3 ms·

Not sure how the US comes back from this. Who will trust US treaties going forward?

Terr_ 6mo ago
It'll partly depend on what internal housecleaning—or perhaps fumigation—and reform happens in the US. While it is unlikely to occur, imagine the international effect if the US resoundingly impeached and removed of a lawless president, and Congress formalized a lot of international agreements into statute rather than delegating too much to the executive branch.
- temp8830 6mo ago
  Nah, this problem is systemic, and much older than the current administration. Or has everyone forgotten the "anthrax" in a test tube? The invisible WMDs? The fake news about soldiers tossing babies out of incubators? Setting up a web of lies and attacking is a foundational value of the United States.
  - estearum 6mo ago
    [dead]
- CharlieDigital 6mo ago
  What we've learned is that laws only matter if Congress chooses to enforce.
- nerfbatplz 6mo ago
  I think this was the nail in the coffin. Not only has the US exsanguinated their military capability at the behest of Israel, everyone with half a brain watched closely as they took AD out of the gulf states and moved them into Israel. Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are not morons, they will see the writing on the wall and they will move to make diplomatic peace with their neighbours (China) now that the US has keeled over with self-inflicted wounds. It doesn't really matter what happens internally in the US now, everyone realizes that every four years the world will roll the dice.
- pepperoni_pizza 6mo ago
  That is not going to happen. Even if MAGA doesn't rig the midterms and the Democrats actually win something, they will just "reach across the aisle" and "work on healing our divided nation". Nobody will see any consequences for the suffering they caused.
jmyeet 6mo ago
I don't think we do. I think this is our Teutoburg Forest moment [1]. Part of the issue is there's no real opposition in the US to what's going on. The Democrats being the controlled opposition party aren't in opposition to the war (eg [2][3][4]). They just oppose the way it was initiated. In other words, they have a process objection not a policy objection. I've seen lamenting over Harris losing the elction (as well as more than a few doing "stolen election") about how the world could be different. But US foreign policy is uniparty [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest [2]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/8/kamala-harris-says-iran-is-greatest-adversary-of-us https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/8/kamala-harris-says-... [3]: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/leader-schumer-statement-on-us-military-operations-in-iran https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/lea... [4]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/hakeem-jeffries-wont-commit-iran-war-funding-defense-department-rcna262271 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/hakeem-jeffries-wo...
- mindslight 6mo ago
  > Part of the issue is there's no real opposition in the US to what's going on. The Democrats being the controlled opposition party aren't in opposition to the war Most emphatically yes. We've seen occasional bursts of spirited dissent but that's about it. As far as sustained opposition, it still seems that they're hoping to just wait out the clock for things to go back to "normal". > But US foreign policy is uniparty No, I'd say even with this senseless "war" the "uniparty" model has still become invalid with Trump. While the US fear industry ("news media") has been beating the drums against Iran for quite some time, the US military/intelligence community has resisted attacking. If we had a President Harris, I would bet that we would not be attacking Iran, especially in this manner - not because of Harris herself, but rather because she wouldn't have gutted the domain experts who come up with reality-based plans, and who have presumably been saying "If we overtly attack Iran they close the Strait and actually end up stronger". I like to refer to that system as bureaucratic authoritarianism - no meaningful checks on government power itself, but there are checks on how it's exercised. The critical difference is that Trumpism is autocratic authoritarianism (especially the second round after he broke so many laws the first time without consequence) - the experts and other group-project stakeholders (eg Inspectors General) were all fired (or at the very least sidelined), and replaced with glaringly incompetent yes-men who execute any simplistic "plan" regardless how bad it is.
GolfPopper 6mo ago
>Not sure how the US comes back from this. It shouldn't. The responsible course going forward is a constitutional convention and the dissolution of the United States.
- estearum 6mo ago
  A Constitutional Convention, by definition, would almost certainly not cause or require dissolution of the US. You could only effectively call a convention of people who explicitly do not want dissolution.
BigTTYGothGF 6mo ago
> Who will trust US treaties going forward? Who trusted them before?

