I'm sure that when Trump leaves the White House everything will be right as rain. The US is such a loveable country after all, that no country in the world has any reason to severely dislike. No sir.

I think it's the result of decades of living under the nanny state. People will accept the information, but they are unable to process it. You see it everywhere these days, like it's becoming more obvious as the cracks are starting to show and the western system seems to be nearing a flipping point.

Just got news from my lawyer today that I the 4 year investigation into me for mad crimez I allegedly committed as CEO and board member of a corporation, have been dropped. — boethius

Congratulations. :up: Hope you're able to find some peace and quiet, because false accusations can put an enormous weight on one's state of being.

It's understandable from the perspective of the Ukrainian people, but political leaders in war have to deal with reality, even if it potentially means the end of their political careers.

If they are unable to set aside emotions, they're setting themselves up to be sidelined, making things even worse.

He’ll blame Zelensky for not taking the “Great deal.” — Mikie

He wouldn't be entirely wrong.

Genuinely, what reason is there to continue fighting? What could Ukraine possibly gain that would improve their bargaining positioning?

When a war is objectively lost, it's up to the leaders of the country to bite the bullet and ensure their soldiers aren't sacrificing their lives in vain.

It's very sour for Ukraine to be put in this situation by same the country that promised so much and delivered so little, but that's US foreign policy for you. Ukraine brought in a tiger to keep out the wolves.

Western democracy is a total shit show, so if the idea was to sell democracy to foreign countries then we are doing an awful job at it. We are giving off every sign that we're not just on a slippery slope - we're skiing down it at full speed, aiming directly for the trees at the bottom.

Of course, Biden, Biden 2.0 (Kamala) or Biden 2.0* (Trump) was/is capable of and has/would have committed similar acts.

The only reason everybody is up in arms about it now, is because Trump falls outside their preference bubble, so now suddenly it matters. If one categorically ignores all the fucked up shit that their preferred candidate gets up to, then one might successfully delude oneself into believing that there exists a better alternative.

It is business as usual: the American people are placated with a spicy emotional melange of outrage and trumpeteering, unaware they're part of a circus.

Various documentaries have been made about similar practices taking place in the Netherlands, and political parties have tried to garner attention for it. Predictably, the political establishment isn't interested. I wonder why?

All I can say is that western intelligence agencies like the CIA, MI6 and Mossad have been linked at various points in time and on multiple occasions to global pedophile networks.

Too crazy to be true(?).

The simplistic ones are those who look at western political systems as a vehicle for meaningful change.

But, you know, good for you. You're nothing if not relentlessly positive.

The American people were getting Biden 2.0 either way, and the only thing they could choose from is in which packaging it came.

Woke is a classic vehicle to keep people divided and bickering amongst each other. That's why conversation is impossible - it is explicitly against the purpose of the movement.

People's resentment and inner conflicts are cultivated and projected on a scapegoat.

It's an opium for the people - rather than facing and taking responsibly for one's struggles, one gets to absolve themselves, claim a moral high ground, and blame everyone else. One then gets to act out and destroy with good conscience - another addictive, psychological delicacy.

The harder people keep doubling down on this rejection of personal responsibility and using it for a sense of moral superiority, the harder it will be to reverse course. The resulting cognitive dissonance forces people to get even more radical, resentful, etc.

Like I said, classic stuff.

There is no "anti-wokeism", just normal peope wanting the insanity to stop. And Trump is a political outsider, not really part of the political class as I understand it.

Being "awake" used to be a reference to the Matrix movie, in which the lead character swallows a red pill and gets to see the world for what it really is.

It's about the dynamics of power.

Woke-ism cleverly shifted the spotlight from the elites, which are the actual problem, in favor of scapegoating average (white) Joes.

Gee, I wonder why the political class loved woke-ism so much.

It depends what the law says, I suppose. But intellectual property rights are an abomination to begin with.

A nice graph to show how Russia hasn't suffered one bit, and the EU has been played like a bunch of fools.

I don't think it's so much a fear of death.

