|
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 August 13 2026 01:54 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 01:23 Jankisa wrote:On August 11 2026 23:38 dyhb wrote:
The Senate has an important role in foreign policy and foreign aid. If he maintains his new approach to Hasan Piker and retracts the Iron Dome lunacy, Found it, oh, boy, so you just confirmed what I said initially. you base your resistance to fascism on Israel and McCharty style "he is associated with a communist" testing. Thank you, sorry I didn't notice it before but you do write a lot of very uninteresting, repetitive and angsty stuff that I skip unless you address it directly at me. Anyway, thank you for confirming what I said 5 days ago, appreciate it! That's the "vote blue no matter who" dogma that ultimately promotes bad candidates and relies on each succeeding election being the most important one in your entire lifetime. I want candidates to earn my vote. It isn't owed, and I won't be browbeaten by the typical "I'm going to call you a fascist if you don't" framework. Such a framework isn't surprising coming from somebody that repeatedly and intentionally distorts the views of people he disagrees with. It just isn't a serious approach, and I really doubt you're serious about the fascism bit either.
I find it supremely ironic that you are criticizing the "blue no matter who" when it's been the rallying call of moderates/centrists that started during the 2018 midterms, and a very successful one at that.
Of course, as someone who just pretends to be a Democrat, it would make sense that you, once again don't have any internal consistency, but I do find it funny.
|
"Blue no matter who" is a slogan. It's not necessarily a perfect and infallible slogan (does such a thing exist?), since one could take it too literally to mean we should vote even for people who have credible abuse allegations against them and whatnot, but I think it tends to be a pretty good slogan to remind people that even the supposedly best and allegedly 'moderate' Republicans will still vote along party lines to cut taxes for the rich, confirm grossly incompetent and evil nominees like RFK Jr. and Hegseth, and so on. But if you don't like it, that's ok, it's a slogan, not a death pact.
On the other hand, your (dyhb's) red line being that a candidate must be in favor of giving more free shit to Israel, who evidently don't need it and spend American tax dollars to lobby American politicians to spend more American tax dollars to get more free shit, is certainly a stance.
|
On August 13 2026 02:54 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 01:54 dyhb wrote:On August 13 2026 01:23 Jankisa wrote:On August 11 2026 23:38 dyhb wrote:
The Senate has an important role in foreign policy and foreign aid. If he maintains his new approach to Hasan Piker and retracts the Iron Dome lunacy, Found it, oh, boy, so you just confirmed what I said initially. you base your resistance to fascism on Israel and McCharty style "he is associated with a communist" testing. Thank you, sorry I didn't notice it before but you do write a lot of very uninteresting, repetitive and angsty stuff that I skip unless you address it directly at me. Anyway, thank you for confirming what I said 5 days ago, appreciate it! That's the "vote blue no matter who" dogma that ultimately promotes bad candidates and relies on each succeeding election being the most important one in your entire lifetime. I want candidates to earn my vote. It isn't owed, and I won't be browbeaten by the typical "I'm going to call you a fascist if you don't" framework. Such a framework isn't surprising coming from somebody that repeatedly and intentionally distorts the views of people he disagrees with. It just isn't a serious approach, and I really doubt you're serious about the fascism bit either. I find it supremely ironic that you are criticizing the "blue no matter who" when it's been the rallying call of moderates/centrists that started during the 2018 midterms, and a very successful one at that. Of course, as someone who just pretends to be a Democrat, it would make sense that you, once again don't have any internal consistency, but I do find it funny. It's a message of party unity, but it matters both to some leftwingers that don't want to drop moderate votes, and moderates that don't want to drop leftwinger votes. I can criticize it because I'm not among the crowd that believes in the slogan for reasons I just stated to you.
As I told you before, the crusade to push moderate Democrats out of the party by calling them "pretends to be a Democrat" is the real energy of the left wing and one of the reasons they must be criticized within the party. Trump/Trumpism must be defeated, but all the energy is on making the Democratic party more pure by pushing out moderates with all those insults.
