@OracleOutlook's banner p

OracleOutlook

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Fiat justitia ruat caelum

5 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC

				

User ID: 359

OracleOutlook

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Fiat justitia ruat caelum

5 followers   follows 2 users   joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 359

Does a ceasefire reset the clock on getting congressional approval to continue the "Military operations?"

I give even odds that missiles are flying within a week. Largely because I think the US accepted thinking Iran would let all ships cross the strait unhindered, and Iran thinks they get to still control the strait. US will say Iran violated the ceasefire and there will be another ultimatum to the poor unfortunate power plants.

Being Indian was one of the known and accepted "exceptions" of the 14th Amendment. To figure out if new exceptions apply, we need to suss out an underlying logic to the exceptions everyone already agrees on. I think answering this question incorrectly would seem to indicate that the internal logic you took to get there must not be right.

If I recall correctly, carriers typically dock for maintenance every six months, this one's been adventuring for a year now.

Americans just find Europeans annoying.

Except the data showed the opposite effect. Americans think Europeans are more capable than Europeans believe themselves to be.

Or maybe that's the crux, Americans think, "Europe is about the same size as the US when considered together, they coordinate together through this EU thing. Even working individually, European nations conquered half the world in the recent past. Europe is capable of doing more, but they are not for some reason." Which is frustrating to Americans.

Meanwhile, Europeans think, "America is so big and we're so little, they are so rich and we're so poor, their military so dominating and ours so stagnating. We fall over at the smallest breeze and America blowhards keep puffing."

I think we need to keep in mind the specific strategic goals Rubio laid out at the beginning and has been sticking two whenever he gives a speech:

  • Destroy their weapons factories
  • Destroy their navy
  • Destroy their air force
  • Destroy their chances of ever having a nuclear weapon

We've done the middle two very comprehensively. We're doing the first pretty thoroughly. The last one is hard to define a victory condition of, how do you destroy a "chance?" But the US can say, 3/4 isn't that bad, and take that as a win given the primary goals the leadership has been sticking to this whole time.

I have never watched Mad Men, but there is this meme where two men are in an elevator. The first says, "I feel bad for you." The second says, "I don't think about you at all."

If you had two stickers, one labeled US and one UK/EU, which sticker would you put on the first man, and which on the second?

On the first thought, maybe you'd put the US sticker on the guy who says, "I don't think about you at all." Because after all, the US is a superpower that just Leeroy Jenkins its way through foreign affairs and seems to have grown increasingly disinterested in what Europeans have to say about it.

When people are polled, however, something interesting emerges: https://ecfr.eu/publication/how-trump-is-making-china-great-again-and-what-it-means-for-europe/

Here is one poll question: Generally speaking, thinking about the US, which of the following best reflects your view on what they are to your country?

In Switzerland, 21% of people view the US as "An adversaryβ€”with which we are in conflict" compared to just 8% as, "An allyβ€”that shares our interests and values." They seem to be on the extreme for Europe. The UK seems to be on the other (European) extreme: 25% view the US as "An allyβ€”that shares our interests and values." The EU10 is in the middle at 16% seeing the US as an ally.

The reverse was polled to Americans: Generally speaking, thinking about the EU which of the following best reflects your view on who they are to your country?

The total for the US was 40% who would agree that the EU is "An allyβ€”that shares our interests and values." This percentage is higher in Harris voters than Trump voters, but importantly, Trump voters were still at 30%, which is higher than even the UK's rosy view of the US compared to the rest of Europe.

Another interesting question is: Which of the following best reflects your view on the EU's global standing?

46% of Americans said, "The EU is a power that can deal on equal terms with global powers, such as the US or China." Comparatively, EU10, Switzerland, and UK were all in the 30s of percentage points. There seems to be a gap between how important/capable the US thinks Europe is compared to Europe's self-perceptions.

