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.
On April 02 2026 10:31 KwarK wrote: The IRGC not only survived, they have not been forced to a nuclear deal, no restrictions on missiles, no inspections, no nothing.
Only sanctions relief on Iranian oil and the ceding of control over the Persian Gulf to the victor, currently Iran but he invites countries who want to further destabilize the region to fight it out. I’d be surprised if in a few months if the oil is moving again, albeit through the toll booth, any other country will decide to go back to things exploding. Nobody will thank them for that.
I've avoided commenting because arguing over an ongoing event is even worse around here than something thst has already finished, but your decade+ long love affair with the nuke deal is interfering with your mind.
You csn say regime change is necessary (arguable) but from the beginning as laid out by Rubio the millitary objectives were the goal. Obliterate their capabilities so it doesn’t matter what they *want* to do, with the implicit threat of doing it again later if needed were always the stated aim. And those objectives are on pace to be completed. I mean if Iran is winning I'd hate to see what them losing looks like!
We'll see what happens with the strait, I don't mind the US doing a "if you won't we will" but given Trump's long stated disdain for Europe his attitude is hardly a surprise and if he does back off it is more a political mistake than a millitary one. But he pur out a post today saying it better or be open or else so who knows how much of this is a game of chicken. Rubio has been much more clear but saying Iran won because the regime is there and there is no "deal" totally misunderstands the goal of the operation in the first place. My final thought is that western nations as whole, not the US have become far too complacent and too rich. Too many people are unwilling to shoulder even the slightest inconvenience or take even the smallest risk. They would rather sit there and hope that things would just work out. And doesn't even count the significant number of leftists who are actively rooting against the US. I hope Cuba falls, it would be another good day for the world and would cause gnashing of teeth heretofore unseen.
I hope US implodes, the stock market crashes and burns, most banks go on a run and dollar hyper inflates to the point where the country falls apart and decent states secede and form a country worth being allies with.
US, as currently constructed is the biggest threat to the worlds security and it would be a good day for the world, plus all the entitled little pricks getting off on imposing "slightest inconveniences" like fuel and energy rationing to half of the world would finally be held responsible for electing lunatics.
On April 02 2026 11:32 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On April 02 2026 10:56 Introvert wrote:
On April 02 2026 10:31 KwarK wrote: My final thought is that western nations as whole, not the US have become far too complacent and too rich. Too many people are unwilling to shoulder even the slightest inconvenience or take even the smallest risk. They would rather sit there and hope that things would just work out. And doesn't even count the significant number of leftists who are actively rooting against the US. I hope Cuba falls, it would be another good day for the world and would cause gnashing of teeth heretofore unseen.
As someone vaguely leftist, actively rooting against the US. I'd be well willing to shoulder some risk and inconvenience if the rest of the world would cut off economic, diplomatic and military ties to the US. It's about damn time we have a reminder that just going around bombing other countries isn't supposed to come without consequences.
Is there anything else that is supposed to have consequences?
Everything should have consequences. Some good some bad.
Unless those things pertain specifically to a military attack on the US, it's not the US's job to take it on itself to be 'consequences'.
Oh, what about US allies?
Or any country. Say Russia messes with Latvia. I don't think it's a personal matter just between them.
Madeleine Albright said famously deaths caused by a decade of peaceful non-military sanctions on Ba'athist Iraq were worth it. Not a single shot fired. Seems like an arbitrary line.
On April 02 2026 10:31 KwarK wrote: The IRGC not only survived, they have not been forced to a nuclear deal, no restrictions on missiles, no inspections, no nothing.
Only sanctions relief on Iranian oil and the ceding of control over the Persian Gulf to the victor, currently Iran but he invites countries who want to further destabilize the region to fight it out. I’d be surprised if in a few months if the oil is moving again, albeit through the toll booth, any other country will decide to go back to things exploding. Nobody will thank them for that.
I've avoided commenting because arguing over an ongoing event is even worse around here than something thst has already finished, but your decade+ long love affair with the nuke deal is interfering with your mind.
You csn say regime change is necessary (arguable) but from the beginning as laid out by Rubio the millitary objectives were the goal. Obliterate their capabilities so it doesn’t matter what they *want* to do, with the implicit threat of doing it again later if needed were always the stated aim. And those objectives are on pace to be completed. I mean if Iran is winning I'd hate to see what them losing looks like!