On August 13 2026 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:
"Blue no matter who" is a slogan. It's not necessarily a perfect and infallible slogan (does such a thing exist?), since one could take it too literally to mean we should vote even for people who have credible abuse allegations against them and whatnot, but I think it tends to be a pretty good slogan to remind people that even the supposedly best and allegedly 'moderate' Republicans will still vote along party lines to cut taxes for the rich, confirm grossly incompetent and evil nominees like RFK Jr. and Hegseth, and so on. But if you don't like it, that's ok, it's a slogan, not a death pact. The fact that you must hedge on the slogan is in fact a very good reason to criticize the slogan.
On the other hand, your (dyhb's) red line being that a candidate must be in favor of giving more free shit to Israel, who evidently don't need it and spend American tax dollars to lobby American politicians to spend more American tax dollars to get more free shit, is certainly a stance. In fact, you can show empathy and understanding towards Democrats that want to reduce aid to Israel by cutting off bombs and bulldozers, even if you know that money is fungible. Or if it should be reduced every year until totally gone. Or Israel is rich enough to simply buy all of them itself. You understand that all those positions can be held without saying that there's no difference between offensive and defensive weapons.
|
The only reason 'blue no matter who' exists is because Republicans are terrible and will support the party line of terrible policies.
The answer to 'blue no matter who' is for non-Democrats to run better candidates that are actually worth voting for.
|
On August 13 2026 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:"Blue no matter who" is a slogan. It's not necessarily a perfect and infallible slogan (does such a thing exist?), since one could take it too literally to mean we should vote even for people who have credible abuse allegations against them and whatnot, + Show Spoiler +but I think it tends to be a pretty good slogan to remind people that even the supposedly best and allegedly 'moderate' Republicans will still vote along party lines to cut taxes for the rich, confirm grossly incompetent and evil nominees like RFK Jr. and Hegseth, and so on. But if you don't like it, that's ok, it's a slogan, not a death pact.
On the other hand, your (dyhb's) red line being that a candidate must be in favor of giving more free shit to Israel, who evidently don't need it and spend American tax dollars to lobby American politicians to spend more American tax dollars to get more free shit, is certainly a stance.
lmao.
You're with me in the minority around here if you actually believe "vote blue no matter who" isn't absolute.
|
On August 13 2026 03:25 dyhb wrote:
In fact, you can show empathy and understanding towards Democrats that want to reduce aid to Israel by cutting off bombs and bulldozers, even if you know that money is fungible. Or if it should be reduced every year until totally gone. Or Israel is rich enough to simply buy all of them itself. You understand that all those positions can be held without saying that there's no difference between offensive and defensive weapons.
I'd have loved to see some of that empathy and understanding from AIPAC when they were airing ads saying Ocasio-Cortez "supported Hamas" even though she was voting in favor of the Iron Dome at the time.
|
United States44398 Posts
On August 13 2026 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:"Blue no matter who" is a slogan. It's not necessarily a perfect and infallible slogan (does such a thing exist?), since one could take it too literally to mean we should vote even for people who have credible abuse allegations against them and whatnot, + Show Spoiler +but I think it tends to be a pretty good slogan to remind people that even the supposedly best and allegedly 'moderate' Republicans will still vote along party lines to cut taxes for the rich, confirm grossly incompetent and evil nominees like RFK Jr. and Hegseth, and so on. But if you don't like it, that's ok, it's a slogan, not a death pact.
On the other hand, your (dyhb's) red line being that a candidate must be in favor of giving more free shit to Israel, who evidently don't need it and spend American tax dollars to lobby American politicians to spend more American tax dollars to get more free shit, is certainly a stance. lmao. You're with me in the minority around here if you actually believe "vote blue no matter who" isn't absolute.
