world combined can't pressure the US/Israel into meeting Iranian demands. While the US/Israel can just lose interest/stop bombing Iran, I don't think Iran will trust that it's not just a short reload then they are back in a few months/years again. I don't envision a world where Israel doesn't actually just come back after a short reload, dragging the US back in. So either ground troops actually go in, or somehow the US pressures other countries into some kind of reparations/rebuild package for Iran (the US is sure as hell not going to pay Iran reparations). Or there needs to be at least a change in attitude on the side of the US, eg telling Israel, 'Next time you bomb them you are on your own'. In which case the fight sort of fizzles out, and Iran eventually believes it's not just a short break to restock munitions. None of these options look particularly likely. Either that or Trump gets either China or his russian friends to agree to help Iran rebuild in lieu of actual reparations. They might accept it because it basically guarantees their influence in the region for the forseeable future, and Trump might accept it because compared to not having to deal with either a disastrous ground campaign in Iran or a humiliating meeting of actual Iranian terms probably outweighs actual US geopolitical interest every time. Even there I don't think Russia is even in an economic state to help, and China might just not be that interested in cleaning up a US mess.
Well Iran - US relations are dead unless there is a regime change in Iran. Which currently seems unlikely as the US public doesn't want boots on the ground and there is an election soon. Though the US is putting enough marines into the area to be able to do it if they want to.
I basically see it as Iran will let Chinese, Indian etc ships through. Ships that are not from those nations will instead move to other trade regions, causing a local monopoly on ship capacity. They can then start charging ships passing through similar to Seuz or Panama canals and things stabilize. It seems to be acceptable to the US as well since they prioritize global trade over crippling Iran (as Iranian oil exports are up since the start of the war). The US is also seriously discussing stopping sanctions on Iranian oil to keep prices down, same as they did for Russian oil. (If I am from a European country bordering Russia I would be furious at that removal of sanctions.)
|
On March 20 2026 17:03 Yurie wrote:
.............It seems to be acceptable to the US as well since they prioritize global trade over crippling Iran (as Iranian oil exports are up since the start of the war........
Uhm... What actions by this american goverment makes you say this?
If anything the US has proven that it doesn't car about global/free trade and would rather go back to mercantilism, no matter how stupid that is.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1288 Posts
On March 20 2026 17:03 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 09:30 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 20 2026 07:14 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 07:10 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On March 20 2026 07:03 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 07:01 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On March 20 2026 07:00 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On March 20 2026 05:15 KwarK wrote:On March 20 2026 05:09 dyhb wrote:
A Japanese reporter asks, simplifying some dialogue here, "Why didn't you tell US allies, like Europe and Japan, about the war?"
"We didn't tell anyone about it, because we wanted surprise. Who knows better about surprise than Japan? Why didn't you tell me about Pearl Harbor?"