We'll see what happens with the strait, I don't mind the US doing a "if you won't we will" but given Trump's long stated disdain for Europe his attitude is hardly a surprise and if he does back off it is more a political mistake than a millitary one. But he pur out a post today saying it better or be open or else so who knows how much of this is a game of chicken. Rubio has been much more clear but saying Iran won because the regime is there and there is no "deal" totally misunderstands the goal of the operation in the first place. My final thought is that western nations as whole, not the US have become far too complacent and too rich. Too many people are unwilling to shoulder even the slightest inconvenience or take even the smallest risk. They would rather sit there and hope that things would just work out. And doesn't even count the significant number of leftists who are actively rooting against the US. I hope Cuba falls, it would be another good day for the world and would cause gnashing of teeth heretofore unseen.
I hope US implodes, the stock market crashes and burns, most banks go on a run and dollar hyper inflates to the point where the country falls apart and decent states secede and form a country worth being allies with.
US, as currently constructed is the biggest threat to the worlds security and it would be a good day for the world, plus all the entitled little pricks getting off on imposing "slightest inconveniences" like fuel and energy rationing to half of the world would finally be held responsible for electing lunatics.
That‘s not really necessary. What else should be reserve currency ? With the amount of conflicting interests it seems impossible. Switzerland historically mediates and even they are upset. And it takes a lot to upset Switzerland.
All of that isn‘t necessary if the system succesfully prevents abuse of power.
The law and order shtick gets really old when it‘s untouchable kleptocrats purporting it.
On April 02 2026 10:31 KwarK wrote: The IRGC not only survived, they have not been forced to a nuclear deal, no restrictions on missiles, no inspections, no nothing.
Only sanctions relief on Iranian oil and the ceding of control over the Persian Gulf to the victor, currently Iran but he invites countries who want to further destabilize the region to fight it out. I’d be surprised if in a few months if the oil is moving again, albeit through the toll booth, any other country will decide to go back to things exploding. Nobody will thank them for that.
I've avoided commenting because arguing over an ongoing event is even worse around here than something thst has already finished, but your decade+ long love affair with the nuke deal is interfering with your mind.
You csn say regime change is necessary (arguable) but from the beginning as laid out by Rubio the millitary objectives were the goal. Obliterate their capabilities so it doesn’t matter what they *want* to do, with the implicit threat of doing it again later if needed were always the stated aim. And those objectives are on pace to be completed. I mean if Iran is winning I'd hate to see what them losing looks like!
We'll see what happens with the strait, I don't mind the US doing a "if you won't we will" but given Trump's long stated disdain for Europe his attitude is hardly a surprise and if he does back off it is more a political mistake than a millitary one. But he pur out a post today saying it better or be open or else so who knows how much of this is a game of chicken. Rubio has been much more clear but saying Iran won because the regime is there and there is no "deal" totally misunderstands the goal of the operation in the first place. My final thought is that western nations as whole, not the US have become far too complacent and too rich. Too many people are unwilling to shoulder even the slightest inconvenience or take even the smallest risk. They would rather sit there and hope that things would just work out. And doesn't even count the significant number of leftists who are actively rooting against the US. I hope Cuba falls, it would be another good day for the world and would cause gnashing of teeth heretofore unseen.
I hope US implodes, the stock market crashes and burns, most banks go on a run and dollar hyper inflates to the point where the country falls apart and decent states secede and form a country worth being allies with.
US, as currently constructed is the biggest threat to the worlds security and it would be a good day for the world, plus all the entitled little pricks getting off on imposing "slightest inconveniences" like fuel and energy rationing to half of the world would finally be held responsible for electing lunatics.
That‘s not really necessary. What else should be reserve currency ? With the amount of conflicting interests it seems impossible. Switzerland historically mediates and even they are upset. And it takes a lot to upset Switzerland.
All of that isn‘t necessary if the system succesfully prevents abuse of power.
The law and order shtick gets really old when it‘s untouchable kleptocrats purporting it.
I'm just mirroring this ghoul Lindsey Graham impersonator's energy.
Just like he doesn't understand that going around bombing and destabilizing countries and regions is fucked I'm pretending like I don't realize that USA falling apart would be catastrophic in many ways.
The system, from everything I've seen has fallen apart, because it was built on norms and people expecting they will be respected.
On April 01 2026 20:55 EnDeR_ wrote: I don't really want to relitigate the COVID response by different governments, we've already had that one.
