Jump to content

US Politics: CPAC - Finding new ways to bring America to Rune.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

Yes, at the end of last week. Lots of sanctions, except for the man who actually ordered the killing. I guess we'll just have to sell him more guns and missiles, whilst continuing to ignore the fact that the Saudis are arguably the biggest exporters of Islamic terrorism on the planet.

I think it was a mistake not to sanction MBS (although, technically with the State Department sanctions we don't know whether he was or not) as a matter of principle - there obviously wouldn't have been any practical effect anyway.  However, it'd be wrong to say the Biden administration hasn't done anything substantial to "recalibrate" the relationship.  Most importantly, freezing arms deals and perhaps permanently halting sales of "offensive weapons."  Also, releasing the report that confirmed he ordered the murder in the first place.  And at least trying to reengage with Iran.  

I think Biden is trying to reposition the US as at least closer to neutral in the cold-lukewarm war between the Saudis and Iran - also a pretty big exporter of Islamic terrorism.  Doing so is a very unenviable task and not exactly conducive to knee-jerk reactions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

SCOTUS is hearing two cases today that could neuter the "results" protection of Section 2 of the VRA.  Briefly explained:  

Weakening this protection will enable states to craft voter suppression measures that are obviously racist - so long as they only deal with the "where" or "when" of making voting available.

sounds like some "impact first" bs

 /sarcasm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

sounds like some "impact first" bs

 /sarcasm

I'm most worried about all those poor GOP state parties and officeholders that are going to victimized by accusations of racism when their intent isn't clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Your grammatical confusion isn't helped by 'American' instead of 'America'. I think.

I admit to that one. Was torn between Americans and America and ended up with that weird mixture.

Gonna fix it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

How many times had any country sanctioned the leaders of a country? Has Putin been sanctioned? Is his travel restricted? Will Putin be arrested if he shows up in the US?

Get real.

I forgot to mention Mugabe. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I think it was a mistake not to sanction MBS (although, technically with the State Department sanctions we don't know whether he was or not) as a matter of principle - there obviously wouldn't have been any practical effect anyway.  However, it'd be wrong to say the Biden administration hasn't done anything substantial to "recalibrate" the relationship.  Most importantly, freezing arms deals and perhaps permanently halting sales of "offensive weapons."  Also, releasing the report that confirmed he ordered the murder in the first place.  And at least trying to reengage with Iran.  

I think Biden is trying to reposition the US as at least closer to neutral in the cold-lukewarm war between the Saudis and Iran - also a pretty big exporter of Islamic terrorism.  Doing so is a very unenviable task and not exactly conducive to knee-jerk reactions. 

We're doing a pretty piss poor job of reengaging with Iran. We walked away from a deal that everyone agrees they were complying with, imposed crippling sanctions, and are now demanding that Iran come back and negotiate with us without lifting the sanctions. Iran is right not to trust us, when it comes to Iran, the US's word isn't worth the paper a deal is signed on because in 4-8 years we'll have a Republican in office itching to start antagonizing them again.

Also I still find the idea that we're not going to send them "offensive weapons" laughable, It's so fucking easy to argue that we could be selling them nukes as defensive weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

The US are certainly not shy in imposing sanctions on foreign leaders, especially South American socialists.

And, as Mindwalker pointed out, Biden specifically said there would be punishment for what happened to Khashoggi. Though, as we're all now finding out, he appears to be as useless as many people feared.

And yeah, I'm angry with the UK continuing to prop up these murderous bastards with state of the art weaponry to drop on women and children in Yemen.

 

But how many people has the UK sanctioned? Or the EU? Canada hasn’t yet, we are “studying the issue”. We complained about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia a couple of years ago and the Saudis sanctioned us, ordered students studying in Canada out of the country, and tried to drive down the Canadian dollar by dumping stocks and currency. They cancelled all kinds of contracts, the national joke was all about tens of thousands of bottles of maple syrup ready for shipping with Arabic labels on them. They also cut the price of oil, remember, with the purpose of wiping out oil production in Canada, not the sole purpose, but comments made by Saudi officials made it clear that was part of it.

Before you bitch about the US, which won’t be hit by that kind of retaliation (although it hit US oil producers pretty hard as well), let’s see what the UK does. Will the UK be willing to take the cancelled contracts and the students withdrawn from UK universities and sanctions in diplomats? Will Boris risk that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

We're doing a pretty piss poor job of reengaging with Iran. We walked away from a deal that everyone agrees they were complying with, imposed crippling sanctions, and are now demanding that Iran come back and negotiate with us without lifting the sanctions. Iran is right not to trust us, when it comes to Iran, the US's word isn't worth the paper a deal is signed on because in 4-8 years we'll have a Republican in office itching to start antagonizing them again.

