Rayvin
-
Posts
21528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Everything posted by Rayvin
-
Indeed. See my posts in the other thread for what I think about the US in all this, but i guarantee you that they don't give a shit about this plane as far as political consequences go.
-
I feel like we're arguing two different things now. Morally, this entire thing is reprehensible and the US are at least as bad as Soleimani ever was. The plane crash is a tragedy and the whole affair is a pathetic display. But politically, for Trump and even the US, this looks like a win. He won't care about that plane, it doesn't hurt him. If anything it just makes the Iranians look worse.
-
On the other hand, Iraq has just revealed that Iran gave them advance notice of the strike, which was passed on to the US. Which is something i suggested about a page back. It's looking more like theatre by the minute IMO. But yes, I suspect they shot it down. Was also interested about that earthquake near one of their nuclear facilities.
-
I'm not reading anything, I'm just looking at the situation. Trump has managed the following: - Eliminate fairly powerful and problematic anti US individual. - Make the US look powerful and prepared to act on the world stage. - Look strong at home for his core vote, while conjuring an enemy for everyone to be vaguely afraid of in the run up to an election. - Also look like the responsible adult in the room if he takes it no further. - Has suffered absolutely minimal repercussions in terms of damage caused by the response. What has it cost them? - US allies around the globe alarmed initially, but if it settles down from here it will change to modest approval. - Some damage to their military bases in Iraq. - ...? I thought it was a moronic decision when it looked like it would lead to war, but since it hasn't, I have to hold my hands up and say that it does appear to be a fairly well calculated move. I'm very happy to hear some alternative view on it, I'm not falling over myself trying to find a Trump win here because we need the daft bastard to go asap, but this really feels like a Trump win. He punched Iran square in the face and all they've managed to muster is a bit of a tantrum. It's depressing, but I'm struggling to see it any other way.
-
RLB has confirmed that she's more than happy to nuke people, if it will win her votes. There you go, she's isn't totally a lost cause.
-
Have we even responded to any of this beyond some panicked statements of "careful now" He's not wrong though.
-
Pity they didn't have the power to take control prior to that. Honestly, I think Trump just rubber stamped it. It's come off so well for the US (assuming it remains as it is) that I genuinely suspect the deep state (/Parky) or whatever other factions in the US get involved in such things more or less put it in front of him and told him that it'd be a vote winner with very limited repercussions. I genuinely don't believe Trump has just assassinated someone, without incident, all on his own accord.
-
I'm not blind to this, I do get it. I just cannot bring myself to overlook the hypocrisy.
-
A vote for the truth is a vote for the Tories anyway, apparently.
-
Deep down I would want to say "all the actions that you have suggested Suleimani is guilty of, are also carried out by the US in multiple theatres around the world. If i call this man a terrorist, then by YOUR definition, so must the US be. Is that what you're saying? I can't answer you until you're clear on this point, as my understanding is that both sides are doing the same things. Now fuck off".
-
Yeah but he didn't call the US terrorists either. The problem he has is that he can't say one side are without the other side being the same. So he can't lie, basically. If I was him I would have said "clearly the US defines any group which funds and arms political groups in other states who have the direct intent of carrying out violence against civilian forces with a view to destabilising the country in question, as terrorists. By their definition, Suleimani was indeed a terrorist, and i agree with them that any actors involved in such things should be termed as such. We should stand up against such behaviour wherever and from whoever it manifests."
-
How will the white house have achieved that, exactly? You think they asked Iran to fire a useless broadside against US assets so that everyone could step back? It's possible but it would be high treason, you would think. It's possible he's lucky indeed But it's also possible that for all everyone goes on about having the might to stand up to the US, they are literally in a class of their own in military terms, and not even Iran is prepared to go toe to toe with them. That's exactly how it looks to me. I think they believe Trump is a loose enough cannon to actually make good on his threats. And I think they've reasoned that he has to do a lot more than kill one guy to be worth the risk of the US flattening them. Whether Trump knew this or not, plenty in the white house will have. And they will be emboldened by it.