I guess it depends on your sense of humor whether you think it's a funny joke or not, or whether you think it's a joke in bad taste and choose not to laugh, or if in fact funny jokes do require a backdrop that isn't the chief architect of the American descent into fascism, the fragmentation of old alliances, and war in the middle east. If you can lay aside the setting for the joke and "state of the world" bit, I don't know if it cracks Trump's top five jokes. It was a little too obvious of a crack to make. It's a Mean Girls style power play joke that bullies make. You invite someone over, joke about something that is a sensitive subject for them, then laugh in their face when they don't call you out on it. For bullies getting away with making the joke is why it feels good, it's at someone else's expense and they just sat there and took it. Nothing is more funny than humiliating a friend. You can tell it's a bully joke and not a funny joke from the way it landed. Trump's group of cheerleading weasels smirked and laughed while the Japanese delegation remained entirely stoic. This is how soft power dies. Yeah, I tried to detail how some people believe a joke can't be funny because of the setting, or the surrounding world of the person making it, but I think you've ultimately done a better job than me in explaining that. We can do all the throat clearing about insensitive jokes and what should and shouldn't be done in diplomacy and this isn't how a world leader should talk. If you really want it. Feels almost rote at this point, given the consistency. We're coming up on the 11th year anniversary for "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." So 11 years of typing the obvious. As always, communication is a two way street. The recipient is part of the conversation. If they feel insulted (even if you didn't mean to insult them) you failed in communication. Do it often enough and people don't want to talk to you. Most people do a mistake here or there and that is forgiven if you simply apologize for it or simply don't do it more than a few times in total. As always the problem with Trump is that he doesn't even realize he made a mistake. Thus he cannot learn from it and will repeat it again. Is it a mistake if you did it on purpose. Depends on the outcome you want. If you want Japan to help you with Iran it is clearly a mistake. If you want Japan to tell your other allies that Iran is a bad deal and stay out, it isn't a mistake. It’s already too late to get allies to help you out in a collision of the willing because Trump and this administration doesn’t believe in even bothering to try manufacturing consent. Like this administration believes in zero sum everything. They believe nations will come help solve this issue because the world economy is cooked if it isn’t resolved and the US believes it js better positioned than other countries to absorb the blow. So I don’t think this administration believes it’s made a mistake or has really made a mistake in the context of their belief system because the only thing this administration believes in is in forcefully coercing people to indulge in their zero sum world view. From my point of view the issue is resolving itself slowly already. Iran is taking full control of the strait and will put up restrictions on which nations that can send ships through. So the global issues will resolve themselves with or without supporting the US vs Iran based on current trends. I'm not sure this is so much resolution, as 'neither actually involved sides see much viability of reaching resolution' so everyone else is trying to find ways around the problem so the world economy can keep chugging along (since they sure as hell can't actually resolve it). And Iran is just reasonable enough to come to agreements with some third parties (probably because 'everyone else' involves some of their allies). I'm not sure if this will do anything to actually end the fighting, Iran won't just let all the ships through, because this is their primary leverage towards no longer getting bombed. And even the rest of the world combined can't pressure the US/Israel into meeting Iranian demands. While the US/Israel can just lose interest/stop bombing Iran, I don't think Iran will trust that it's not just a short reload then they are back in a few months/years again. I don't envision a world where Israel doesn't actually just come back after a short reload, dragging the US back in. So either ground troops actually go in, or somehow the US pressures other countries into some kind of reparations/rebuild package for Iran (the US is sure as hell not going to pay Iran reparations). Or there needs to be at least a change in attitude on the side of the US, eg telling Israel, 'Next time you bomb them you are on your own'. In which case the fight sort of fizzles out, and Iran eventually believes it's not just a short break to restock munitions. None of these options look particularly likely. Either that or Trump gets either China or his russian friends to agree to help Iran rebuild in lieu of actual reparations. They might accept it because it basically guarantees their influence in the region for the forseeable future, and Trump might accept it because compared to not having to deal with either a disastrous ground campaign in Iran or a humiliating meeting of actual Iranian terms probably outweighs actual US geopolitical interest every time. Even there I don't think Russia is even in an economic state to help, and China might just not be that interested in cleaning up a US mess. Well Iran - US relations are dead unless there is a regime change in Iran. Which currently seems unlikely as the US public doesn't want boots on the ground and there is an election soon. Though the US is putting enough marines into the area to be able to do it if they want to. I basically see it as Iran will let Chinese, Indian etc ships through. Ships that are not from those nations will instead move to other trade regions, causing a local monopoly on ship capacity. They can then start charging ships passing through similar to Seuz or Panama canals and things stabilize. It seems to be acceptable to the US as well since they prioritize global trade over crippling Iran (as Iranian oil exports are up since the start of the war). The US is also seriously discussing stopping sanctions on Iranian oil to keep prices down, same as they did for Russian oil. (If I am from a European country bordering Russia I would be furious at that removal of sanctions.)
This might actually work if it was a matter of Iran vs the US. The problem here is Israel.