While obviously the prospect of a GOP/Trumpist president in the future severely limits the credibility of our commitments, let's not act like Iran is an honest broker here either:

Quote

In office, Biden’s team continued holding that line: For the US to reenter the agreement, Iran needed to first come back into compliance with the pact’s limitations on its nuclear development. Simply put, Tehran would have to reduce its levels of uranium enrichment to the limits specified in the Iran deal before America would lift any sanctions on the country.

But the US opened the door to negotiate on this point on February 18 after the administration accepted an offer to hold informal talks with Tehran brokered by the European Union.

Iran, however, showed less willingness to engage in talks. Tehran said the US had to lift sanctions before it would discuss America’s reentry into the pact. And likely in an effort to increase pressure on the US, Iran-aligned proxies fired rockets at anti-ISIS coalition forces outside Erbil, Iraq — killing a Filipino contractor and injuring US troops — and near the US Embassy in Baghdad.

If Biden were to capitulate any further to Iran's demands he'd be roasted on a spit by the right - and rightfully so.

15 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Also I still find the idea that we're not going to send them "offensive weapons" laughable, It's so fucking easy to argue that we could be selling them nukes as defensive weapons.

It's certainly right to be skeptical of what's defined as "offensive," but your worry here is decidedly laughable itself.  If it's defined as described in the link above, the distinction does make sense:

Quote

Sales of products deemed defensive - like Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile defense systems made by Lockheed Martin or Patriot missile defense systems made by Lockheed and Raytheon - would still be allowed under such the new policy. But it would end big-ticket deals -- for products such as precision-guided munitions (PGM) and small-diameter bombs -- like those brokered under former President Donald Trump in the face of strong objections from members of Congress. After he lost the Nov. 3 presidential election, Trump's State Department kept approving weapons sales that could be considered offensive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is the US politics thread, so most of the bitching will be about the US.

Also, Biden said the US is back, leading the free world etc. So of course our own cowardice/ corporate governments look to the US as a shiny example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

But how many people has the UK sanctioned? Or the EU? Canada hasn’t yet, we are “studying the issue”. We complained about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia a couple of years ago and the Saudis sanctioned us, ordered students studying in Canada out of the country, and tried to drive down the Canadian dollar by dumping stocks and currency. They cancelled all kinds of contracts, the national joke was all about tens of thousands of bottles of maple syrup ready for shipping with Arabic labels on them. They also cut the price of oil, remember, with the purpose of wiping out oil production in Canada, not the sole purpose, but comments made by Saudi officials made it clear that was part of it.

Before you bitch about the US, which won’t be hit by that kind of retaliation (although it hit US oil producers pretty hard as well), let’s see what the UK does. Will the UK be willing to take the cancelled contracts and the students withdrawn from UK universities and sanctions in diplomats? Will Boris risk that?

You're yelling at the choir. In my first post on this topic when I said 'we', I was referring to the UK.

And look, the way these things usually go is the US issues the sanctions, then bullies and/or threatens its allies and others to follow suit. Just look at what they did to Iran when Trump tore up the nuclear deal.

Regardless, the UK will not do anything to jeopardize the bottom lines of BAE et al. To expect otherwise would be ridiculous. We are the Bad Guy's go to weaponry specialists. We'll sell to anyone, no matter how horrific the results. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mindwalker said:

Well, this is the US politics thread, so most of the bitching will be about the US.

Well, if you're saying Biden should lift the sanctions without any preconditions, I think you're wrong.  Isn't that the type of "diplomacy" Trump engaged with North Korea that everyone made fun of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, if you're saying Biden should lift the sanctions without any preconditions, I think you're wrong.  Isn't that the type of "diplomacy" Trump engaged with North Korea that everyone made fun of?

Situations a little different when we just completely backed out of the previous deal.  Then there was the Solemeini assassination.  Might be our turn to show some good faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, if you're saying Biden should lift the sanctions without any preconditions, I think you're wrong.  Isn't that the type of "diplomacy" Trump engaged with North Korea that everyone made fun of?

I didn't, but actually...

