General News Thread

[Trav Le Bleu]

On 05/01/2026 at 19:28, danny. said:

amazed he left the southern tip of Somalia alone

It's also American Samoa being abandoned to look after itself.

[Sly]

Trump hasn’t ruled out using the military to take Greenland. 
 

Which would end NATO.

 

I really isn’t a fan of it is he. 

[Jattdogg]

53 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Didn't Trump initially say that there were no fatalities during the raid?..

It's true though. He was talking about US troops only. I mean police,  not troops because it was a  police matter. Lol

[Md9]

15 minutes ago, Sly said:

Trump hasn’t ruled out using the military to take Greenland. 
 

Which would end NATO.

 

I really isn’t a fan of it is he. 

Anything to distract from releasing more Epstein files I guess as want there supposed to be more released over the last few days. Convenient timing for all this chaos 

[Sly]

1 minute ago, Md9 said:

Anything to distract from releasing more Epstein files I guess as want there supposed to be more released over the last few days. Convenient timing for all this chaos 

We’ll when you consider he’s also taken aim at Cuba, Mexico, Greenland and Colombia in the past 48 hours, is a little concerning. 
 

The Epstein files are just another issue altogether. At this point I think the word has largely assumed that a high proportion of socialite type celebrities will have visited the Island. 

[Md9]

36 minutes ago, Sly said:

We’ll when you consider he’s also taken aim at Cuba, Mexico, Greenland and Colombia in the past 48 hours, is a little concerning. 
 

The Epstein files are just another issue altogether. At this point I think the word has largely assumed that a high proportion of socialite type celebrities will have visited the Island. 

I’m sure there are plenty of celebrities that have visited the island he is just going out of his way to make sure it’s never released by doing what ever bat shit crazy thing he can.

 

lets hope someone somewhere can get him ( and miller and hesgeth) under control before things get really nasty with other countries you mention but I won’t hold my breath  
 

[whoareyaaa]

It's all leading up to a war over greenland/shipping route 

[MC Prussian]

I'll quote (and slightly rephrase) somebody else, because I think it hits hard (and is often ignored):

 

Barack Obama had Osama bin Laden killed, no congressional approval.

Barack Obama invaded Libya. The opposition kills Gaddafi, no approval.

Joe Robinette Biden had the Al-Qaeda leader killed in 2022. No congressional approval.

 

Trump swoops in and brings Maduro to the US, alive. Democrats and their lackeys go crazy.

 

On yet another sidenote: It was the Biden administration that initially put out a 15 million Dollar bounty on Maduro. The Trump administration upped it to 25, then 50 million USD last year.

Edited 6 January by MC Prussian

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

I'll quote (and slightly rephrase) somebody else, because I think it hits hard (and is often ignored):

 

Barack Obama had Osama bin Laden killed, no congressional approval.

Barack Obama invaded Libya. The opposition kills Gaddafi, no approval.

Joe Robinette Biden had the Al-Qaeda leader killed in 2022. No congressional approval.

 

Trump swoops in and brings Maduro to the US, alive. Democrats and their lackeys go crazy.

 

On yet another sidenote: It was the Biden administration that initially put out a 15 million Dollar bounty on Maduro. The Trump administration upped it to 25, then 50 million USD last year.

Interesting and fair point made I guess

[Jon the Hat]

4 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I think he’s shifted the Overton Window so far that it is highly unlikely that Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again. The post war period is an exception in history, where the norm is the exercise of raw power. It took the trauma of the Second World War, and collective realisation of both the horrors of modern warfare and the cruelty possible when apparently ordinary people turn a blind eye to the persecution of minorities.

 

There seems to be a significant minority now that has forgotten all this and is once again turning to “strong men” for a solution to the unfairnesses that they perceive around them. I’m sure this goes much deeper than Trump who is a charismatic symptom of the age, along with Farage and the like.

