RobinRobin 10947 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 8 hours ago, ewerk said: Sounds like the US did warn Israel against escalating things with Lebanon but they ignored them. Of course the US won’t take any action during election season. Neteayahu will be happy because there is little damage, he has an excuse to attack Iran further, and knows that the US will not allow Iran to take decisive action without significant retribution. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6659 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 14 hours ago, ewerk said: Sounds like the US did warn Israel against escalating things with Lebanon but they ignored them. Of course the US won’t take any action during election season. In a nutshell. Surprise, surprise, as soon as Iran get involved, then they're getting interested and saying Israel has the right to defend itself. But Israel's incursion into Lebanon is fair-game? Quite how they expected to take out the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah and not expect any retribution is utterly ridiculous. The US, and the UK should be calling for widescale de-escalation on all sides. But they won't. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21698 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 (edited) Iran didn’t like the fact Saudi and Israel were making friends so they used one of their proxies (Hamas) to launch the terrorist attack on Israel last october. They did so knowing Israel would pummel Gaza in response. Netanyahu is going far beyond a reasonable response and is trying to wipe out all of Iran’s proxies on its doorstep by attacking hezbollah. I don’t think Iran wants war with Israel (its goals were to keep Israel as a pariah in the Arab world, so they achieved their objective). But if Bibi is bold (or insane) enough to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities then, which I think he might be, they would respond in kind. That’s when the US might intervene. The yanks hate the Iranian regime too and have been known to be invade and change regimes in that part of the world before. I don’t think there is much of an appetite for it however at this stage and neither presidential candidate wants to get involved in a new mess in the Middle East, which is why Netanyahu sees this as his chance to reshape the face of the Middle East and possibly cling to power if successful. That’s my analysis. I think Netanyahu is cut from the same cloth as Hamas and Hezbolllah and shoukd stand trial for war crimes Edited October 3 by Dr Gloom 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21698 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 It’s probably good news for Trump’s charge for the presidency too because he can frame the narrative - the democrats allowed an escalation in the Middle East on their watch 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzler 9057 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 54 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said: It’s probably good news for Trump’s charge for the presidency too because he can frame the narrative - the democrats allowed an escalation in the Middle East on their watch It suits him down to the ground that Iran are kicking off now too as it gives him "just cause" to pick up right where he left off before covid took a massive shit on his plans in 2020. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 8949 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 55 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said: It’s probably good news for Trump’s charge for the presidency too because he can frame the narrative - the democrats allowed an escalation in the Middle East on their watch He met Netanyahu in Florida the other week, no hostages/ceasefire until after the election was the ask, guess it was a yes given the ramp up by the IDF. I don’t buy the WW3 panic mongers either, Iran is hated (along with it’s proxies) throughout the arab world who have been bombing the Houthi’s (Iran backed) for years, led by our owners lot. There’s a reasonably significant “modernisation” movement in Iran, Israel needs to make sure whatever they do it doesn’t unite, via outrage, wider Iranian opinion, by all means piss off/kill the ayatollah’s but limit civilian casualties (unfortunately they are shit at that). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzler 9057 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 5 minutes ago, Toonpack said: He met Netanyahu in Florida the other week, no hostages/ceasefire until after the election was the ask, guess it was a yes given the ramp up by the IDF. I don’t buy the WW3 panic mongers either, Iran is hated (along with it’s proxies) throughout the arab world who have been bombing the Houthi’s (Iran backed) for years, led by our owners lot. There’s a reasonably significant “modernisation” movement in Iran, Israel needs to make sure whatever they do it doesn’t unite, via outrage, wider Iranian opinion, by all means piss off/kill the ayatollah’s but limit civilian casualties (unfortunately they are shit at that). There seems to be people panicking that Iran have nuclear weapons but there has been little to no evidence to suggest they've managed to produce and / or test any actual missiles. That will be the US narrative if Trump gets in power though IMO, all very reminiscent of the post 9/11 waffle around Iraq. Any excuse to lead ground troops back into the middle east, since it's been far too long since the military industrial complex benefited from a good war. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5140 Posted October 2 Author Share Posted October 2 I honestly dread to think what transpires with this and Ukraine if Trump wins - as it's starting to sound like he may. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20824 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 27 minutes ago, Rayvin said: I honestly dread to think what transpires with this and Ukraine if Trump wins - as it's starting to sound like he may. I was being wined and dined last night by my American bosses. Least they could do for making me miss the match, although arguably that was a favour given the lack of goals. Anyway, they were terrified about the prospect of a Trump presidency. I pointed out so were we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 8949 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 46 minutes ago, Rayvin said: I honestly dread to think what transpires with this and Ukraine if Trump wins - as it's starting to sound like he may. What transpires will be whatever Putin wants, in both cases. