Iran issues warrant for the Arrest of President Trump - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15104071
ckaihatsu wrote:I think my analogy is accurate, and holds-up, mostly due to the institutional racism against blacks in the U.S., and the historic racism towards *Arabs* in the Middle East, particularly from Israel.


Everybody knows Iran is NOT Arab, and in fact they were having a fierce war around the time I was born.
#15104074
Patrickov wrote:
Everybody knows Iran is NOT Arab, and in fact they were having a fierce war around the time I was born.



Hmmmmm, you're being *petty* and missing the point in the process -- geopolitically, it doesn't matter *what* you, or anyone else, thinks of the rulers of Iran, just as with Syria, by extension. The U.S. / NATO has no legitimate concern, or justification, to *interfere* or *attack* countries that it simply *doesn't like*, nor does it have any good reason to carry out *assassinations* for the same reason.
#15104077
Godstud wrote:Imagine what would have happened if Iran had done what the USA did.

Bunch of fucking hypocrites.

I'd like to see Mitch McConnell assassinated, successfully.


If Iran took out an American terrorist who murdered hundreds of innocent victims including women and children? Yea imagine that. Qasem Soleimani is your hero.
#15104083
ckaihatsu wrote:Hmmmmm, you're being *petty* and missing the point in the process -- geopolitically, it doesn't matter *what* you, or anyone else, thinks of the rulers of Iran, just as with Syria, by extension. The U.S. / NATO has no legitimate concern, or justification, to *interfere* or *attack* countries that it simply *doesn't like*, nor does it have any good reason to carry out *assassinations* for the same reason.


Sorry but I disagree. Everyone has a list and it cannot be said that being on that list can merely be dismissed as "don't like", though the United States and NATO had at least been tactically wrong for the best of last decade.
#15104084
Patrickov wrote:
Sorry but I disagree. Everyone has a list and it cannot be said that being on that list can merely be dismissed as "don't like", though the United States and NATO had at least been tactically wrong for the best of last decade.



So then what's driving your position here?

You're expressing distancing from U.S. and NATO foreign policy, but you're implying that they may 'have their reasons' for intervening in countries like Iran.

Do you subscribe to the U.S.-as-'supercop' theory?
#15104088
ckaihatsu wrote:So then what's driving your position here?

You're expressing distancing from U.S. and NATO foreign policy, but you're implying that they may 'have their reasons' for intervening in countries like Iran.

Do you subscribe to the U.S.-as-'supercop' theory?


There is a new law which would make my answers to both a criminal offence, but if it is so, this very fact might become the answers themselves.
#15104089
Patrickov wrote:
There is a new law which would make my answers to both a criminal offence, but if it is so, this very fact might become the answers themselves.



It sounds like you made some kind of deal with the state, for whatever reason.

Sorry to hear that you've given up your right to freely discuss politics, but perhaps you had your reasons.
#15104095
ckaihatsu wrote:It sounds like you made some kind of deal with the state, for whatever reason.

Sorry to hear that you've given up your right to freely discuss politics, but perhaps you had your reasons.


Ehhh, not United States, and it's not a deal I made, but more like imposed on me.
#15104107
ckaihatsu wrote:My own opinion is that you're being overly cautious, even to the point of paranoia and self-censorship.


I admit that I was unable to wrap my answer to be independent of the situation I am in, but I will try.

I think there has to be a "supercop" -- or two -- around the world at a certain point of time. Currently I find the United States-led NATO the best qualified organisation to fulfill this role, and there seems to be no suitable alternative right now. I won't say it cannot be changed, just that I see it unlikely within our lifetimes.

The reason is that I still find the West handling their internal problems better ("piecemeal" is better than "nothing" or "in reverse"), and provide a better set of game rules, even if only slightly.

EDIT: I failed to mention that there should still be strong enough entities monitoring such supercop, but the UN Security Council seems operating out of spite recently.
#15104109
Patrickov wrote:
I admit that I was unable to wrap my answer to be independent of the situation I am in, but I will try.

I think there has to be a "supercop" -- or two -- around the world at a certain point of time. Currently I find the United States-led NATO the best qualified organisation to fulfill this role, and there seems to be no suitable alternative right now. I won't say it cannot be changed, just that I see it unlikely within our lifetimes.



How do you think they handled *Syria*, in the past decade?


Patrickov wrote:
The reason is that I still find the West handling their internal problems better ("piecemeal" is better than "nothing" or "in reverse"), and provide a better set of game rules, even if only slightly.



Why are your standards *so low*, on such a critical policy issue -- that of policing, and killer cops?

Should the U.S. also have a 'piecemeal' approach to *civil rights*, too?


Patrickov wrote:
EDIT: I failed to mention that there should still be strong enough entities monitoring such supercop, but the UN Security Council seems operating out of spite recently.



What do you mean?

What do you think of the ICC?
#15104113
Patrickov wrote:I admit that I was unable to wrap my answer to be independent of the situation I am in, but I will try.

I think there has to be a "supercop" -- or two -- around the world at a certain point of time. Currently I find the United States-led NATO the best qualified organisation to fulfill this role, and there seems to be no suitable alternative right now. I won't say it cannot be changed, just that I see it unlikely within our lifetimes.

The reason is that I still find the West handling their internal problems better ("piecemeal" is better than "nothing" or "in reverse"), and provide a better set of game rules, even if only slightly.

