| 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 | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1271 Posts
Fun! Trump seems to be coming out with 3 commemorative Trump coins, one would be a $1 circulating coin, while the other would be a collectible made from an ounce of 24-karat gold and marked with a face value of $250. ![[image loading]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2026/03/02/us/19DC-TRUMP-COIN-TOP/19DC-TRUMP-COIN-TOP-jumbo.jpg) This, along the Trump airport in Florida, to me, outside looking in do seem like very pressing things that all serious countries do for their presidents. Yey! | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
On March 20 2026 14:54 Simberto wrote: 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. Indeed. Not one of my better posts I have to say! It’s rather the multifaceted beast, It also attests to quite how successful the EU and its forebears has been that the idea of war between members is basically unfathomable now. So successful indeed that I think it’s ended up fostering complacency in the present day. We haven’t levelled up as a species where the scourge of rabid nationalism has been purged from our genes, it’s an affliction that needs consistent management. It’s also worth noting that the world outside also changed much more radically in post-WW2 than post-WW1. Things became much more interconnected, the colonial empire model became somewhat supplanted with empire, US style. For those of a nationalistic persuasion, the yearning for expansion and empire became somewhat anachronistic, that wasn’t really the path to power anymore, the ‘national self-esteem’ as it were could be quenched in other, less destructive domains. It’s a huge, huge part of my disdain for Trump and his lot as an aside. They’re injecting the zero sum approach back into a system that broadly works. Far better than what we had before. Not something I see being broken anytime soon, but I’d rather not see steps in that vague direction | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2290 Posts
On March 21 2026 04:14 Jankisa wrote: https://removepaywalls.com/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/19/us/politics/trump-gold-coin.html Not nearly obese enough. Looks strangely like Clint Eastwood spliced with Jon Voight (?). | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
On March 21 2026 01:40 KwarK wrote: 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? Especially given he’s consistently bitching that other NATO powers haven’t joined in sufficiently or whatever the latest whinge is. This isn’t the final season of Game of Thrones, allied forces can’t bloody teleport willy-nilly It’s a complete clown show. Good job. The only silver lining is that this appears to be one misadventure too far for domestic supporters who aren’t fully in the cult. Unless this is wrapped up on the double, I just can’t see the GOP prospering in the next set of elections or keeping hold of the executive branch when Donald fucks off. Frankly baffling. Biden’s already shown that you’ll be punished for inflation and especially a visible rise in fuel prices, even if it’s not necessarily your administration’s fault. Having observed this and it forming a prominent line of attack on Biden’s economic record, this admin went ahead and did something that’ll impact such areas and 100% can be directly attributed to their policy decisions? | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1133 Posts
After WW1 Germany received huge influxes of American cash and, unkind after WW2, German industry had been untouched by the war. + Show Spoiler + 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.[ Uhm, while agreed that the narrative of "unfairness" was a Nazi thing.. 2nd World war was motivated by the Hegseths' of their time. People that spent most of WW1 as kids in living rooms .. or as 15th tier soldiers who haven't seen enough action to accept reality of war. Misery. Deeply insecure Men with fragile Egos..who felt "unmanly" for not having war stories to tell.. and just wanted a chance to do so. They only ever saw the propaganda side of things And 10 years after the failed attempt of coup, from 1933 to 1939 germany the NAZIS made Germany HEAVILY prepare for war. Gasoline production from Coal, Re-education of the masses... eeeverything. A war that went absurdly well in the west. They could have wiped out most experienced UK troops in Dunkirk.. but let them escape, nobody guarded the Ardennes.. Most countries just gave up or cooperated. If Hitler haven't had been the Donald Hegseth of his time, he wouldn't have broken the pact with Stalin, he would have fortified the eastern flank, while ruling Europe from Atlantic to Warsow...and no US intervention. Imagine Nazi germany not being fighting a losing war on 2 or 3 fronts.. while developing a nuke. Not blitzing London.. but just prepare just fucking nuke it one day.. without US intervention. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