The rollout was unprecedented, we have never had any medicine (as far as I know, I could be wrong) rolled out quite that quickly from proof of concept to millions of doses prepared. Like, what would constitute a win for you?
The only reason the US gov did not capitalise on operation warp speed being the absolute win that it was is because Trump is a moron and he picked up antivaxx rethoric instead.
I don't think COVID was a particularly good example of good governance. I think it was a huge far reaching crisis that had extremely complex inter-related parts. It was so complicated that you won't get two people to agree of what would have been the optimum approach even in retrospect.
The vaccine development was pretty good and it was a big win but not for the government, they didn't develop it.
The production was lackluster, it was pretty good for private company standard, but for it to be a government win, they had years to build mega factories "China-style"ready to produce at many multiples the rate of production they had.
But my complains aren't regarding the vaccine it was about response to the pandemic.
Almost every single expert in twitter agreed on the strategy, staticists like Nassim Taleb, viologists were at unison talking about dramatic quick response, and president have access to experts at the highest level, it wasn't ignorance why they under reacted, it was incentives:
If they overreact and the virus turns out to be a dud (like others were) people obv get upset and it hurts the in elections, but overreaction is the correct respose to geometric threats, thats why virtually every government (outside of east asia) under reacted, politics are popularity contests and that is a terrible incentive when the things that must be done are unpopular.
Oh, but that's a very narrow definition of what success looks like. Arguably, if the government had set up production in such a way, there would be an absolute shit storm from a certain political collective about the waste and how their tax dollars shouldn't be used to subsidise vaccines in shit hole countries.
To your second point, I hadn't realised that you were referring only to the start of the pandemic. In this case I agree with you, we knew what was going on in China, western countries should have acted sooner, and that first lockdown was delayed for no reason. The UK was a particularly bad offender, business had already locked down before the official guidance arrived, which is kind of nuts. This one was a no-brainer, agree 100%.
lol then we've been agreeing all along.
Why would the construction of a mega-factory be tied with subsidizing vaccines to foreign countries?
It's not a narrow definition or a difficult ask, the mega-factory is not a complex thing to do, if Xi Jinping wants a mega-factory it gets constructed immediately, but western bureaucracies are 99% friction and can't get anything done, not even in emergencies.
On April 02 2026 16:52 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On April 02 2026 16:44 oBlade wrote:
On April 02 2026 11:32 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On April 02 2026 10:56 Introvert wrote:
On April 02 2026 10:31 KwarK wrote: My final thought is that western nations as whole, not the US have become far too complacent and too rich. Too many people are unwilling to shoulder even the slightest inconvenience or take even the smallest risk. They would rather sit there and hope that things would just work out. And doesn't even count the significant number of leftists who are actively rooting against the US. I hope Cuba falls, it would be another good day for the world and would cause gnashing of teeth heretofore unseen.
As someone vaguely leftist, actively rooting against the US. I'd be well willing to shoulder some risk and inconvenience if the rest of the world would cut off economic, diplomatic and military ties to the US. It's about damn time we have a reminder that just going around bombing other countries isn't supposed to come without consequences.
Is there anything else that is supposed to have consequences?
Everything should have consequences. Some good some bad.
Unless those things pertain specifically to a military attack on the US, it's not the US's job to take it on itself to be 'consequences'.
Oh, what about US allies?
Or any country. Say Russia messes with Latvia. I don't think it's a personal matter just between them.
Madeleine Albright said famously deaths caused by a decade of peaceful non-military sanctions on Ba'athist Iraq were worth it. Not a single shot fired. Seems like an arbitrary line.
I didn't draw a line. Latvia is free to call upon article 5, it is a member of NATO. That's not the US appointing itself the judge, jury and executioner, that's just it meeting it's treaty obligations of a defensive alliance, as other NATO members should also do.
Likewise, any other US ally is free to ask for help, and depending on the terms of their alliance the US may be obliged or not to help. Even without obligation, they may choose to help or not.
If said US ally, (or anyone else) asks for military assistance to use in an offensive capacity, like say, Israel. They deserve to get shit about it from the international community, and there should be diplomatic, economic, politlcal etc consequences. If the US chooses to provide said assistance, likewise, they deserve to get shit about it, and suffer some consequences.
