Jump to content

US Politics: Nancy's Knock on the Senate Door


Tywin Manderly

Recommended Posts

Earlier it was reported that Trump would give a television address tonight. Apparently now that's been cancelled, but he might give updates. On twitter. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/jan/07/trump-news-today-live-impeachment-articles-iran-latest-updates-democrats?page=with:block-5e1534cf8f087e8308e6a6d1#block-5e1534cf8f087e8308e6a6d1

Yes, I know I shouldn't be surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Oh good, Trump says all is well, so I feel comforted. <_<

The best case scenario is that Iran attacks US bases, but without killing anyone and the US either does not retaliate or, at most, retaliates in kind (i.e. attack some Iranian base, but without killing one). This allows for de-escalation without anyone losing face. On the other hand, the worst case scenario is escalation up to an all out war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Last Storm said:

All is not well. But any way you slice it the world has one less terrorist with Qassem gone. I hope Iran will do everyone a favor and cease any more attacks. 

If we're applying the "terrorist" label to high ranking state officials acting in their (supposed) state's interest then surely the one tweeting threats to commit war crimes by destroying cultural landmarks which are of global heritage value would also qualify.

Iran have apparently announced that this is their tit in response to the tat and if the US leaves it at this, there won't be further attacks. I'm not exactly optimistic on the US leaving it at that though. I'm not finding where I saw that though, so I guess a grain of salt. But its irrelevant if the US escalates again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, karaddin said:

If we're applying the "terrorist" label to high ranking state officials acting in their (supposed) state's interest then surely the one tweeting threats to commit war crimes by destroying cultural landmarks which are of global heritage value would also qualify.

Iran have apparently announced that this is their tit in response to the tat and if the US leaves it at this, there won't be further attacks. I'm not exactly optimistic on the US leaving it at that though. I'm not finding where I saw that though, so I guess a grain of salt. But its irrelevant if the US escalates again.

Qassem was labeled a terrorist by several countries because he, you know, committed acts of terrorism. 
 

Trump speaks and acts without thinking. But so far he hasn’t committed acts of terrorism against democracy and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Last Storm said:

Qassem was labeled a terrorist by several countries because he, you know, committed acts of terrorism. 

And Trump has potentially already committed a war crime in his assassination and is promising to commit more if this escalates. This isn't a major international incident because he was a terrorist, its a major international incident because he was a high ranking official in a nation state. I'd shed zero tears for Putin being assassinated either, but going around assassinating such people tends to start wars and I'm very much anti war. And promising to commit war crimes if someone responds to your act of war puts you into "acting like a super villain" not the fucking good guy territory.

ETA: And since we're doing major foreign policy announcements via twitter, here is the Iranian Foreign Minister saying they'd leave it at that if no response from US.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, karaddin said:

And Trump has potentially already committed a war crime in his assassination and is promising to commit more if this escalates. This isn't a major international incident because he was a terrorist, its a major international incident because he was a high ranking official in a nation state. I'd shed zero tears for Putin being assassinated either, but going around assassinating such people tends to start wars and I'm very much anti war. And promising to commit war crimes if someone responds to your act of war puts you into "acting like a super villain" not the fucking good guy territory.

Yea, those comments were hastily backed down from by Donny. When you say “such people” I think you do an injustice to Putin. As bad as he is, he doesn’t have the credentials of a Soleimani.

I mean, thank god , but their revenge attack included 0 casualties and a bunch of missels that didn’t explode. I’d hope they’d want it to not further escalate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Last Storm said:

Yea, those comments were hastily backed down from by Donny. When you say “such people” I think you do an injustice to Putin. As bad as he is, he doesn’t have the credentials of a Soleimani.

A president who has cynically used queer people as the scary Other within Russia to shore up support resulting in massive harm to queer people, who assassinates private citizens around the world in relatively transparent fashion with impunity, who is not just trying to harm other nations (most prominently the US) but outright destroy the ability for any kind of democracy to function in the face of constant disinformation campaigns and who is one of the wealthiest people alive? He's an evil piece of shit. He's hardly the only one, but he's certainly in that category and I'd hate him for the anti queerness alone.

All of the above is irrelevant to my actual point though, which is that sometimes evil people are in high positions within nation states and we don't just get to kill them because that causes wars which hurt a whole lot more people. And if you want to go judging people, Trump isn't exactly a beacon of morality either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, The Last Storm said:

Qassem was labeled a terrorist by several countries because he, you know, committed acts of terrorism. 
 

