Trump's ground invasion is destined to become a self-licking ice cream cone: destined to fail and destined to require more and more troops. Rinse and repeat until all of West Asia is afire in a Sunni-Shia war that removes both Iranian and Arab energy from a world energy ecosystem increasingly dominated by the USA.
If there are more US-Israeli strikes on Iran's critical civilian infrastructure then this scenario will be inevitable. Afterward Trump will tell you to forget about the Strait of Hormuz because there won't be anything to move through it.
RFK Jr. is one of those rare conspiratards that is pro-Israel which is more befuddling. If you believe COVID-19 could have been "ethnically targeted" to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people, and "they" are poisoning the food supply, and "they" killed his father and uncle and "they" did 911, and "they" created vaccines to give autism to the masses, how does one have all those convictions and then turn out to be pro-israel 😂 What kind of grift is this? Who is "they" to RFK?
Main takeaway: many Americans are against war in theory, but once a president starts a war, the partisans start taking bets on success/failure based on allegiance. It's great entertainment: like gambling with life & death stakes (no such stakes here, of course), and a fireworks display.
This explains many discussions I've had with my mostly liberal family and friends. If you question the necessity of a war begun by a Democratic president, it's as if you've decided to root for the other sports team. If you question one led by a Republican president, it's more acceptable but still frowned upon because it seems like you're rooting against Team USA in the Olympics.
Anti-war "movements" today are fringe movements. Even the protests during the Vietnam War were hugely self-interested (at that time we had a draft, and entertainment value was outweighed by fear of dying in the jungle).
Correct. Same goes for “regime change” — trivially easy to oppose on the abstract, but that all tends to fade away when there’s a specific “regime change” initiative in progress, especially if it’s being carried out by a favored co-partisan.
We have to ask why it is that President after President, regardless of party affiliation, has gotten us involved in wars even though they have no experience of war themselves. Is it just a desire to look tough? Is it that the power which comes with the presidency makes them behave like a child with a new toy?
Joseph current CJS reforms around sexual assault, which includes rape are indeed expansive. In comparison to reporting, conviction rates are low. BUT once a defendant is INDICTED for a sex crime, especially by jury trial, conviction rates are high, some say in the 90% range. Basically jury's come in ready to throw the book at defendants. AND prosecutors are thd most powerful player in courtroom. In Queensland, Australia reforms happened recently, largely pushed by feminist campaigners for sexual assault to include:
* sex where a yes isn't given (even though research says most couples don't give consent verbally)
* Consent withdrawn at ANY stage of act
* removing a condom during consensual sex
* defendant mistakenly believes consent was given when it was not
* mistakenly believing complainant was of legal age to consent
*rape per se doesn't require penile penetration, it can be with any object including finger
This is indeed a expansive definition. Defendants are on the Backfoot. This is a major concern because, as mentioned above, ths state already has outsize power.
No it doesn't matter what i think when it comes to criminal law. But I predict this. Within a decade jails will be FULL of Sex Offenders. Many will be factually innocent. These people will be branded for life. On the flip side, I've heard that within the prison system, sex offenders are so numerous, the crime category is losing its stigma. There's simply too many sex offenders for mainstream crims to go about bullying. So that's interesting
Nevermind that Iran gunned down estimates of 30,000 of its citizens for protesting and publicly executed a star athlete without trial. Obama attacked Libya for killing only 500-700 of its citizens. Forget that Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Al-Shabaab, and Ansar Allah (Houthis) increased exponentially after the JCPOA was signed. War happens and will continue to happen regardless of the reasons and consequences. Isn't it the same podcast parrots excoriating Trump for Iran that said Russia was justified in attacking Ukraine? They say NATO crossed red lines by attempting to bring them into the anti-Russia Western military alliance. How many red lines has Iran crossed? No one on the so-called anti-war, anti-Trump side cares.
fEMINIST ALERT: You're a one trick pony. Michael is the most objective journalist in my lifetime. Challenging the pandemic of w0e-MEN'S overwhelmingly FALSE rape STORIES does not equate to hating w0e-MEN, on the contrary, HE IS A LIGHT in the darkness
Joseph I don't think that MOST women's rape stories are fake. I think that SOME could be. Therefore in a courtof law Blackstone ratio should be carefully upheld (its better to let 10 guilty men walk free, than to have one innocent convicted of a crime he didn't do). I also think the feminist movement and by virtue society in general gives far too much primary to sexual harm. For example, the most common form of childhood maltreatment is emotional, neglect & physical in that order. But these don't get talked about. Another example trans in Women’s jails. Why do campaigners ONLY talk about rape as as a possible negative impact? What about beatings? What about grievous bodily harm?
