|
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 |
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1249 Posts
On April 02 2026 19:56 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2026 18:36 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 02 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote: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? Show nested quote +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?" Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
I don't have a problem if in a hypothetical scenario Russia attacked Latvia, NATO after defending Latvia entered Russian territory in a counterattack. The same way I do not object to what happened to Iraq after they invaded Kuwait.
I would also not have a problem if NATO (or whoever else was defending Ukraine) counter attacked into Russia. At least from an ethical perspective, for practical reasons they may want to avoid triggering nuclear war, but ethically I'm ok with it.
The underlying principle isn't that hard, don't use your military to attack other countries. The one time you should be expected to be attacked by another military is right after you just attacked someone.
Does this leave a grey area of proxy warfare, especially through not-exactly-military forces. Of course, nothing in the real world is clean and you will not be able to find a hard/fast rule that will always work. Nevertheless, maybe don't escalate things to direct military conflict between two (or more) nations anyway.
Does this come down to international tyranny of the majority? if the UN is our platform for mediating/organizing 'consequences', the security council not withstanding... sure. That is better than might makes right.
In this case, I'm not advocating for the UN or whatever other collective body to tell the US 'you've been a bad boy'.
I'm advocating for cutting off (or at least temporarily suspending) some policitical, economic and military ties to the US.
The beauty of it, is that no other country was ever obliged to trade with, talk to or ally with any other country to begin with. This isn't the 19th century where you can just attack another country to forcibly open trade to you. That shit isn't going to fly anymore.
If many nations find what another nation is doing odious, they can collectively choose to ostracize them. None of those countries were ever obliged to associate with any other country to begin with.
How does it deal with the grey areas? Well each country can use their own judgement. I know you are priming the conversation to argue that Israel struck Iran in self defence. Well most of the world, while aware of the long complicated history, see this as at least a very obvious escalation at least into the obviously military sphere by Israel. None of these countries were ever obliged to have any economic, political, military or even diplomatic ties with Israel, or the US, or Iran or any other country. They do so out of choice, they have every right to no longer do so.
They just need to remember, even when disengaging with odious parties, it can be done as a collective action if they know many others feel the same way.
|
I'm not necessarily trying to trap you in this specific case. There are such things as unjust wars although I find MJG's conclusion that the Iraq War went better than this 2026 Iran War to be premature (though I like to see people unexpectedly warming up to the idea of intervention). That's why I try to bring up other examples that have some precedence, like the South Ossetian War, and Iraq, and Afghanistan which was literally Article 5 but I guess to you a bastardization of it.
My greater real question is do you have economic, diplomatic, and political ways to do anything. If yes I'm interested. If not I find the Gandhi-trending inherent opposition to force, singling out the "military" ways, to be arbitrary which is the line I was referring to earlier. Like people really said the Iraq sanctions killed thousands. Afghanistan has no economy partly by choice of countries who hate the Taliban. That kills people. Maybe more people than a bomb. Almost definitely more "innocent" people.
Georgia can't mobilize the entire world to ostracize Russia. And Russia is not the greatest example since they're nuclear but imagine if India just attacked Bhutan, or funded Bangladeshi terror in Bhutan. What is Bhutan's recourse?
Edit: India is unfortunately nuclear too. Imagine if Mexico did the same to Cuba.
And for example Korea could get oil from Kuwait and never have wanted anything whatsoever to do with Iran but nevertheless be affected in ways they don't like. Due to America's fault or Iran's fault or a totally different country's fault that they could theoretically have no ties with, and no obligation to have ties with. But still the all men are an island thing. Like the Kurds may want to have no ties with the IRGC but that doesn't help when the IRGC forces them to have ties anyway by making them the bomber and the bombed.
|
Markets don’t believe there is a quick exit coming. Oil prices up, dow down.
@olblade can we call the last Iran war a failure since it didn’t “obliterate “ their nuclear program and they needed to do it again so soon after?