Trump speaks and acts without thinking. But so far he hasn’t committed acts of terrorism against democracy and all that.

Soleimani undoubtedly coordinated with terrorist organizations in the interests of his country a part of his role in the Iranian military command. He was not a nice person.

But if you're going to apply the label terrorist to him there's many, many people in western militaries and governments who have used terrorist organizations for their own operational ends, and would also be 'terrorists'. The US (for example) has a very long history of using local "freedom fighters" to advance their interests. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

A president who has cynically used queer people as the scary Other within Russia to shore up support resulting in massive harm to queer people, who assassinates private citizens around the world in relatively transparent fashion with impunity, who is not just trying to harm other nations (most prominently the US) but outright destroy the ability for any kind of democracy to function in the face of constant disinformation campaigns and who is one of the wealthiest people alive? He's an evil piece of shit. He's hardly the only one, but he's certainly in that category and I'd hate him for the anti queerness alone.

Yea, Id say thats one of the biggest things in common Putin and countries like Iran have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Last Storm said:

Yea, Id say thats one of the biggest things in common Putin and countries like Iran have. 

And, if we judge current trajectory of the party in power, the United States as well. The difference is that the US might not go down that hole if it changes direction, the others are already deep down.

 

3 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

Soleimani undoubtedly coordinated with terrorist organizations in the interests of his country a part of his role in the Iranian military command. He was not a nice person.

But if you're going to apply the label terrorist to him there's many, many people in western militaries and governments who have used terrorist organizations for their own operational ends, and would also be 'terrorists'. The US (for example) has a very long history of using local "freedom fighters" to advance their interests. 

And to show its not just a partisan thing from me, Obama doesn't exactly come out of the drone campaigns smelling rosy either. This whole thing is why I thought the terrorist label was being largely reserved for non state actors until it suddenly changed to justify this assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

Soleimani undoubtedly coordinated with terrorist organizations in the interests of his country a part of his role in the Iranian military command. He was not a nice person.

But if you're going to apply the label terrorist to him there's many, many people in western militaries and governments who have used terrorist organizations for their own operational ends, and would also be 'terrorists'. The US (for example) has a very long history of using local "freedom fighters" to advance their interests. 

Soleimani was bent on destroying Israel and harming the US. He didn’t arm militias against countries Iran had differences with like the US did in Afghanistan against the USSR, as an example. He was next level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

And, if we judge current trajectory of the party in power, the United States as well. The difference is that the US might not go down that hole if it changes direction, the others are already deep down.

 

And to show its not just a partisan thing from me, Obama doesn't exactly come out of the drone campaigns smelling rosy either. This whole thing is why I thought the terrorist label was being largely reserved for non state actors until it suddenly changed to justify this assassination.

Obama labeled him a terrorist when he was president, even with his dealings in Iran so I’d hope not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The best case scenario is that Iran attacks US bases, but without killing anyone and the US either does not retaliate or, at most, retaliates in kind (i.e. attack some Iranian base, but without killing one). This allows for de-escalation without anyone losing face. On the other hand, the worst case scenario is escalation up to an all out war.

How can retaliating against an Iranian base in response to today’s attacks be considered de-escalation? The Iranian attack today was against the base that launched the attack that killed the general. I’d say virtually every country in the world would consider that as a justifiable attack. If the US then launched a counter-attack that would be further escalation, not ‘face-saving’.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

How can retaliating against an Iranian base in response to today’s attacks be considered de-escalation? The Iranian attack today was against the base that launched the attack that killed the general. I’d say virtually every country in the world would consider that as a justifiable attack. If the US then launched a counter-attack that would be further escalation, not ‘face-saving’.

Hopefully nothing else happens, because, and I don’t enjoy saying this, a response by the US military won’t involve our missles not detonating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Last Storm said:

Hopefully nothing else happens, because, and I don’t enjoy saying this, a response by the US military won’t involve our missles not detonating.

Nice flex. Cool bruh. /s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

How can retaliating against an Iranian base in response to today’s attacks be considered de-escalation? The Iranian attack today was against the base that launched the attack that killed the general. I’d say virtually every country in the world would consider that as a justifiable attack. If the US then launched a counter-attack that would be further escalation, not ‘face-saving’.

As far as I can tell, they attacked two different bases. That said, of course not retaliating at all would be a surer path towards de-escalation (that's why I mentioned it first).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, if you’re cheering Trump for showing restraint I see all he did was switch to a puppet to continue making threats against Iran. Senator Graham announced he got off the phone with the WH and told Iran if they do anything else they’ll find themselves out of the oil business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...