The pattern emerges that people in the US are more likely to think that the people of Europe are both capable and share our interests and values, while the people of Europe disagree. I don't know who is right, but I think it is important for both groups to be aware of this emerging dynamic.

Can you give an example of that?

In 2012, President Barack Obama stated that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government would be a "red line" that would make us likely to intervene militarily. A major sarin gas attack in Ghouta happened August 2013. President Obama pivoted to a diplomatic deal brokered by Russia. Hooray, we can't possibly have made the Europeans mad by not doing something!

However, you'd be surprised. France was particularly incensed. President Hollande had already authorized French jets to prepare for takeoff, expecting a coordinated strike with the U.S. When the US pulled back at the last minute, French officials felt humiliated and "left in the lurch." Foreign Minister Fabius later remarked, "We regret it because we think it would have changed many things," and suggested that this perceived American weakness emboldened Russia's later annexation of Crimea.

British PM Cameron remained frustrated that the world's response was being "contracted out" to a Russian veto at the UN. He argued that the failure to act would damage the credibility of international prohibitions on chemical weapons.

Germany was happy, so I guess we can make the Germans happy if we just stayed in our borders.

This event is often cited by European leaders as the moment they realized they could not always rely on U.S. security guarantees, fueling the modern push for European "strategic autonomy." Which, to be honest, more power to them.

But then if you look at the parallels to the current situation, it's striking. Trump gives a red line, "Don't harm protestors." Iran kills them by the thousands. This time, we act. Now like before there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz is not rationally ensuring their survival. It makes regime change more pressing. It is confirmation that they are indeed lead by a doomsday death cult, justifying the US treating them like that.

I'm tired of the US (or I guess Israel) being treated like the only country that has any agency in the world. We do something, it's our fault. We don't do something, it's our fault. Our enemies do something, it's our fault. If we didn't attack Iran and they went on a nuclear rampage in 10 years, it would be our fault. What does Europe even want from us? Why should we keep trying to seek their approval when it's just impossible to get? If we acted like Europe we'd all be dead or Soviets. Don't they want us to act differently? Don't they want us to be the Yang to their Yin? And if not, I think we just need to stop caring about what Europe wants at all.

I don't think of myself as MAGA.

In 2008 Greenland held a referendum on self-governance, which Denmark agreed to honor. A 2009 law guaranteed Greenland the right to leave altogether, if they so chose, and in fact that's the direction Greenland is currently headed in. Greenland's governance has been up in the air as a potential opportunity for almost two decades now. It doesn't seem entirely contrary to Greenland or Denmark's preferences for the US to turn Greenland into a US protectorate. At least, up until the wrong person started trying to talk about it openly.

Consider that us approaching Denmark instead of going straight to Greenland itself was a sign of respect, which was completely misinterpreted.

Danes already have about 150 permanent personnel in Greenland. That would have served as a tripwire force by itself. Adding more, and making a big show of it, but not enough to actually fight back, was manifestly ridiculous.

Danes already have about 150 permanent personnel in Greenland. That would have served as a tripwire force by itself. Adding more, and making a big show of it, but not enough to actually fight back, was manifestly ridiculous.

Meanwhile you've killed scores of civilians, support displacement of millions, bomb population centers with impunity, and your president is threatening to escalate to committing large scale war crimes with childlike glee, as a Tough Negotiation tactic that he finds very clever. Let me cite it in full:

Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be. By scores do you mean dozens? We have certainly killed fewer than the Iranians own government did a couple months back. Most Iranians are not displaced. Most homes are in tact. The Iranians I see who can still get the occasional internet access say that they aren't afraid of the bombs, they're afraid of the bombs stopping because that means the war is over and the IRCG is still in charge.

Targeting mixed-use infrastructure is not actually a war crime and there are ways to target infrastructure without permanently destroying it. Trump might actually be legitimately senile and I hope he gets replaced soon, but the military is still run by competent good people. Don't pay any attention to anything on Truth Social ever and you'll probably have a clearer view of world events.