And to anyone. What is the current price tag on this? Even moving all the stuff has huge costs.
|
Looks like Trump, just like Russians, is on the sunk cost falacy stage of his fiasco.
Oh well, good luck with leveling iran to the stone age, trump. Leveling to your level, you neanderthal.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1249 Posts
I've singled out use of military force because
a) this is under the control of a nation state that is using said military force.
They don't have control of every citizen, every random cult, every corporation or rebel group. Many hostile actions of this nature are not really under the control of a nation state. If you are militarily attacking another nation state, this is an intentional action of the belligerent nation-state.
b) It tends not to actually solve most (almost all)problems . It kicks the can down the road, after a lot of killing/destruction. The one problem it does solve is another nation-state a bit too willing to use it's own military force, even then only sometimes.
There is a reason why you've replaced the Taliban with the Taliban, a president from PSUV with another president from the PSUV, and Ayatollah Khomenei with Ayatolla Khomenei. You didn't change any of the underlying situation that caused the status quo, so the result is predictably the same as before.
All you've achieved is killing a lot of people, and delaying native movements that might actually change the underlying circumstances by giving them a common enemy for a while.
c) It's expensive both to do, and especially be on the receiving end of, in such a way that it prevents any meaningful resolution of problems for the near future. The attacked almost always needs to go into survival mode for a while, because their infrastructure is destroyed and now every day life is a slog, people are not worrying about the finer points of the flaws in their political system because they now have bigger problems.
Venezuela is actually the fortunate exception in this case. You didn't do any good.. but at least you didn't do that much damage either.
|
On April 02 2026 21:50 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On April 02 2026 21:12 Jankisa wrote:
Jimmy, honestly, it's fascinating to observe your media diet ya, CTV and CBC are insane radicals!
Come on bud, majority of stuff you post here is from Fox or Podcasts/Youtube shows.
I don't get why you have the need to pretend you are anything other then a reactionary old dude, it's fine, it's obvious, own it or change, you can't have it both ways.
|
On April 02 2026 23:03 Billyboy wrote:
Markets don’t believe there is a quick exit coming. Oil prices up, dow down.
@olblade can we call the last Iran war a failure since it didn’t “obliterate “ their nuclear program and they needed to do it again so soon after?
And to anyone. What is the current price tag on this? Even moving all the stuff has huge costs.
Huge strategic failure and disaster, @biblyob. Iran was shrewdly able to destroy 14 American bunker-busting bombs using two of its nuclear sites, reducing them to smithereens, while losing 0 bunker-busting bombs of its own. Flawless victory by the Iranians.
|
United States43803 Posts
On April 02 2026 23:24 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2026 23:03 Billyboy wrote:
Markets don’t believe there is a quick exit coming. Oil prices up, dow down.
@olblade can we call the last Iran war a failure since it didn’t “obliterate “ their nuclear program and they needed to do it again so soon after?
And to anyone. What is the current price tag on this? Even moving all the stuff has huge costs. Huge strategic failure and disaster, @biblyob. Iran was shrewdly able to destroy 14 American bunker-busting bombs using two of its nuclear sites, reducing them to smithereens, while losing 0 bunker-busting bombs of its own. Flawless victory by the Iranians.
But Trump said the nuclear program survived and was in such good shape that they needed to try again. Which is it?
|
There are such things as unjust wars although I find MJG's conclusion that the Iraq War went better than this 2026 Iran War to be premature (though I like to see people unexpectedly warming up to the idea of intervention).
I'm not pro-intervention.
I wasn't pro-intervention before Iraq and I wasn't pro-intervention before Iran.
What I am is pro-competence. If you're going to intervene then explain the goals, plan how to achieve those goals, and then execute the plan.
Bush's US were capable of that (even though what happened afterwards was a clusterfuck for which they're rightly lampooned), but Trump's US haven't shown themselves to be thus far.
|
On April 02 2026 23:24 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2026 23:03 Billyboy wrote:
Markets don’t believe there is a quick exit coming. Oil prices up, dow down.
