The All Things Political Topic

[uuuhhii]

didn't usa veto another ceasefire at un

fascist at new zealand are trying to break some old treaty

things can certainly get worse everywhere

[Malcador]

22 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

To be fair to Thomas-Greenfield if you're a UN ambassador for a permanent member you're pretty much always an automatic entry into the hypocrisy Olympics.

And she did make sure it was her deputy rather than her that voted when the US was the sole veto on the Israel/ Paelstine ceasefire resolutions...

Yep, I salute their ability to say these things with a straight face, but there's amusement to be had. Well maybe not the Israeli clown with the brick and the yellow Star of David, that was something else entirely.

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, uuuhhii said:

didn't usa veto another ceasefire at un

Historically the US has vetoed ceasefires using exactly the same 'logic' as Russia did with Sudan, ie it's an internal matter. It won't be the last time for either and usually resolves down to whether they think the side they're supporting is winning rather than humanitarian concerns vs respect for countries rights.

Most recently the US were sole veto- and sole 'no'- on Israel/ Palestine ceasefire resolutions at least twice. Unsurprisingly, that wasn't a sign of US isolation, but US strength and unflinching resolve. If you were US UN staff, at least. That also doesn't count the (multiple) times resolutions weren't even brought to the table because their veto was inevitable.

Quote

fascist at new zealand are trying to break some old treaty

David Seymour is definitely a populist, not a fascist, though he'd happily have fascists vote for him. His bill has literally no chance of passing, it's a way for him to drum up votes. Irony being* his party is our 'no waste, no red tape!' 'libertarian' one (hence his stated reasons for the Treaty Principles Bill of vote equality) and he's insisting on advancing a bill with zero prospects and which will cost the taxpayer a minimum of 4 million dollars.

*Well, the whole thing is an irony fest because both sides are riddled with first order hypocrites:

Watching the same people who laugh at the US obsession with their 240 year old founding document and think its inviolability is silly so much later obsessing about our 180 years old one and thinking it should be inviolable and relevant forever.

Cogovernance proponents insisting that that still has equal voting rights for everyone. Then being baffled when their explanations are clearly that votes wouldn't be equal, but it's a good thing they won't be, and that not convincing anyone votes will be equal but rather the opposite.

Pearl clutching about 'war dances' in parliament from people who got upset at complaints about the throat slitting (it's releasing the spirit!) gesture in the All Black's haka and think the English should, ahaha, Morris Dance back rather than get upset.

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Most recently the US were sole veto- and sole 'no'- on Israel/ Palestine ceasefire resolutions at least twice.

At least three now, since there was another one today. Notable things about it include:

US deputy Ambassador Robert Wood voting, again, not Thomas-Greenfield. Clearly they know it's a dreadful look and don't want their main (wo)man associated with it.

14-1 vote, US sole vote against, and brought to the Council by no less than 10 of its members

AP article has slightly different tone from their one about Russia's veto. But I'll give them some credit for this quote even if it is after the usual mealy mouthed apologia:

Quote

The resolution that was put to a vote “demands an immediate, unconditional and permanent cease-fire to be respected by all parties, and further reiterates its demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.”

Indeed, they managed to put the same quote in the article twice. Shame they didn't directly contrast it with Robert Wood's claims that the US had to veto because:

Quote

"We made clear throughout negotiations we could not support an unconditional cease-fire that failed to release the hostages"

which is an incredibly bare faced lie even for a politician, so much so even the French UN ambassador called him on it.

[BruceVC]

12 hours ago, Malcador said:

Yep, I salute their ability to say these things with a straight face, but there's amusement to be had. Well maybe not the Israeli clown with the brick and the yellow Star of David, that was something else entirely.