The US might prioritise global trade, Israel does not, their priority is in fact crippling Iran. And, again, unless there is a big and unlikely change of the the relationship between the US and Israel, the US is going to get dragged back in.
Iran (both the people and the regime) are not idiots, especially in matters of being bullied by the US. If they believe (correctly) that any sort of non-official ceasefire just means US/Israel is going to come back with more bombs in a few months, then they aren't just going to give up their only real leverage.
|
On March 20 2026 17:17 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 17:03 Yurie wrote:
.............It seems to be acceptable to the US as well since they prioritize global trade over crippling Iran (as Iranian oil exports are up since the start of the war........
Uhm... What actions by this american goverment makes you say this? If anything the US has proven that it doesn't car about global/free trade and would rather go back to mercantilism, no matter how stupid that is.
How the US is actually acting in this current war. They let all transports through even if it is from Iran. They are lowering sanctions on their global opponent in Russia. They are discussing doing it to their lesser opponent Iran. All of those actions are against mercantilism as I understand it.
On March 20 2026 17:22 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 17:03 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 09:30 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 20 2026 07:14 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 07:10 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On March 20 2026 07:03 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 07:01 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On March 20 2026 07:00 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On March 20 2026 05:15 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
It's a Mean Girls style power play joke that bullies make. You invite someone over, joke about something that is a sensitive subject for them, then laugh in their face when they don't call you out on it. For bullies getting away with making the joke is why it feels good, it's at someone else's expense and they just sat there and took it. Nothing is more funny than humiliating a friend.
You can tell it's a bully joke and not a funny joke from the way it landed. Trump's group of cheerleading weasels smirked and laughed while the Japanese delegation remained entirely stoic.
This is how soft power dies. Yeah, I tried to detail how some people believe a joke can't be funny because of the setting, or the surrounding world of the person making it, but I think you've ultimately done a better job than me in explaining that. We can do all the throat clearing about insensitive jokes and what should and shouldn't be done in diplomacy and this isn't how a world leader should talk. If you really want it. Feels almost rote at this point, given the consistency. We're coming up on the 11th year anniversary for "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." So 11 years of typing the obvious. As always, communication is a two way street. The recipient is part of the conversation. If they feel insulted (even if you didn't mean to insult them) you failed in communication. Do it often enough and people don't want to talk to you. Most people do a mistake here or there and that is forgiven if you simply apologize for it or simply don't do it more than a few times in total. As always the problem with Trump is that he doesn't even realize he made a mistake. Thus he cannot learn from it and will repeat it again. Is it a mistake if you did it on purpose. Depends on the outcome you want. If you want Japan to help you with Iran it is clearly a mistake. If you want Japan to tell your other allies that Iran is a bad deal and stay out, it isn't a mistake. It’s already too late to get allies to help you out in a collision of the willing because Trump and this administration doesn’t believe in even bothering to try manufacturing consent. Like this administration believes in zero sum everything. They believe nations will come help solve this issue because the world economy is cooked if it isn’t resolved and the US believes it js better positioned than other countries to absorb the blow. So I don’t think this administration believes it’s made a mistake or has really made a mistake in the context of their belief system because the only thing this administration believes in is in forcefully coercing people to indulge in their zero sum world view. From my point of view the issue is resolving itself slowly already. Iran is taking full control of the strait and will put up restrictions on which nations that can send ships through. So the global issues will resolve themselves with or without supporting the US vs Iran based on current trends. I'm not sure this is so much resolution, as 'neither actually involved sides see much viability of reaching resolution' so everyone else is trying to find ways around the problem so the world economy can keep chugging along (since they sure as hell can't actually resolve it). And Iran is just reasonable enough to come to agreements with some third parties (probably