@olblade can we call the last Iran war a failure since it didn’t “obliterate “ their nuclear program and they needed to do it again so soon after?
And to anyone. What is the current price tag on this? Even moving all the stuff has huge costs. Huge strategic failure and disaster, @biblyob. Iran was shrewdly able to destroy 14 American bunker-busting bombs using two of its nuclear sites, reducing them to smithereens, while losing 0 bunker-busting bombs of its own. Flawless victory by the Iranians.
Glad we agree that was a failure.
Look, the US has successfully destroyed all of Irans anti air. They have destroyed Irans navy. They have killed mush of the senior leaderships. They have destroyed most of Irans radars if not all. They have destroyed many of Irans launchers. They have claimed to have obliterated their nuclear sites again. Sadly to paraphrase Trump, last time they just dug them up and they could use them again so we will see this time.
They have raised global gas and oil prices. They have raised fertilizer prices to levels where many farmers are considering not planting, which even if they do means we are going to see major jumps in food prices. They have slowed global trade. They have lowered the stock market. They have unsanctioned some of Irans oil and Russias. They let Russian oil through to Cuba negating whatever they were trying to accomplish with that.
What they have not accomplished, regime change. They sped up the transition and have put a more radical person in control.
Their proxy’s are still armed and dangerous, not even close to defeat.
They have not opened the strait.
They have not taken away Irans ability to strike countries around and don’t seem to have a good answer for the drones.
So basically all the strategic goals they wanted to accomplish, have been failures. But they have been very successful at destroying a bunch of conventional military equipment of Irans. I’m not sure how that comes close to a win when you consider the cost. Even if we are only talking money, with is like a quarter of the picture.
And considering this whole Trump regime is all supposed to be “America first”, how are Americans better off?
|
On April 02 2026 23:36 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +There are such things as unjust wars although I find MJG's conclusion that the Iraq War went better than this 2026 Iran War to be premature (though I like to see people unexpectedly warming up to the idea of intervention). I'm not pro-intervention. I wasn't pro-intervention before Iraq and I wasn't pro-intervention before Iran. What I am is pro-competence. If you're going to intervene then explain the goals, plan how to achieve those goals, and then execute the plan. Bush's US were capable of that (even though what happened afterwards was a clusterfuck for which they're rightly lampooned), but Trump's US haven't shown themselves to be thus far.
Right, if you don't count the ensuing 15 year clusterfuck, it was a pretty competent month or two there for a while that the clusterfuck resulted from.
I don't know if you've ever taken the time to say what you believe out loud. Hearing it back, it doesn't appear to agree with itself.
|
Kinda surprised about the no-fly-zone in Austria.
They love to cause problems on purpose here and are like Trumps little cousin.
Bit late for pretending they don't.
It's like they monetize never-ending horrors in a time-wasting machine.
Makes you want to go into scary writing again... But the news are doing that already.
These guys active for years already exploring an angle to fuck things up some more, no doubt.
|
On April 02 2026 23:43 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2026 23:36 MJG wrote:There are such things as unjust wars although I find MJG's conclusion that the Iraq War went better than this 2026 Iran War to be premature (though I like to see people unexpectedly warming up to the idea of intervention). I'm not pro-intervention. I wasn't pro-intervention before Iraq and I wasn't pro-intervention before Iran. What I am is pro-competence. If you're going to intervene then explain the goals, plan how to achieve those goals, and then execute the plan. Bush's US were capable of that (even though what happened afterwards was a clusterfuck for which they're rightly lampooned), but Trump's US haven't shown themselves to be thus far. Right, if you don't count the ensuing 15 year clusterfuck, it was a pretty competent month or two there for a while that the clusterfuck resulted from. I don't know if you've ever taken the time to say what you believe out loud. Hearing it back, it doesn't appear to agree with itself.