The point Im making is not about the reality of how permanent members veto UNSC  resolutions when its suits them or there allies, that happens in certain cases but the " outrage " about this is typically when the US uses its veto but here is another example of Russia doing it and yet we dont get the same attention from the same people who would complain when the US does it

But even thats not the main point Im making. The South African government has claimed that Sudan is the " forgotten war " and the world doesnt act to do anything about it

Yet the UNSC is the best way for the world to at least start to do something about it and Russia decides to veto this resolution because they involved

So in other words its not true that world doesnt care about Sudan but you wont achieve any meaningful global action if UNSC resolutions get vetoed 

And since its South Africa  that keeps raising Sudan on the global stage SA should summon the Russian ambassador and ask why they vetoed something that every other UNSC member agreed to

But there is no point as South Africa complaining about a lack of global response to the Sudan war when its Russia that vetoed the ceasefire. And Russia is  a  fellow BRICS member and we have good diplomatic ties with  Russia so its not like we cant take this up directly with them 

 

 

 

[Hurlshort]

Ok, so Matt Gaetz has already given up on his AG dreams, but didn't he already resign his spot in the House? What a circus.

[BruceVC]

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20241129-syria-jihadists-allies-shell-aleppo-in-shock-offensive

Very new unexpected conflict in Syria where militant groups opposed to Assad  are making huge gains 

It remains to be seen how much success Assad will have  stopping them with Russia involved in Ukraine and Hezbollah being decimated in Lebanon

Iran will continue to help Assad but will that be enough to counter this offensive?

 

 

 

 

[Malcador]

So are these rebels freedom fighters or terrorists for Blue team ?

Seems like they may take Aleppo.

Edited November 29 by Malcador

[BruceVC]

57 minutes ago, Malcador said:

So are these rebels freedom fighters or terrorists for Blue team ?

Seems like they may take Aleppo.

The war in Syria has always been a complicated mix of  different sectarian and militant groups 

This latest offensive seems to  be a  combination of the original groups that fought Assad and they getting support from Turkey 

 

 

[Zoraptor]

HTS (Hayat Tahrir al Sham) is the main rebel group in Idlib, and is Jabhat al Nusra (Support Front- of Al Qaeda in Iraq) with a rebranding to cater for tender western sensibilities. Still led by the same guy, Al Jolani, and with the same leadership though of course. There are a bunch of vestige US facade groups involved too but none of them operate without HTS approval and at least in theory* they haven't had US support for around 7 years. HTS doesn't operate without Turkish approval though the Turk's main backing is for the moderate ethnic cleansers in the 'Syrian' National Army fighting the kurds further east. Qatar is the primary unequivocal backer of HTS.

The war in Ukraine has had zero effect on Russia in Syria for anyone wondering. Still got the S-400s around Hmeimem, still got the same number of aircraft, still got the same (small) number of troops. Even Hezbollah wasn't anywhere near as significant as people said since they contributed maybe 1-2% of troop numbers. The Afghan/ Pakistani (Liwa al Fatima/ Zeinab) and Palestinian formations were larger and contributed as much. Ironically, most of them are now facing the US backed troops by the Euphrates as they are worried about them trying to cut the supply line from Iraq- with the US still overtly (and illegally) occupying al Tanf to block the other one.

*of course a lot of them never had overt US support due to being just a tad head choppery and pretty much the exact same people they were fighting in Gaza, Afghanistan, and uh, Syria, etc, but did have it clandestinely through Timber Sycamore. Bit of a laugh watching Pentagon supported moderate rebels (note lack of air quotes, since they were generally discerning) fighting CIA supported 'moderate' rebels as regularly happened. 

[Malcador]

Fun day for "OSINT" people, coup rumours to battles in Damascus

[Sarex]

Hahahahahaha...he pardoned his son...hahahahaha... I cannot stop laughing...

[Zoraptor]

Not exactly surprising. Probably the only thing less surprising is that he said he wouldn't; before the election. The only really interesting thing is the dates and specifically it being backdated to 2014- and Hunter's completely legal and above board directorship in Burisma.

Though as embarrassing and as much of a bad look as it is pardoning your own son...well, it seems extremely likely that Trump will be worse. He already pardoned Jared Kushner's crook father- among other questionable choices- and may well pardon himself if he thinks the Supreme Courts immunity ruling isn't enough.

