Jump to content
Ser Scot A Ellison

International thread 2

Recommended Posts

a violation of UNC art. 2(4), and furthermore of art. 8 bis of the rome statute? one wonders. streicher hanged for acts taken in violation of international law mostly as a journalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 10:01 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

Personally I'd rather have the EU step up and severely diminish the influence and sway of the US, Russa and China equally. But if Brexit happens that's going to seriously diminish the EU's capacity to play in that sandbox, and even if Brexit doesn't happen the UK largely walks half a step behind the USA anyway when it comes to pushing around smaller countries.

The real solution isn't picking which bovver boy is the least worst of the available options to be the current playground enforcer. It's having proper international institutions, that can act interdependently of any one nation and has the tools to enforce it's binding decisions. Trouble is no one is willing to go there yet.

If Iran got nukes, they would not use them against Israel, any more than the allegedly more insane North Koreans have lobbed any at South Korea, to date. They might be fanatical, but they still have a much greater interest in self-preservation than in turning Israel into a nuclear wasteland. Nukes are always a deterrent first and foremost and only to be actually deployed when you're existence is directly threatened, and it's either be wiped out and take no retaliatory action, or be wiped out and give the enemy a black eye in the process. Iran understands this. Would they use the fact they have nukes as cover to launch a conventional air and ground offensive against Israel? I seriously doubt it. The US can still guarantee Israel's protection from external threats AND force Israel to reach a proper agreement on Palestine. It just lacks the political will to do it.

The EU doesn't have the military might to stand up to the US, Russia and China. Perhaps the development of the proposed EU army might change that, but I highly doubt it. The EU is simply far too fractured and recent developments suggest that it might be moving further in that direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the EU has 1.8M troops under arms and the third largest nuclear force?

Nuclear weapons really are the great equalizer.  Perhaps Frank Herbert’s “Great  Convention” was not a horrible idea after all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

These types of stunts will probably continue to happen as the drums of war are beat. and many media Outlets in the US will quickly eat it up and propagate it without care for accuracy. 

I said so while it supposedly was happening ....  10,000 Cuban military presence! But forget the Russians and the others who are, you know, actually present, because stoopid media of every kind DID NOT FACT CHECK.

Quote

 

The whole thing was a fraud, staged at the instigation of Washington in hopes that the Venezuelan people andrank-and-file troops would fall for the trick and think an actual coup was underway.

We also know, from an excellent May 2 report by Michael Fox in the Nation, that the U.S. mainstream media and its reporters in country were promoting that dangerous fraud.

 

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 10:02 AM, Triskele said:

That almost felt like a Rick Roll. Only better because it's not a fake out.

US media on the left and right (and even some of the populist "democratic socialist" US left media are all in for dog piling on Venezuela. There are few people in the US media landscape truly willing to look at Venezuela objectively.

There's not much doubt Venezuela is a shit show. But apportioning blame correctly seems to be the challenge, with not many people wanting to accept that external forces have played any significant role.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why the current developments involving Iran are so scary. Bolton seems hell-bent on finishing the Job he started under GWB - because Nation-Building and the Export of Democracy (hah! Iran is probably the second most democratic mid-eastern power after Israel, at least more so than the Saudis or, sadly by now, Turkey) worked out so well last time around. These neocons should be kept far away from power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, The guy from the Vale said:

Which is why the current developments involving Iran are so scary. Bolton seems hell-bent on finishing the Job he started under GWB - because Nation-Building and the Export of Democracy (hah! Iran is probably the second most democratic mid-eastern power after Israel, at least more so than the Saudis or, sadly by now, Turkey) worked out so well last time around. These neocons should be kept far away from power.

Is it about nation-building and exporting democracy though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Is it about nation-building and exporting democracy though?

That's just the polish on the turd that is massive oil/infrastructure contracts after "mission accomplished".

Or maybe I'm cynical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Is it about nation-building and exporting democracy though?

