JeSuisCharlie
Sumner, Hebdo, Kirk
Some times Charlie was in the trees.
User ID: 4009
Hear hear.
If our duty is to maintain order, than it is our duty to cripple Iran's ability to threaten that order.
The correct hegemonic response to Iran threatening to close the straights of Hormuz (or nuke it's neighbors) is to ensure that Iran is unable to follow through on that threat, which is what we are currently doing.
Of course America is not a politically serious country and this kind of thought is not acceptable.
Ironically I think that this may be one the current administration's real strengths. "Serious", "intelligent", and "civilized" people are supposed to talk about not allowing Iran to get nukes or threaten international trade, not actively prevent them from doing so.
However, as the OP and others are fond of pointing out, Trump/Vance/Rubio Et Al. are not "Serious", "intelligent", or "civilized" people and as a result they are not constrained by what "serious", "intelligent", and "civilized" people ought to do.
My impression of this forum is that it leans overwhelmingly anti-populist and technocratic. Some of the posters here may have supported Trump and Vance briefly as spoilers within their own intra-factional pissing matches, but they remained 'capital D' Democrats at their core. Now that they know that they may have handed 8 - 12 years of consecutive rule to the populist wing of the GOP the knives are coming out.
I expect many more posts here about Newsom's "inevitability" and how Vance, Rubio, Et Al. are dead in the water before November of 2028.
No, but they were threatening to do so, Which is where a large part of this conversation comes from.
The Trump admin is consistently giving the American people the runaround as for why the war started, what they hope to achieve, and what the end conditions are.
Are they? my impression has been that the admin has been clear from the beginning about what their intent is and that it has been been CNN MSNBC the BBC et al who have been trying to muddy the waters by claiming that this is all "coming out of nowhere" rather than Trump and Rubio following through on an ultimatum
I love my country, but I’m a strong critic of our constitutional structure.
What does it mean to love one's country if one does not love it's constitution?
It's not about "having fun" it's about doing one's duty
It's not for no reason, to the degree that the US has ever had a consistent diplomatic position that position has been "don't touch the boats", IE "don't fuck with international trade".
Or at least, that's the rough sketch of an idea that's been kicking around in my head for a few weeks.
I've been mulling a very similar idea that I had tentatively framed in terms of "Masculine" vs "Feminine" approaches to conflict. The masculine approach to conflict is active, direct, and open. Ideally there is a clear winner and loser that can be judged by some outside and ostensibly objective metric. The fastest time, the highest score, etc... The popular cliche is two guys get in a fight and then become friends afterwards.
Meanwhile the feminine approach is more subtle and passive aggressive. Direct confrontation is frowned upon as "unintelligent", "uncivilized", or "unrefined". The popular cliche is everyone being outwardly polite and supportive while quietly stabbing thier "friends" in the back, and jockeying for position. I suspect that this is because women are more often competing amongst themselves for relative status rather than against some outside threat.
In short, Mean Girls was supposed to be a satirical comedy, not a how to guide.
Are you saying that @KlutzyTraining's "worst case" interpretation of the Iranian Regime' motives is accurate?
And the worst case scenario is that the Iranian government knowingly placed children in harm's way, expecting that if they put enough children in harm's way, some of them might get harmed. And in this scenario they knew from watching the Gaza war that when children get harmed, it presents a massive propaganda coup for the side associated with the child victims, no matter how negligent that side has been.
If so, why are you defending them? Or the media for that matter?
I don't recall anyone saying anything about care for Iranian lives.
Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khameini, Potato, Potatah.
He ran on "Make America Great Again" and part of being "great" is people heed your warnings. As I said in one of the earlier threads on the topic Trump is not Obama, when he sets a "red-line" he means it.
I'll defend it on the merits as the Republican position has been remarkably consistent on the matter. If we (the US) are going to occupy the role of global hegemon we need to act like a global hegemon.
Khomeini's government had been warned repeatedly that there would be consequences if they started shooting protestors or continued to threaten international trade. Khomeini ignored those warnings and now Khomeini is dead. This is known as "Fuck around and find out".
Hobbes/Locke and can't easily be applied in a modern context.
Former commentors here like David Friedman and HlynkaCG would disagree but that's also a big part of why they're former commentors.
Given the last 40 years there is no reason to believe that either party would take those limitations seriously so you might as well premise your "peace" deal on alien space bats and magical unicorn farts.
The Palestinians and Arab States have had multiple opportunities to implement a two state solution and they've blown it up every time.
Trump has been talking about fucking up Iran since the days of the Embassy Hostage Crisis, and there are multiple people in his cabinet (Vance and Hegseth foremost among them) who have a personal beef with the IRGC.
I know a bunch of veterans who were stationed on the Iraq/Iran border during the Second US/Iraq War and they have told me stories about both the IRGC and the absolutely asinine policies of the Obama administration in regards to them. Stories about receiving instructions not to interfere with IRGC death-squads operating in their AO because acknowledging their presence or worse yet, US troops "accidentally" shooting an Iranian citizen (even if that Iranian had shot at US troops or Iraqi citizens first) might negatively impact JCPOA negotiations.
I also find your characterization of Trump as some sort of senescent meat-puppet especially rich given who he replaced.
Also, you need a declared war for there to be treason.
This is simply not true, over the last century numerous people have been successfully prosecuted on charges of Treason and even executed for aiding enemies of the United States (most notably the Soviet Union) outside of a declared war.
"Treason" is covered under title 18 of the US federal code and is defined as levying war against the United States or aiding others in doing so.
So in this context actively helping the Iranian regime defend themselves against US military aggression, or engaging in sabotage activities to limit the US military's ability to fight would arguably be "Treason", but that's not really the sort of thing we are talking about here is it?
The sort of culture war fodder we're talking about here would fall under "Sedition" which is much less clearly defined but basically boils down to plotting or advocating for the overthrow of the US government. I feel like a lot of people are using the term "treasonous" when they really mean "seditious" or "morally bankrupt" to get that extra little bit of rhetorical punch in describing something that is "treason adjacent" even if it isn't treason itself.
- Prev
- Next

This smells like cope.
Trump has been a public figure for over three decades and over the course of those three decades he has remarkably consistent. I think that you are just salty that your team is not on top.
More options
Context Copy link