What YOU think... is NOT the facts ma'am just the facts' w0e-MEN'S subjectivity is what RULES the legal profession and THAT IS the PROBLEM. Only 3% of rape cases result in convictions. What does the law of averages dictate about the other 97% of violent brutal rapes not leaving a stitch of evidence?????? If there IS PROOF in 3% of rape cases and ZERO proof of 97% of cases the law of averages dictates that MOST of those claims are LIES. What never gets discussed is the REASON there's NO evidence in 97% of rape cases. And that REASON is that most rape 'claims' are made impromptu i.e. the accusers are deciding it was rape AFTERWARDS. Regretting it afterwards IS the REASON there's NO evidence in most rape cases. If your ambiguous about something as blatant as rape, YOU'RE LYING! What never gets discussed is the FACT that the definition of rape has been fixed around the accusations. w0e-MEN are basically given a blank check and get to arbitrarily define rape according to their own discretion. The vultures in the law have EXPANDED the definition of rape to make it easier to get convictions! w0e-MEN are now incentivized to LIE about rape because the laws are fixed around the accusations. The FBI admits they expanded the definition of rape to manufacture higher Stats. GOOGLE IT! The definition of rape was always 'carnal knowledge of a w0e-MAN'S orifices by FORCE' Now the are MANY definitions of rape having nothing to do with being forced. MOST rapes are LIES. END OF STORY.
I remember reading that British Marxists were dead-set against the UK entering WWII... right up until Germany attacked the Soviet Union. After that, they were all for it.
Most people don't base their foreign policy opinions on any higher moral concerns; they base them on what seems good for their faction. I think Orwell said something to that effect.
So Bernie and Barry were never against wars either. They were just against wars that might help Republicans win one election. "Drill, Baby, Drill" Trumps war every time.
This is where I'm at: "the ideal approach would be to refrain from launching any crazy wars to begin with."
Anyone who believed that Trump was antiwar should self-deport to El Salvador.
CECOT do not pass go, don't collect cash
“MAGA was anti-war” until it wasn’t.
Just like every other movement that thinks power won’t change it.
Trump's ground invasion is destined to become a self-licking ice cream cone: destined to fail and destined to require more and more troops. Rinse and repeat until all of West Asia is afire in a Sunni-Shia war that removes both Iranian and Arab energy from a world energy ecosystem increasingly dominated by the USA.
If there are more US-Israeli strikes on Iran's critical civilian infrastructure then this scenario will be inevitable. Afterward Trump will tell you to forget about the Strait of Hormuz because there won't be anything to move through it.
RFK Jr. is one of those rare conspiratards that is pro-Israel which is more befuddling. If you believe COVID-19 could have been "ethnically targeted" to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people, and "they" are poisoning the food supply, and "they" killed his father and uncle and "they" did 911, and "they" created vaccines to give autism to the masses, how does one have all those convictions and then turn out to be pro-israel 😂 What kind of grift is this? Who is "they" to RFK?
Main takeaway: many Americans are against war in theory, but once a president starts a war, the partisans start taking bets on success/failure based on allegiance. It's great entertainment: like gambling with life & death stakes (no such stakes here, of course), and a fireworks display.
This explains many discussions I've had with my mostly liberal family and friends. If you question the necessity of a war begun by a Democratic president, it's as if you've decided to root for the other sports team. If you question one led by a Republican president, it's more acceptable but still frowned upon because it seems like you're rooting against Team USA in the Olympics.
Anti-war "movements" today are fringe movements. Even the protests during the Vietnam War were hugely self-interested (at that time we had a draft, and entertainment value was outweighed by fear of dying in the jungle).
Correct. Same goes for “regime change” — trivially easy to oppose on the abstract, but that all tends to fade away when there’s a specific “regime change” initiative in progress, especially if it’s being carried out by a favored co-partisan.
We have to ask why it is that President after President, regardless of party affiliation, has gotten us involved in wars even though they have no experience of war themselves. Is it just a desire to look tough? Is it that the power which comes with the presidency makes them behave like a child with a new toy?
Trump is an asshole and like ALL Amerikan Presidents he's Israel's bitch
Trump has surrounded himself with advisors who are as dishonest and slow-witted as he is. He’s declining to Biden’s level.
People are reacting to Trump and Iran like this is some new break in logic.
It isn’t.
That’s a lazy read.
Tracey is pointing at partisan flips, but even that’s downstream.
What’s actually happening is identity filtering.
When your side escalates, it gets framed as strategy. When the other side does, it’s recklessness. Same action, different meaning.
So “anti-war” keeps appearing and disappearing depending on who’s in control.
It’s not a principle. It’s a position.
And once you see that, the shifts stop looking inconsistent and start looking predictable.
So what exactly are people defending when they say they’re anti-war?
Yes I thought this war lacked a little, um, foreplay?
Joseph current CJS reforms around sexual assault, which includes rape are indeed expansive. In comparison to reporting, conviction rates are low. BUT once a defendant is INDICTED for a sex crime, especially by jury trial, conviction rates are high, some say in the 90% range. Basically jury's come in ready to throw the book at defendants. AND prosecutors are thd most powerful player in courtroom. In Queensland, Australia reforms happened recently, largely pushed by feminist campaigners for sexual assault to include:
* sex where a yes isn't given (even though research says most couples don't give consent verbally)
* Consent withdrawn at ANY stage of act
* removing a condom during consensual sex
* defendant mistakenly believes consent was given when it was not
* mistakenly believing complainant was of legal age to consent
*rape per se doesn't require penile penetration, it can be with any object including finger
This is indeed a expansive definition. Defendants are on the Backfoot. This is a major concern because, as mentioned above, ths state already has outsize power.
