MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Questions Of The Day (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 347, 348, 349  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Trump is basically saying unless you make a deal with the US to limit your Nuclear development, Israel will strike you again.

Given that Iran has not been able to defend against the first strike, and their response is limited, you are now going to get even further strikes against Iran.

The fact that Hezbollah is already saying that they will not become involved, means that Iran is in awful trouble.

Existential threat to Iran.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Trump is basically saying unless you make a deal with the US to limit your Nuclear development, Israel will strike you again.

Trump was saying that. Israel has announced the campaign will last indefinitely i.e. until they cannot strike again. Trump has been painted out of the picture.

Given that Iran has not been able to defend against the first strike, and their response is limited, you are now going to get even further strikes against Iran.

That is what Israel has announced. 'Experts' claim that Israel only has the capability to deal with surface assets. The deep stuff is apparently out of the reach of the IAF and, now that Iran is primed, presumably out of the reach of Israeli special forces.

The fact that Hezbollah is already saying thet they will not become involved, means that Iran is in awful trouble.

Iran was already in 'awful trouble' in the sense that Hezbollah, Hamas and Assad have been neutralised. That is the irony of the whole situation.

Existential threat to Iran.

I think you will find it is just what the Ayatollahs' doctor ordered.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As events unfold various mysteries are still extant. The basic one is the content of the Monday call between Trump and Netanyahu.

There are a number of possibilities based on the assumption that Israel must have known on Monday they were going to launch the attack since it required careful preparation and nothing happened between Monday and Thursday that changed the situation. [I don't think the IAEA actions had much effect, but it's possible it provided a convenient 'window'.]

1. Netanyahu lied about Israeli intentions and Trump believed him
2. Netanyahu lied about Israeli intentions and Trump didn't believe him
3. Netanyahu announced their intention and Trump forbade it
4. Netanyahu announced their intention and Trump okayed it
5. Netanyahu announced their intention and Trump just registered the fact
6. They discussed various scenarios, including a nuclear strike, but only one of them knew what was actually going to happen.
7. They discussed various scenarios, not including a nuclear strike, but not ruling it out either, but only one of them knew what was actually going to happen.

Listening to the Washington mood music I'm pretty sure Trump had not given his assent and is now scrambling to show he was the master of events (or at any rate not the dupe). But that conclusion may change as we go along.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Never forget that nuclear weapons are nearly always McGuffins. Israel has had them for sixty years, can anyone say their actions would have been any different if they had not had them?

But then again Israel has never been up against a nuclear-armed adversary. India and Pakistan are currently demonstrating how everyone gets a bit hamstrung when both sides have them. But things are going much the way they were when (a) neither of them had them and (b) when one of them (India) had them.

Iran has had to pay an enormous price to nearly have nukes. Or it may look at things differently, and say everyone has been paying court to her to keep her in the nearly-camp. It is true Israel wouldn't have carried out the current attack if Iran had nukes but then again Israel wouldn't have needed to!

Would Israel/Iran relations have been any different if Iran had the Bomb--both being conscious they couldn't nuke one another? After all this has been the situation in the many and various conflicts between and among America, Russia, China, UK and France and it doesn't seem to have slowed anyone down much.

It is all, as usual, vastly overblown.
Send private message
Pete Jones


In: Virginia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
1. A US cabinet minister is addressing a small crowd of journalists about the LA riots in a small room in LA.
2. A middle aged bloke in a windcheater enters the room and starts heckling the cabinet minister aggressively.
3. The cabinet minister's security detail hustle the man out

"I chose to put myself in a situation and forced people to deal with me, I am a victim of being dealt with."

--Senator Padilla, never:
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

How is it possible, viewing the same event recorded in real time, to describe two different events depending which side of the aisle you sit?

I tried watching it from my armchair, then from the sofa on the other side of the room but it looked the same. So I tried the experiment again with a hand over one eye, then with my hand over the other eye, but it still looked the same! If only Lord Nelson were with us. He'd know.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Trump is telling ICE not to arrest what he is calling non criminal collaterals at their workplaces as it is damaging farms and hospitality sector.

