Post election prediction

[wes4dbt]

I don't know what you think those vids have to do with your 2020 stolen election, 2024 missing votes and the puppet government conspiracies. But I do hope your healing can begin.

[TysonLPrice]

Hopefully the healing can begin and we get the abject apologies from the deranged that we deserve once they recover from their terrible condition.

Yes, there is always hope...

[Niya]

Good riddance I say.

Hopefully the healing can begin and we get the abject apologies from the deranged that we deserve once they recover from their terrible condition.

Apologies? That's never going to happen and that's ok. All that needs to happen is for normal folk to stop enabling them by either ignoring them or mocking their nonsense mercilessly. Either way these people are beyond saving so just stop taking them seriously. Don't try to convince them of anything or look out for apologies form them. That's a waste of time.

[FunkyDexter]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_b..._of_Yugoslavia
https://www.nato.int/cps/cy/natohq/topics_8189.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Kuwait
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm

I'm not sure what you thought those links were going to demonstrate. None of them (with the exception of the Yugoslavia one - I forgot that NATO did carry out bombings there under it's own auspice and actually did so without a UN resolution, the only time it's ever done so in it's history) cite a NATO action. They do cite that NATO members and allies got involved in actions which is entirely in line with NATO membership. Being a member of NATO does not prevent it's members from pursuing their own independent foreign policies.

I suspect what's happening here is that you're confusing NATO with it's members, who are independent, and the UN, who are a completely separate body but which, admittedly, does tend to operate in line with NATO.

Either way, what were you proposing in post 589? It read as though you were saying NATO should be propping up Assad which seems a bizarre position to take. He's an Autocratic Russian puppet who massacred his own people to stay in power. He's estimated to have killed up to a million of his own citizens. Or were you driving at something else?


Edit> More generally on the situation on Syria, I'm hopeful but sceptical. On the plus side: the rebels are a confederation of groups so not exclusively Islamist extremists, they are saying all the right things about protecting and respecting the rights of the non Islamic people, Al Jawlani in particular has given instructions not to attack civilians or to attack people based on their religion , they did respect the Alawite Christians who were located in their enclave over the last 10 years. So that sounds positive but lets not forget who Al Jawlani and his followers have been. They're an off shoot of Isis with all that entails. Have they changed? I hope so but I'm skeptical.

[dilettante]

What really tells the tale is how close California and New York came to flipping to Trump.

I suppose the disenchanted nutjobs still left could run to the People's Republic of Canada. It might even still exist in 10 years! Sort of rough though, now that the standard of living has fallen to the levels of Mississippi and West Virginia due to poor policies.

[sapator]

I'm not sure what you thought those links were going to demonstrate. None of them (with the exception of the Yugoslavia one - I forgot that NATO did carry out bombings there under it's own auspice and actually did so without a UN resolution, the only time it's ever done so in it's history) cite a NATO action. They do cite that NATO members and allies got involved in actions which is entirely in line with NATO membership. Being a member of NATO does not prevent it's members from pursuing their own independent foreign policies.

I suspect what's happening here is that you're confusing NATO with it's members, who are independent, and the UN, who are a completely separate body but which, admittedly, does tend to operate in line with NATO.

Either way, what were you proposing in post 589? It read as though you were saying NATO should be propping up Assad which seems a bizarre position to take. He's an Autocratic Russian puppet who massacred his own people to stay in power. He's estimated to have killed up to a million of his own citizens. Or were you driving at something else?


Edit> More generally on the situation on Syria, I'm hopeful but sceptical. On the plus side: the rebels are a confederation of groups so not exclusively Islamist extremists, they are saying all the right things about protecting and respecting the rights of the non Islamic people, Al Jawlani in particular has given instructions not to attack civilians or to attack people based on their religion , they did respect the Alawite Christians who were located in their enclave over the last 10 years. So that sounds positive but lets not forget who Al Jawlani and his followers have been. They're an off shoot of Isis with all that entails. Have they changed? I hope so but I'm skeptical.

OK. Now you explain it better, or I understand it better. Yes i was not as NATO being the front but it was NATO in some aspect.