because 'everyone else' involves some of their allies). I'm not sure if this will do anything to actually end the fighting, Iran won't just let all the ships through, because this is their primary leverage towards no longer getting bombed. And even the rest of the world combined can't pressure the US/Israel into meeting Iranian demands. While the US/Israel can just lose interest/stop bombing Iran, I don't think Iran will trust that it's not just a short reload then they are back in a few months/years again. I don't envision a world where Israel doesn't actually just come back after a short reload, dragging the US back in. So either ground troops actually go in, or somehow the US pressures other countries into some kind of reparations/rebuild package for Iran (the US is sure as hell not going to pay Iran reparations). Or there needs to be at least a change in attitude on the side of the US, eg telling Israel, 'Next time you bomb them you are on your own'. In which case the fight sort of fizzles out, and Iran eventually believes it's not just a short break to restock munitions. None of these options look particularly likely. Either that or Trump gets either China or his russian friends to agree to help Iran rebuild in lieu of actual reparations. They might accept it because it basically guarantees their influence in the region for the forseeable future, and Trump might accept it because compared to not having to deal with either a disastrous ground campaign in Iran or a humiliating meeting of actual Iranian terms probably outweighs actual US geopolitical interest every time. Even there I don't think Russia is even in an economic state to help, and China might just not be that interested in cleaning up a US mess. Well Iran - US relations are dead unless there is a regime change in Iran. Which currently seems unlikely as the US public doesn't want boots on the ground and there is an election soon. Though the US is putting enough marines into the area to be able to do it if they want to. I basically see it as Iran will let Chinese, Indian etc ships through. Ships that are not from those nations will instead move to other trade regions, causing a local monopoly on ship capacity. They can then start charging ships passing through similar to Seuz or Panama canals and things stabilize. It seems to be acceptable to the US as well since they prioritize global trade over crippling Iran (as Iranian oil exports are up since the start of the war). The US is also seriously discussing stopping sanctions on Iranian oil to keep prices down, same as they did for Russian oil. (If I am from a European country bordering Russia I would be furious at that removal of sanctions.) This might actually work if it was a matter of Iran vs the US. The problem here is Israel. The US might prioritise global trade, Israel does not, their priority is in fact crippling Iran. And, again, unless there is a big and unlikely change of the the relationship between the US and Israel, the US is going to get dragged back in. Iran (both the people and the regime) are not idiots, especially in matters of being bullied by the US. If they believe (correctly) that any sort of non-official ceasefire just means US/Israel is going to come back with more bombs in a few months, then they aren't just going to give up their only real leverage.
I see it as them going all in on making their leverage formal and not just a threat. Make it a fact of life that the strait belongs to Iran and anybody going through is inspected and pays for transit. If they can make it stick the threat is stronger and not weaker.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1288 Posts
On March 20 2026 20:28 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 17:17 Velr wrote:On March 20 2026 17:03 Yurie wrote:
.............It seems to be acceptable to the US as well since they prioritize global trade over crippling Iran (as Iranian oil exports are up since the start of the war........
Uhm... What actions by this american goverment makes you say this? If anything the US has proven that it doesn't car about global/free trade and would rather go back to mercantilism, no matter how stupid that is. How the US is actually acting in this current war. They let all transports through even if it is from Iran. They are lowering sanctions on their global opponent in Russia. They are discussing doing it to their lesser opponent Iran. All of those actions are against mercantilism as I understand it. Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 17:22 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 20 2026 17:03 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 09:30 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 20 2026 07:14 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 07:10 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On March 20 2026 07:03 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 07:01 Hat Trick of Today wrote:On March 20 2026 07:00 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:
[quote]Yeah, I tried to detail how some people believe a joke can't be funny because of the setting, or the surrounding world of the person making it, but I think you've ultimately done a better job than me in explaining that.