Rather, the average person in a western country lives such a safe and sheltered life that they cannot even fathom the need to protect themselves, or understand what it is like to have one's life threatened, and what it does to a person.

I think any anti-gun person would make a 180 if they were ever to experience how thinly protected they actually are. How easily criminals are able to circumvent the law, and how malicious and petty some people are. When your life is in danger and the police can only shrug their shoulders - that's a reality check.

Oh please, save me the nonsense about how you've seen pain I can't understand. — Hanover

I mean, you clearly have no idea. You might tell yourself you have any idea what it's like based on "data" and "statistics", but you'd just be fooling yourself.

Of course if you'd have had a gun when you were accosted, the outcome would have been different. — Hanover

You're talking about people trying to steal your wallet. I'm talking about people trying to ruin your life over trivial nonsense - death threats, harassment, vandalism etc., and the implicit suggestion that they're willing and low IQ enough to do extreme things.

Why wouldn't I just go buy me an arsenal, get cool sights, laser beams, the whole works? — Hanover

Presumably because there's no reason for you to do so. Good for you. If I had no need for a gun, I wouldn't want one either.

Why can't you let the stats speak for themselves and just say you're comfortable with the increased risks but you want the gun? — Hanover

Statistics without context do not "speak for themselves", nor are the words of someone who has (I assume) never had a run-in with violent criminals particularly valuable.

I have, and there's not a doubt in my mind that a firearm would have made me safer.

And quite honestly, I can understand your attitude. It's easy to make comments about other people's safety when you're sitting high and dry. This is what intellectuals and politcians love to do. These things are "uncommon" until they're happening to you, and you're at the complete mercy of some deranged idiots because your government is too incompetent to protect you, and doesn't allow you to protect yourself.

I could find no data suggesting that gun ownership increased one"s safety in more dangerous areas. — Hanover

It is common sense. When I am unarmed and someone is coming for my life, I have virtually zero chance of survival. With a firearm it will be significantly higher.

I don't need data or statistics to tell me that, since it is self-evident.

Whether it works out that way for every gun owner is another story, but also none of my concern.

The likelihood that I be able to produce a gun and use it effectively is lower than that gun being used otherwise to cause me harm. — Hanover

That is down to practice. If you live in a safe area then there indeed seems little reason to invest time in familiarizing yourself with a firearm. But not everyone is so fortunate.

I think anyone who has had practical experience with violent criminals will understand the human need to have a means of protecting oneself (and the mental cost of not having one), and that law enforcement is not going to suffice.

Where I live, the police are undermotivated, underpaid, understaffed and underpriviledged to effectively fight crime. They cannot reasonably keep people safe from criminals and other types of deranged individuals who know how to play the system. Those are basically more protected by the system than the law-abiding citizens they terrorize.

Therefore, I believe I, and any sane adult with a clean record, should be allowed to carry a handgun for protection. Though I do believe it should be heavily regulated and monitored.

Safety is something that is either carried society-wide, or it exists only as an illusion, by virtue of not having the misfortune of running into the deranged people who are basically allowed to run amok as long as they don't do anything particularly stupid infront of a camera.

If the law no longer properly functions, it should be put back into the hands of the people.

I'm not sure about Britain specifically, but left/right seem like outdated terms these days - warped and abused to score quick points with easily-misled, tribalist voters.

The majority of politicans and political parties aren't left or right - they're corrupt to a point of having no principles whatsoever. The small minority that isn't corrupt is usually dysfunctional in some other way.

The problem, as far as my own frame of reference goes, is that government hasn't just grown corrupt, but also hugely out of proportion and completely useless. So people are being overtaxed and otherwise controlled by a powerful, overbearing nanny state, which in turn does nothing for them.

People then turn to the Leviathan's natural enemy: classical liberalism, which the right pretends to be. (but actually is ran by/beholden to the same type of grifters). If by some miracle actual change threatens to happen, the system resists from within, for example via a deeply partisan bureaucracy.

Corruption is a one-way street that leads to a dead end. We are now at that dead end, where solutions and prospect for change no longer exist. People are led in circles that always end up with them getting shafted, no matter who they vote for.