It definitely isn't, but for PR purposes it definitely is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One curious thing about Trump so far is that for all his bluster at least so far he's avoided starting a new Iraq or a new Afghanistan.  And supposedly this is a strong part of his base support in that the US military largely comes from rural communities who were tired of the drag on their communities from those wars.

So if Trump started something with Iran, something that sounds quite insane and disastrous, does everyone fall in line behind the authoritarian leader, or is this a thing that could screw him with that key group of supporters?  

Iran is roughly four times the size of Iraq, both geographically and population-wise.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn brave woman.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/12/chelsea-manning-jail-subpoena-julian-assange

Also:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/venezuela-opposition-guaido-military-support-1423619%3famp=1

Rubio’s attempt to frame what the US as doing as merely defense is laughable. It’s the same type of “defense” every empire engages when it wants  practice imperialism. 

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It definitely isn't, but for PR purposes it definitely is.

Honestly, I’d have more respect for these war-hawks if they dropped the whole “we care about human rights and Democracy” stick. If you’re going to be evil and do evil stuff, at least don’t pretend to be only doing it because you’re a bleeding humanitarian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Triskele said:

One curious thing about Trump so far is that for all his bluster at least so far he's avoided starting a new Iraq or a new Afghanistan.  And supposedly this is a strong part of his base support in that the US military largely comes from rural communities who were tired of the drag on their communities from those wars.

So if Trump started something with Iran, something that sounds quite insane and disastrous, does everyone fall in line behind the authoritarian leader, or is this a thing that could screw him with that key group of supporters?  

Iran is roughly four times the size of Iraq, both geographically and population-wise.  

And on this note, cue Flight of the Valkyries, the Middle East needs a hot beef injection of freedom:

Quote

Washington (CNN)Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented a military plan at a meeting of top national security officials last week that would send as many as 120,000 US troops to the Middle East in the event that Iran strikes American forces in the region or speeds up its development of nuclear weapons, The New York Times reported Monday.

The Times said the plan, which does not call for a land invasion of Iran, was ordered in part by national security adviser John Bolton.
 
Citing administration officials, the Times said it was unknown whether President Donald Trump had been briefed on the plan, including the number of troops. The Times said the meeting occurred days after the Trump administration cited "specific and credible" intelligence last week that suggested Iranian forces and proxies were targeting US forces in Syria, Iraq and at sea.
 
Trump denied the report on Tuesday, dismissing it as "fake news."
"Now would I do that? Absolutely. But we have not planned for that," he told reporters at the White House. "Hopefully, we're not going to have to plan for that, and if we did that, we'd send a hell of a lot more troops than that.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/politics/us-troops-middle-east-iran/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the massive recent oil discoveries in Guyanese territory one can only wonder how long it will be before the neocons go to work on destabilizing that poor tiny country. Their greed (the neocons) knows no bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprisingly rapid escalation in rhetoric between the USA and Iran in the last few days. The USA has accused Iranian forces in Iraq of placing missile batteries close to US military outposts, something denied not just by the Iranians but also the USA's own Iraqi allies and other NATO forces in the region (including the Brits). Then at the weekend, oil tankers off the coast of the UAE were apparently damaged by small explosive charges; these blasted small holes in the hulls but otherwise did no significant damage. Saudi Araba, the UAE and the US have blamed Iran, although the evidence seems dubious.

The US Secretary of State has flown to Europe and Russia, apparently to drum up support for increased measures against Iran and Russian guarantees of not interfering, but failed on both counts. Non-essential US civilian staff in Iraq have now been ordered to leave the country.

Allegedly, military plans to deploy 120,000 US troops to Iraq have been drawn up, which Trump denied by, er, saying he would send "a hell of a lot more."

This may be North Korea-style tough talk to try to bring Iran to the negotiating table, but it feels like a very rapid and dangerous escalation without much in a way of a genuine reason for it. What is the US doing here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×