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinRobin 10947 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 My concern is with voters in America who want Israel to stop killing civilians in Gaza and Lebanon are indicating they won't vote for Harris because of the current failure to protect those civilians. If Trump gets in, he will let Netanyahu do whatever he wants and will probably also support direct action against Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21698 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 (edited) 14 hours ago, Rayvin said: I honestly dread to think what transpires with this and Ukraine if Trump wins - as it's starting to sound like he may. I was having a debate with my old man the other day about PR v FPTP. I’ve always made the case for PR because it’s the most democratic form of democracy, every vote counts, it forms consensus-building, works in Europe etc. He reckons FPTP and a smaller two party system, while less democratic, is a safer system because it protects democracy from extreme parties that want to overturn it. He has pointed to the gains the far right has made across Europe recently. We’ll find out in the US whether he’s right, or not. Because I genuinely think that’s what Trump wants. The consequences of a Trump victory for the US, for western democracy more broadly and the global order will be profound. Withdrawal from NATO, Ukraine would fall and where would an emboldened Putin march next? Trump threatened to overturn US democracy in 2020 when he lost - would he go further in his “last” term? My dad thinks FPTP will stop another Trump victory. I’m less confident. He won in 2016. This race looks too close to call. I hope he’s right but I don’t know if the American public are ready to elect a black woman. Edited October 3 by Dr Gloom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34514 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 Not sure I can see the validity of FPTP in relation to stopping Trump either. Given he’s won once and the simulations give him only a slightly lower chance of winning than Harris. Also, you could conceivably have Reform being the biggest party with less than 30% of the vote. It seemed impossible but look at how they’ve spread the vote and how many seats the Lib Democrats have and how it’s now a 5 horse, rather than a two horse race in England. Apart from FPTP not being fit for purpose, I think that scenario with Reform is more likely than extremism under PR. You have c. 60% of the vote going to ‘progressive’ parties at most GEs anyway. The other thing is FPTP delivering so many Tory governments. Which has essentially created terminal, insular decline 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21698 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 1 hour ago, Alex said: Not sure I can see the validity of FPTP in relation to stopping Trump either. Given he’s won once and the simulations give him only a slightly lower chance of winning than Harris. Also, you could conceivably have Reform being the biggest party with less than 30% of the vote. It seemed impossible but look at how they’ve spread the vote and how many seats the Lib Democrats have and how it’s now a 5 horse, rather than a two horse race in England. Apart from FPTP not being fit for purpose, I think that scenario with Reform is more likely than extremism under PR. You have c. 60% of the vote going to ‘progressive’ parties at most GEs anyway. The other thing is FPTP delivering so many Tory governments. Which has essentially created terminal, insular decline i agree. my dad is an old school socialist - a card-carrying labour party member who used to take me canvassing as a boy - and we had many a row about corbyn when he was leader as my dad was a fan and blind to the antisemitism stuff for far too long. i argued that PR was in labour/the left's interests but he insists FPTP is the system which protects democracy best, because it wouldn't ever allow a a far-right party to win power - though he conceded it is less democratic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6659 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 22 hours ago, Dr Gloom said: I think Netanyahu is cut from the same cloth as Hamas and Hezbolllah and shoukd stand trial for war crimes 100% agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6659 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 5 hours ago, Alex said: Not sure I can see the validity of FPTP in relation to stopping Trump either. Given he’s won once and the simulations give him only a slightly lower chance of winning than Harris. Also, you could conceivably have Reform being the biggest party with less than 30% of the vote. It seemed impossible but look at how they’ve spread the vote and how many seats the Lib Democrats have and how it’s now a 5 horse, rather than a two horse race in England. Apart from FPTP not being fit for purpose, I think that scenario with Reform is more likely than extremism under PR. You have c. 60% of the vote going to ‘progressive’ parties at most GEs anyway. The other thing is FPTP delivering so many Tory governments. Which has essentially created terminal, insular decline How many people vote for Reform as a protest vote, knowing fine well that under FPTP they are not a serious contender on a nationwide level. I suspect many who voted for them may consider differently if it was under PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34514 Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Craig said: How many people vote for Reform as a protest vote, knowing fine well that under FPTP they are not a serious contender on a nationwide level. I suspect many who voted for them may consider differently if it was under PR. They clearly aren’t that savvy in terms of the electoral system since I doubt many of them did it to hand labour a huge majority. Yet they were a major factor in that and anyone looking into it a bit would have known that was the pre-election prediction too. Focussing on them kind of misses the point imo, in terms of revealing the absurdity of FPTP in a post-truth, multiple party, do your research via Facebook age. To give a more concrete example, the data modelling suggests that if an election were held today, Labour would have a majority of 82 with about 30% of the popular vote. I.e. larger than Johnson’s ‘landslide’ in 2019 Edited October 3 by Alex 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21698 Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 This is an excellent op-ed about the appalling situation Palestinians and Israelis have had to endure this last year. Clear-eyed about the problem and solution https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/07/opinion/oct-7-anniversary-israel-hamas.html?smid=wa-share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now