There's no chance for meaningful change in the current political climate. We're living in pre-revolutionary times.

The most worrying thing about this isn't Trump. This is way, way bigger than Trump.

The implication is that these (virtually unaccountable) intelligence agencies are running massive human sex trafficking and pedophile rings.

Rumors relating the CIA to such networks have been floating around for decades.

Assuming it is true, it would explain a thing or two.

For the record, I think it is more likely true than not.

Trump is now basically Biden 2.0. — Mikie

That sums it up.

NATO has dug a nice hole for Ukraine.

I don't think that's true, but feel free to quote the scripture and change my mind.

If one were to take a historical approach to Christianity, it would lead one to the various schools of thought that actually have things in common with Christ's teachings (such as Platonism, various Eastern schools of thought, etc.), rather than to the Old Testament.

There probably were political reasons for why there was an effort to wed Christianity to the Old Testament, but the blatant contradictions remain and that should give any honest thinker reason for pause.

This is down to what people have been taught over centuries, and not down to people critically analyzing the two and concluding they are compatible.

Genuinely, they could hardly be further apart.

A child could ask you why Christ preached compassion and turning the other cheek, while the God of the Old Testament goes around commanding child sacrifice and genocide.

No idea what that means, but in fact I am secular and simply thought the New and Old Testament being incompatible was a matter of the most basic logic.

It's not even that interesting of a question, really. Anyone with eyes to see can tell that the teachings of Christ are completely incompatible with the Old Testament, and that the two should have never been conjoined in the way they have been.

You have a strange idea of hostage situations, but anyway.

Very typical to totally forget and sideline here the House of Saud, which is very crucial to the whole thing. The House of Saud, once a British protectorate, then made good relations with the rising Superpower and finally made Saudi-Aramco purely Saudi owned, without a clash with the West as had happened with Iran. That the Saudis went with the dollar when Nixon got out of the gold standard was very crucial for the US. Even if there is hostility towards the US in the country (starting famously with Osama bin Laden), the partnership that hasn't any ideological or cultural ties has continued as a real example of realpolitik. — ssu

The reason is obvious, and I'm glad you asked - Saudi Arabia, with its population of only roughly 30 million, is the perfect US "ally" because it is not a serious candidate for being a great/regional power.

Supporting minor powers in order to balance against the bigger ones is classic balance of power politics, and Saudi Arabia is a textbook example.

If this would be such an incredibly successful foreign policy towards a region, then wouldn't it then be better according to you that the US would have to bomb or occupy West European countries in order to "prevent regional powers from rising through classic 'divide & rule' strategies, and by destroying any West European country that started showing signs of prosperity and a sense of independence".

Oh, the US would be so better then...

Yet on the contrary, the US was OK with European integration and an EU to rise. Forget the Marshall Plan? Why was this so good according to your "divide & rule"? And this makes the US far different from classic imperialist countries like Russia.

In truth in the long run "divide & rule" is a constant uphill battle and a perpetual drain on the economy and resources of any country/empire. Thus after exhausting the prosperity in these quite mindless wars, then empires falter. — ssu

Europe willingly subjugated itself to the US (it didn't have a huge amount of options post-WII), and when a part of the world willingly throws itself in your lap that is of course a geopolitical wet dream. That's a unique situation and not something that is easily replicated - especially not in the Middle-East.

In terms of wars being "expensive", this entirely depends on the ways in which the war is profitable.

Vietnam was a costly, pointless failure that greatly harmed the US. The fact that the defeat greatly and observably harmed the US I view as a strong indicator that 'failure' is the appropriate word here.

With Afghanistan and various other interventions, I don't agree they were failures. The US successfully created failed states all over the world to deny resources, bloc power and trade corridors. Any damage the US may have suffered from the eventual retreat was superficial. So in these cases the geopolitical benefit far outweighed the cost. Again, that's why they keep doing it over and over, and over.

All I'm saying is that this train wreck cannot be described as an success in any way. — ssu

US Middle-East policy has been incredibly successful for many decades.