 

If repeated, such a calamity (world war) is unlikely to arrive at such a relatively benign solution. Rather it would wipe out civilisation as we know it. I know this all sounds dramatic but I feel something qualitative has really shifted, mostly in the last 10 years, probably longer (GFC? Reagan and Thatcher? Nixon?).

It took an enormous amount of US military power based in Europe, vast amounts of US money to rebuild Europe and eventual acceptance of their absolute military power.  Its always been about power, and the reason it is all going to shit now is that the US while still powerful no longer has the wealth or the military strength to rule the world. They are distracting from that by playing bully boy in their backyard.

[ealingfox]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

I'll quote (and slightly rephrase) somebody else, because I think it hits hard (and is often ignored):

 

Barack Obama had Osama bin Laden killed, no congressional approval.

Barack Obama invaded Libya. The opposition kills Gaddafi, no approval.

Joe Robinette Biden had the Al-Qaeda leader killed in 2022. No congressional approval.

 

Trump swoops in and brings Maduro to the US, alive. Democrats and their lackeys go crazy.

 

On yet another sidenote: It was the Biden administration that initially put out a 15 million Dollar bounty on Maduro. The Trump administration upped it to 25, then 50 million USD last year.

 

Yeah because Maduro and ****ing bin Laden are the same

 

[Jon the Hat]

32 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Yeah because Maduro and ****ing bin Laden are the same

 

The point is there is a different response to Trump doing US president things.  He brings it on himself the way he presents things, but he also talks a lot of shit.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, ealingfox said:

 

Yeah because Maduro and ****ing bin Laden are the same

 

 

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

The point is there is a different response to Trump doing US president things.  He brings it on himself the way he presents things, but he also talks a lot of shit.

Also if the point attempting to be made here is that Trump and those before him are equal in terms of destructive self interest overall, then that is as ludicrous as it is demonstrably inaccurate. 

[Jon the Hat]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Also if the point attempting to be made here is that Trump and those before him are equal in terms of destructive self interest overall, then that is as ludicrous as it is demonstrably inaccurate. 

There have been plenty of self-interested presidents, but agreed he is certainly ahead on his shameless willingness to enrich himself and his family while in office.

 

That said, the more I read on the Venezuela situation, the more it seems clear this is more about separating them from China / Russia than the oil opportunity.  It is in no way clear that the oil is either cost effective to bring back online or material enough in quantity to move the needle on price all that much.  On the other hand another Putin Ally is gone, and China oil agreements may well be ripped up.

Edited 7 January by Jon the Hat

[Lionator]

8 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

It's all leading up to a war over greenland/shipping route 

Nah and I’m a massive pessimist. US gets a deal to station more troops in Greenland and it’s over. When he says it’s about Russia and China, it is because they’re the only countries he respects. 

[leicsmac]

52 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

There have been plenty of self-interested presidents, but agreed he is certainly ahead on his shameless willingness to enrich himself and his family while in office.

 

That said, the more I read on the Venezuela situation, the more it seems clear this is more about separating them from China / Russia than the oil opportunity.  It is in no way clear that the oil is either cost effective to bring back online or material enough in quantity to move the needle on price all that much.  On the other hand another Putin Ally is gone, and China oil agreements may well be ripped up.

That's entirely possible. 

 

However if it is, it's still another example of the ugly Kissinger realpolitik that had its place in the Gilded Age and the Cold War but has no place in a truly modern society if that society is to continue for very long. 

[Sly]

8 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

I'll quote (and slightly rephrase) somebody else, because I think it hits hard (and is often ignored):

 

Barack Obama had Osama bin Laden killed, no congressional approval.

Barack Obama invaded Libya. The opposition kills Gaddafi, no approval.

Joe Robinette Biden had the Al-Qaeda leader killed in 2022. No congressional approval.

 

Trump swoops in and brings Maduro to the US, alive. Democrats and their lackeys go crazy.

 

On yet another sidenote: It was the Biden administration that initially put out a 15 million Dollar bounty on Maduro. The Trump administration upped it to 25, then 50 million USD last year.