As citizen of a close US ally, when we went in with the US on Iraq, or Afghanistan, we ABSOLUTELY deserved to suffer some level of censure from the international community (consequences, of course, did not actually eventuate).
what if Donald Trump wants to lose the war in Iran? Losing this war can make the world far more dependent on the "greater North America". The "greater North America" is "from Greenland to the Panama Canal and its surrounding countries". The USA intends on exerting total control over the "greater North America".
starts @ 2:35.
Reported Iranian civilian casualties under 10,000. 13 US service members have died. Should Trump pull off such a move this would be a brilliantly efficient "managed conflict".
On April 02 2026 16:52 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On April 02 2026 16:44 oBlade wrote:
On April 02 2026 11:32 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On April 02 2026 10:56 Introvert wrote:
On April 02 2026 10:31 KwarK wrote: My final thought is that western nations as whole, not the US have become far too complacent and too rich. Too many people are unwilling to shoulder even the slightest inconvenience or take even the smallest risk. They would rather sit there and hope that things would just work out. And doesn't even count the significant number of leftists who are actively rooting against the US. I hope Cuba falls, it would be another good day for the world and would cause gnashing of teeth heretofore unseen.
As someone vaguely leftist, actively rooting against the US. I'd be well willing to shoulder some risk and inconvenience if the rest of the world would cut off economic, diplomatic and military ties to the US. It's about damn time we have a reminder that just going around bombing other countries isn't supposed to come without consequences.
Is there anything else that is supposed to have consequences?
Everything should have consequences. Some good some bad.
Unless those things pertain specifically to a military attack on the US, it's not the US's job to take it on itself to be 'consequences'.
Oh, what about US allies?
Or any country. Say Russia messes with Latvia. I don't think it's a personal matter just between them.
Madeleine Albright said famously deaths caused by a decade of peaceful non-military sanctions on Ba'athist Iraq were worth it. Not a single shot fired. Seems like an arbitrary line.
I didn't draw a line. Latvia is free to call upon article 5, it is a member of NATO. That's not the US appointing itself the judge, jury and executioner, that's just it meeting it's treaty obligations of a defensive alliance, as other NATO members should also do.
The choice of Latvia was to evaluate size differential.
Imagine Russia attacked Georgia again. They're not in NATO. Is this a problem? Whose job is it to fix, if any?
On April 02 2026 18:36 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Likewise, any other US ally is free to ask for help, and depending on the terms of their alliance the US may be obliged or not to help. Even without obligation, they may choose to help or not.
If Iran bombs Israel, can the US help?
If Iran gives stuff to Hezbollah and Hamas who bomb Israel, can the US help?
With or without a piece of paper signed before hand that specifies "We agree to do this if this happens?"
On April 02 2026 18:36 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: If said US ally, (or anyone else) asks for military assistance to use in an offensive capacity, like say, Israel. They deserve to get shit about it from the international community, and there should be diplomatic, economic, politlcal etc consequences. If the US chooses to provide said assistance, likewise, they deserve to get shit about it, and suffer some consequences.
So like if NATO came to help Latvia because Russia's attack triggered it, it would still be worse than Russia's attack on Latvia if NATO troops were to actually cross the border into Russia or fired any munition into Russia. That would not be "defensive." Is that what your constraint on "defensive" is? Because normally how wars work and how NATO is set up is if someone is attacked, other people join the war. To prosecute it against those that started it. I'm not familiar with the rules of war prohibiting you from attacking the aggressor who illegally started it on the basis that that would also be illegal aggression.
I think you've taken the word "defensive" and run with it to mean "passive."
I don't see that validating a defensive alliance of 30 nations and ignoring one of two nations... This goes back to an international tyranny of the majority. If there's no mechanism for helping the little guy the design is wrong. It just pushes "bigger country wins because might makes right" back a step to "bigger alliance is right because consensus." Which is also weird because countries are not a standard unit meaning the number by itself isn't clear. Luxembourg and Lichtenstein and Monaco together obviously should not in most cases have 3x the voice of India.
On April 02 2026 18:36 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: As citizen of a close US ally, when we went in with the US on Iraq, or Afghanistan, we ABSOLUTELY deserved to suffer some level of censure from the international community (consequences, of course, did not actually eventuate).
I get it.
But what do you expect the international community ought to have done about Iraq and Afghanistan? The first step in the chain.
Humor me, even though it's history it might be important for the next Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraq => WMDs used as an excuse for regime change => The regime was toppled in short order.
