| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22517 Posts
Its not being lost because the military didn't know how to fight against Iran and its well known drone forces, its losing because the civilians in charge are morons who are not listening to the actual experienced military and instead rely upon chatgtp to generate lists about what school to shoot very expensive missiles at. I bet this war is going exactly as the Pentagon expected it would go, once they were excluded from the decision process. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3033 Posts
On August 13 2026 12:05 ETisME wrote: In many cases in history, a loss isn't necessarily a loss. Literally how is it not. We lost troops, billions in equipment, we agreed to pay billions in reparations, Iran is tolling Hormuz, we're allegedly going to let them make nukes now, the pro-Western faction in Iran is discredited for a generation, the Gulf states that were functionally American vassals are now making their own alliances because they can't rely on America anymore. A very skilled diplomatic corps could maybe undo some of these but Marco Rubio and Jared Kushner ain't it. This was an unequivocal defeat and if you can't see that, consider broadening what sources you get your news from. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24249 Posts
On August 13 2026 07:15 WombaT wrote: + Show Spoiler + 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. + Show Spoiler + It’s less doubling down than quadrupling down at this point. It’s genuinely insufferable It's not so much "a good case" as it is demonstrably true. Thinking voting Democrat was the shield for ~60 years was indispensable in the metastization of fascism/Trump in the first place. That also includes helping to lay the foundations of fascist policy themselves like the Patriot Act, Cop City in ATL, or NYC still using the military to police the transit system, just to name a few examples. | ||
|
Billyboy
2141 Posts
On August 13 2026 12:05 ETisME wrote: 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. No, this isn’t even just overly optimistic, it’s straight up false. Hell you can even put a brand and relationships into a valuation, of course it matters when you are making deals. Everything you wrote is wrong. On August 13 2026 15:51 EnDeR_ wrote: 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. This, they could have got paid to test everything, get their production up, weaken their enemies, not expose their weaknesses to everyone. This is going to end up as one of the, if not the most embarrassing military campaigns ever. And purely based on poor leadership. USA has everything in place to succeed. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6389 Posts
On August 13 2026 20:18 LightSpectra wrote: Literally how is it not. We lost troops, It's the ultimate sacrifice. 18 have lost their lives in the war with Iran. About 1000 have lost their lives when there was NO war with Iran. From the Beirut bombings, to other terror, to the victims of Iranian IEDs and proxies in GWOT. On August 13 2026 20:18 LightSpectra wrote: billions in equipment, Just think of all the free college those aircraft could have paid for. On August 13 2026 20:18 LightSpectra wrote: we agreed to pay billions in reparations, Even if read this way (yawn), has been clearly unagreed. But now that I think about it. Why would you be against paying reparations to a Muslim country of color, which is clearly oppressed by the imperialist US? Seriously. On August 13 2026 20:18 LightSpectra wrote: Iran is tolling Hormuz, Really, "is tolling," meaning right now? I saw nothing about that. How much tolling? Does it include all, what, eight ships transiting? On August 13 2026 20:18 LightSpectra wrote: we're allegedly going to let them make nukes now, Let them? They have no interest in it I heard. But if they did it would just help them defend against the fascist Republicans right? Don't see where you have room to complain. On August 13 2026 20:18 LightSpectra wrote: the pro-Western faction in Iran is discredited for a generation, You aren't even in the pro-Western faction in America, what do you know or care about the domestic politics of Iran? On August 13 2026 20:18 LightSpectra wrote: the Gulf states that were functionally American vassals are now making their own alliances because they can't rely on America anymore. A very skilled diplomatic corps could maybe undo some of these but Marco Rubio and Jared Kushner ain't it. Pretty sure American vassals that are neighbors are traditionally nowhere near hostile with one another. And in the case of them strengthening mutual defense by doing their fair share, the US could reduce the criticisms of "meddling." Win-win. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14181 Posts
Nixon managed to spit the communist alliance between the chinese and soviets in 72, the following year was when the US signed the peace accords in paris. With china at least not against the US Domino theory didn't make sense anymore to keep persuing. The Paris Peace Accords achieved everything that the US mission statement was for the war, and the strategic picture improved significantly for the US after it than before it. China would even go to war against vietnam within the decade. In the next decade relations started repairing even before the wall fell. Now we do more than 120 billion of trade with them. Trump is 100% not the guy to be able to find a win out of this. But the US has a lot more to gain by having a friendly Iran that its got its economic teeth into than a simmering violent conflict. If you have any confidence in trump being competent and being able to deliver on Iran you need professional help. | ||