Terr_ 6mo ago

It'll partly depend on what internal housecleaning—or perhaps fumigation—and reform happens in the US. While it is unlikely to occur, imagine the international effect if the US resoundingly impeached and removed of a lawless president, and Congress formalized a lot of international agreements into statute rather than delegating too much to the executive branch.

temp8830 6mo ago
Nah, this problem is systemic, and much older than the current administration. Or has everyone forgotten the "anthrax" in a test tube? The invisible WMDs? The fake news about soldiers tossing babies out of incubators? Setting up a web of lies and attacking is a foundational value of the United States.
- estearum 6mo ago
  [dead]
CharlieDigital 6mo ago
What we've learned is that laws only matter if Congress chooses to enforce.
nerfbatplz 6mo ago
I think this was the nail in the coffin. Not only has the US exsanguinated their military capability at the behest of Israel, everyone with half a brain watched closely as they took AD out of the gulf states and moved them into Israel. Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are not morons, they will see the writing on the wall and they will move to make diplomatic peace with their neighbours (China) now that the US has keeled over with self-inflicted wounds. It doesn't really matter what happens internally in the US now, everyone realizes that every four years the world will roll the dice.
pepperoni_pizza 6mo ago
That is not going to happen. Even if MAGA doesn't rig the midterms and the Democrats actually win something, they will just "reach across the aisle" and "work on healing our divided nation". Nobody will see any consequences for the suffering they caused.

jmyeet 6mo ago

I don't think we do. I think this is our Teutoburg Forest moment [1]. Part of the issue is there's no real opposition in the US to what's going on. The Democrats being the controlled opposition party aren't in opposition to the war (eg [2][3][4]). They just oppose the way it was initiated. In other words, they have a process objection not a policy objection. I've seen lamenting over Harris losing the elction (as well as more than a few doing "stolen election") about how the world could be different. But US foreign policy is uniparty [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest [2]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/8/kamala-harris-says-iran-is-greatest-adversary-of-us https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/8/kamala-harris-says-... [3]: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/leader-schumer-statement-on-us-military-operations-in-iran https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/lea... [4]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/hakeem-jeffries-wont-commit-iran-war-funding-defense-department-rcna262271 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/hakeem-jeffries-wo...

mindslight 6mo ago
> Part of the issue is there's no real opposition in the US to what's going on. The Democrats being the controlled opposition party aren't in opposition to the war Most emphatically yes. We've seen occasional bursts of spirited dissent but that's about it. As far as sustained opposition, it still seems that they're hoping to just wait out the clock for things to go back to "normal". > But US foreign policy is uniparty No, I'd say even with this senseless "war" the "uniparty" model has still become invalid with Trump. While the US fear industry ("news media") has been beating the drums against Iran for quite some time, the US military/intelligence community has resisted attacking. If we had a President Harris, I would bet that we would not be attacking Iran, especially in this manner - not because of Harris herself, but rather because she wouldn't have gutted the domain experts who come up with reality-based plans, and who have presumably been saying "If we overtly attack Iran they close the Strait and actually end up stronger". I like to refer to that system as bureaucratic authoritarianism - no meaningful checks on government power itself, but there are checks on how it's exercised. The critical difference is that Trumpism is autocratic authoritarianism (especially the second round after he broke so many laws the first time without consequence) - the experts and other group-project stakeholders (eg Inspectors General) were all fired (or at the very least sidelined), and replaced with glaringly incompetent yes-men who execute any simplistic "plan" regardless how bad it is.

GolfPopper 6mo ago

>Not sure how the US comes back from this. It shouldn't. The responsible course going forward is a constitutional convention and the dissolution of the United States.

estearum 6mo ago
A Constitutional Convention, by definition, would almost certainly not cause or require dissolution of the US. You could only effectively call a convention of people who explicitly do not want dissolution.

BigTTYGothGF 6mo ago

> Who will trust US treaties going forward? Who trusted them before?