Whether he is is turning liberal, or backing down as some of the folks complaining about his crackdown are in fact MAGA supporters who rely on employing undocumented migrants, Wiley don't know.

Either way it's a problem for Trump because ICE are not going to be able to hit their removal targets without raiding workplaces employing cheap migrant labour, and deporting all those that cannot provide paperwork.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

THe 90 trade deals in 90 days just became we are working towards 18 possible deals, by the way we might need to grant extensions before finalising these deals.

Wiley strongly suspects that the US is happy with imposing tariffs for the couple of years it takes to make a sensible deal. Maybe he just wants this as stealth tax.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Trump wrote:
We have our trade deals. All we have to do is send a letter and tell them how much they have to pay.”


This is where the mix-up has arisen.

Trump's understanding of deal is that he is the dealer, ie the one who deals out the cards. The other players simply have to pick up their cards, good or bad, and get on with it.

Once properly understood the reason for the pause now becomes clear, they needed time to draft, sign, and send out the letters.

The genius of this plan is it rules out the negotiation and agreement elements of older style deals, speeding up the process. It is also more flexible in that Trump can always change its mind by a further letter, if he has received representations or campaign contributions.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You have to remember the US president stands in a unique position. He is the decision-maker of the world's leading economic (and political) power. He is not so much the person who deals the cards as the person who owns the casino.

Ever since the US president reached this position, in 1945, he has essentially settled 'the terms of trade'. This was not so much 'free trade' as 'fair trade' in the sense that everybody was signed up to the same set of rules. It is not true to say those rules were drawn up in America's favour, more that they were drawn up to favour America's political purposes.

With the rise of China (or, as may be, the decline of America) the USA has had to come to terms with there being a new casino in town. Or at any rate the existing one has had to be mortgaged. No president had attempted to deal with this novel situation until Trump came along. It is too early to say how (or whether) he will deal with it.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I quite approved of President Trump's Birthday Army Parade. It surely dispelled any idea that a military coup is a possibility in America. The boy scouts would squelch it before it got very far.

It would be no better if they pushed flying columns through to Atlanta to take over the state broadcasting station. "Thanks for the martial music, colonel, we'll have our people look at the tape. We've got most of your colleagues on speed dial but if you leave your name, rank and number at the desk, someone will be in touch. Oh, you shot them. Well, that's your lookout."
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I enjoyed it as well, but for Wiley it was a pageant not a parade.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It soon will be. Everything gets squeezed through the sieve of adolescent acculturation sooner or later. It's because they don't have a ruling class to keep standards unaccessible. But it's swings and roundabouts.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Newshounds at the G7: Prime Minister Starmer, you're a lawyer specialising in human rights issues. You made your name denouncing the British and American invasion of Iraq. Do you regard the Israeli attack on Iran as illegal under international law?

Keir Starmer at the G7: You'll have to forgive me, I cannot comment on such a fast moving situation.

Newshounds: But it's only fast moving because of the Israeli attack on Iran.

Keir Starmer: I rest my case.

Newshounds: So it's not because Trump totally blindsided you by agreeing to a joint statement calling for de-escalation and promptly escalated the whole thing as soon as he had left the G7 but you're so anxious to be in with the Big Man you daren't say anything?

Keir Starmer: I love Canada, always have. I wanted to be a Mountie when I grew up.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Newshounds at the G7: Prime Minister Starmer, you're a lawyer specialising in human rights issues. You made your name denouncing the British and American invasion of Iraq. Do you regard the Israeli attack on Iran as illegal under international law?

Keir Starmer at the G7: Yes, since Saddam died the population has only grown from 29 million to 47 Million. It is pretty remarkable how bad we made things. It would have properly topped 75 million with the Baath party still in power. They haven't launched a decent invasion attempt in years. What total bastards we are.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 347, 348, 349  Next

Jump to:  
Page 348 of 349

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group