More recent is Ukraine that I was surprised to see the "none" answer. So what I get now is , yes NATO did not officially got involved but ALL of it's members got involved in one way or the other. So it's really a tomayto tomato situation.

[sapator]

Syria is a big issue, I have not extensive knowledge but I know that the assault was Turkey based and some of the , how are we going to call them, liberators, terrorists, Jihadist? Where trained in Ukraine before getting there.

Edit. And from I read:
But it is a message Jolani will know is being heard in Tel Aviv and Washington, where he is considered to be a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation with a $10 million dollar bounty on his head.

So I have no clue what US will do. Is it a friend because of Russia? A terrorist because of the bounty?
Trump said he will not get involved but you never know if they start hitting US interest targets and there is the oil distribution to be taken in consideration.

[FunkyDexter]

ALL of it's members got involved

No they didn't. For example, Hungary. And that's kind of the point. NATO never dictates to it's members that they have to involve themselves in anything with the single exception that one of its members is attacked.

That the whole of Europe and America with the exception of Russia and Belarus independently recognises that Russia is the aggressor and that Ukraine has a right to defend itself and is worthy of support should indicate two things: 1. Russia is the aggressor and 2. that Ukraine has a right to defend itself and is worthy of support.

he is considered to be a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation with a $10 million dollar bounty on his head

Yes, he is. They're reviewing that status, which is probably reasonable given the facts on the ground, but I'm not sure they're ready to reverse it yet and I'm certainly not sure they should reverse it. I guess it will depend on what happens in the coming year, who takes power, how they manage it etc. but I hope they won't naively assume that he's suddenly a good guy because it's politically expedient. We did that with the Taliban.

I hope the US will stay engaged in the region, particularly to defend the Kurds if an Islamist group takes power and does start persecuting minorities, but also the Alawite Christians. They were US allies, after all, and stood by the US when the US needed them. I don't hold out much hope under Trump (his tweets certainly indicate he'll pull troops out of the North East) but he's proved me wrong before.

[sapator]

You seem to be under the false assumption that US is giving a damn about human relationships and religion.
They will be all so happy to dump the Kurds if an opportunity arise , that is if US best interest shift "elsewhere".
Than is not complexly targeted at US as all the big powers do so.
That goes for Ukraine also. If I have to give a prediction, I think US will dump Ukraine as the black as a rock bought most of the assets and they will have to start rebuilding the country that will bring billions in constructions.
So dump and still involved.
But will have to see in a month.

[FunkyDexter]

You seem to be under the false assumption that US is giving a damn about human relationships and religion

No, I think the US, like all Nations, is fundamentally self interested. (Speaking of the Nation, not necessarily it's populace which, of course, is made up of individuals with differing priorities, interests, levels of compassion etc.)

The question is how long or short term the leadership of the US (and other Western Nations, for that matter) takes its view of that self interest. E.g. the abandonment of Afghanistan was a bloody stupid decision and sent a signal to the world that nobody was going to stand up for the international order any more. The invasion of Ukraine is a symptom of that and it's no coincidence that it happened less than half a year later.

Worse, I think the fact that the USA, in particular, is loudly declaring that it no longer cares about it's allies is going to send a very strong signal to those allies that the USA is no longer worth supporting and they will move their allegiances elsewhere. It's already got to the point where Israel has demonstrably decided that the USA's opinion isn't worth caring about any more and the US's influence in the Middle East is now probably lower than it has been for 50 years. If we consider a hypothetical second 9/11, how much more difficult will it be now for the USA to put together another "Coalition of the Willing"? Even if we assume that the USA has the might to act unilaterally, how likely is it that it would be able to find a friendly nation from which to launch whatever action it deems necessary?

Probably a more likely hypothetical is a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. If that happens, how likely do you think the USA's snubbed allies are to want to get involved? And lets be clear about the stakes: Taiwan produces over 60% of the global supply of semi conductors. If the US loses access to that supply it loses it's entire electronics industry, including self defence.

Economically China is already drinking the USA's milkshake. The fear is that an isolationist Trump could hand them the burger and fries to go with it.