Blue no matter who doesn’t even exist. It’s vote for the one less likely to create a genocidal police state. That just happens to be the blue guy 100% of the time which creates a blue shorthand. But it’s nothing about the colour of the branding, it’s about the totalitarianism.
|
On August 13 2026 03:46 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 03:25 dyhb wrote:
In fact, you can show empathy and understanding towards Democrats that want to reduce aid to Israel by cutting off bombs and bulldozers, even if you know that money is fungible. Or if it should be reduced every year until totally gone. Or Israel is rich enough to simply buy all of them itself. You understand that all those positions can be held without saying that there's no difference between offensive and defensive weapons. I'd have loved to see some of that empathy and understanding from AIPAC when they were airing ads saying Ocasio-Cortez "supported Hamas" even though she was voting in favor of the Iron Dome at the time. AIPAC can also show poor advocacy or lose track of its mission at the same time as El-Sayed's mistakes. They can both be true at the same time. I don't recall AIPAC running an explicit "support Hamas" ad against AOC, but I don't live in her district and it would have to be one of your anti-AIPAC types bringing it to my attention outside of that.
|
On August 13 2026 04:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 13 2026 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:"Blue no matter who" is a slogan. It's not necessarily a perfect and infallible slogan (does such a thing exist?), since one could take it too literally to mean we should vote even for people who have credible abuse allegations against them and whatnot, + Show Spoiler +but I think it tends to be a pretty good slogan to remind people that even the supposedly best and allegedly 'moderate' Republicans will still vote along party lines to cut taxes for the rich, confirm grossly incompetent and evil nominees like RFK Jr. and Hegseth, and so on. But if you don't like it, that's ok, it's a slogan, not a death pact.
On the other hand, your (dyhb's) red line being that a candidate must be in favor of giving more free shit to Israel, who evidently don't need it and spend American tax dollars to lobby American politicians to spend more American tax dollars to get more free shit, is certainly a stance. lmao. You're with me in the minority around here if you actually believe "vote blue no matter who" isn't absolute. Blue no matter who doesn’t even exist. It’s vote for the one less likely to create a genocidal police state. That just happens to be the blue guy 100% of the time which creates a blue shorthand. But it’s nothing about the colour of the branding, it’s about the totalitarianism.
The "blue" isn't the funny part. It's that LS suggested that people would "misinterpret" it to mean they should vote for people with credible abuse allegations and whatnot. It actually means voting for people with much worse than "credible abuse allegations". Pretty sure we got the entire "vote blue no matter who" crowd all the way to potentially voting for Hitler when it came up (in 2016 Jankisa)
I believe LS is misinterpreting what people mean/meant. It's a one way street to the right and that's also confused Jankisa.
|
"People aren't slavishly adhering to my strawman. They must be confused."
|
On August 13 2026 04:36 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 13 2026 04:08 KwarK wrote:On August 13 2026 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 13 2026 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:"Blue no matter who" is a slogan. It's not necessarily a perfect and infallible slogan (does such a thing exist?), since one could take it too literally to mean we should vote even for people who have credible abuse allegations against them and whatnot, + Show Spoiler +but I think it tends to be a pretty good slogan to remind people that even the supposedly best and allegedly 'moderate' Republicans will still vote along party lines to cut taxes for the rich, confirm grossly incompetent and evil nominees like RFK Jr. and Hegseth, and so on. But if you don't like it, that's ok, it's a slogan, not a death pact.
On the other hand, your (dyhb's) red line being that a candidate must be in favor of giving more free shit to Israel, who evidently don't need it and spend American tax dollars to lobby American politicians to spend more American tax dollars to get more free shit, is certainly a stance. lmao. You're with me in the minority around here if you actually believe "vote blue no matter who" isn't absolute. Blue no matter who doesn’t even exist. It’s vote for the one less likely to create a genocidal police state. That just happens to be the blue guy 100% of the time which creates a blue shorthand. But it’s nothing about the colour of the branding, it’s about the totalitarianism. The "blue" isn't the funny part. It's that LS suggested that people would "misinterpret" it to mean they should vote for people with credible abuse allegations and whatnot. It actually means voting for people with much worse than "credible abuse allegations". Pretty sure we got the entire "vote blue no matter who" crowd all the way to potentially voting for Hitler when it came up (in 2016 Jankisa) I believe LS is misinterpreting what people mean/meant. It's a one way street to the right and that's also confused Jankisa. "People aren't slavishly adhering to my strawman. They must be confused."