We can do all the throat clearing about insensitive jokes and what should and shouldn't be done in diplomacy and this isn't how a world leader should talk. If you really want it. Feels almost rote at this point, given the consistency. We're coming up on the 11th year anniversary for "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." So 11 years of typing the obvious. As always, communication is a two way street. The recipient is part of the conversation. If they feel insulted (even if you didn't mean to insult them) you failed in communication. Do it often enough and people don't want to talk to you. Most people do a mistake here or there and that is forgiven if you simply apologize for it or simply don't do it more than a few times in total. As always the problem with Trump is that he doesn't even realize he made a mistake. Thus he cannot learn from it and will repeat it again. Is it a mistake if you did it on purpose. Depends on the outcome you want. If you want Japan to help you with Iran it is clearly a mistake. If you want Japan to tell your other allies that Iran is a bad deal and stay out, it isn't a mistake. It’s already too late to get allies to help you out in a collision of the willing because Trump and this administration doesn’t believe in even bothering to try manufacturing consent. Like this administration believes in zero sum everything. They believe nations will come help solve this issue because the world economy is cooked if it isn’t resolved and the US believes it js better positioned than other countries to absorb the blow. So I don’t think this administration believes it’s made a mistake or has really made a mistake in the context of their belief system because the only thing this administration believes in is in forcefully coercing people to indulge in their zero sum world view. From my point of view the issue is resolving itself slowly already. Iran is taking full control of the strait and will put up restrictions on which nations that can send ships through. So the global issues will resolve themselves with or without supporting the US vs Iran based on current trends. I'm not sure this is so much resolution, as 'neither actually involved sides see much viability of reaching resolution' so everyone else is trying to find ways around the problem so the world economy can keep chugging along (since they sure as hell can't actually resolve it). And Iran is just reasonable enough to come to agreements with some third parties (probably because 'everyone else' involves some of their allies). I'm not sure if this will do anything to actually end the fighting, Iran won't just let all the ships through, because this is their primary leverage towards no longer getting bombed. And even the rest of the world combined can't pressure the US/Israel into meeting Iranian demands. While the US/Israel can just lose interest/stop bombing Iran, I don't think Iran will trust that it's not just a short reload then they are back in a few months/years again. I don't envision a world where Israel doesn't actually just come back after a short reload, dragging the US back in. So either ground troops actually go in, or somehow the US pressures other countries into some kind of reparations/rebuild package for Iran (the US is sure as hell not going to pay Iran reparations). Or there needs to be at least a change in attitude on the side of the US, eg telling Israel, 'Next time you bomb them you are on your own'. In which case the fight sort of fizzles out, and Iran eventually believes it's not just a short break to restock munitions. None of these options look particularly likely. Either that or Trump gets either China or his russian friends to agree to help Iran rebuild in lieu of actual reparations. They might accept it because it basically guarantees their influence in the region for the forseeable future, and Trump might accept it because compared to not having to deal with either a disastrous ground campaign in Iran or a humiliating meeting of actual Iranian terms probably outweighs actual US geopolitical interest every time. Even there I don't think Russia is even in an economic state to help, and China might just not be that interested in cleaning up a US mess. Well Iran - US relations are dead unless there is a regime change in Iran. Which currently seems unlikely as the US public doesn't want boots on the ground and there is an election soon. Though the US is putting enough marines into the area to be able to do it if they want to. I basically see it as Iran will let Chinese, Indian etc ships through. Ships that are not from those nations will instead move to other trade regions, causing a local monopoly on ship capacity. They can then start charging ships passing through similar to Seuz or Panama canals and things stabilize. It seems to be acceptable to the US as well since they prioritize global trade over crippling Iran (as Iranian oil exports are up since the start of the war). The US is also seriously discussing stopping sanctions on Iranian oil to keep prices down, same as they did for Russian oil. (If I am from a European country bordering Russia I would be furious at that removal of sanctions.) This might actually work if it was a matter of Iran vs the US. The problem here is Israel. The US might prioritise global trade, Israel does not, their priority is in fact crippling Iran. And, again, unless there is a big and unlikely change of the the relationship between the US and Israel, the US is going to get dragged back in. Iran (both the people and the regime) are not idiots, especially in matters of being bullied by the US. If they believe (correctly) that any sort of non-official ceasefire just means US/Israel is going to come back with more bombs in a few months, then they aren't just going to give up their only real leverage. I see it as them going all in on making their leverage formal and not just a threat. Make it a fact of life that the strait belongs to Iran and anybody going through is inspected and pays for transit. If they can make it stick the threat is stronger and not weaker.