Let me list the successes:

- For decades the US successfully prevented regional powers from rising through classic 'divide & rule' strategies, and by destroying any Middle-Eastern country that started showing signs of prosperity and a sense of independence.

- It has successfully controlled Middle-Eastern oil to such an extent that it allowed the US to take the world economy hostage via the petro-dollar.

- It has successfully locked other great powers like Russia, China and India out of stable land-access to the Middle-East (and Africa and Europe, by extension).


You, and many others, are operating under an assumption that the 'forever wars' had some envisioned endpoint of permanent victory. They did not. Talk of 'spreading democracy', etc. was just the figleaf.

Causing chaos and destruction was the whole point - except in those countries that willfully kowtowed before Washington and basically assigned themselves voluntarily to vassal status.


The fact that the strategy no longer works now doesn't mean that it wasn't successful.

If the 12-Day War had succeeded in plunging Iran back into chaos, it would have extended US-Israeli dominance in the region for a long time and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. It would have been another success in a long string of successes.

However, it is specifically the 12-Day War that now heavily suggests that the US is too weak to continue this policy. It's definitely not certain. The US and Israel could be planning follow-up operations for all we know, that might yet succeed.


Calling back to my earlier point of figleafs - the US needs to pretend this wasn't the point all along. All the chaos it has sown in the Middle-East has caused millions of casualties, and to publicly come out and say it was all intentional is unthinkable.

That's why they have to come up with fairytales about spreading democracy and supposedly failling.

If your previous allies turn into your enemies, how do you think that would be a success of any kind? — ssu

It's irrelvant. US power in the Middle-East would be waning anyway as a result of the shifting balance of power, but the key here is that none of those enemies are capable of inflicting a real cost upon the US.

The US will retreat to its island, and it will leave other nations to deal with the fallout - in this case Israel. Some day it will be Europe.

This is a well-established pattern in US foreign policy, and they wouldn't be repeating it ad nauseam if it weren't so wildly effective.

If US Middle East policy is looked on the long run, it really has been a train wreck. — ssu

I wouldn't quite agree.

To make such a statement, one must first understand what the principal US goals have been in the Middle-East. In my view, it is first and foremost about securing access to cheap oil and denying stable land-based access to others (like Russia, China and India). Second, it has been to avoid any regional competitor to Israel from rising. (Note the role Iran plays in both of these)

This policy has been remarkably successful for decades. The US completely dominated the Middle-East, and successfully laid waste to the region at will.

What has changed today is the geopolitical balance of power. It's not US Middle-East policy that has ran its course; it's the US empire that has ran its course.

The US is now clearly struggling to continue achieving these two goals, and that situation looks like it will only be getting worse. That's why this long-time policy is now defunct.

The problem I have with the way you seem to frame it is probably best summarized by the following play on a well-known axiom: "Do not attribute to ignorance that which is clearly the product of malice."

They'll care as soon as they understand what it actually means.

The average American can afford to not give a fuck, until they cannot. Geopolitically, the United States is destined to be a sideshow, and that's where it's headed due to its delusional foreign policy that basically turns everyone into enemies.

When the United States reverts to its natural sideshow status, its gigantic national debt will present an obstacle the average American cannot afford to not give a fuck about.

I'm not looking to get into a semantic discussion about the word 'disaster', but it made a bad situation worse in every conceivable dimension.

The only thing that hasn't happened is for the entire narrative to collapse. People keep on believing the delusions, etc., but that's not actually something that will help the US going forward. Keeping people high on delusions and propaganda has a long-term cost, and all it is achieving is allowing the US to continue a defunct foreign policy.

But honestly I think the worst thing to come out of this, is the image of a weak Israel. It has operated for decades with the knowledge that it needed to maintain an image of invincibility to stave off the myriad enemies it has in the region. It cannot afford to look weak, but now it does, and there's seems to be nothing that can reverse that.

Meanwhile, the US is cutting aid to Ukraine as it worries about its own stockpiles - another signal that the US might not be a position to keep Israel afloat in the future.

So, basically the 12-Day War has turned out as a complete disaster for the United States and especially for Israel.