The short version is basically that dyhb is showing you how politics works and why the "useful idiots" parroting "vote blue no matter who" didn't understand what they were doing.
dyhb/corporate/establishment/thirdway/etc Democrats are going to continue to make demands like making Piker and the people he works with/toward helping endlessly apologize and abandon the things they ostensibly believed/advocated that got them the support from the people they'll inevitably help sheepdog back into the subservience of the people dyhb is ultimately taking up for (the Epstein Class donors, not the politicians). It starts with the "extreme" 9/11 type stuff but by elections you'll just be advocating for the same heinous things dyhb/corporate/establishment/thirdway/etc are after all this performative outrage.
It's funny because I didn't realize how oblivious you all actually were, I thought you were just being deliberately obtuse. This is actually a sort of a relief.
|
"People here aren't slavishly adhering to my strawman. I'm actually relieved because this means I'm even smarter than I thought I was."
|
On August 13 2026 05:27 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 13 2026 04:36 LightSpectra wrote:On August 13 2026 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 13 2026 04:08 KwarK wrote:On August 13 2026 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 13 2026 03:04 LightSpectra wrote:"Blue no matter who" is a slogan. It's not necessarily a perfect and infallible slogan (does such a thing exist?), since one could take it too literally to mean we should vote even for people who have credible abuse allegations against them and whatnot, + Show Spoiler +but I think it tends to be a pretty good slogan to remind people that even the supposedly best and allegedly 'moderate' Republicans will still vote along party lines to cut taxes for the rich, confirm grossly incompetent and evil nominees like RFK Jr. and Hegseth, and so on. But if you don't like it, that's ok, it's a slogan, not a death pact.
On the other hand, your (dyhb's) red line being that a candidate must be in favor of giving more free shit to Israel, who evidently don't need it and spend American tax dollars to lobby American politicians to spend more American tax dollars to get more free shit, is certainly a stance. lmao. You're with me in the minority around here if you actually believe "vote blue no matter who" isn't absolute. Blue no matter who doesn’t even exist. It’s vote for the one less likely to create a genocidal police state. That just happens to be the blue guy 100% of the time which creates a blue shorthand. But it’s nothing about the colour of the branding, it’s about the totalitarianism. The "blue" isn't the funny part. It's that LS suggested that people would "misinterpret" it to mean they should vote for people with credible abuse allegations and whatnot. It actually means voting for people with much worse than "credible abuse allegations". Pretty sure we got the entire "vote blue no matter who" crowd all the way to potentially voting for Hitler when it came up (in 2016 Jankisa) I believe LS is misinterpreting what people mean/meant. It's a one way street to the right and that's also confused Jankisa. "People aren't slavishly adhering to my strawman. They must be confused." The short version is basically that dyhb is showing you how politics works and why the "useful idiots" parroting "vote blue no matter who" didn't understand what they were doing. dyhb/corporate/establishment/thirdway/etc Democrats are going to continue to make demands like making Piker and the people he works with/toward helping endlessly apologize and abandon the things they ostensibly believed/advocated that got them the support from the people they'll inevitably help sheepdog back into the subservience of the people dyhb is ultimately taking up for (the Epstein Class donors, not the politicians). It starts with the "extreme" 9/11 type stuff but by elections you'll just be advocating for the same heinous things dyhb/corporate/establishment/thirdway/etc are after all this performative outrage. It's funny because I didn't realize how oblivious you all actually were, I thought you were just being deliberately obtuse. This is actually a sort of a relief. "People here aren't slavishly adhering to my strawman. I'm actually relieved because this means I'm even smarter than I thought I was."