[QUOTE]On March 20 2026 16:49 KwarK wrote: After WW1 Germany received huge influxes of American cash and, unkind after WW2, German industry had been untouched by the war. + Show Spoiler + 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.[ Uhm, while agreed that the narrative of "unfairness" was a Nazi thing.. 2nd World war was motivated by the Hegseths' of their time. People that spent most of WW1 as kids in living rooms .. or as 15th tier soldiers who haven't seen enough action to accept reality of war. Misery. Deeply insecure Men with fragile Egos..who felt "unmanly" for not having war stories to tell.. and just wanted a chance to do so. They only ever saw the propaganda side of things And 10 years after the failed attempt of coup, from 1933 to 1939 germany the NAZIS made Germany HEAVILY prepare for war. Gasoline production from Coal, Re-education of the masses... eeeverything. A war that went absurdly well in the west. They could have wiped out most experienced UK troops in Dunkirk.. but let them escape, nobody guarded the Ardennes.. Most countries just gave up or cooperated. If Hitler haven't had been the Donald Hegseth of his time, he wouldn't have broken the pact with Stalin, he would have fortified the eastern flank, while ruling Europe from Atlantic to Warsow...and no US intervention. Imagine Nazi germany not being fighting a losing war on 2 or 3 fronts.. while developing a nuke. Not blitzing London.. but just prepare just fucking nuke it one day.. without US intervention. [/QUOTE] Luckily we just have to imagine eh? Hitler is almost a polar opposite from a Donald Hegseth, he had pathological convictions that got him into power in the first place, and subsequently guided him. In general being a conviction politician is seen as a positive, in this case very much the opposite. Such ‘what-ifs’ are silly, because they’re not tactical errors the Nazis made, they were errors made because of their wider worldview. It permeated everything they did. Yeah I mean what if the Nazis weren’t Nazis, things woulda gone differently. But they were Nazis. They made massive strategic calls based on perceived racial superiority/inferiority | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11786 Posts
On March 21 2026 07:38 WombaT wrote: Luckily we just have to imagine eh? Hitler is almost a polar opposite from a Donald Hegseth, he had pathological convictions that got him into power in the first place, and subsequently guided him. In general being a conviction politician is seen as a positive, in this case very much the opposite. Such ‘what-ifs’ are silly, because they’re not tactical errors the Nazis made, they were errors made because of their wider worldview. It permeated everything they did. Yeah I mean what if the Nazis weren’t Nazis, things woulda gone differently. But they were Nazis. They made massive strategic calls based on perceived racial superiority/inferiority Another point about the war with the soviet union is that it might have been unavoidable. Stalin was Stalin, after all. He doesn't seem like the type to stay allied to someone with a very different ideology for long. And if it was unavoidable, 1941 was the best time to start that war for Germany. The west was mostly cleaned up, lots of troops available, the soviets weak from purges and not yet in full total war mode either. Imagine not starting that war, and then the soviets just attack Germany in 1942 when they have recovered from their purges and set up their industry. I think a good case can be made that attacking the soviet union in 1941 was the one chance to take out a major adversary with a single big punch before they get their machine running. If the Nazis had managed to take the Soviets out of the war in 1941, they might have actually won the war. If they don't, they get into exactly the same situation they got in in reality, only much worse, because they soviets get to start the war on their terms instead of being rushed into it unprepared. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9792 Posts
Fucking great. Thanks America. | ||
micronesia
United States24761 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9792 Posts
On March 21 2026 09:15 micronesia wrote: I have a fixed rate mortgage to protect me from trump's sexual deviance. Sensible! | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
On March 21 2026 09:15 micronesia wrote: I have a fixed rate mortgage to protect me from trump's sexual deviance. I personally just avoid having a mortgage at all | ||
|
KwarK
United States43737 Posts