And of course Bill Clinton also pardoned his brother.

Edited December 2 by Zoraptor

[Sarex]

He was probably waiting to see if Kamala would win so she could do it, would have look a tad better I guess...

[Lexx]

You just know Trump would keep going after him over ridiculous claims, so I can understand the move. Don't really care either, tbh. Trump is an actual convicted felon and slippery like an eel. Now he is even president again. So yeah.. I can see why Biden will try to protect his people. Especially since Trump and Company keep taunting what they are going to do with their enemies.

That said, IMO the issue isn't Biden giving a pardon for his son but that he and all presidents can do this in the first place.

 

Edited December 2 by Lexx

[Malcador]

Right wingers complaining about this is funny, given who Trump has pardoned. Guess Dems figure, might as well join them in a race to the bottom.

Still think he should have resigned on Nov 6 and make Kamala president for a bit.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't think anyone but perhaps the most braindead rules based law and order guy is surprised that Biden pardoned his son. There's no way in hell Biden is going to do anything but retire after the start of the year and he may as well flex the benefits while he has them. And while I don't think he cares about political consequences, and neither do the dems generally or else they maybe wouldn't have spent the last 4 months hanging out with Liz Cheney, by the time the next election season hits Hunter Biden will have evaporated from the collective consciousness.

[Sarex]

2 hours ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

by the time the next election season hits Hunter Biden will have evaporated from the collective consciousness.

Unless someone start paying the media to push that story anew.

[Zoraptor]

Joe Biden is not going to be standing again in 2028 and there's even less chance of Hunter doing so. The story was useful because Biden sr was (well, still is for a month+) President, not because Hunter is important.

[pmp10]

If Biden can pardon for everything and anything for a decade I wonder what Trump will do with the precedent.
6th January gang will likely be only the start. 

 

[Lexx]

How is this a precedent? Trump already pardoned terrible people the last time he was president.

[Bartimaeus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Donald_Trump

It's gonna be a few negative legacy points for Biden for sure, but it's small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, especially with regards to what's to come shortly.

Edited December 2 by Bartimaeus

[Zoraptor]

Trump's raw number isn't really very high comparatively though. Similar number to Clinton/ Reagan per term, and a fair bit less than Obama's number. There are some questions about, um, the quality of people pardoned* by Trump though of course but that isn't exactly new either. Plus the prime time to pardon is just before leaving office, so Biden's number will go up; Obama pardoned something like 600 in his last 3 days, about 80% of Trump's were in Dec20/Jan21.

3 hours ago, pmp10 said:

If Biden can pardon for everything and anything for a decade I wonder what Trump will do with the precedent.

Don't really see how it's a precedent. From what I understand the powers of the President to pardon are just about limitless, by design, so the whole idea of precedent doesn't really apply. About the only limitation is that the crime has to have been (rather than being/ planned to be) committed.

(Specifically, a lot of ex Confederates got pardoned for fighting a 4 year war as active 'traitors'. OK, as a more direct parallel to Jan7th they'd need to get pardoned by a victorious President Davis in 1868, but... People have been pardoned as quid pro quo before (Libby/ McDougall), people have been pardoned for cash/ influence before- or at least, that's the only logical explanation. Obviously close relatives have been pardoned before. And while it didn't happen there were certainly people advising Nixon to pardon himself, before resigning. That a deal was done for Ford to do it instead to avoid that spectacle has always been vehemently denied)

*shorthand, inc commutations etc too for all

Edited December 2 by Zoraptor

[Gorth]

Even if the crime is committed in the past, can the president pardon it if a sentence hasn't been passed yet? I.e. not "officially" a crime yet?

[pmp10]

8 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Don't really see how it's a precedent. From what I understand the powers of the President to pardon are just about limitless, by design, so the whole idea of precedent doesn't really apply. About the only limitation is that the crime has to have been (rather than being/ planned to be) committed.

Sure but people were generally pardoned for specific crimes.
Even Trump stuck to that.

I think the only other person to get 'any crimes included' package was Nixon.