EDIT: I failed to mention that there should still be strong enough entities monitoring such supercop, but the UN Security Council seems operating out of spite recently.

The connections between the way we police our streets and the way we exert our power abroad are intricate. And so the movement to defund racist, abusive police forces won’t ever truly succeed if the effort stops at our borders. In fact, its success may depend on bringing an international perspective to the work. As Schrader writes in Badges Beyond Borders, “To dismantle the carceral state, the national security state will also have to be dismantled.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/158297/america-exports-police-violence-around-world
Terrorists abound but mostly result from maladroit U.S. policies that create enemies and make other people’s conflicts America’s own. Moreover, while such attacks are atrocious, they do not pose an existential threat. Nor do America’s conventional forces and nuclear arsenals offer the best response; promiscuous war-making around the world is more likely to accelerate than diminish terrorism. The better option would be to do less militarily, especially in the Middle East.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skept ... roke-39852
#15104151
:lol: @Finfinder The best you can do is hurl insults, [rule 2 deletion - Prosthetic Conscience]. Don't do it half-assed if you are going to do it atall.

The assassination of a foreign general would be the equivalent of assassinating Oliver North. I hardly think USA would have sat back and smiled, had that happened.

USA is a imperial power, with a long list of war crimes, and state-sponsored terrorist activities. Pretending otherwise is pure naivete.
#15104188
ckaihatsu wrote:How do you think they handled *Syria*, in the past decade?


As I said, tactically wrong.

ckaihatsu wrote:Why are your standards *so low*, on such a critical policy issue -- that of policing, and killer cops?

Should the U.S. also have a 'piecemeal' approach to *civil rights*, too?


Because I live in a place where the government does it *in reverse*, i.e. they make laws to make holding killer cops accountable *criminal*. In other words, the government which administers the place simply *refuses* to comply with even such low standards.

*Piecemeal* seems heaven to me.

ckaihatsu wrote:What do you mean?

What do you think of the ICC?


Incompetent.
#15104189
Deutschmania wrote:https://newrepublic.com/article/158297/america-exports-police-violence-around-world https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skept ... roke-39852


I agree that the United States are to blame for police violence around the world, but the problem for many other places in the world is that they have even worse civil rights or even more authoritarian governments than the United States to begin with.
#15104257
Patrickov wrote:
As I said, tactically wrong.



Okay.


Patrickov wrote:
Because I live in a place where the government does it *in reverse*, i.e. they make laws to make holding killer cops accountable *criminal*. In other words, the government which administers the place simply *refuses* to comply with even such low standards.

*Piecemeal* seems heaven to me.



Okay, fair enough, but how should it be *politically*, irrespective of local geography?

(Do you think political principles / standards should *vary* by geography?)


Patrickov wrote:
Incompetent.



So then who / what body should have *authority* over the U.S. / NATO, since they've been 'tactically wrong'? (What's to prevent Western militarism from being 'tactically wrong' in the *future*?)


Patrickov wrote:
I agree that the United States are to blame for police violence around the world, but the problem for many other places in the world is that they have even worse civil rights or even more authoritarian governments than the United States to begin with.



What do you think should *happen* with those socially reactionary places?
#15104261
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, fair enough, but how should it be *politically*, irrespective of local geography?

(Do you think political principles / standards should *vary* by geography?)


Some yes and some no. If this is to be applied, at least people need to have total freedom of movement.


ckaihatsu wrote:So then who / what body should have *authority* over the U.S. / NATO, since they've been 'tactically wrong'? (What's to prevent Western militarism from being 'tactically wrong' in the *future*?)


First, the citizens of those countries themselves.

Second, a smaller international body which does not include countries that do not respect the game rules.


ckaihatsu wrote:What do you think should *happen* with those socially reactionary places?


First, they simply cannot model their police after the United States. Come to think of it, if it is unacceptable in the United States why is it acceptable elsewhere in the first place?

Second, for those countries I am afraid at least sanctions or embargo is required. Let those of their citizens who know better decide the rest. Lose some kind of conflicts or economic / resource competition should it arise.
#15104265
Godstud wrote::lol: @Finfinder The best you can do is hurl insults, [rule 2 deletion]. Don't do it half-assed if you are going to do it atall.

The assassination of a foreign general would be the equivalent of assassinating Oliver North. I hardly think USA would have sat back and smiled, had that happened.

USA is a imperial power, with a long list of war crimes, and state-sponsored terrorist activities. Pretending otherwise is pure naivete.




What was the insult ? He is the farthest thing from an equivalent to Oliver North. Do you admire Salam and his Anti American agenda, roadside and suicide bombers?
#15104267
[New rule 2 deletion - Prosthetic Conscience]. I don't admire anyone who is a terrorist, including USA who engage in state-sponsored terrorism, with drones.

I am pointing out the complete hypocrisy of the USA. I know you hate that. Tough shit.
#15104269
Godstud wrote:[rule 2 deletion] I don't admire anyone who is a terrorist, including USA who engage in state-sponsored terrorism, with drones.

I am pointing out the complete hypocrisy of the USA. I know you hate that. Tough shit.


Why always the anger, hostility and personal attacks?

The USA doest train terrorist including suicide and road side bombers. Just because you are anti American doesn't make your argument hold water.

Bringing hostages to a place does not mean there i[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

You're not ordinary, Qatz. Stop pretending to d[…]

Another resource of degenerates who want to watch […]

There are many ways to approach a construction si[…]