My point was that we haven't even got the month or two of competence this time; we're still going to get the clusterfuck that comes afterwards.
|
On April 02 2026 23:53 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2026 23:43 oBlade wrote:On April 02 2026 23:36 MJG wrote:There are such things as unjust wars although I find MJG's conclusion that the Iraq War went better than this 2026 Iran War to be premature (though I like to see people unexpectedly warming up to the idea of intervention). I'm not pro-intervention. I wasn't pro-intervention before Iraq and I wasn't pro-intervention before Iran. What I am is pro-competence. If you're going to intervene then explain the goals, plan how to achieve those goals, and then execute the plan. Bush's US were capable of that (even though what happened afterwards was a clusterfuck for which they're rightly lampooned), but Trump's US haven't shown themselves to be thus far. Right, if you don't count the ensuing 15 year clusterfuck, it was a pretty competent month or two there for a while that the clusterfuck resulted from. I don't know if you've ever taken the time to say what you believe out loud. Hearing it back, it doesn't appear to agree with itself. My point was that we haven't even got the month or two of competence this time; we're still going to get the clusterfuck that comes afterwards.
After Saddam was deposed, the army disbanded, and the occupation and reconstruction began, there was 10 years of sectarian violence and civil war that led to ISIS.
How is that happening here and why would landing an army of 150k to make SURE it happened be more competent?
|
|
|
On April 03 2026 00:20 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2026 23:53 MJG wrote:On April 02 2026 23:43 oBlade wrote:On April 02 2026 23:36 MJG wrote:There are such things as unjust wars although I find MJG's conclusion that the Iraq War went better than this 2026 Iran War to be premature (though I like to see people unexpectedly warming up to the idea of intervention). I'm not pro-intervention. I wasn't pro-intervention before Iraq and I wasn't pro-intervention before Iran. What I am is pro-competence. If you're going to intervene then explain the goals, plan how to achieve those goals, and then execute the plan. Bush's US were capable of that (even though what happened afterwards was a clusterfuck for which they're rightly lampooned), but Trump's US haven't shown themselves to be thus far. Right, if you don't count the ensuing 15 year clusterfuck, it was a pretty competent month or two there for a while that the clusterfuck resulted from. I don't know if you've ever taken the time to say what you believe out loud. Hearing it back, it doesn't appear to agree with itself. My point was that we haven't even got the month or two of competence this time; we're still going to get the clusterfuck that comes afterwards. After Saddam was deposed, the army disbanded, and the occupation and reconstruction began, there was 10 years of sectarian violence and civil war that led to ISIS. How is that happening here and why would landing an army of 150k to make SURE it happened be more competent?
I don't think that failing to enact regime change is more competent than successfully enacting regime change (before failing to stick the landing).
I'm of course assuming that regime change is the goal. It's hard to tell because Trump doesn't stick to any particular story for very long, and he frequently contradicts himself. If that isn't actually the goal then my comparison is obviously pointless.
By what set of goals are you judging Trump's administration?
|
On April 02 2026 21:12 Jankisa wrote:
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.
The guy also claims that Russia is deliberately dragging the war in Ukraine to deplete and bleed out NATO. xD
|
Rubio, March 30: Imagine if instead of spending billions on weapons, Iran had spent that money on helping the people of Iran
Trump, April 1: Don't send any money for daycare. We can't take care of daycare, we're fighting wars. We have to take care of one thing: military protection
|
The people defending the Trump administration here never seem to have opinions of their own. It's always just parroting the MAGA talking points.
If tomorrow Trump decides to stop the war you'll hear them say "actually that's a good thing because..." and if Trump decides to put boots on the ground "That's the best option to end this war...".
I would love it if you guys could tell us what you're expecting from your president before he actually does all the insane shit he does instead of always justifying it after the fact.
|
On April 03 2026 01:15 Dan HH wrote:
Rubio, March 30: Imagine if instead of spending billions on weapons, Iran had spent that money on helping the people of Iran
Trump, April 1: Don't send any money for daycare. We can't take care of daycare, we're fighting wars. We have to take care of one thing: military protection
Imagine if instead of spending billions on weapons, the United States had spent that money on helping the people of the United States 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