Neither of two possible goals (regime change and destruction of Iran's nuclear program) were achieved. In fact the war has made it more likely that in the long-term Iran's regime will survive and that it will get its hands on nuclear weapons.

The fact that the Iranian regime was able to survive the attempted decapitation strike has signaled to Russia and China that Iran is a safe investment - something which was entirely up for debate prior to the 12-Day War due to the questionable nature of Iran's internal security. Simultaneously, this war has pushed Iran further into the arms of Russia and China - a process which historically they have been weary of, but are now likely to fully embrace.

In terms of nuclear weapons, the war has prompted Iran to end all cooperation with the IAEA (a institution that has now been shown to blatantly spy for the US and Israel, and produce pretenses for their wars whenever it suits them) thus putting any of Iran's future nuclear development programs out of international supervision.
Of course, Iran's incentive to produce nuclear weapons has dramatically increased. That it will actively pursue nuclear armament is virtually a guarantee now, and the limited damage that was done to its nuclear facilities, and its strengthening ties with Russia and China, suggest that it will be able to do so within a relatively short timeframe.

The damage that has been done to the IAEA's credibility is something that will have global consequences for nuclear profliteration.

Meanwhile, Israel was shown to be critically vulnerable even under limited aerial bombardment. Since the country has zero strategic depth and basically only two lifelines (Haifa and Ben Gurion Airport), it was always a matter of time before western technological supremacy would wane and Israel's vulnerability would be exposed.
A couple hundred rockets and drones is all it takes to threaten Israel with economic crisis - all of Israel's enemies will have taken note of this.


When all these factors are taken together, we're looking at a critical defeat for Israel, and that makes for a very dangerous situation going forward.

Speculations abound concerning follow-up attacks that may include nuclear weapons use.

What options do the US and Israel have left? Conventional strikes were clearly shown to fall short of achieving their objectives. A ground invasion is practically unthinkable.

Uncle Sam and his rabid pet monkey Netanyahu are rapidly running out of options.

Israel started looking critically vulnerable as purportedly the economic damage it suffered threatened to cause a crisis after only twelve days of war and limited penetration of its air defenses.

So I think this strike was meant to bail Israel out, while giving Iran an off-ramp.

That is, unless there's a follow-up operation coming, which is definitely a possibility.

Obama's diplomatic policy is a deviation from the strategy of trying to contain Iran (by stick and / or carrot) to the extent of preventing development. — boethius

As I noted to Benkei, this is not a change of strategy, but a change of method.

It was never a feasible alternative to the stick, because why would Iran do business with the US (with all the baggage that brings) when it can do business with the Russians and the Chinese on a more or less equal basis, with no strings attached?

In terms of maintaining/re-establishing US primacy, the genocide in Gaza is absolutely terrible policy. — boethius

Obviously this isn't explicitly US strategy, but unwavering support for its proxy Israel is.

Israel is critically vulnerable in more ways than one, so letting Israel ethnically cleanse/commit genocide in Gaza is par for the course at this point.

Does it hurt US credibility? Sure, but what credibility did it have left to begin with?

Apparently no amount of support for genocide is going to make the Europeans or any other key strategic allies second guess their relationship with the US, so in the grand scheme of things it matters little.

If you're of the opinion that US support for the Gaza genocide damaged US interests in a significant way, I expect you to be able to point out those damages.

And the genocide not only doesn't serve US Imperial strategic interest, it doesn't serve Israel's either. — boethius

I disagree somewhat. Israeli genocide provides the US with an exit strategy that practically writes itself. And as you point out, Israel is going to be cut off sooner or later, because the US will no longer want to pay the increasing cost of keeping Israel afloat in its unsustainable situation.

The US is simply milking Israel to the fullest extent before that moment arrives. Which means causing maximum chaos, even if their capacity to sow chaos has significantly decreased.


I think you and Benkei are operating under the erroneous assumption that there's any strategy available that doesn't lose the Middle-East for the US.

We are way, way too far down the line for any salvaging operations.

Every nation in the Middle-East hates their guts. Diplomacy is a fucking pipedream, especially now that Russia and China are offering an alternative.