|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 09 2026 02:11 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 01:50 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 01:33 WombaT wrote:On April 09 2026 01:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 09 2026 01:15 WombaT wrote:On April 08 2026 23:56 LightSpectra wrote:
I don't consider someone who compared Kamala Harris to Hitler and constantly repeats right-wing talking points to be an ally. That's an important thing to teach to passerbys, that fake left-wingers/tankies aren't on the same side as progressives and should rarely be assumed to be engaging in good faith. I don’t think that lacking any pragmatic political instincts whatsoever necessarily means one is fake or not engaging in good faith I wouldn’t ally with someone so perpetually wrong and incapable of compromise or admitting miscalculations, but I do think it comes from an earnest place Basically Hanlon's Razor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor Indeed. I think it’s outright lunacy to think some socialist revolution is currently possible in a country to the right of most equivalent nations and who’ve elected a Fascist twice, but people can be simply wrong as opposed to malicious Socialist revolution is necessary in the US (I think everyone here actually agrees and accepts that), that doesn't mean I don't also accept the real probability that I can earnestly work the rest of my life toward it without it succeeding in my lifetime. That has basically always been a recognized part of practicing revolutionary socialism understood through the Black Radical Tradition. You guys set up these imaginary strawmen in your minds to kick around and chuckle among yourselves, and it's just disappointing of some pretty low standards in this context. Expecting someone to have some consistency with things they have previously said isn't what "strawman" means. Your gaslighting would make more sense if you were doing it in real life, it doesn't work in a forum where it takes seconds to go into your post history and see you updating your beliefs. Like, it was just last month you were insinuating that people who didn't use their guns to resist Trump were cowards. Do you think we just forgot that? What's wrong with updating beliefs ? Protesting remains the best tool. It's easy to get a warped view of what one thinks the population wants when living in the bubble of power, especially when it's highly unprofitable to be in disagreement.
Updating your beliefs is great. Changing your beliefs on the fly to get an advantage in an argument and then blatantly lying about it, not so much.
|
On April 09 2026 02:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 01:48 Billyboy wrote:On April 09 2026 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 01:33 WombaT wrote:On April 09 2026 01:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 09 2026 01:15 WombaT wrote:On April 08 2026 23:56 LightSpectra wrote:
I don't consider someone who compared Kamala Harris to Hitler and constantly repeats right-wing talking points to be an ally. That's an important thing to teach to passerbys, that fake left-wingers/tankies aren't on the same side as progressives and should rarely be assumed to be engaging in good faith. I don’t think that lacking any pragmatic political instincts whatsoever necessarily means one is fake or not engaging in good faith I wouldn’t ally with someone so perpetually wrong and incapable of compromise or admitting miscalculations, but I do think it comes from an earnest place Basically Hanlon's Razor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor Indeed. I think it’s outright lunacy to think some socialist revolution is currently possible in a country to the right of most equivalent nations and who’ve elected a Fascist twice, but people can be simply wrong as opposed to malicious Socialist revolution is necessary in the US (I think everyone here actually agrees and accepts that), that doesn't mean I don't also accept the real probability that I can earnestly work the rest of my life toward it without it succeeding in my lifetime. That has basically always been a recognized part of practicing revolutionary socialism understood through the Black Radical Tradition. You guys set up these imaginary strawmen in your minds to kick around and chuckle among yourselves, and it's just disappointing of some pretty low standards in this context. People do not want USSR, China, Cuba or Venezuela like you do. They don’t pretend that China is not genocidal or that any of those leaders actually were interested in socialism in any real way. Until you actually discuss how your version of a revolution would create something different than has existed, no one agrees with you. What people agree with is that the US government and system is fucked. But they want to keep the democracy part. Basically they want Nordic socialism and you want USSR socialism. It’s a drastic difference that you purposely ignore. To expand upon your post, the other key point GH refuses to engage in + Show Spoiler + is that if you get a revolution you don't actually get to pick your brand of socialism. You can't say ahead of time "well I'd support a revolution to get Nordic socialism" because revolutions don't work that way. You can only say "I support a revolution to get the mystery box" and in the USSR, in China, in Cambodia, in Cuba, in Iran, in Venezuela, in Libya etc. the mystery box has always been a brutal and incompetent dictatorship.