[sapator]

Let's take that hypothesis.
So in order for US to stay involved it must continue it's military operations on other states and kill millions if the other states start "moving" against US bases.
So it's a question of leaving the "war borders" lose assets but spare million deaths or stay in the "war borders" keep assets and continue killing. Can't have military occupations without confrontations , maybe in an ideal world but not likely.
But to ease your pain, they have 500-600 bases across the world they won't be giving them up just like that, so don't worry. Also I could let you know for the 5-6 bases they have in Greece, what will happen in the next few months and I'm betting that they will not leave the bases.
What I think Trump is trying to do is to show that he do not care under the hood but maintain bases nearby.

I can't talk about China, they are invading Taiwan for 20 years so, maybe , maybe not, maybe they wait for the right time. But since I'm not pro US imperialism and NATO and their bases here, I don't have an issue of them leaving the war fronts.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I believe that Taiwan actually produces over 80% of the cutting edge chips, with Samsung picking up the bulk of the remainder. That's a more serious concern than people seem to talk about. At this point, those chips can't be replaced in the US economy. In ten years, or so, that won't be the case, but it IS the case now.

[Shaggy Hiker]

how are we going to call them, liberators, terrorists, Jihadist?

All of the above?

That coalition has plenty of unsavory characters. The US has supported the Kurds in the past, though we've also abandoned them whenever it was convenient. That coalition is not the Kurds, though. Syria is going to suffer for several more years, or decades, most likely. It's going to be a mighty hard place to live in that coalition controlled area, which leaves the Kurds between Iraq and a hard place.

[TysonLPrice]

All of the above?

That coalition has plenty of unsavory characters. The US has supported the Kurds in the past, though we've also abandoned them whenever it was convenient. That coalition is not the Kurds, though. Syria is going to suffer for several more years, or decades, most likely. It's going to be a mighty hard place to live in that coalition controlled area, which leaves the Kurds between Iraq and a hard place.

That hard place being Turkey? Trump already threw them under that bus...

[sapator]

which leaves the Kurds between Iraq and a hard place.

I see what you did there even if that was English hard.

[wes4dbt]

Let's take that hypothesis.
So in order for US to stay involved it must continue it's military operations on other states and kill millions if the other states start "moving" against US bases.

What military operations on other states? FD was talking about our allies not providing help/joining the US, not moving against US bases. I don't see the US "killing millions" because they wont get involved in the conflict. We have no history of that.

Selecting which "border wars" to get involved in is tricky and usually has some type of political aspect to it. It's easy to say just don't get involved, it's none of our business. Until they invade your country and no one is there to help.

[sapator]

Ye the infamous US help. No thanks.
I must distinguish that when I talk about US I talk about NATO as for me NATO is US but , yes US and allies is correct. Also I stated on the Ukraine thread from day one that this is a proxy war. I don't see US setting foots any time soon and with Trump but they don't have to.
Anyhow will see, it's early for assumptions so, I'll just put a question mark on what US will do but as I've said, with Trump, it will probably stop the wars and maintain the bases and start rebuilding Ukraine and taking advantage of the soil. It does not seem illogical nor extreme. At least to me, I might be wrong but that seems to be the most "peaceful" scenario.

[wes4dbt]

Also I stated on the Ukraine thread from day one that this is a proxy war.

Maybe, depends on how you want to define "proxy war". But there would be no war at all if Russia didn't invade Ukraine.

Anyhow will see, it's early for assumptions so, I'll just put a question mark on what US will do but as I've said, with Trump, it will probably stop the wars and maintain the bases and start rebuilding Ukraine and taking advantage of the soil. It does not seem illogical nor extreme. At least to me, I might be wrong but that seems to be the most "peaceful" scenario.

Yeah, your never sure what a politician will actually do. Trump has made it clear that he want Ukraine to "make a deal". In other words, give part of Ukraine to Russia. I'm sure Russia would love that deal. Unfortunately it may happen when Trump pulls all aid to Ukraine. We'll have to see how the rest of the world responds.

[wes4dbt]

It's already got to the point where Israel has demonstrably decided that the USA's opinion isn't worth caring about any more

Israel has basically given the middle finger to everyone.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I see what you did there even if that was English hard.

That's an interesting comment. Are there other versions of hard that I don't know about? The word has loads of different definitions, in English, and I was somewhat stretching for that pun, but only slightly. It was well within my range.