Why we're at war Feb 28: Stop the nuclear program (entirely destroyed in 2025 per US) they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program Feb 28: Election interference Iran tried to interfere in 2020, 2024 elections to stop Trump Feb 28: General badness I saw that every month they did something bad, blew something up or killed someone March 1: Not sure U.S. intelligence services did not believe Iran was preparing preemptive attacks against the U.S March 1: Israel YOLO'd and we came too We knew there was going to be Israeli action. We knew that would precipitate an attack against American forces and we knew that if we didn’t pre-emptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties March 2: Self defence For 47 long years, the expansionist and Islamist regime in Tehran has waged a savage, one-sided war against America. March 2: Refusal to negotiate/the crime of arrogance we told them plainly, ‘That’s it. Now make a deal.’ They arrogantly refused. March 2: Iran about to establish a credible deterrent to US attacks this operation needed to happen because Iran in about a year or a year and a half would cross the line of immunity March 3: Israel unrelated If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand. You see, we were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first March 3: Israel again If we stood and waited for that attack (Israel's against Iran) to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties. And so the president made the very wise decision March 4: Self defence the president, prior to that phone call, had a good feeling that the Iranian regime was going to strike the United States March 13: Stop Iranian takeover of the region Iran had plans of taking over the entire Middle East March 15: Preventing a holocaust President Trump has prevented another Holocaust by first obliterating the Iranian main nuclear facilities March 17: Joe Kent resigns I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby. March 18: Assassination plots Tehran’s actions include organizing assassination plots against an American president March 18: State sponsor of terror Remember, for all of those absolute “fools” out there, Iran is considered, by everyone, to be the NUMBER ONE STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR Objectives of the war March 2: Not regime change This is not a so-called regime-change war March 2: Disarm Iran destroy the missile threat, destroy the navy, no nukes March 6: Unconditional surrender There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER March 6: Replacing government with a US friendly government the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader March 9: Open the strait (it was previously open) the Strait of Hormuz is going to remain safe March 10: US surrendering unconditionally on behalf of Iran the commander in chief determines that Iran is in a position of complete and unconditional surrender, whether they say it or not March 11: Control the strait Our mission is to end their ability to project power and harass shipping in the Strait of Hormuz March 17: What war? it's just a military operation to me March 20: Victory (unspecified) We (US and Israel) want victory — both of us — and that’s what we’ve got March 22: Seize the uranium people are going to have to go and get it How long it'll take the US to win February 28: 2-3 days I can go long and take over the whole thing, or end it in two or three days March 2: 4-5 weeks we projected four to five weeks March 2: We don't know four weeks, two weeks, six weeks. It could move up, it could move back March 7: Iran has surrendered Iran, which is being beat to HELL, has apologized and surrendered to its Middle East neighbors, and promised that it will not shoot at them anymore. This promise was only made because of the relentless U.S. and Israeli attack. They were looking to take over and rule the Middle East. It is the first time that Iran has ever lost March 8: Already won We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won March 9: Very complete I think the war is very complete, pretty much March 9: Only just begun per the DoD We have only just begun to fight March 9: Pretty quickly It's going to be finished pretty quickly March 10: Trump will let us know we haven’t stated how long it will take. Our will is endless. Ultimately, the president gets to determine the end state March 10: Trump decides ultimately, the operations will end when the commander in chief determines March 11: Soon the war with Iran will end ‘soon’ because there is ‘practically nothing left to target March 13: Unwilling to accept Iran's conditional surrender Iran, which is totally defeated and wants a deal March 14: 100% destroyed military We have already destroyed 100% of Iran’s Military capability March 14: Iran has been beaten The United States of America has beaten and completely decimated Iran, both Militarily, Economically, and in every other way March 15: Not over yet we demolished, essentially, pretty much demolished, it's not over yet, but pretty much, we're in great shape March 17: Already we have decimated Iran’s Military — Their Navy is gone, their Air Force is gone, their Anti-Aircraft and Radar is gone and perhaps, most importantly, their Leaders, at virtually every level, are gone, never to threaten us, our Middle Eastern Allies, or the World March 18: DoD requests an additional $200,000,000,000 for Iran war. March 18: Hypothetical only I wonder what would happen if we “finished