I'll engage with plenty, but I think we all agreed me refusing to engage JimmiC/Billyboy despite the years of baits was the best option?
Part of the problem is that you guys have a (pretty wide) variety of shifting imaginary caricatures of what I actually support/believe because you've refused (for ~a decade) to develop anything resembling a cursory understanding of revolutionary socialism as understood through the lens of the Black Radical Tradition and that it is a (deeply) multigenerational project in basically every conception.
|
Maybe you should devote your time to spreading black radical tradition instead of mocking and gawking at people when they find your beliefs inconsistent?
|
On April 09 2026 02:20 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 02:04 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 01:48 Billyboy wrote:On April 09 2026 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 01:33 WombaT wrote:On April 09 2026 01:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 09 2026 01:15 WombaT wrote:On April 08 2026 23:56 LightSpectra wrote:
I don't consider someone who compared Kamala Harris to Hitler and constantly repeats right-wing talking points to be an ally. That's an important thing to teach to passerbys, that fake left-wingers/tankies aren't on the same side as progressives and should rarely be assumed to be engaging in good faith. I don’t think that lacking any pragmatic political instincts whatsoever necessarily means one is fake or not engaging in good faith I wouldn’t ally with someone so perpetually wrong and incapable of compromise or admitting miscalculations, but I do think it comes from an earnest place Basically Hanlon's Razor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor Indeed. I think it’s outright lunacy to think some socialist revolution is currently possible in a country to the right of most equivalent nations and who’ve elected a Fascist twice, but people can be simply wrong as opposed to malicious Socialist revolution is necessary in the US (I think everyone here actually agrees and accepts that), that doesn't mean I don't also accept the real probability that I can earnestly work the rest of my life toward it without it succeeding in my lifetime. That has basically always been a recognized part of practicing revolutionary socialism understood through the Black Radical Tradition. You guys set up these imaginary strawmen in your minds to kick around and chuckle among yourselves, and it's just disappointing of some pretty low standards in this context. People do not want USSR, China, Cuba or Venezuela like you do. They don’t pretend that China is not genocidal or that any of those leaders actually were interested in socialism in any real way. Until you actually discuss how your version of a revolution would create something different than has existed, no one agrees with you. What people agree with is that the US government and system is fucked. But they want to keep the democracy part. Basically they want Nordic socialism and you want USSR socialism. It’s a drastic difference that you purposely ignore. To expand upon your post, the other key point GH refuses to engage in + Show Spoiler + is that if you get a revolution you don't actually get to pick your brand of socialism. You can't say ahead of time "well I'd support a revolution to get Nordic socialism" because revolutions don't work that way. You can only say "I support a revolution to get the mystery box" and in the USSR, in China, in Cambodia, in Cuba, in Iran, in Venezuela, in Libya etc. the mystery box has always been a brutal and incompetent dictatorship. I'll engage with plenty, but I think we all agreed me refusing to engage JimmiC/Billyboy despite the years of baits was the best option? Part of the problem is that you guys have a (pretty wide) variety of shifting imaginary caricatures of what I actually support/believe because you've refused (for ~a decade) to develop anything resembling a cursory understanding of revolutionary socialism as understood through the lens of the Black Radical Tradition and that it is a (deeply) multigenerational project in basically every conception. Maybe you should devote your time to spreading black radical tradition instead of mocking and gawking at people when they find your beliefs inconsistent?
I do. Socialist organizations with resources are very white in the US, so it is something that comes up pretty regularly. As far as around here, people insisted I was just making words up when I tried that. That said, I regularly reference aspects and I'm not opposed to discussing it more frequently/deeply. Perhaps I should have been more entertaining of IgnE's "class first" positions given the direction the thread took instead. I doubt it would have mattered though.
