politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
What I see instead is that UK is allowing US bombers to make multiple bombing runs on Iran from its bases.
This is mostly true for Spain, even then there were a couple of military airplanes in support roles landing and taking off from Moron. So it seems the claimed airspace closure was more of a gentleman's agreement rather than a strictly enforced prohibition.
But France and Germany absolutely did allow support airplanes in support roles to use their airfields. The exact nature of the operations is not known but it's probably to do with recon and maybe refuelling. The reason bombing runs were not on the table is mostly because these countries don't host any US military bases with suitable runways to support heavy bombers.
Greece allowed a US carrier to dock and repair in between combat operations.
Bulgaria and Romania explicitly allowed the US to use their bases for refuelling and recon.
All of this for a war that is poised to inflict heavy damage on European economies via skyrocketing energy and fertilizer prices. If European countries truly were "independent and free" allies of the US, they could just say no, like Spain - after all this is clearly not a defensive war and doesn't benefit them in any way. Instead we got a bunch of face-saving claims and a permission to perform whatever support operations are needed.
Yes and that is highly problematic, and actually illegal for UK to allow! Except those runs are classified as defensive, but I don't see how you make that argument when the war is 100% the Americans being the aggressor. They can just go home, and the war will be over. USA has no need to be there, and Iran is just defending themselves. There is no way I can see to reasonably call those runs defensive.
IDK about France, but the Rammstein base is American, so I don't know how much control Germany has over what USA does with it. But I know they've made problems enough for Trump to be extremely pissed.
That is understandable IMO, refueling and recon are not acts of war. So I think they have found that a sensible balance to not seem unreasonable.
Seems a bit like a glass half empty or half full opinion. I agree zero would be better. But besides not actually helping, it seems to me that most European countries have done a lot to prevent USA from having an easy time. This is very different from how it used to be in the cooperation/alliance between Europe and USA.
This is a very strong signal from Europe that we don't agree with what USA is doing.
AFAIK all EU countries have declared the war against Iran illegal! I don't recall that ever happening before.
I think a stance like that of Spain would be ideal: close the airspace to US military aircraft. Let them use the base however the fuck they want.
I feel like it had more to do with Merz making public statements humiliating trump. There was (and still is!) plenty of US military aircraft landing and taking off from Rammstein. The clown-in-chief is a narcissist who can't stand public criticism or humiliation of his person, so a reaction like this sounds up his alley.
Both are logistical support for a war that is poised to seriously hurt their economies.
Look at it another way: what would you say if Romania let Russian spy aircraft use their airfields for recon over Ukraine, and Russian support aircraft fly refuelling missions for bombers, in exchange for "military protection" and "economic support"? Would it still be a "sensible balance" then?
Idunno, almost all of them allowed the US to use their territories to wage an illegal war. Whether actual bombing runs were permitted is a bit immaterial here just like the "defensive" label on those operations. Recon and logistics are necessary components of a war, and allowing the US to perform them makes no sense for a war that will hurt you.
While I agree that there has been some good marginal changes from the last illegal war, it is still clear who is the empire and who is the de-facto vassal. If the relationship is that of equal allies, where are all the European military bases on continental US soil?