off” what’s left of the Iranian Terror State March 20: Soon We are getting very close to meeting our objectives March 20: Winding down we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East March 20: Already that fight is Militarily WON March 20: Winning too hard to stop you don’t do a ceasefire when you’re literally obliterating the other side March 21: It will continue No, we’re winning the war by a lot. We decimated their whole evil empire. It will continue I’m sure for a little. Deaths are a part of war. March 21: Iran will be destroyed There will be total destruction of Iran, and it’s going to work out great. March 22: A new foe emerges with the death of Iran, the greatest enemy America has is the Democrat Party March 23: Talks are going well VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES March 23: Okay but I only said that I believed he was the leader. That's actually subjective. We’re dealing with a man who I believe is the most respected and the leader. We have not heard from the son.(the new Supreme Leader of Iran) Hormuz? March 3: The US will provide navy escorts If necessary, the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as soon as possible. March 3: The US will open the strait No matter what, the United States will ensure the FREE FLOW of ENERGY to the WORLD March 8: Short term supply issues Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over March 9: Iran does not have my permission to interdict Hormuz If Iran does anything that stops the flow of Oil within the Strait of Hormuz, they will be hit by the United States of America TWENTY TIMES HARDER than they have been hit thus far March 10: Iran is hereby instructed to remove their mines If Iran has put out any mines in the Hormuz Strait we want them removed, IMMEDIATELY! March 12: Escorts to begin soon That was always in our planning, that there’s a chance that US Navy, or perhaps an international coalition, will be escorting oil tankers through March 12: Not ready for escorts to begin It can’t happen now. We’re simply not ready March 12: Advice to oil tankers These ships should go through the Strait of Hormuz and show some guts, there's nothing to be afraid of March 12: Good that it is closed when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money March 13: Iran must reopen it or else I have chosen NOT to wipe out the Oil Infrastructure on the Island. However, should Iran, or anyone else, do anything to interfere with the Free and Safe Passage of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz, I will immediately reconsider this decision March 14: The US will open it One way or the other, we will soon get the Hormuz Strait OPEN, SAFE, and FREE! March 14: Coalition job Many Countries, especially those who are affected by Iran’s attempted closure of the Hormuz Strait, will be sending War Ships, in conjunction with the United States of America, to keep the Strait open and safe March 14: We will help secure it Countries of the World that receive Oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage, and we will help — A LOT! March 14: Easy for Iran to interdict it’s easy for them to send a drone or two, drop a mine, or deliver a close range missile somewhere along, or in, this Waterway, no matter how badly defeated they are March 15: If we don't that's great We're talking to other countries about policing the strait and I think we're getting good response. If we do that's great and if we don't that's great too. March 16: Nobody expected them to target oil Nobody expected that. We were shocked March 16: The greatest experts Nobody, nobody, no, no, no. No, the greatest experts, nobody thought they were going to hit [other gulf countries] March 18: Not our problem let the Countries that use it, we don’t, be responsible for the so called “Strait March 18: Allies problem US allies need to get a grip – step up and help open the Strait of Hormuz March 20: NATO problem 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. So easy for them to do. March 20: Not our problem The Hormuz Strait will have to be guarded and policed, as necessary, by other Nations March 20: Might send in marines I may have a plan I may not. I can’t tell you that March 21: 48 hours to comply If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST March 23: TACO Monday? I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD US allies? March 3: Not happy with the UK I’m not happy with the UK either. That island that you read about … It’s taken three or four days to work out where we can land. March 4: They support it Iran Mission Has Broad Allied Support March 8: UK giving it serious thought The United Kingdom, our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East March 14: They'll join the team (hopefully) Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send Ships to the area March 14: It's a team effort This should have always been a team effort, and now it will be March 15: "About 7" About seven, er, yeah, about seven countries March 15: We're