Just to be clear, when I say "mock and gawk" we're referencing different things.
|
I mean, you could spread it here, in this thread. "(X) makes sense according to (ideology) because of (reasons)."
As opposed to "you guys only think (X) doesn't make sense because you don't know anything about (ideology)", which not only does absolutely nothing to justify your position, it doesn't actually educate anyone about what (ideology) is or why it's worth paying attention to.
I'm a democratic-socialist and when someone doesn't know what that entails, I get more specific about its goals, history, and justification because I think it's a good thing if more people either hold the same ideology, or at least have a positive opinion about it. If I were an anti-democratic-socialist (and immensely bored) I would say stupid shit and then throw that term in people's faces so they associate it with idiocy and gaslighting.
|
On April 09 2026 02:57 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 02:20 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 02:04 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 01:48 Billyboy wrote:On April 09 2026 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 01:33 WombaT wrote:On April 09 2026 01:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 09 2026 01:15 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
I don’t think that lacking any pragmatic political instincts whatsoever necessarily means one is fake or not engaging in good faith
I wouldn’t ally with someone so perpetually wrong and incapable of compromise or admitting miscalculations, but I do think it comes from an earnest place Basically Hanlon's Razor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor Indeed. I think it’s outright lunacy to think some socialist revolution is currently possible in a country to the right of most equivalent nations and who’ve elected a Fascist twice, but people can be simply wrong as opposed to malicious Socialist revolution is necessary in the US (I think everyone here actually agrees and accepts that), that doesn't mean I don't also accept the real probability that I can earnestly work the rest of my life toward it without it succeeding in my lifetime. That has basically always been a recognized part of practicing revolutionary socialism understood through the Black Radical Tradition. You guys set up these imaginary strawmen in your minds to kick around and chuckle among yourselves, and it's just disappointing of some pretty low standards in this context. People do not want USSR, China, Cuba or Venezuela like you do. They don’t pretend that China is not genocidal or that any of those leaders actually were interested in socialism in any real way. Until you actually discuss how your version of a revolution would create something different than has existed, no one agrees with you. What people agree with is that the US government and system is fucked. But they want to keep the democracy part. Basically they want Nordic socialism and you want USSR socialism. It’s a drastic difference that you purposely ignore. To expand upon your post, the other key point GH refuses to engage in + Show Spoiler + is that if you get a revolution you don't actually get to pick your brand of socialism. You can't say ahead of time "well I'd support a revolution to get Nordic socialism" because revolutions don't work that way. You can only say "I support a revolution to get the mystery box" and in the USSR, in China, in Cambodia, in Cuba, in Iran, in Venezuela, in Libya etc. the mystery box has always been a brutal and incompetent dictatorship. I'll engage with plenty, but I think we all agreed me refusing to engage JimmiC/Billyboy despite the years of baits was the best option? Part of the problem is that you guys have a (pretty wide) variety of shifting imaginary caricatures of what I actually support/believe because you've refused (for ~a decade) to develop anything resembling a cursory understanding of revolutionary socialism as understood through the lens of the Black Radical Tradition and that it is a (deeply) multigenerational project in basically every conception. Maybe you should devote your time to spreading black radical tradition instead of mocking and gawking at people when they find your beliefs inconsistent? I do. Socialist organizations with resources are very white in the US, so it is something that comes up pretty regularly. As far as around here, people insisted I was just making words up when I tried that. That said, I regularly reference aspects and I'm not opposed to discussing it more frequently/deeply. Perhaps I should have been more entertaining of IgnE's "class first" positions given the direction the thread took instead. I doubt it would have mattered though. Just to be clear, when I say " mock and gawk" we're referencing different things. I mean, you could spread it here, in this thread + Show Spoiler +. "(X) makes sense according to (ideology) because of (reasons)."
As opposed to "you guys only think (X) doesn't make sense because you don't know anything about (ideology)", which not only does absolutely nothing to justify your position, it doesn't actually educate anyone about what (ideology) is or why it's worth paying attention to.
