Good news for Ms Fairooz, but still a problem.
With or without a conviction, her arrest has already sent the message that it was intended to send. Openly mocking the TrumpGOP is not a safe thing to do; it exposes you to retaliation from the state.
7 Likes
Journalism happens in surprising places these days:
3 Likes
BTW: despite my penchant for gloominess, I repeatedly find myself almost alone in pushing what I see as the optimistic argument.
Other folks argue that it is impossible for Americans to rise up to the degree required to overthrow an anti-democratic authoritarian government, or that there is no chance of achieving social and economic justice in the USA. I think they’re wrong.
But my position on politics is similar to my position on climate change.
I think that, as a matter of urgent global existential importance, people need to face up to reality and accept the catastrophe. Doing that is a prerequisite for any chance of an effective response.
Yes, accepting that climate change is a megadeath global emergency requiring urgent and massive systemic reform isn’t a cheerful thought. But we can change the outcome, so long as act with appropriate force and urgency.
Similarly, recognising that the legal and democratic guard rails have failed on American democracy is a fucking scary thing.
But the fascist bastards threatening the world in your names are not invulnerable; they can be taken down, and Americans themselves have by far the best chance of doing so successfully. If Argentina can do it, so can the USA. Act soon enough, and you might even do it peacefully.
7 Likes
I think this is the difference between being a realist and a pessimist. The pessimist says it is hopeless. The realist says it’s incredibly fucked up and is liable to get worse, but we’ve been so brainwashed into believing that if we’re not hyperpositive, it’s negative, so we don’t see the hope inherent in realism.
I run into this all the time on things smaller and more solvable than politics: the moment you point out a flaw in the plan, you’re labelled as Negative Nancy, trying to drag things down, when you’re actually trying to help.
Personally, I am terrified of what is happening in the States, because I live close enough to get hit by the splash, but can do nothing about it.
8 Likes
Cracked has actually been doing good analysis lately. Even their humour articles tend to take a more “can you believe this shit???” approach.
7 Likes
So does everyone else.
2 Likes
Facing the end of American democracy, what do the Democratic leadership choose to focus on?
The Democratic Party is not the vehicle to oppose Trump.
Fortunately, you don’t need them. The solution to Trump is not going to be via the ballot box; if it happens, it’s going to be in the streets.
2 Likes
Since that was filmed, Trump was given the launch codes and Rick Perry was put in charge of nuclear safety.
I’m getting increasingly cranky at the extent to which the USA media are still behaving as if it were business as usual. Yes, sure: losing their already-shit healthcare is a legitimately big deal to many Americans.
But when Adolph is moving on the Sudetenland, the potential impact on veteran’s pensions is not the key issue.
3 Likes
1 Like
Is there a Trump-connected business anywhere near where you live? Are there roads leading to that business? Are those roads blocked with protesters?
Why not?
5 Likes
They’ve spent enough money to be able to lob bombs at Iran, sure. And vice versa i’m sure. But neither Iran nor S.A. are going to be invading one another anytime soon. That’s the difference between them and the US.
I’m not sure how any notion of the us army as a paragon of virtue was put on or credited to me, but please lets set any such strawmen aside in future?
yes, I know. The issue isn’t if they can squabble over someone elses land. It’s if they can go head to head, and I don’t think SA could. I don’t see either one ending the other, or even trying too. I see both sides justifying spending more and more money on planes and bombs. Follow that money. Both sides.
3 Likes
Huh.
I voted for her. When I voted for her, I thought unfavorably of her, but not nearly as unfavorably as I thought of Trump.
Now, I just see her as a person who exists. I have neither a favorable or unfavorable view of her.
But now that you mention it, I’m kinda wondering where in the actual hell she is, and why I’m not hearing more from her about what’s going on in Trumpistan.
5 Likes
Follow up:
I agree with pretty much everything Camacho has to say there.
3 Likes
Key sentence: What he has done is cede warmaking authority to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who now reportedly has plenary power to set objectives, allocate resources, and move troops
Key sentence: “It’s in his blood,” one senior Marine officer told me. “It’s almost like he wants to get even with them.”
