But the only thing we can do is fight for it, and have the optimism that we can get there.

Really highlights how the west is no longer economically relevant.

Except it’s not just Trump. Everybody in the chain of command is culpable and directly complicit. Every single one.

Yup, attacking water systems is a violation of the Geneva conventions and a clear unlawful order of which members of the military are compelled to not follow as they are bound by the Geneva Conventions and trained on it.

Protocol I (Article 54) and Protocol II (Article 15) of the Geneva Conventions prohibit attacking, destroying, or rendering useless objects indispensable to civilian survival, such as drinking water installations, dams, and dykes.

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits collective penalties and all measures of intimidation or terrorism. Threatening to cut off electricity and water to an entire population as a means of coercing political compliance clearly constitutes collective punishment.

Destroying Iran’s electric and water supply is a war crime.

That’s obviously a war crime, but we shouldn’t be surprised at this point.

The number of parties has fuck all to do with how democratic a particular system is. It’s whose interests the parties represent that matters. In capitalist societies, parties serve the interests of the ruling capital owning class, and the working majority simply gets to pick which member of the exploiting class will rule over them and repress them.

Yet, Iranian officials have also been posting this

They didn’t even bother coming up with pretext when they attacked Iran initially, I don’t see why they would now. Iran is also openly saying they shot that piece of shit down.

we can’t rule out a laundry fire

he’s a method actor

My favorite trope is how libs will inevitably start screeching about Russia when faced with the fact that their ideology is midwifing fascism.

You are the master of fractal wrongness.

It is absolutely irrelevant who makes the criticism, what needs to be addressed is the criticism itself. If somebody gives you advice to simply trust people blindly then you should be very suspicious of their motivations.

You do realize Reuters has a strong western bias as well?

That’s not what I’m saying at all. The first step to my perspective is to consider the framing they’re using and to think why they want to push a particular narrative. Nowhere did I say anything about assuming they’re being truthful. Although, in most cases western media uses more sophisticated techniques for distorting information than outright lying. It will be omission of facts, framing, and so on. This is an excellent book dissecting how US propaganda actually works. https://november8ph.ca/psychological-warfare-in-the-strategy-of-imperialism-v-l-artemov/

And you should also widen your media diet to include non western sources. These will have different biases and framings which you can contrast with what western media reports.

If we discarded every source that had a liberal or capitalist slant, we would effectively have to stop reading 99% of Western media, and we’d be blinding ourselves to the narrative of the ruling class. We are adults with functioning brains and the capacity for critical analysis. We should be able to read a piece of liberal slop, identify the ideological framing, strip it away, and analyze the material conditions they are reporting on or trying to obscure.

You need to read the Wall Street Journal because it is the mouthpiece of the ruling class that tells you exactly what capital is thinking, what they are afraid of, and how they are strategizing to protect their interests. You cannot effectively dismantle an argument if you refuse to understand its internal structure and logic.

Running away from information because it doesn’t align with their worldview is what liberals do when they retreat into their MSNBC bubbles. We should be secure enough in our own position to read sources we abhor, understand them, and approach their claims from a position of knowledge. Ruthless criticism of all that exists includes reading sources like the wsj.

Ah yes, me a famously rich person.

That’s not hyperbole by the way, the military in the south is literally under US command. In September 1945, the US Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) took over the southern half of the peninsula. It ruled for three full years, outlawed local people’s committees, and kept using the old Japanese colonial bureaucracy. That is a textbook military occupation. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, the US provided 90 percent of all combat forces and placed the South Korean military under the operational control of an American general. There weren’t even any elections under the occupation until the late 80s. It was a literal dictatorship.

That control has never truly gone away. Today, South Korea is under de facto US military occupation. The US runs Camp Humphreys, the largest overseas US base on the planet, with its own postal service and currency. More importantly, the US controlled Combined Forces Command holds wartime operational control over the entire South Korean military. If fighting resumes, Seoul’s army does not answer to Seoul, but to a four star American general. And a US dominated UN Command still publicly dictates what South Korea’s parliament can legislate near the DMZ.

Under the current Combined Forces Command structure, if war breaks out tomorrow, every South Korean soldier would automatically answer to an American commander without Seoul’s consent. It is a 70‑year‑old military subordination that the US has repeatedly delayed transferring. As of May 2026, the US insists on “conditions‑based” transfer and opposes a “politically convenient” timeline. South Korea’s president himself is pushing back against this delay. A foreign general holding final command over a sovereign nation’s military in wartime is, by any definition, continuing military occupation.

Exactly, this is something most people in the west don’t seem to grasp. Putin is as pro western as it gets in Russia, and the main criticism of him is that he’s not pursuing the war hard enough. If he somehow did get ousted, it’s almost certain that he’d be replaced by somebody far more hardline.

I present exhibit A

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-turn-to-its-asian-past-1530889247