Who is they? Not Trump, certainly not Israel. The US isn't going to formalise crap, that's tantamount to just an admission of defeat, and Trump's ego is too fragile to do that.
Even if this sort of control of the strait is acknowledged by the rest of the world, and the US sees this as an opportunity to fuck off quietly and just stop engaging and lets it happen, Israel still doesn't care about this leverage.
So you still need the US to tell Israel they are on their own when they inevitably attack again.
|
On March 20 2026 07:00 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On March 20 2026 05:15 KwarK wrote:On March 20 2026 05:09 dyhb wrote:
A Japanese reporter asks, simplifying some dialogue here, "Why didn't you tell US allies, like Europe and Japan, about the war?"
"We didn't tell anyone about it, because we wanted surprise. Who knows better about surprise than Japan? Why didn't you tell me about Pearl Harbor?"
I guess it depends on your sense of humor whether you think it's a funny joke or not, or whether you think it's a joke in bad taste and choose not to laugh, or if in fact funny jokes do require a backdrop that isn't the chief architect of the American descent into fascism, the fragmentation of old alliances, and war in the middle east. If you can lay aside the setting for the joke and "state of the world" bit, I don't know if it cracks Trump's top five jokes. It was a little too obvious of a crack to make. It's a Mean Girls style power play joke that bullies make. You invite someone over, joke about something that is a sensitive subject for them, then laugh in their face when they don't call you out on it. For bullies getting away with making the joke is why it feels good, it's at someone else's expense and they just sat there and took it. Nothing is more funny than humiliating a friend. You can tell it's a bully joke and not a funny joke from the way it landed. Trump's group of cheerleading weasels smirked and laughed while the Japanese delegation remained entirely stoic. This is how soft power dies. Yeah, I tried to detail how some people believe a joke can't be funny because of the setting, or the surrounding world of the person making it, but I think you've ultimately done a better job than me in explaining that. We can do all the throat clearing about insensitive jokes and what should and shouldn't be done in diplomacy and this isn't how a world leader should talk. If you really want it. Feels almost rote at this point, given the consistency. We're coming up on the 11th year anniversary for "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." So 11 years of typing the obvious. As always, communication is a two way street. The recipient is part of the conversation. If they feel insulted (even if you didn't mean to insult them) you failed in communication. Do it often enough and people don't want to talk to you. Most people do a mistake here or there and that is forgiven if you simply apologize for it or simply don't do it more than a few times in total. As always the problem with Trump is that he doesn't even realize he made a mistake. Thus he cannot learn from it and will repeat it again. The Ukraine cases were worse than this but is of similar nature. Greenland etc etc.
Yes, the recipient is part of the conversation.
For example, the recipient of a question asking why they didn't share information about a secret decapitation strike that was only possible with a few hours notice and luck. They might feel annoyed at having to explain basic common sense about leaks and secrecy and why it's not necessary or maybe even a good idea to tell a country on one side of the world that you're about to bomb a country on the other side of it, but instead choose to do so with levity.
|
Trump on his social media just now:
"Without the U.S.A., NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! They didn’t want to join the fight to stop a Nuclear Powered Iran.
"Now that fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about the high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz, a simple military maneuver that is the single reason for the high oil prices.
"So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, and we will REMEMBER!"
If it's so easy to do, why hasn't he already done it? Is he admitting that the US military is incapable of performing "a simple military maneuver"? Sounds like he is.