6 Likes
You appeared to be arguing that the leadership of the US military would not allow themselves to be used in a foolish and unnecessary war:
It seems I misread your meaning.
Was your argument based less around the ethics of aggression and more to do with the desire of the US military for self-preservation? Were you arguing that the US military would launch a coup if requested to perform yet another foolish invasion?
1 Like
The Saudis are the strongest they’ve ever been, have the support of a powerful regional alliance and active military assistance from the USA.
The Iranians are the most vulnerable they’ve been in decades, and have no reliable allies.
But they are still within a decade of acquiring nukes if they decide to push on with that. They’ve got more reason than ever to do so now; Trump is openly attempting to destroy the Iran treaty, and has already violated it on the US’s side. Nukes may be Iran’s only chance of survival.
In return, the Saudis are very aware that their opportunity to defeat Iran may be slipping away.
The Saudi military are not a pack of untrained tribal militia these days. They’re likely to have issues with command quality, and morale may be unreliable if things go bad (both standard features of corrupt totalitarian states), but in raw firepower terms they’re a significant player. F-15s, Abrams, Bradleys, Apaches, all in large numbers and backed by shitloads of infantry. The Iranians have comparable manpower, but technology that is a generation behind: Phantoms, Mirages, ancient F-14s and M-60 clones for tanks.
[quote]Spending on defense and security has increased significantly since the mid-1990s and was about US$67 billion in 2013. Saudi Arabia ranks among the top five nations in the world in government spending for its military, representing about 9% of GDP in 2013. Its modern, high-technology arsenal makes Saudi Arabia among the world’s most densely armed nations, with its military equipment being supplied primarily by the United States, France, and Britain. According to SIPRI, in 2010–14 Saudi Arabia became the world’s second largest arms importer, receiving four times more major arms than in 2005–2009. Major imports in 2010–14 included 45 combat aircraft from the UK, 38 combat helicopters from the USA, 4 tanker aircraft from Spain and over 600 armored vehicles from Canada. Saudi Arabia has a long list of outstanding orders for arms, including 27 more combat aircraft from the UK, 154 combat aircraft from the USA and a large number of armoured vehicles from Canada.
The United States sold more than $80 billion in military hardware between 1951 and 2006 to the Saudi military. In comparison, the Israel Defense Forces received $53.6 billion in U.S. military grants between 1949 and 2007. On 20 October 2010, U.S. State Department notified Congress of its intention to make the biggest arms sale in American history—an estimated $60.5 billion purchase by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The package represented a considerable improvement in the offensive capability of the Saudi armed forces. The United States emphasized that the arms transfer would increase “interoperability” with U.S. forces. In the 1990–1991 Gulf War, having U.S.-trained Saudi forces, along with military installations built to U.S. specifications, allowed the American armed forces to deploy in a comfortable and familiar battle environment. This new deal would increase these capabilities, as an advanced American military infrastructure is about to be built. The U.S. government was also in talks with Saudi Arabia about the potential sale of advanced naval and missile-defense upgrades.[/quote]
That “largest ever” $60bn sale in 2010 has since been followed by this:
1 Like
That’s what happens when someone says “this particular one” and you hear “any other one”. I can’t help that.
I was arguing that the enlisted ranks can trust their intermediate leadership to treat them like citizen soldiers and not toy soldiers.
Why do you think any of us would hear of such a request? Well, in -this- case we might since the President would tweet out a whinestorm. The generals saying -no- is a long time thing in the civilian leadership of our armed services. Not often enough, but it happens.
I was arguing that Iran and the US have been at this a long time. We’re not going to attack them unless and until we mean it. The closest we ever came was Gulf War I when we had quite an army all dressed up without much to do, next door.
It’s not as ‘simple’ as Iraq.
Against whom?
They are, and remain, a bargaining chip. If Iran wanted nukes they would have them today.
ANd yes, the Saudi’s have a very expensive military. Look at the long list of battles they have won!
2 Likes