[sapator]

In Greek.
But I think as you said it can be changed with a few modification.

[sapator]

Israel has basically given the middle finger to everyone.

And that is one thing that is unlikely to change in the near future.
Also what I here for Syria is that Israel was in the collaborators but cannot confirm.

[FunkyDexter]

Selecting which "border wars" to get involved in is tricky and usually has some type of political aspect to it

That +1

So in order for US to stay involved it must continue it's military operations on other states

(I'll ignore the kill millions bit because I feel it was hyperbolic but I do agree that all decisions have consequences so I won't pretend that innocent people don't often suffer). I think that's a really interesting question. I'd consider from two perspectives: transactional and moral.

From a transactional "real politique" point of view the answer is a resounding YES! The US, like any other nation, benefits from projecting its presence around the world. Why do you think it's the first thing any burgeoning power pursues? It's why China has pursued the Belt and Road Initiative. It's why Russia was supporting Assad in the first place (it gave them a Mediterranean presence which they've now lost). Great Britain lived high on the hog of it's Empire for a couple of hundred years and we only gave it up because two world wars bankrupted us. Having your culture dominant in a region gives you priority access to it's markets and resource, it enables you to project self defence at a distance, less tangibly it allows for greater cultural exchange. And most importantly, maintaining a presence in a region is a hell of a lot cheaper than trying to re-establish it from scratch when you realise later that geopolitics have changed and now you can't help feeling that having an ally that borders both Russia and China might actually turn out to be a REALLY good thing.

From a moral point of view, now there your asking. I use a broad rule of thumb of "it depends why you're there". If you're there because you (as a Nation) is looking to directly gain from an action in the short term then I would say no, you shouldn't be there and, historically, these sorts of actions do seem to come back to bit the instigator in the butt. If you're there out of a desire to help the local populace then yes, stay. I think I'm way more of a dove than a hawk but I do believe in the concept of a just war. I think most people would agree that American intervention in WW2 was just. The UN peace keeping efforts in Yugoslavia, while often ineffective, were just. The US led coalition that went into Iraq in 1990 (not 2003, I'll come to that) was just. To get a little closer to home, I think you would agree that the British presence on Cypress was just.

The Iraq war in 2003, on the other hand, was an unjust action which was clearly motivated partly by revenge and partly by oil. The invasion of Afghanistan is kinda 50/50 for me though I appreciate opinions may vary. The Taliban were an awful regime and I think some people did genuinely believe we could export democratic liberal values to the benefit of the locals. At the same time it's hard to avoid that it was largely revenge (arguably justifiable though) and we did focus on the oil rich bits in the reconstruction.

But the interesting thing about both these cases is that, while the invasions may have been immoral, the subsequent occupations should not have been. We broke those nations and impoverished their people. We owed it to them to stick around and pour our efforts and resources into protecting and rebuilding them - and not just the bits we stood to benefit from. We showed scant or inconsistent interest in doing that. We did the fun bit where we got to blow stuff up and act like Billy Big Balls because we could beat a third world nation in a fight but when we had to do the hard and unglamourous work of actually helping the people from the region we looked the way, started counting the pennies and eventually just naffed and left them to suffer whatever the hell came next. And what did come next? Isis and the return of the Taliban. We sure earned ourselves a slow hand clap for that.

To draw a more human analogy, who do you want to be? The bully in play ground who steals the weak kids lunch money or the guy who stand up for the weak kid. I do agree with you that the West has played the bully far too many times over the last few decades (usually while claiming to be the guy who stands up to the bully and demonstrably failing to do so). But the answer to that isn't to be the guy who just watches from the other side of the playground muttering "Not my problem, Jack." Nobody respects that guy. Far better to actually stand up to the bully even when we have nothing immediate to gain. That's who I want to be.

[sapator]

That is a good analysis. I do not agree on the "just" of course. They all get to the no1 reason but you got you opinion I got mine.
I think US having 500 bases around the world is not just, it's remnants of the past through their "hawk" years. The bases in Greece are not helping Greece one bit. They did not even move their arses to help us fight the summer fires. But we have the traitors letting them stay here.
I have forgotten of UK. Why is the UK base still in Cyprus just and why you are not leaving?

