Good, you looked the word up. Ok, so explain. Because I know your understanding is incorrect just from that last word. Are you Maga? No. You are spineless. In previous posts you have tried to justify excesses by the Administration, at the same time trying to attack it. You claim: You stated You went on: Well that makes you an American Nationalist, rather than an American Patriot. I suspect you think of yourself as a Patriot, but the fact you don't take sides, puts you in the Nationalist camp. Those saying they are neutral are more likely to be silent MAGA. Populist politicians exploit people's secret vices, the sort of things we dare not say in polite company about the young, about the old, about people of a different skin colour, about the other gender. Beware the words of Thomas Mann, the Nobel laureate, who in 1945, observed, with regret: He was a anti-Nazi, driven into exile. In 1945, he returned to Germany. He pondered that he and other non-Nazis didn't do enough. If they have been more brave in their convictions, they could have prevented many things. Many Germans were no supportive of the Nazis, but also weren't overtly in opposition. Some of them might even have thought Hitler had some redeeming features, or that sensible heads would prevail. He didn't and they didn't. After 9 years of Trumpism, I don't understand how any American can hold a neutral viewpoint. Everyone seems to have an expert buddy in the military with access all sorts of secret stuff they have confided with you. Bull<deleted>. If they were doing their job, they wouldn't be telling you what they know. I've been there. When you post opinions, expect a rebuttal. If you don't want to read such rebuttals, then use the Block function. I do, a lot. Otherwise, you are attempting coercive censorship. Your general position, in political discussion, is Trump has done some bad things, but he has also done some good things, therefore criticism of him should be qualified. But you do this on nearly every post, hence you were accepting of the change in name of the Gulf of Mexico, critical over an apparent annexation of Cuba (anyone saying that?) and Greenland, ending with: Indicating you think it would be legitimate for the US to seize the Straits. Trump isn't all bad” is an observation. “Therefore Trump shouldn't be judged principally by his worst conduct” is an argument. And repeatedly reaching for the former to blunt the latter can become a form of moral evasion. The situation in the Persian Gulf is 100% self inflicted. The US has contrived a situation, and now you are, in some measure, supportive of an attempt by the US to secure the Straits as US territory. In my posts on the topic, I have been consistent. Protesting about UNCLOS has predictably gotten nowhere. As a treaty, in the age of drones and anti-shipping missiles, its not fit for purpose. The treaty creates grey areas by giving states the right to impose charges on shipping, but you can't call those tolls. I've said all along if the objective is to cause Iran to act like a normal nation, then the more efficient means is to use theirs (and Oman's) ego, form a Straits authority, instituting the collection of tolls, to be disbursed to either nation, creating a significant income stream, and investing both nations into the Gulf economy. Bombing the hell out them has so far indicated (1) the American government is cowardly, they use airpower only (2) best to get nukes even more quickly (3) an asymmetric response to US attacks causes Iran to increase support of proxies, not reduce them. Its not the first time a foreign power tried to seize the straits. On the Iranian islands you will find Portuguese forts. The Portuguese imposed a toll system, to get shipping to bend to Portugal's will. called the Cartaz. It lasted a bit over 100 years, when a combined Iranian-East India Company force drove out what was, at the time, the premier world empire. If the Americans declare the Straits to be American, it will merely condemn your country to a 100 year war, another so-called "forever war". Yet you are supportive, or at best, ambivalent about that prospect. The American President is a narcissist. His war department have been hiding evidence of casualties, and its worth reflecting that the only reason the death toll among Americans isn't into the hundreds by now is because of the excellent flying ICUs developed over a 20 year period during the war in Afghanistan. That's nipped domestic opposition. But he is either going to land troops, or drop a nuke. Just remember how the Vietnam war started, and how it ended. And consider how American action rehabilitated the Vietnamese Communists. They are still running the gaff, still have re-education camps, but now even Americans go on vacation there. Near-unilteral action in the Persian Gulf has utterly shattered a carefully crafted international coalition.
Create an account or sign in to comment