I'm a democratic-socialist and when someone doesn't know what that entails, I get more specific about its goals, history, and justification because I think it's a good thing if more people either hold the same ideology, or at least have a positive opinion about it. + Show Spoiler + If I were an anti-democratic-socialist (and immensely bored) I would say stupid shit and then throw that term in people's faces so they associate it with idiocy and gaslighting.
I do.
Are you a democratic-socialist or a social democrat?
|
The former, and I made several posts in this thread about Clement Attlee's premiership being the model for domestic policy.
|
|
|
United States43860 Posts
On April 09 2026 01:25 hitthat wrote:
Aaaaand the fun resumes after short half-time. And this time I cannot blame Trump "directly" for that.
This went through unremarked but yeah, ceasefire never started. Israel insisted on continuing in Lebanon and Iran refused to reopen strait it the Israeli attacks continued. No ships have passed and the US proposal was contingent on ships passing.
All that happened was Trump’s deadline expired and so he announced an extension.
|
On April 09 2026 03:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 01:25 hitthat wrote:
Aaaaand the fun resumes after short half-time. And this time I cannot blame Trump "directly" for that. This went through unremarked but yeah, ceasefire never started. Israel insisted on continuing in Lebanon and Iran refused to reopen strait it the Israeli attacks continued. No ships have passed and the US proposal was contingent on ships passing. All that happened was Trump’s deadline expired and so he announced an extension. Israel no caring about any deal between the US and Iran (or indeed them actively sabotaging it) is the least surprising thing to happen this year.
|
On April 09 2026 03:07 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 03:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 02:57 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 02:20 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 02:04 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 01:48 Billyboy wrote:On April 09 2026 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2026 01:33 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Indeed.
I think it’s outright lunacy to think some socialist revolution is currently possible in a country to the right of most equivalent nations and who’ve elected a Fascist twice, but people can be simply wrong as opposed to malicious Socialist revolution is necessary in the US (I think everyone here actually agrees and accepts that), that doesn't mean I don't also accept the real probability that I can earnestly work the rest of my life toward it without it succeeding in my lifetime. That has basically always been a recognized part of practicing revolutionary socialism understood through the Black Radical Tradition. You guys set up these imaginary strawmen in your minds to kick around and chuckle among yourselves, and it's just disappointing of some pretty low standards in this context. People do not want USSR, China, Cuba or Venezuela like you do. They don’t pretend that China is not genocidal or that any of those leaders actually were interested in socialism in any real way. Until you actually discuss how your version of a revolution would create something different than has existed, no one agrees with you. What people agree with is that the US government and system is fucked. But they want to keep the democracy part. Basically they want Nordic socialism and you want USSR socialism. It’s a drastic difference that you purposely ignore. To expand upon your post, the other key point GH refuses to engage in + Show Spoiler + is that if you get a revolution you don't actually get to pick your brand of socialism. You can't say ahead of time "well I'd support a revolution to get Nordic socialism" because revolutions don't work that way. You can only say "I support a revolution to get the mystery box" and in the USSR, in China, in Cambodia, in Cuba, in Iran, in Venezuela, in Libya etc. the mystery box has always been a brutal and incompetent dictatorship. I'll engage with plenty, but I think we all agreed me refusing to engage JimmiC/Billyboy despite the years of baits was the best option? Part of the problem is that you guys have a (pretty wide) variety of shifting imaginary caricatures of what I actually support/believe because you've refused (for ~a decade) to develop anything resembling a cursory understanding of revolutionary socialism as understood through the lens of the Black Radical Tradition and that it is a (deeply) multigenerational project in basically every conception. Maybe you should devote your time to spreading black radical tradition instead of mocking and gawking at people when they find your beliefs inconsistent? I do. Socialist organizations with resources are very white in the US, so it is something that comes up pretty regularly. As far as around here, people insisted I was just making words up when I tried that. That said, I regularly reference aspects and I'm not opposed to discussing it more frequently/deeply. Perhaps I should have been more entertaining of IgnE's "class first" positions given the direction the thread took instead. I doubt it would have mattered though. Just to be clear, when I say " mock and gawk" we're referencing different things. I mean, you could spread it here, in this thread + Show Spoiler +. "(X) makes sense according to (ideology) because of (reasons)."