|
Billyboy
2141 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3033 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44240 Posts
On August 14 2026 02:21 LightSpectra wrote: You can tell the Iran War's not going very well when oBlade's best defense of it is "you should be happy because you hate America and we're losing". The problem being that nobody here supports the IRGC. We want the IRGC defeated, the biggest complaint is that Trump started a war at a time and place of his choosing and then lost the fucking thing. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3033 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11593 Posts
Aside from that, I kinda prefer Pax Americana; it's a lot better than many alternatives, so I don't like that its belly has been shown in Hormuz. I would like to see the IRGC topple though I don't think now was the time. It seemed like Iran had a strong and growing reform movement, and I fear this has put it back decades. That's bad. I think this has only taught Iran that the hardliners are right and the reformers are wrong. The agreements US makes are not worth the paper they are written on and violence like choking out Hormuz is the way. That's really bad. I would have much rather seen America save it's Patriots and actually thrown it's military-industrial weight behind Ukraine with a President making the case to the American people, drawing parallels to Ukraine's fight for independence and America's own wars for independence. It's where geopolitics and a force for good align where you already have an army on the ground desperately fighting for their country, desperate for more equipment instead of hoping you can throw enough missiles at Iran every second end week just when stock markets close and call it a day. Everything about it is mismanaged, including America's allies which he simultaneously seems to wish he could abandon them for Russia while also wanting them to jump when he says jump. He's made America weaker and that's a bad thing and nobody but America-bad Hasan types and Russian stans would be happy about that. | ||
|
dyhb
United States612 Posts
We'll see if some future administration starts transitioning our military towards land and ground drones and cheap artillery as the Ukraine War demonstrates. The American military still likes its expensive toys. Some stories show that our stockpiles were already meager prior to engaging in a war. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44240 Posts
On August 14 2026 08:22 dyhb wrote: Pax Americana is more fiction than fact after Iraq. America is unwilling to send its troops to risk their lives to take and hold ground that would be required for stuff like the formerly free international transit passage of the Strait of Hormuz. The status quo was ripe for asymmetrical warfare by a hostile totalitarian regime that doesn't mind economic hardship (ie sanctions and blockades) and high losses of military leadership. The international order as it applies to sea trade didn't have backing of first-world nations with large militaries willing to guarantee it by force, so it was prone to sudden collapse. We'll see if some future administration starts transitioning our military towards land and ground drones and cheap artillery as the Ukraine War demonstrates. The American military still likes its expensive toys. Some stories show that our stockpiles were already meager prior to engaging in a war. It wasn't Iran who broke it in this instance and it didn't suddenly collapse. Iran did not close Hormuz in a vacuum, there was only one scenario in which the international community would judge it to be a proportionate response and the US opened the war with a declaration that this was specifically that scenario. One of a great many unforced errors. It's not that nobody is willing to fight for the rules based international order, it's that nobody is wiling to fight against the US to preserve it. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46272 Posts
"Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Michigan Rep. Lisa McClain have been rebuked for pushing a false claim that the Covid-19 vaccine given to women in the early stages of pregnancy resulted in an 82 percent miscarriage rate. Cruz made the claim in a post on X Wednesday promoting the latest episode of his podcast while McClain cited it in an interview with Fox Business Tuesday, causing the network to issue a correction. The long-debunked figure comes from a misreading of an April 2021 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, which reported a 12.6 percent miscarriage rate among the 827 pregnant women who took part in the research – an outcome in line with expectations. As the gynaecologist and columnist Dr Jen Gunther has explained, the 82 percent figure was only reached by excluding 700 of the 712 women involved who gave birth successfully, on the grounds that they were vaccinated in their third trimester, to give a miscarriage rate of 104/127 instead of 104/827 – warping the end result. Cruz’s post promising “bombshell data” and claiming that Dr Anthony Fauci and Pfizer had covered up the truth has since been hit with a community note on X explaining that the figure is based on a “statistical miscalculation.” " https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/ted-cruz-covid-vaccine-miscarriages-maga-b3032471.html | ||