EDIT:
British politicians used the phrase "Trumpflation" multiple times during-and-around PMQs on Wednesday and that's exactly what this presidency (and this iteration of the Republican party) should be remembered for.
|
Loving the Republicans telling their angry constituents that it's patriotic to pay higher gas prices. They genuinely think their own voters are morons. To be fair, they've given them good reason to assume that.
|
On March 20 2026 12:03 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 05:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 20 2026 04:36 KwarK wrote:On March 20 2026 04:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
the humour is a pressure release valve so that antisemitism doesn't fester under the surface. Of course, we make jokes about Jewish stereotypes so that antisemitism goes away. It's only a pity that jokes about Jews didn't exist before the 1930s, the entire Holocaust could have been avoided. If you have a direct rebuttal to the logical flow of my post... go for it. if you do not think it offers a pressure relief valve... state your case. Dealing directly with your point, the cause of WW2 and the Holocaust is basic high school history. Had the allies (a) given Germany a viable deal at the end of WW1 (b) not totally demoralized the defeated Germans (c) the allies behaved as though Germans were beyond redemption as a people the chance Germans would vote for a leader like Adolf Hitler is a lot lower. The Treaty of Versailles weakened the German economy, created political instability, fueled anger and nationalism. The Germans would be less likely to be open minded about the only leader giving them hope... Adolf Hitler. When you defeat your opponent... and then crush them into dust while laughing at them you create a breeding ground for guys like Adolf HItler, Jesse Van Rootselaar, and Marc Lepine to go into suicide-murder mode. Once they are in murder-suicide mode you're fucked. They want to die. You have nothing to bargain. You must stop it before it happens. Fortunately, the Allies learned this lesson in 1945 and created a completely different kind of peace at the end of WW2 versus WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles. The 1919 deal was about punishing and weakening Germany, short term settlement, economic strain, blame focused. The 1945 peace agreement was about controlling, rebuilding, and integrating Germany, long term strategy, economic recovery, and focused on stability. The Treaty of Versailles imposed stiff reparations, territorial losses, and military limits. This created a politically unstablem, isolated German government. Obviously, this is fertile ground for extremism. After WW2 Germany was occupied and divided, full denazification, military dismantled only initially. Later, a shift towards rebuilding. after WW2 the allies offered the Marshall Plan and a massive US investment in West Germany. This created prosperity and with people living decent lives.. its hard for extremism to take root. West Germany evolved into a stable democracy. In WW1 Germany was isolated while AFTER WW2 Germany was eventually reintegrated into the global system and NATO. So you have a criminal... do you lock him up and throw away the key? or do you rehab the guy? I say you rehab him. The Allies rehabed Germany after WW2. The Allies locked Germany up and threw away the key in 1919. It’s estimated 15-20 million people died in that conflict, why wouldn’t you punish the loser who triggered it? Your analogy doesn’t really work here. Criminals don’t skip the punishment part and go straight to rehabilitation Germans didn’t have to go with Hitler either, plenty of other options. Instead they picked hyper nationalism and we got what we got. Which ended well with the Red Army sacking Berlin and Germany being generally sensible since It’s almost like rabid nationalism was the problem there or something
Prisons are like a bootcamp for learning criminal tactics and techniques. A local barkeep went to a school for 'difficult' children in France and learned how to pick locks and jumpstart cars there lol. Prisons teach smuggling, thieving, fighting, gang hierarchy, drug dealing and the like. Even the guards working there often turn bad or make money on the side with illicit activities.
They're more likely to produce a more ruthless person on release.
It's also often overlooked that most corporations under Nazi rule got away lightly. They're also responsible for fascist rises to power by supplying them with technology that enables the warmongering in the first place, which at the time were tanks, cryptography machines and other equipment.
And historically, Germany always struggled with being sandwiched between France and the East while having little access to colonial resources. They grew tired of taking the Ls, probably.
|
Affluent people and politicians are starting to be inconvenienced at the airport, so there's a good chance some sort of something (DHS funding) is coming soon.
Also Iran talking about charging a toll on the Strait of Hormuz is interesting.
|
United States43987 Posts
On March 20 2026 23:23 MJG wrote:Trump on his social media just now: Show nested quote +"Without the U.S.A., NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! They didn’t want to join the fight to stop a Nuclear Powered Iran.