As opposed to "you guys only think (X) doesn't make sense because you don't know anything about (ideology)", which not only does absolutely nothing to justify your position, it doesn't actually educate anyone about what (ideology) is or why it's worth paying attention to.
I'm a democratic-socialist and when someone doesn't know what that entails, I get more specific about its goals, history, and justification because I think it's a good thing if more people either hold the same ideology, or at least have a positive opinion about it. + Show Spoiler + If I were an anti-democratic-socialist (and immensely bored) I would say stupid shit and then throw that term in people's faces so they associate it with idiocy and gaslighting. I do. Are you a democratic-socialist or a social democrat? The former, and I made several posts in this thread about Clement Attlee's premiership being the model for domestic policy.
Okay, so you consider yourself a democratic socialist. You've pointed to Clement Attlee's premiership as a model for domestic policy.
When you say "as a model for domestic policy" what do you mean? Setting aside the nuances (particularly the wartime influences) others raised when you mentioned it before for now, I want to get a clearer picture of what you're saying.
Are you saying you want to see the next Democratic nominee run on that platform, that it's basically what you see as the end goal of democratic socialism, or perhaps you see it (British society under Attlee's premiership) as reflective of what a society on a path to replacing capitalism (which you support) and embracing democratic socialism might look like within our lifetimes? Something else? I genuinely agree with you that the goals, history, and justifications of democratic socialism are valuable to discuss as they apply to contemporary US politics and having more people hold/have positive opinions about democratic socialism is a good thing.
|
On April 09 2026 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are you saying you want to see the next Democratic nominee run on that platform,
Ideally yes, although I don't think that's a realistic expectation for 2028.
that it's basically what you see as the end goal of democratic socialism,
It's the best possible starting point for further collectivization. The end goal is a Star Trek future.
or perhaps you see it (British society under Attlee's premiership) as reflective of what a society on a path to replacing capitalism (which you support) and embracing democratic socialism might look like within our lifetimes?
I don't want to imply that all sorts of problems that existed in the UK circa 1945-1951 (e.g. colonialism, conservative Christian mores about single motherhood and homosexuality, etc.) are negligible, so I wouldn't word it like this. Only that on a purely economic level, it's feasible to nationalize 20% of the economy within six years without major societal disruptions or violence.
|
On April 09 2026 03:43 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are you saying you want to see the next Democratic nominee run on that platform, Ideally yes, although I don't think that's a realistic expectation for 2028. It's the best possible starting point for further collectivization. The end goal is a Star Trek future. Show nested quote +or perhaps you see it (British society under Attlee's premiership) as reflective of what a society on a path to replacing capitalism (which you support) and embracing democratic socialism might look like within our lifetimes? I don't want to imply that all sorts of problems that existed in the UK circa 1945-1951 (e.g. colonialism, conservative Christian mores about single motherhood and homosexuality, etc.) are negligible, so I wouldn't word it like this. Only that on a purely economic level, it's feasible to nationalize 20% of the economy within six years without major societal disruptions or violence.
Would it be fair to think of it as something other than a "starting point" if it's not something you believe can even be on the only viable party platform years from now? Nevermind what it would actually take to get through Congress?