[FunkyDexter]

I have forgotten of UK. Why is the UK base still in Cyprus just and why you are not leaving?

Originally they were there to help protect the Greek territory from the Turks (and vice versa, I guess, but we were mostly aligned with the Greeks).

Why are they still there? I suspect it's mostly just inertia as they're not really needed anymore (although I do remember there being some violence as recently as the 90s, a friend of mine served there). I don't think we (the UK) gain much by having them there so I don't think it's some sort of colonial occupation. A presence in the Mediterranean is quite valuable to us, I guess, but we don't really position ourselves as a global power anymore and it's not like we don't have bases all over the Med. I suspect they just don't do any harm and removing them would be expensive to both parties. Military bases also tend to pull in revenue for the host nation, both directly as the base owner often pays for it, and indirectly as the occupants spend their cash in the local economy - it's like having a captive tourist trade. So no Greek government has felt motivated to ask us to leave and we haven't left. If a Greek Government wanted us to leave I doubt there'd be much push back.

One small wrinkle, those bases are considered British sovereign territory so it could turn into a diplomatic incident but I'd be very surprised if it did. The sovereignty is much more akin to e.g. an Embassy than an enclave like Gibraltar.

[FunkyDexter]

I think US having 500 bases around the world is not just, it's remnants of the past through their "hawk" years.

I think you may be right about some of them but probably not all. As Wes said up thread, selecting which ones to abandon would be tricky and there probably isn't a strict right or wrong answer for most.

I do agree with you that the US abroad does often look a lot like a 19th century colonial power, though I think that's mostly not by design. Colonial Empires mostly formed because European Nations wanted to protect their trade, so they put military bases there. Once the bases were there they needed the logistics to support them. Build the logistics and you become intertwined them with the local economy. You become a major employer and consumer in the region. Once that's happened you start having an interest in governance and so on. Next thing you know you're an occupying Nation and it's partly by force and partly by invitation.

I don't think the US is any where near as intrusive as the European Colonial Empires of the 19th century but they're on the same axis.

[sapator]

First of Cyprus is and independent state so Greece asking UK to leave is not valid. Cyprus must ask.
Secondly I'm not sure UK is helping the economy or anything. What I know from US bases through reports is that everything is free for the soldiers on the bases. Food gas etc. If they have the need to go out and party then OK but I don't think Cyprus economy will be helped by 500-1000 people (just a rough estimate, I haven't looked)
Thirdly I doubt UK can help military or get involved in anything. Greece has much more military power if anything is to happen with Turkey as we spend Billions and Billions those year to opt with Turkey.
So I'm not sure what UK is doing there, probably forgotten as the Japanese soldiers found defending Japan in strange islands after the war.
The strange thing is US not having a base over there but that would be probably because if so it must "choose a side" so it remains neutral.

[wes4dbt]

What I know from US bases through reports is that everything is free for the soldiers on the bases. Food gas etc.

Are you saying the Greek government gives the US military in Greece free food and gas? That would be surprising.

[sapator]

I'm saying exactly that my friend.
Our government is practically (insert your bad mouth here) to US.

[wes4dbt]

I'm saying exactly that my friend.
Our government is practically (insert your bad mouth here) to US.

I got no "bad mouth" for Greece. I appreciate their generosity. lol

[sapator]

Ye, we are the second country on the spends for NATO per country revenue, so, you are welcome.
I hope we get rid of the traitors and leave NATO.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I find it a bit hard to believe that the average US service member would appreciate Greek food. I would expect "a burger and fries" might be more to their taste. We seem to have a lot of people without adventurous palates, though perhaps service members are less so.

You have complained a few times about US service members not helping out with the wildfires. That isn't something they are normally asked to do. There have been a few occasions when some are mobilized to help fight fires in the US, but when that happens, it tends to make the news due to the novelty. I think I understand the reasoning, though it is hard to put into words. We have so MANY wildfires in the US that there's practically a whole profession (and certainly an industry) built up around fighting fires. I would say that the mindset is that you don't bring in the amateurs unless the professionals are utterly overwhelmed, as the amateurs aren't trained for the task.