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Situations a little different when we just completely backed out of the previous deal.  Then there was the Solemeini assassination.  Might be our turn to show some good faith.

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Situations a little different when we just completely backed out of the previous deal.  Then there was the Solemeini assassination.  Might be our turn to show some good faith.

The Biden administration is showing good faith - willing to enter informal talks to an agreement can be reached on the sanctions/non-compliance impasse.  They're the one's that, thus far, have refused the olive branch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

While obviously the prospect of a GOP/Trumpist president in the future severely limits the credibility of our commitments, let's not act like Iran is an honest broker here either:

If Biden were to capitulate any further to Iran's demands he'd be roasted on a spit by the right - and rightfully so.

It's certainly right to be skeptical of what's defined as "offensive," but your worry here is decidedly laughable itself.  If it's defined as described in the link above, the distinction does make sense:

 

Bullshit, we've moved the goal post on a country that was following the original deal even after we violated it (though yes, they have now basically said they're not going to abide by it). Biden dropping the Trump era sanctions is an entirely reasonable demand to make. It makes sense to keep up the pressure to put Iran in a weakened state, but I would argue that feeding into the siege mentality only steepens the upward climb we have to overcome to actually be able to reestablish these ties. Iran already feels like it is surrounded by US puppets who are seeking to destroy them, and they are more or less right.

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, if you're saying Biden should lift the sanctions without any preconditions, I think you're wrong.  Isn't that the type of "diplomacy" Trump engaged with North Korea that everyone made fun of?

We didn't have a treaty with North Korea that we tore up and threw back in their face. We've been actively antagonizing Iran for 4 years, as Larry said, it's time for us to show some good faith here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Bullshit, we've moved the goal post on a country that was following the original deal even after we violated it (though yes, they have now basically said they're not going to abide by it).

Yeah, this is why lifting the sanctions just to discuss reentering the deal would obviously be an act of weakness and stupidity that Tehran would exploit.  If they were still in compliance, that'd be one thing.  But they're not, plus they're putting conditions on Biden just to talk.  Conceding to that "reengagement" would be laughably stupid to any objective observer that isn't depicting Tehran as some innocent regime that was wronged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm watching the hearing (but am quite a bit behind). My guy Lindse steeping to new lows. It's cute when he tries to be sneaky.

Centrist Dems trying to negotiate te relief bill:

Oh, and...

Some throwback fun:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Th e

23 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

I'm watching the hearing (but am quite a bit behind). My guy Lindse steeping to new lows. It's cute when he tries to be sneaky.

Centrist Dems trying to negotiate te relief bill:

Depending on the numbers, the third bullet point actually sounds okay. The most recent budget data isn't nearly as dire as a lot of states were projecting last year that it might be. Money is still needed, especially for localities, but maybe not as much as originally thought. And some initial funding for infrastructure or expanding broadband access sounds good to me.

The first two bullet points are total bullshit though. Maybe if a deal is struck on the third one, the others can be dropped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

The US are certainly not shy in imposing sanctions on foreign leaders, especially South American socialists.

And, as Mindwalker pointed out, Biden specifically said there would be punishment for what happened to Khashoggi. Though, as we're all now finding out, he appears to be as useless as many people feared.

And yeah, I'm angry with the UK continuing to prop up these murderous bastards with state of the art weaponry to drop on women and children in Yemen.

 

I don't see it that way at all.

Yemen is also full of murderous bastards and Saudi Arabia has the right to defend themselves.

Also, frankly one dead Jeff Bezos employee is not worth throwing away a strategic and financially beneficial relationship. Tens of thousands of people benefit from Saudi investment in this country.

Bad guys do bad things every day, doesn't mean we should shoot ourselves in the foot over it.

Khashoggi's death is not worth one single family losing their livelihood over. The many vocal critics are not the people that would lose those jobs, if it were their jobs on the line they would sing a much different tune.

1 hour ago, GrimTuesday said:

 

Also I still find the idea that we're not going to send them "offensive weapons" laughable, It's so fucking easy to argue that we could be selling them nukes as defensive weapons.

What if Saudi contracts were keeping you employed at the Helicopter plant and as a result of the sanctions those contracts would be lost and as a result you and most of the plants workforce would lose those jobs? Would you still be in support of said sanctions over some tragic murder of a journalist?

I pick the jobs and investment over bullying another country in a way that only does more harm to ourselves. 

Ya'll that disagree can throw your stones now but is it your job that's at stake? I highly doubt it.

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...