I'm sure others will touch on this (Walter Rodney does in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa), but I don't believe you can honestly say "without major societal disruptions or violence" unless you just don't count a lot of humans that endured major societal disruptions and violence as part of facilitating the British economy generally.
|
On April 09 2026 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 03:43 LightSpectra wrote:On April 09 2026 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are you saying you want to see the next Democratic nominee run on that platform, Ideally yes, although I don't think that's a realistic expectation for 2028. that it's basically what you see as the end goal of democratic socialism, It's the best possible starting point for further collectivization. The end goal is a Star Trek future. or perhaps you see it (British society under Attlee's premiership) as reflective of what a society on a path to replacing capitalism (which you support) and embracing democratic socialism might look like within our lifetimes? I don't want to imply that all sorts of problems that existed in the UK circa 1945-1951 (e.g. colonialism, conservative Christian mores about single motherhood and homosexuality, etc.) are negligible, so I wouldn't word it like this. Only that on a purely economic level, it's feasible to nationalize 20% of the economy within six years without major societal disruptions or violence. Would it be fair to think of it as something other than a "starting point" if it's not something you believe can even be on the only viable party platform years from now?
It's a starting point for an administration to pursue from the moment they're in power.
Nevermind what it would actually take to get through Congress?
Depends on what Congress looks like in this hypothetical scenario.
I'm sure others will touch on this (Walter Rodney does in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa), but I don't believe you can honestly say "without major societal disruptions or violence" unless you just don't count a lot of humans that endured major societal disruptions and violence as part of facilitating the British economy generally.
I am aware that Britain was a colonial empire at the time. I am assuming you aware that Attlee was the one who began the decolonization process. So what are you implying here? Nationalizing healthcare, steel, etc. would have failed if there wasn't a colonial empire underpinning it? Or perhaps, there's no point in pursuing socialism because some people somewhere in the global economy will still be exploited?
|
United States43860 Posts
I am once again begging you to remember that Attlee led Britain during WW2.
|
On April 09 2026 04:47 KwarK wrote:
I am once again begging you to remember that Attlee led Britain during WW2.
He was deputy PM in a coalition government that was entirely focused on the war and didn't become the actual PM until July 26, 1945. Japan's surrender was announced the next month, before any major policies were enacted. The first nationalizations started in 1946.
|
United States43860 Posts
On April 09 2026 04:53 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 04:47 KwarK wrote:
I am once again begging you to remember that Attlee led Britain during WW2. He was deputy PM in a coalition government that was entirely focused on the war and didn't become the actual PM until July 26, 1945. Japan's surrender was announced the next month, before any major policies were enacted. The first nationalizations started in 1946.
Which represented a substantial reduction in the proportion of the labour force working for the state.
|
What's the implication? Nationalization only works if there's a labor shortage? I'm not going to spend time replying to an argument you're only insinuating.
|
United States43860 Posts
On April 09 2026 05:04 LightSpectra wrote:
What's the implication? Nationalization only works if there's a labor shortage? I'm not going to spend time replying to an argument you're only insinuating.
To you, the economy was already state run. People were already getting government issued food rations, a large share of the national product was seized by the government for collective use, a large part of the workforce was already directly or indirectly employed by the state including millions of men in uniform. When compared to the starting point Attlee moved the UK economy away from state control. But even if we ignore that, the Attlee model is inseparable from the cultural context, you can’t meaningfully imagine it outside of a national calamity on the scale of WW2.
And also to GH who seems to want to make this about imperial exploitation, 1945 wasn’t a great time for the British Empire. Colonial treasure wasn’t pouring in to subsidize British socialist programs.
|
On April 09 2026 03:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2026 03:15 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2026 01:25 hitthat wrote:
Aaaaand the fun resumes after short half-time. And this time I cannot blame Trump "directly" for that. This went through unremarked but yeah, ceasefire never started. Israel insisted on continuing in Lebanon and Iran refused to reopen strait it the Israeli attacks continued. No ships have passed and the US proposal was contingent on ships passing. All that happened was Trump’s deadline expired and so he announced an extension. Israel no caring about any deal between the US and Iran (or indeed them actively sabotaging it) is the least surprising thing to happen this year.
Israel will do whatever Trump tells them. Netanyahu has left himself with no other option. Lebanon wasn't part of the ceasefire. At least in the understanding of the Trump administration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