|
dyhb
United States612 Posts
On August 14 2026 10:38 KwarK wrote: The conditions for what I described affecting Pax Americana are true and independent from that event. The international community is not going to fight to maintain it regardless of some other initiating event. It wasn't Iran who broke it in this instance and it didn't suddenly collapse. Iran did not close Hormuz in a vacuum, there was only one scenario in which the international community would judge it to be a proportionate response and the US opened the war with a declaration that this was specifically that scenario. One of a great many unforced errors. It's not that nobody is willing to fight for the rules based international order, it's that nobody is wiling to fight against the US to preserve it. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6389 Posts
On August 14 2026 11:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: In case anyone has forgotten that Ted Cruz is a moron and that Republicans are still obsessed with lying about the covid vaccine: "Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Michigan Rep. Lisa McClain have been rebuked for pushing a false claim that the Covid-19 vaccine given to women in the early stages of pregnancy resulted in an 82 percent miscarriage rate. Cruz made the claim in a post on X Wednesday promoting the latest episode of his podcast while McClain cited it in an interview with Fox Business Tuesday, causing the network to issue a correction. The long-debunked figure comes from a misreading of an April 2021 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, which reported a 12.6 percent miscarriage rate among the 827 pregnant women who took part in the research – an outcome in line with expectations. As the gynaecologist and columnist Dr Jen Gunther has explained, the 82 percent figure was only reached by excluding 700 of the 712 women involved who gave birth successfully, on the grounds that they were vaccinated in their third trimester, to give a miscarriage rate of 104/127 instead of 104/827 – warping the end result. Cruz’s post promising “bombshell data” and claiming that Dr Anthony Fauci and Pfizer had covered up the truth has since been hit with a community note on X explaining that the figure is based on a “statistical miscalculation.” " https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/ted-cruz-covid-vaccine-miscarriages-maga-b3032471.html This is not why it's wrong. If you were looking for a signal regarding the safety of 1st/2nd semester vaccinations, yes you would exclude third trimester vaccinations, which are irrelevant, to calculate the miscarriage rate. Gynecologist and columnist Dr. Jen Gunther apparently isn't as stupid as The Independent made her out to be, as she actually gets it on her own site: If you want to look at the pregnancy outcomes from vaccination in the first or second trimester then the denominator needs to be all pregnancies vaccinated in the first trimester (14 weeks) or up to 20 weeks or 24 weeks (the number of weeks just needs to be consistent). The investigators have initial data for 1040 people vaccinated in the first trimester (≤ 14 weeks) and 1700 vaccinated in the second trimester (≥ 14 weeks to 24 weeks). These pregnancies will eventually form the denominator to look at vaccination in the first and second trimesters, but these pregnancies have to end and all data needs to be collected before they can be used. The researchers specifically mention they don’t have follow up data for people vaccinated early and the rate of miscarriage may change when they have more data. Anyone concerned about Table 4 only had to read the full article. Basically the limitations are they looked at VAERS for 2.5 months worth of data, and have follow-ups cutting off at 3.5 months after the start of data (December 14th -> March 30th). This is structurally incapable of evaluating vaccination early in pregnancy, which is 9 months. It was a fine study originally, it does just say "preliminary" after all, wasn't meant to be anything more, and by its own conclusion found no obvious signal of anything. Essentially, if you vaccinate someone at 2 months, and listen for events after that for 2 months, you are likely to hear about a miscarriage. For reasons that should be obvious, you are not likely to hear about a successful live birth. And even if you listen for 2 years, you can't just take "no news is good news," you have to check outcomes with followups. Not half-mix unknown outcomes. You have to listen to a certain point for miscarriages, and after that for stillbirths also, and you have to check after expected due date to verify that pregnancies are being carried to term. This later analysis does a better job, especially table 2: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12973310/ | ||
| ||
|
|
PiG Sty Festival
ByuN vs HeRoMaRinE
ShoWTimE vs Zoun
PiGStarcraft307
Big Brain Bouts
Nicoract vs Neeb
TriGGeR vs ShoWTimE
CranKy Ducklings
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Krystianer
Solar vs Cure
IPSL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiG Sty Festival
Maru vs Shameless
Reynor vs TriGGeR
IPSL
OSC
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Hm
Bisu vs Shuttle
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