Iran => WMDs used as an excuse for regime change => The US fails to achieve regime change, but that wasn't actually their goal because their goal was to get rid of nuclear capabilities that they already got rid of last year, but actually they did achieve regime change because they're negotiating with a new regime, and those negotiations are definitely going really well, but actually they're not going well so they're going to bomb Iran into the stone age, but actually the US is going to pull out within weeks whether or not the negotiations go well because the US has already won, so stop complaining about the vital trade route that has been closed as a result of the US definitely achieving regime change (that they may or may not have actually achieved, and that wasn't even their goal in the first place so stop acting like it was), because NATO can come and open that trade route and it will be really easy thanks to the US already completing the job, but actually NATO doesn't need to do anything because the problem will solve itself naturally, but none of that is relevant anyway because the trade route is safe enough that other countries should just come and get their oil from the active war zone that the US definitely had a good reason to cause.
Trump in the past has likened himself to the hero of an Ayn Rand novel. Her #1 hero was John Galt. He was both a destroyer and a liberator. John Galt wrecked his greatest allies for much of the 1100 page novel. If Trump genuinely views himself from this lens then we could be in for a long war in Iran. And, in John Galt style, it will be a war he loses intentionally.
If the war goes on a long time the only countries with big oil reserves left standing will be Venezuela , USA, Canada, and the Soviet Union. UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait will have their production and shipping capabilities greatly diminished. All the oil in Venezuela and Canada is effectively US oil.
If the Iran War keeps going Russia will be dealt the cards, if played properly, that makes them capable of completely taking over the Ukraine.
On April 02 2026 20:31 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Trump in the past has likened himself to the hero of an Ayn Rand novel. Her #1 hero was John Galt. He was both a destroyer and a liberator. John Galt wrecked his greatest allies for much of the 1100 page novel. If Trump genuinely views himself from this lens then we could be in for a long war in Iran. And, in John Galt style, it will be a war he loses intentionally.
If the war goes on a long time the only countries with big oil reserves left standing will be Venezuela , USA, Canada, and the Soviet Union. UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait will have their production and shipping capabilities greatly diminished. All the oil in Venezuela and Canada is effectively US oil.
If the Iran War keeps going Russia will be dealt the cards, if played properly, that makes them capable of completely taking over the Ukraine.
Trump is playing chess when everyone else is playing checkers...
... except the board has checkers pieces on it, everyone came expecting to play checkers, nobody has brought any chess pieces with them, and there's a large banner saying "Checkers World Championships 2026" hanging over the playing area. Nobody knows why a senile old man has arrived yelling about chess, nobody wants him there, and everyone wishes he would leave.
On April 02 2026 20:31 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Trump in the past has likened himself to the hero of an Ayn Rand novel. Her #1 hero was John Galt. He was both a destroyer and a liberator. John Galt wrecked his greatest allies for much of the 1100 page novel. If Trump genuinely views himself from this lens then we could be in for a long war in Iran. And, in John Galt style, it will be a war he loses intentionally.
If the war goes on a long time the only countries with big oil reserves left standing will be Venezuela , USA, Canada, and the Soviet Union. UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait will have their production and shipping capabilities greatly diminished. All the oil in Venezuela and Canada is effectively US oil.
If the Iran War keeps going Russia will be dealt the cards, if played properly, that makes them capable of completely taking over the Ukraine.
Trump is playing chess when everyone else is playing checkers...
... except the board has checkers pieces on it, everyone came expecting to play checkers, nobody has brought any chess pieces with them, and there's a large banner saying "Checkers World Championships 2026" hanging over the playing area. Nobody knows why a senile old man has arrived yelling about chess, nobody wants him there, and everyone wishes he would leave.
Thankfully, where i live, salmon fishing is easier than falling out of the boat. If salmon keeps getting more expensive I'm just going to start salmon fishing on the weekends. I am not paying $10 for a can of salmon.
On April 02 2026 20:36 MJG wrote:Nobody knows why a senile old man has arrived yelling about chess, nobody wants him there, and everyone wishes he would leave.
check 39:06 of the video I posted. Trump wants to play a different game. He wants the game changed AWAY FROM Bush's 1991 "New World Order". That is, the world of Finance, Secular Multiculturalism (worship money as god) , Global Domination (Pax Americana).