I understand why you resort to these petulant shitposts, but it doesn't really matter, because my analysis there will just continue to be demonstrably true in practically every interaction with dyhb like it is with the oBlade thing.
|
You thinking you’re right about everything isn’t new or remotely accurate.
Most people at some point figure out that pointing out problems is easy, saying how it should be is easy, that getting there in the real world is hard. Until you actually plant your flag and start discussing how you would actually get where you want no one is going to take your serious, nor should they. And you complimenting yourself over and over is not going to convince anyone otherwise.
It’s actually amazing how much good will you have burnt and how successful you are at turning potential allies into life long enemies.
|
Northern Ireland27466 Posts
On August 13 2026 06:12 Billyboy wrote:
You thinking you’re right about everything isn’t new or remotely accurate.
Most people at some point figure out that pointing out problems is easy, saying how it should be is easy, that getting there in the real world is hard. Until you actually plant your flag and start discussing how you would actually get where you want no one is going to take your serious, nor should they. And you complimenting yourself over and over is not going to convince anyone otherwise.
It’s actually amazing how much good will you have burnt and how successful you are at turning potential allies into life long enemies.
It’s quite remarkable really.
I think there’s 100% a good case to be made that the Dems aren’t going to solve a lot of problems afflicting Joe and Jane average American anytime soon, and are quite deficient there.
I’d happily agree with that, but they wouldn’t be instituting Fascist policies from the White House either.
It’s less doubling down than quadrupling down at this point. It’s genuinely insufferable
|
On August 13 2026 00:46 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 00:37 ETisME wrote:On August 13 2026 00:19 LightSpectra wrote:It just seems rather incongruous to me that if I give a loaded gun to a psychotic man to see what he does with it, and he goes around shooting innocent people, we can universally agree that it was my fault; but if a nation's government goes around doing the same thing on a mass scale, like when the United States delivered weapons to Islamists to fight the USSR, it's apparently "sympathizing with terrorists" to say they (the government) is at fault for that. The issue here isn't that the civilian victims of those Islamists somehow "had it coming," it's that the whole thing was entirely preventable and it's going to keep happening until the government stops repeating the same error. What is meant to be controversial here? Both the US and USSR did the same. Are you agreeing with me? Hows the whole thing preventable? By giving up the entire middle east to USSR? The US intervened in Korean war and Vietnam war, should they have just let USSR side taken over Korea and Vietnam and thus pretty much majority of Asia then? Why shouldn't it be USSR that give up Korea and Vietnam and middle east then? Maybe they should have you as their strategist. We'd having a world orgy by now. Hindsight being 20/20 and all that, Vietnam, yes 100%. USSR side did win and all of domino theory never happened. Koreans on the other hand are happy with the intervention and Im sure those in the North wish it had continued the war or more had intervened. These is no clear answer on intervening, even with the best intentions it has worked out pretty poorly for the last 40 years. But this is why what the US is doing now in Iran is so painfully stupid. They had all the information, one of the most studied and simulated potential conflicts in the world, they ignored it and did everything wrong and now continue to make it worse by doing progressively stupider stuff, well simultaneously lying to the public so blatantly that looks worse and worse by the day. The next US president is going to be in such a horrible position.
I kinda agree and disagree.
Yes it's been pretty bad overall.
But the US did intervene at a time that had mass protest going on, and Israel has extremely good Intel, so it was one of the better timing to actually intervene any nuclear program.
And I think it is a good war to "lose". It's a war the US can afford to lose. They have way more drone combat experience by now. Meanwhile look at the anti air defenses and detection from China that Iran had, they didn't work well at all.
Ammo and rockets can be replaced, a high demand to replenish is a good thing for the arms supplier to scale up production, if they are able to.
There has been a lot of reports on NATO training for ukraine are outdated for drone combat, hopefully this gives the US a bit more insight.
|
"vote red no matter who" is a much more accurate slogan. You had a guy who beat his wife on the democrat side get replaced and step out of the race but when it happens on the right there isn't the slightest call for them to step down or be replaced.