[sapator]

I find it a bit hard to believe that the average US service member would appreciate Greek food. I would expect "a burger and fries" might be more to their taste. We seem to have a lot of people without adventurous palates, though perhaps service members are less so.

You have complained a few times about US service members not helping out with the wildfires. That isn't something they are normally asked to do. There have been a few occasions when some are mobilized to help fight fires in the US, but when that happens, it tends to make the news due to the novelty. I think I understand the reasoning, though it is hard to put into words. We have so MANY wildfires in the US that there's practically a whole profession (and certainly an industry) built up around fighting fires. I would say that the mindset is that you don't bring in the amateurs unless the professionals are utterly overwhelmed, as the amateurs aren't trained for the task.

That reminded me when I was in the army. When I got older and was close in line to complete the service, when I was asked for a task, the phrase was "not time for it" or close to English.
Actually I do not expect for US personnel to help us, I would expect to get out of Greece, tho too much to ask with our, born of a WolvePool triangular slug, traitors.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Triangular slug? You're straining for that one.

[sapator]

No pain no gain

[FunkyDexter]

First of Cyprus is and independent state so Greece asking UK to leave is not valid. Cyprus must ask.

I didn't know that, I always just assumed it was part of Greece. I don't think that changes the underlying logic though.

Secondly I'm not sure UK is helping the economy or anything. What I know from US bases through reports is that everything is free for the soldiers on the bases. Food gas etc. If they have the need to go out and party then OK but I don't think Cyprus economy will be helped by 500-1000 people (just a rough estimate, I haven't looked)
Thirdly I doubt UK can help military or get involved in anything. Greece has much more military power if anything is to happen with Turkey as we spend Billions and Billions those year to opt with Turkey.
So I'm not sure what UK is doing there, probably forgotten as the Japanese soldiers found defending Japan in strange islands after the war.
The strange thing is US not having a base over there but that would be probably because if so it must "choose a side" so it remains neutral.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but you seem to be framing the existence of a military base as an aggressive act, like it's forced upon the Cypriotes. That's not correct though. The Cypriot government want it there because it brings them benefits. I gave you some examples which you disagree with but then I'm going to flip the question back onto you: Why do you think the Cypriot government hasn't asked for it to be removed?

This is true of the vast majority of military bases around the world. They're wanted by the government of the host country. Unwanted military bases really only exist in hot conflict zones - the rest are all welcomed.

Of course, this does get murky when the legitimacy of the government of the host country is questionable. E.g. was the government of Afghanistan post the coalition invasion legitimate? I would argue yes because it was democratically elected and those elections certainly appeared to be free and fair but I also accept that others may differ as that democratic system was essentially "installed" by an external power "the coalition". There's a debate to be had there but my opinion is that the Green Zone was legitimate because it existed to safeguard a democratically elected government and therefore the people of that democratic nation.

[sapator]

There is absolutely. I repeat, ABSOLUTELY no reason for the base to be there.
They will not help on a conflict. Best bet they would go out on the porch and watch the fireworks or they will pack up and go home.
It's not a hostile or friendly question. Another country is putting a base on another country soil , maybe it had some matter in the past and I believe the base is there because (but haven't checked) there was a 3 or 4 part deal on Cyprus after the invasion. So UK was a guaranteer member so it had the base.
So ( again haven't checked) since that treaty is still ongoing UK has the right on the Base. Of course it does not provide anything as I've said but I think it's just forgotten there. Maybe people passing by and someone take notice and said "Hey what's that?! Tea on the porch?"
Why they do not ask? Apart from the treaty based on Greek traitorial governments. Cyprus is independent, sure, must ask, sure but on the long run it has no significant military power and any thread will be treated by Greek military. So as long as we have chicken slift traitors they will not dare to ask Cyprus do anything... Well, maybe sign some treaty with Turkey against they own best interest. That is possible.

[FunkyDexter]

There is absolutely. I repeat, ABSOLUTELY no reason for the base to be there

So why haven't the Cypriot Government asked for it to be removed?

[sapator]

I've explained certain scenarios above.

[sapator]

Biden commutes roughly 1,500 sentences and pardons 39 people in biggest single-day act of clemency

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-com...100028647.html

Just curious.
Is this "legal"? Meaning on the last month to legislate ?
Also did it happen in the past?