"Now that fight is Militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about the high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz, a simple military maneuver that is the single reason for the high oil prices.
"So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, and we will REMEMBER!" If it's so easy to do, why hasn't he already done it? Is he admitting that the US military is incapable of performing "a simple military maneuver"? Sounds like he is. EDIT: British politicians used the phrase "Trumpflation" multiple times during-and-around PMQs on Wednesday and that's exactly what this presidency (and this iteration of the Republican party) should be remembered for.
Trump has yet to request NATO aid beyond vague late night social media posts. They can’t meet and respond to the call for collective action before it is made. He’s like a 15 year old girl vague posting about how you know who your real friends are at times like these.
|
United States43987 Posts
On March 20 2026 23:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 07:00 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2026 05:38 dyhb wrote:On March 20 2026 05:15 KwarK wrote:On March 20 2026 05:09 dyhb wrote:
A Japanese reporter asks, simplifying some dialogue here, "Why didn't you tell US allies, like Europe and Japan, about the war?"
"We didn't tell anyone about it, because we wanted surprise. Who knows better about surprise than Japan? Why didn't you tell me about Pearl Harbor?"
I guess it depends on your sense of humor whether you think it's a funny joke or not, or whether you think it's a joke in bad taste and choose not to laugh, or if in fact funny jokes do require a backdrop that isn't the chief architect of the American descent into fascism, the fragmentation of old alliances, and war in the middle east. If you can lay aside the setting for the joke and "state of the world" bit, I don't know if it cracks Trump's top five jokes. It was a little too obvious of a crack to make. It's a Mean Girls style power play joke that bullies make. You invite someone over, joke about something that is a sensitive subject for them, then laugh in their face when they don't call you out on it. For bullies getting away with making the joke is why it feels good, it's at someone else's expense and they just sat there and took it. Nothing is more funny than humiliating a friend. You can tell it's a bully joke and not a funny joke from the way it landed. Trump's group of cheerleading weasels smirked and laughed while the Japanese delegation remained entirely stoic. This is how soft power dies. Yeah, I tried to detail how some people believe a joke can't be funny because of the setting, or the surrounding world of the person making it, but I think you've ultimately done a better job than me in explaining that. We can do all the throat clearing about insensitive jokes and what should and shouldn't be done in diplomacy and this isn't how a world leader should talk. If you really want it. Feels almost rote at this point, given the consistency. We're coming up on the 11th year anniversary for "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." So 11 years of typing the obvious. As always, communication is a two way street. The recipient is part of the conversation. If they feel insulted (even if you didn't mean to insult them) you failed in communication. Do it often enough and people don't want to talk to you. Most people do a mistake here or there and that is forgiven if you simply apologize for it or simply don't do it more than a few times in total. As always the problem with Trump is that he doesn't even realize he made a mistake. Thus he cannot learn from it and will repeat it again. The Ukraine cases were worse than this but is of similar nature. Greenland etc etc. Yes, the recipient is part of the conversation. For example, the recipient of a question asking why they didn't share information about a secret decapitation strike that was only possible with a few hours notice and luck. They might feel annoyed at having to explain basic common sense about leaks and secrecy and why it's not necessary or maybe even a good idea to tell a country on one side of the world that you're about to bomb a country on the other side of it, but instead choose to do so with levity.
That's not a good thing.
"Why didn't you tell us ahead of time? We could have worked out the strategic keys to victory. We could have stocked up on oil. We could have hardened oil production facilities. We could have increased production elsewhere. We could have moved forces to the region. An operational success can still lead to a strategic loss."
"Lol it's like Pearl Harbor, you get a chance to launch a decapitation strike, you take it, everyone knows that. Broader strategy is for bitches."
Does he not know that Japan lost WW2?
|
On March 20 2026 23:37 LightSpectra wrote:
Loving the Republicans telling their angry constituents that it's patriotic to pay higher gas prices. They genuinely think their own voters are morons. To be fair, they've given them good reason to assume that.
They're not exactly wrong...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