The changed world Trump wants to oversee includes three new pillars. I only agree with one of the presenter's three pillars in the changed world. That is , "Resources and Manufacturing".
I do not 100% believe the statements made @ 39 minutes of the video. It is interesting for contemplation though.
Jimmy, honestly, it's fascinating to observe your media diet, the guy who got boosted by algos, I think we even mentioned him here, and how he is clearly wrong about things all, the, time, including how and why the Iran war would go for USA.
This guy is now spewing a new line of bullshit and you are buying it hook, line and sinker.
The guy is a dishonest conspiracy peddler, he is not a professor at all, even tho he calls himself that, I mean, I guess it's no wonder that someone obsessed with one of the worse writers in history would find him interesting and insightful but come on man, you are coming off as even more ignorant then the ideological brainwashed Trump bootlickers Introvert and oBlade by posting this idiot here.
On April 01 2026 20:42 LightSpectra wrote: If communists should be stigmatized because of Mao, the Holodomor, Pol Pot, etc. then why shouldn't capitalists be stigmatized because of Hitler, the Atlantic slave trade, the Irish famine, etc.?
Also, can't that C. S. Lewis quote also be used to refer to capitalists who did immoral things because they genuinely believe communism must be stopped at any cost, like when the CIA supported numerous right-wing dictators solely because of their anti-Soviet stance?
The Nazis weren't for free markets at all (Authoritarian governments never are, since obviously controlling the economy is a core part of authoritarianism) they had an economic model that resembles modern China, where small capital dissolved into mega corps handled by friends of the Reich kept in tight control (like Jack Ma in China),
How are the Atlantic slave trade or Irish famine directly related to capitalism? Slavery had existed for thousands of years cross any economical model known to mankind
For-profit companies crossing oceans to capture slaves for their shareholders is capitalism.
and the Irish famine was caused by potato blight and a pseudo-feudalist economy.
Again, actual wtf moment here. The British Empire forcing Ireland to export food while the people on the island were starving is not "pseudo-feudalist." (Tangential, but most historians nowadays avoid using the term "feudalism" entirely because it's simultaneously too vague and full of erroneous stereotypes. But that doesn't even matter because feudalism and capitalism can co-exist.)
The death attributions to communism are direct, caused by murders in the revolution, camps like gulags or famines linked to communist policy not external factors.
Sure, I'll grant this, but your argument above is there's no point in blaming capitalism for slavery when it existed in other economic-political systems. Well, there were revolutionary murders, forced labor camps, and engineered famines in non-communist regimes as well, right?
Not at all, CS Lewis quote isnt referring to right wing ideology since it isn't "altruistic" in nature, it's about protecting your own not everybody, but even the ones who thought more about system scale like Rand think individualism generates better conditions overall for everybody the point is pragmatism, what works, not what might be perfect.
The good intentioned busy bodies have always been on the left, the right tortures you for their own good, the left tortures you for the good of mankind.
I actually couldn't say anything more supportive of my initial thesis (that stigmatizing all communists for things that capitalists have also done is hypocritical) than what you just wrote.
To be more clear on what I'm saying in case I wasn't: I don't consider myself a capitalist or a communist, but I can't help but notice how ridiculous it is that people say communism is evil because of X, but when you point out that X has occurred in innumerable capitalist societies, it gets hand-waved away by some technicality. My favorite is "it wasn't true capitalism". If you roll your eyes at the "not true communism" argument, don't use that one.
On April 02 2026 19:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: what if Donald Trump wants to lose the war in Iran? Losing this war can make the world far more dependent on the "greater North America". The "greater North America" is "from Greenland to the Panama Canal and its surrounding countries". The USA intends on exerting total control over the "greater North America".
Reported Iranian civilian casualties under 10,000. 13 US service members have died. Should Trump pull off such a move this would be a brilliantly efficient "managed conflict".
is Donald Trump crazy? or is he crazy like a fox?
This guy is about as reliable of a source on geopolitics as the local homeless drunk :D
On April 01 2026 20:55 EnDeR_ wrote: I don't really want to relitigate the COVID response by different governments, we've already had that one.
The rollout was unprecedented, we have never had any medicine (as far as I know, I could be wrong) rolled out quite that quickly from proof of concept to millions of doses prepared. Like, what would constitute a win for you?
The only reason the US gov did not capitalise on operation warp speed being the absolute win that it was is because Trump is a moron and he picked up antivaxx rethoric instead.