The amount of times that democrats have resigned over shit that wouldn't make republicans blink twice is incredible. The clear mental health difference between joe biden and trump should show you truely who is more adhered to voteing their brand over anything.
|
On August 13 2026 07:46 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 00:46 Billyboy wrote:On August 13 2026 00:37 ETisME wrote:On August 13 2026 00:19 LightSpectra wrote:It just seems rather incongruous to me that if I give a loaded gun to a psychotic man to see what he does with it, and he goes around shooting innocent people, we can universally agree that it was my fault; but if a nation's government goes around doing the same thing on a mass scale, like when the United States delivered weapons to Islamists to fight the USSR, it's apparently "sympathizing with terrorists" to say they (the government) is at fault for that. The issue here isn't that the civilian victims of those Islamists somehow "had it coming," it's that the whole thing was entirely preventable and it's going to keep happening until the government stops repeating the same error. What is meant to be controversial here? Both the US and USSR did the same. Are you agreeing with me? Hows the whole thing preventable? By giving up the entire middle east to USSR? The US intervened in Korean war and Vietnam war, should they have just let USSR side taken over Korea and Vietnam and thus pretty much majority of Asia then? Why shouldn't it be USSR that give up Korea and Vietnam and middle east then? Maybe they should have you as their strategist. We'd having a world orgy by now. Hindsight being 20/20 and all that, Vietnam, yes 100%. USSR side did win and all of domino theory never happened. Koreans on the other hand are happy with the intervention and Im sure those in the North wish it had continued the war or more had intervened. These is no clear answer on intervening, even with the best intentions it has worked out pretty poorly for the last 40 years. But this is why what the US is doing now in Iran is so painfully stupid. They had all the information, one of the most studied and simulated potential conflicts in the world, they ignored it and did everything wrong and now continue to make it worse by doing progressively stupider stuff, well simultaneously lying to the public so blatantly that looks worse and worse by the day. The next US president is going to be in such a horrible position. I kinda agree and disagree. Yes it's been pretty bad overall. But the US did intervene at a time that had mass protest going on, and Israel has extremely good Intel, so it was one of the better timing to actually intervene any nuclear program. And I think it is a good war to "lose". It's a war the US can afford to lose. They have way more drone combat experience by now. Meanwhile look at the anti air defenses and detection from China that Iran had, they didn't work well at all. Ammo and rockets can be replaced, a high demand to replenish is a good thing for the arms supplier to scale up production, if they are able to. There has been a lot of reports on NATO training for ukraine are outdated for drone combat, hopefully this gives the US a bit more insight.
Sorry mate, this was a colossal fuck up in every way imaginable. They actually waited until the protests were squashed and 50k dead before starting in spite of the Iranian people begging them and Trump saying he would protect them. But then they attacked before they had the right stuff in the area. They leaked all the info in the attack by adding a reporter to the text group. They proved they can not force the strait open over and over. They proved they are unwilling to raemd ground troops even with the endless empty threats. We are well into the triple digits of Trump making empty threats and promises in this conflict alone. The proved they can protect their local allies, and made their allies enemy stronger. They have pushed those local allies to Ukraine for help with drone defence because they are so bad at it. If they wanted to up their production they could have just sold more shit to Ukraine but instead they burnt it all using it themselves and have only proved that they don’t have the production to keep up the use even against such a small opponent.