there for NATO We're always there for NATO, we're helping them with Ukraine, it doesn't effect us. March 15: It's not much to ask really It'll be interesting to see what country helps us with a very small endeavor. March 15: I don't want them anymore I said I don't want them after I win the war, I want them before I start March 16: It would be really helpful it would be really helpful if you’d send over a couple of ships and if you have some minesweepers be very helpful March 17: Didn't want their help anyway we no longer “need,” or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance — WE NEVER DID! Likewise, Japan, Australia, or South Korea. In fact, speaking as President of the United States of America, by far the Most Powerful Country Anywhere in the World, WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE March 17: Statement from Canadian gov To our knowledge, a request has not been made to NATO. In terms of the triggering mechanisms for NATO action, at this point it’s important to remember that those conversations among NATO allies have not occurred. March 18: Need to get a grip US allies need to get a grip – step up and help open the Strait of Hormuz March 18: Japan are stepping up Japan, they are really stepping up to the plate, yes, unlike Nato March 18: Statement from Australia We have not been asked to send a ship to the Strait of Hormuz. March 19: Didn't even say "thank you" the world, the Middle East, our ungrateful allies in Europe, and even segments of our own press should be saying one thing to President Trump - 'thank you' March 20: Cowards NATO IS A PAPER TIGER! They didn’t want to join the fight to stop a Nuclear Powered Iran. COWARDS, and we will REMEMBER. Misc Feb 28: Reuters article Prior to Iran attacks, CIA assessed Khamenei would be replaced by hardline IRGC elements if killed March 1: Khamenei killed. March 3: Kurds? President Donald Trump’s administration is actively discussing with opposition Kurdish groups the possibility of arming them, according to CNN, citing Kurdish and US officials. March 18: I asked Netanyahu not to I told him, don’t do that, and he won’t do that. We get along great. It’s coordinated, but on occasion, he’ll do something. March 18: Please stop attacking Qatar, they're not to blame for what Israel does The United States knew nothing about this particular attack, and the country of Qatar was in no way, shape, or form, involved with it, nor did it have any idea that it was going to happen. Unfortunately, Iran did not know this, or any of the pertinent facts pertaining to the South Pars attack, and unjustifiably and unfairly attacked a portion of Qatar’s LNG Gas facility. NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL March 19: Speaking on the condition of anonymity, three Israeli officials briefed on the South Pars strike said the US was informed before the attack, NYT reported. March 21: No Kurds I don’t want the Kurds going in. They’re willing to go in, but I’ve told them I don’t want them going in. March 21: Ground invasion? A great thing! At some point maybe we will. It would be a great thing. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26426 Posts
More diligence went into that post than the war itself | ||
|
baal
10633 Posts
On March 19 2026 17:08 EnDeR_ wrote: Happy to include denying the holodomor illegal. Is there a big group of people going around denying that it happened? YES! almost every hard communist and tankie I've talked with denies de holodomor, its a mainstream hard leftist idea, just as its common hard right wingers deny the holocaust. I don't think you can make the equivalence of the hammer and sickle and nazi swastikas; one stands for an ideology about resource distribution, the other stands for white supremacy and antisemitism. It is obviously true that atrocities have been committed under the banner of communism, but the stated intent was never "eradicate the jews" or "purify the white race" for any of these regimes, if you see what I mean. The key difference is intent, even if the outcomes aren't too dissimilar in practice. The sated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews, yet they did in secret just like the stated intent of Soviets wasn't to exterminate the Kulaks, yet they did in secret. -When somebody says "eat the rich" they don't actually mean to kill the rich, despise that historically they always have done it, it just means, redistribute. -When a muslim chants in the streets "Khaibar Khaibar ya Yahud" they don't actually mean to massacre the jews like they did in Khaibar, its just a chant of the oppressed against Israel. -When somebody says "seig heil" oh ok that is hate speech, arrest him. That's ridiculous hates speech laws are enforced however the people in power see fit, and as I've said before, there will be a time where the people in power think very different than you and will apply these laws in ways you won't like. | ||
|
baal
10633 Posts