I don't think COVID was a particularly good example of good governance. I think it was a huge far reaching crisis that had extremely complex inter-related parts. It was so complicated that you won't get two people to agree of what would have been the optimum approach even in retrospect.
The vaccine development was pretty good and it was a big win but not for the government, they didn't develop it.
The production was lackluster, it was pretty good for private company standard, but for it to be a government win, they had years to build mega factories "China-style"ready to produce at many multiples the rate of production they had.
But my complains aren't regarding the vaccine it was about response to the pandemic.
Almost every single expert in twitter agreed on the strategy, staticists like Nassim Taleb, viologists were at unison talking about dramatic quick response, and president have access to experts at the highest level, it wasn't ignorance why they under reacted, it was incentives:
If they overreact and the virus turns out to be a dud (like others were) people obv get upset and it hurts the in elections, but overreaction is the correct respose to geometric threats, thats why virtually every government (outside of east asia) under reacted, politics are popularity contests and that is a terrible incentive when the things that must be done are unpopular.
Oh, but that's a very narrow definition of what success looks like. Arguably, if the government had set up production in such a way, there would be an absolute shit storm from a certain political collective about the waste and how their tax dollars shouldn't be used to subsidise vaccines in shit hole countries.
To your second point, I hadn't realised that you were referring only to the start of the pandemic. In this case I agree with you, we knew what was going on in China, western countries should have acted sooner, and that first lockdown was delayed for no reason. The UK was a particularly bad offender, business had already locked down before the official guidance arrived, which is kind of nuts. This one was a no-brainer, agree 100%.
lol then we've been agreeing all along.
Why would the construction of a mega-factory be tied with subsidizing vaccines to foreign countries?
It's not a narrow definition or a difficult ask, the mega-factory is not a complex thing to do, if Xi Jinping wants a mega-factory it gets constructed immediately, but western bureaucracies are 99% friction and can't get anything done, not even in emergencies.
My point is that as things shook out, there were enough doses for everyone (in the US, not worldwide). In fact, the US had a huge surplus because the problem wasn't production; it was that people were not taking them and ended up with millions in surplus. Therefore, if there had been a bigger production capacity, you'd just be subsidising other countries who didn't manage to get enough vaccines. Considering all Western democracies managed to get enough doses for everyone living there, you'd be subsidising vaccines for poorer nations, the infamous "shit hole" countries.
I still don't understand why you think it wasn't a huge success considering they produced enough doses for everyone (again, in the US, not worldwide) in a record time.
On April 02 2026 21:12 Jankisa wrote: how he is clearly wrong about things all, the, time, including how and why the Iran war would go for USA.
please read my entire post.
he is entertaining. he has gotten some things right about the US/Iran war. he has gotten some things wrong. his biggest miss i think is his projection of a military draft. i don't see that happening.
On April 02 2026 21:12 Jankisa wrote: Jimmy, honestly, it's fascinating to observe your media diet
On April 02 2026 19:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: what if Donald Trump wants to lose the war in Iran? Losing this war can make the world far more dependent on the "greater North America". The "greater North America" is "from Greenland to the Panama Canal and its surrounding countries". The USA intends on exerting total control over the "greater North America".
Reported Iranian civilian casualties under 10,000. 13 US service members have died. Should Trump pull off such a move this would be a brilliantly efficient "managed conflict".
is Donald Trump crazy? or is he crazy like a fox?
This guy is about as reliable of a source on geopolitics as the local homeless drunk :D
Hey sometimes those guys have spot-on insights!
What’s the proffered hypothesis here anyway? The US jumped in and is intentionally going to lose this conflict so it can somehow rearrange the globe in its favour?
I’m fine hopping into an hour long video or whatever to get the more granular detail around an issue or hypothesis, but not to merely understand what the actual point is.
Feels there’s this whole cottage industry of symbiotic bullshit. Trump’s US throws out the stupid shit, then commentators indulge in crazy gymnastics to spin it into some sensible, sophisticated master plan.
It’s like seeing a weird and wonky build order you’ve never seen before. Ya think ‘hm this looks trash, but this is a top player so maybe it’s actually genius!’ Only to have your initial instinct confirmed when it crashes and burns and they lose that set.
EPT
UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait will have their production and shipping capabilities greatly diminished. All the oil in Venezuela and Canada is effectively US oil.