And that is far from everything bad, either you are ignoring it all, or you need to start taking in different media. This is not a topic with multiple viewpoints where there are varying opinions. This is a HUGE embarrassment and has weakened the US globally in many meaningful ways and made Iran way stronger in many meaningful ways.
|
On August 13 2026 09:06 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2026 07:46 ETisME wrote:On August 13 2026 00:46 Billyboy wrote:On August 13 2026 00:37 ETisME wrote:On August 13 2026 00:19 LightSpectra wrote:It just seems rather incongruous to me that if I give a loaded gun to a psychotic man to see what he does with it, and he goes around shooting innocent people, we can universally agree that it was my fault; but if a nation's government goes around doing the same thing on a mass scale, like when the United States delivered weapons to Islamists to fight the USSR, it's apparently "sympathizing with terrorists" to say they (the government) is at fault for that. The issue here isn't that the civilian victims of those Islamists somehow "had it coming," it's that the whole thing was entirely preventable and it's going to keep happening until the government stops repeating the same error. What is meant to be controversial here? Both the US and USSR did the same. Are you agreeing with me? Hows the whole thing preventable? By giving up the entire middle east to USSR? The US intervened in Korean war and Vietnam war, should they have just let USSR side taken over Korea and Vietnam and thus pretty much majority of Asia then? Why shouldn't it be USSR that give up Korea and Vietnam and middle east then? Maybe they should have you as their strategist. We'd having a world orgy by now. Hindsight being 20/20 and all that, Vietnam, yes 100%. USSR side did win and all of domino theory never happened. Koreans on the other hand are happy with the intervention and Im sure those in the North wish it had continued the war or more had intervened. These is no clear answer on intervening, even with the best intentions it has worked out pretty poorly for the last 40 years. But this is why what the US is doing now in Iran is so painfully stupid. They had all the information, one of the most studied and simulated potential conflicts in the world, they ignored it and did everything wrong and now continue to make it worse by doing progressively stupider stuff, well simultaneously lying to the public so blatantly that looks worse and worse by the day. The next US president is going to be in such a horrible position. I kinda agree and disagree. Yes it's been pretty bad overall. But the US did intervene at a time that had mass protest going on, and Israel has extremely good Intel, so it was one of the better timing to actually intervene any nuclear program. And I think it is a good war to "lose". It's a war the US can afford to lose. They have way more drone combat experience by now. Meanwhile look at the anti air defenses and detection from China that Iran had, they didn't work well at all. Ammo and rockets can be replaced, a high demand to replenish is a good thing for the arms supplier to scale up production, if they are able to. There has been a lot of reports on NATO training for ukraine are outdated for drone combat, hopefully this gives the US a bit more insight. Sorry mate, this was a colossal fuck up in every way imaginable. They actually waited until the protests were squashed and 50k dead before starting in spite of the Iranian people begging them and Trump saying he would protect them. But then they attacked before they had the right stuff in the area. They leaked all the info in the attack by adding a reporter to the text group. They proved they can not force the strait open over and over. They proved they are unwilling to raemd ground troops even with the endless empty threats. We are well into the triple digits of Trump making empty threats and promises in this conflict alone. The proved they can protect their local allies, and made their allies enemy stronger. They have pushed those local allies to Ukraine for help with drone defence because they are so bad at it. If they wanted to up their production they could have just sold more shit to Ukraine but instead they burnt it all using it themselves and have only proved that they don’t have the production to keep up the use even against such a small opponent. And that is far from everything bad, either you are ignoring it all, or you need to start taking in different media. This is not a topic with multiple viewpoints where there are varying opinions. This is a HUGE embarrassment and has weakened the US globally in many meaningful ways and made Iran way stronger in many meaningful ways.
Yes, but like I said, this was one of the few timing windows they could have gone in. Too late? Maybe, but a lot of it were riding on whether Iran protesters could make it happen.
In many cases in history, a loss isn't necessarily a loss.
The transition period to adapting a drone warfare needed to happen, this is a good time than any other.
This is much more important than the current affairs and events.
Everything reputation related, frankly is nothing but chitchat at afternoon tea.
The US can afford these losses, identifying bottlenecks and gaining onhand experience in new warfare is crucial. Yes including patriot missiles production rate and effectiveness, instead of just selling the missiles at a flat production rate, they now most likely will need to review how to scale it up.
|
Presumably, they could've transitioned to drones and keep all the other stuff. Ukraine already showed that this is the way, it's not like they needed to lose a war to figure out that cheap drones is the way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