On March 19 2026 22:15 WombaT wrote: I mean it kinda definitionally is the extreme position to be 100% free speech on the ‘what restrictions should there be on speech?’ scale. Not that it is necessarily an extreme position to hold. My point was more that if one holds that position and sticks to it, it’s an easy one not to be hypocritical, or inconsistent on. Whereas it’s more difficult to be more restrictive, while maintaining a general capacity for free and open speech and not open up blind spots or arbitrary restrictions etc. But just because that may be more tricky doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the wrong general course, at least not for me. Like TL would be easier to moderate and more consistently moderated if it wasn’t moderated at all, but that may not be especially desirous Just to clarify what I meant there Yes but its not better because its simple, its better because it derives from clearly formed first principles, it doesn't mean things can't be built upon first principles with nuance but the opinions on this topic of the vast majority of people are simply inherited from how things are and they sound reasonable and it hasn't caused them big problems. The thing is, they are flawed, poorly constructed and even if they haven't caused harm the will, proof of this is the discrepancy of support of these laws in europe and the us, its just what they were born into. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5956 Posts
On March 21 2026 01:40 KwarK wrote: 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? The Khamenei meeting was struck on the timeframe of hours since the discovery of it. Most of the US didn't know, why would Japan get to know. Pearl Harbor was not successful by its own goal of hitting the carrier fleet, which while not the same as getting FDR would be more in the ballpark of a fitting analogy for a "decapitation strike" had it happened. Otherwise sorry but Iran is not going to nuke the US twice and occupy it. | ||
|
Yurie
12074 Posts
On March 21 2026 13:32 WombaT wrote: Argggghhhh More diligence went into that post than the war itself Wonder if they are as incompetent as they make themselves feel or they are using the Russian playbook of stating whatever might be popular to a single demographic for all demographics. Expecting the other ones to ignore what isn't aimed at them (if so they are failing at the basic thing of having them on different platforms). | ||
|
Yurie
12074 Posts
On March 21 2026 14:59 oBlade wrote: The Khamenei meeting was struck on the timeframe of hours since the discovery of it. Most of the US didn't know, why would Japan get to know. Pearl Harbor was not successful by its own goal of hitting the carrier fleet, which while not the same as getting FDR would be more in the ballpark of a fitting analogy for a "decapitation strike" had it happened. Otherwise sorry but Iran is not going to nuke the US twice and occupy it. Hours within discovery of what? | ||
|
Falling
Canada11450 Posts
Well, we are assuming a world in which Trump and friends actually wanted a country like Japan to join them in Iran. Then they should probably know in advance so they can move military assets over in a timely manner. And maybe stock up in preparation for oil shortages. But if the US doesn't want allies to join, then they should just carry on as they are by springing random wars around the world and vague-post on social media, complaining that no one is joining your party but failing to ever make a formal invite. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2809 Posts
On March 21 2026 14:09 baal wrote: YES! almost every hard communist and tankie I've talked with denies de holodomor, its a mainstream hard leftist idea, just as its common hard right wingers deny the holocaust. The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews, yet they did in secret just like the stated intent of Soviets wasn't to exterminate the Kulaks, yet they did in secret. -When somebody says "eat the rich" they don't actually mean to kill the rich, despise that historically they always have done it, it just means, redistribute. -When a muslim chants in the streets "Khaibar Khaibar ya Yahud" they don't actually mean to massacre the jews like they did in Khaibar, its just a chant of the oppressed against Israel. -When somebody says "seig heil" oh ok that is hate speech, arrest him. That's ridiculous hates speech laws are enforced however the people in power see fit, and as I've said before, there will be a time where the people in power think very different than you and will apply these laws in ways you won't like. Source for the bolded? | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Soulkey vs Ample
JyJ vs sSak
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
hero vs YSC
Larva vs Shine
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
KCM Race Survival
The PondCast
WardiTV Team League
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i0.wp.com/caffeineandphilosophy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/dank-1.jpg?resize=331%2C247&ssl=1)