No it doesn't matter what i think when it comes to criminal law. But I predict this. Within a decade jails will be FULL of Sex Offenders. Many will be factually innocent. These people will be branded for life. On the flip side, I've heard that within the prison system, sex offenders are so numerous, the crime category is losing its stigma. There's simply too many sex offenders for mainstream crims to go about bullying. So that's interesting
*** omitted sex while complainant intoxicated
Nevermind that Iran gunned down estimates of 30,000 of its citizens for protesting and publicly executed a star athlete without trial. Obama attacked Libya for killing only 500-700 of its citizens. Forget that Iran's funding of Hezbollah, Al-Shabaab, and Ansar Allah (Houthis) increased exponentially after the JCPOA was signed. War happens and will continue to happen regardless of the reasons and consequences. Isn't it the same podcast parrots excoriating Trump for Iran that said Russia was justified in attacking Ukraine? They say NATO crossed red lines by attempting to bring them into the anti-Russia Western military alliance. How many red lines has Iran crossed? No one on the so-called anti-war, anti-Trump side cares.
I call bullshit on the "Iran is the main sponsor of terrorism propaganda"
Notice the so called great American military only picks on small countries?
Would ASSHOLE Trump pick on North Korea? Would Amerika be picking a fight with China?
Do they actually have nukes?
The “main sponsor of terrorism” is whatever country we want to attack at any given moment.
AGREED! Russia, North Korea, China all have NUKES and to some people they are just as crazy as the Ayatollah?
I'm anti-war till my guy goes to war. My guy does it better. It's true.
No. They were not, and any idiot who paid attention for the last ten years knows that, but Michael Tracey HATES women and so loves Trump
fEMINIST ALERT: You're a one trick pony. Michael is the most objective journalist in my lifetime. Challenging the pandemic of w0e-MEN'S overwhelmingly FALSE rape STORIES does not equate to hating w0e-MEN, on the contrary, HE IS A LIGHT in the darkness
Joseph I don't think that MOST women's rape stories are fake. I think that SOME could be. Therefore in a courtof law Blackstone ratio should be carefully upheld (its better to let 10 guilty men walk free, than to have one innocent convicted of a crime he didn't do). I also think the feminist movement and by virtue society in general gives far too much primary to sexual harm. For example, the most common form of childhood maltreatment is emotional, neglect & physical in that order. But these don't get talked about. Another example trans in Women’s jails. Why do campaigners ONLY talk about rape as as a possible negative impact? What about beatings? What about grievous bodily harm?
What YOU think... is NOT the facts ma'am just the facts' w0e-MEN'S subjectivity is what RULES the legal profession and THAT IS the PROBLEM. Only 3% of rape cases result in convictions. What does the law of averages dictate about the other 97% of violent brutal rapes not leaving a stitch of evidence?????? If there IS PROOF in 3% of rape cases and ZERO proof of 97% of cases the law of averages dictates that MOST of those claims are LIES. What never gets discussed is the REASON there's NO evidence in 97% of rape cases. And that REASON is that most rape 'claims' are made impromptu i.e. the accusers are deciding it was rape AFTERWARDS. Regretting it afterwards IS the REASON there's NO evidence in most rape cases. If your ambiguous about something as blatant as rape, YOU'RE LYING! What never gets discussed is the FACT that the definition of rape has been fixed around the accusations. w0e-MEN are basically given a blank check and get to arbitrarily define rape according to their own discretion. The vultures in the law have EXPANDED the definition of rape to make it easier to get convictions! w0e-MEN are now incentivized to LIE about rape because the laws are fixed around the accusations. The FBI admits they expanded the definition of rape to manufacture higher Stats. GOOGLE IT! The definition of rape was always 'carnal knowledge of a w0e-MAN'S orifices by FORCE' Now the are MANY definitions of rape having nothing to do with being forced. MOST rapes are LIES. END OF STORY.
*primacy
You think rape stories are fake which tells me that you should be on your local police’s watch list.
fEMINIST ALERT: YOU just outed yourself as a FALSE accuser.
YOU think rape STORIES are facts which tells me YOU need should be seen as a FALSE accuser and a perjurer.
I remember reading that British Marxists were dead-set against the UK entering WWII... right up until Germany attacked the Soviet Union. After that, they were all for it.
Most people don't base their foreign policy opinions on any higher moral concerns; they base them on what seems good for their faction. I think Orwell said something to that effect.
So Bernie and Barry were never against wars either. They were just against wars that might help Republicans win one election. "Drill, Baby, Drill" Trumps war every time.