-
I might as well vote Tory then.
-
Gloom, the argument you have just made is exactly the one I was making. I'm not defending Iran. You have just responded to me saying "you can't say Iran are terrorists without saying the US are" by replying that "you can't say the US are without saying Iran are". I know you can't. It's literally my point. I actually don't think either side are terrorists because the word is borderline meaningless since the West doesn't recognise the term in reality, but only in propaganda. It's beyond Corbyn because he can't bring himself to say that the US are terrorists, I would guess. And because he won't do that, he can't say the same for Iran.
-
He backed down on that yesterday. Said something about being advised it was against the law, said "they can kill Americans but we can't hit their cultural sites, that's the law. That's ok, I will follow the law".
-
FYP.
-
If he doesn't attack, I think he can still claim this. Killing one guy and successfully calculating that the other country doesn't have the balls to really hit back is a powerful play. I actually doubt Clinton would have done it. Iran are definitely hoping that's the end of it now. Messages coming from their state news channel almost sound like pleading.
-
I don't really think it is whataboutery. I'm questioning the use of the term concerning it's validity in his case given the lack of its use with the US. We cannot say he is one without saying that they are. It is simply not possible. As such, it is a worthless term. The Americans have made it worthless. And like i said, I agree that it isn't a vote winner to be truthful about the galling hypocrisy of the western powers. But that's only because so many people in our countries are absolute children about such things. And also, tbf, because there aren't enough people brave or strong enough to tell it like it is.
-
Im not sure Trump is going to do anything. In fact I expect that Iran might actually have given them advance notice and that this was purely for domestic consumption as a way out. It's such a worthless assault that I have a hard time believing that it wasn't intentionally ineffective. Impossible to be sure with him but even if he does retaliate, I doubt the Iranians intend to do even half the things they claimed.
-
The US does literally the same things. I mean the US was funding ISIS at one point. All i'm saying is that if he gets the label of terrorist then so do they. And the fact that no fucker wants to realise that reveals that it is simply a politically useful term for designating "people the US don't like" more than anything genuinely objective. Look at Syria. It's evidence he would have been a terrible PM because he would have been truthful about this point. And heaven fucking knows how dangerous it is to actually point out the hypocrisy of the West. We need leaders who are going to pretend we are righteous. Fucking hell man, you may be right about this in terms of his suitability but it's more evidence that this country and the world in general is just fucking depressing. The notion of having someone who believes in abiding by international law who urges restraint, and who is strong enough to call out bullshit by the most powerful nation on earth is terrible. Far better we have a quisling.
-
Doesn't look like she'll win. And both sides need each other sadly, a new group under Starmer won't win without those who want RLB. Same vice versa obviously.
-
Yeah but thats maybe where congress comes into it and tells him no, not for just some minor damage to US bases. At which point he's basically pulled off the age old "guy trying to fight and being held back by his mates" move but on an international political level I think that'll work for him domestically. He'll gain a lot of strongman political capital from it.
-
Iran threatening to set Hezbollah loose on Israel if the US responds man why on earth would they want a state as ruthless as Israel involved in this too? This is all bluster IMO. They will claim internally that they won a famous victory, and hope that the Americans consider the attack so superficial that they don't bother to reply. If so, as much as I hate to say it, Trump has made a decent play out of this.
-
Fox and CNN reporting it. I reckon, unless a lot more is about to come out, that this is not as significant as it originally sounded. Which makes sense when you factor in that Iran would have to be fucking mental to do this Trump has now apparently cancelled his planned TV announcement. Has Iran just trolled everyone by firing the world's least effective rockets?
-
Why is that significant? Who are they? I know you posted their tweet but still. Also reports coming in that for all this sounds serious, Iran's missiles killed precisely no one. Impressive shit. Maybe that's enough to avoid a conflict...?