Bin Laden was the world’s most wanted person and arguably the US was at war with Al Qaeda. Slightly different situation. It didn’t get congress approval, however it was done under the “authorised use of force act” from memory, that allowed the US President to bypass congress. Al-Zawahiri was also authorised under the same act I believe (by Biden). Were they within International Law, now that is debatable! 

 

The US didn’t invade Libya.The UN authorised a measure to protect Libyan civilians after the country was in all out civil war. The US undertook initial air strikes, but it was more of a NATO thing.

 

Every President since the “Authorised use of Military Force” act was put in place, has used it.

 

Bush for Afghanistan. 

 

Obama in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. 
 

Biden as mentioned above. 
 

Trump against ISIS and the killing of Soleimani at Baghdad airport. The argument here is that he’s actually relaxed the laws for authorisation further. 

 

I don’t think any of them truly clean hands, in relation to “should we have got involved” if we are honest. It just depends on where you sit in terms of personal opinion. 
 

56 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

There have been plenty of self-interested presidents, but agreed he is certainly ahead on his shameless willingness to enrich himself and his family while in office.

 

That said, the more I read on the Venezuela situation, the more it seems clear this is more about separating them from China / Russia than the oil opportunity.  It is in no way clear that the oil is either cost effective to bring back online or material enough in quantity to move the needle on price all that much.  On the other hand another Putin Ally is gone, and China oil agreements may well be ripped up.

I’ve not really looked into it in that much detail to understand if it was an about oil (which was my initial assumption), or whether they believe he’s an actual cause of drugs trafficking. 

It’s now come out that 40 people (civilian and military) were killed in the operation, so whilst they’ve taken Maurdo, it has come at the cost of life. 

 

I’ll underpin this with though, is Venezuela trafficking as many drugs into the US as Mexico and Colombia? The answer is no. Trump say what he wants to suit his narrative.
 

A ground war against Mexican cartels would be a huge ground offensive though and that would start a massive conflict in the region, causing massive refugee transit into US soil I’d imagine. 

All of this is complete different to continually popping off Greenland! 

[leicsmac]

Honestly, the idea being floated that Trump is no different from previous presidents in terms of overall policy decisions and what's happening now is just business as usual is genuinely absurd to me, even if we just go with the idea that applies to foreign policy alone. 

 

Not only is it absurd, but also worrying, because that thought process combined with a lack of action to address what this administration are doing will end up harming everyone. 

[Sly]

23 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Nah and I’m a massive pessimist. US gets a deal to station more troops in Greenland and it’s over. When he says it’s about Russia and China, it is because they’re the only countries he respects. 

It’s a massive game of poker isn’t it?

 

They’ll likely want to occupy some land, buy a section of it, or station further troops within the region.

 

If he uses the military to start a war over Greenland, then he’d be seen in completely different light in history. his FIFA Peace prize will need withdrawing.
 

To start with, the financial impact to the US markets would be crazy, as you’d get NATO sanctions all over the place. 
 

In reality, I think we’ll see continued tension whilst Trump remains in office. This has rumbled on for years, it’s just becoming more vocal now. He risks recession and destabilising the US financial market if he goes to war with NATO. 

 

 

[Sly]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Honestly, the idea being floated that Trump is no different from previous presidents in terms of overall policy decisions and what's happening now is just business as usual is genuinely absurd to me, even if we just go with the idea that applies to foreign policy alone. 

 

Not only is it absurd, but also worrying, because that thought process combined with a lack of action to address what this administration are doing will end up harming everyone. 

Trump is completely different as a President in how he acts to his predecessors. 
 

He’s leveraging social media to bully and push his agenda, rather than use the “old school” media. He’s basically cut out any sort of PR person to round the rough edges off what he’s saying. 
 

He publicly criticises peoples and challenges his own allies. Even the entire impeachment stuff and how it played out was bonkers in reality. It’s just a lack of traditional respect. 

 

Then you have the entire MAGA and American first approach, whereby he’s questioned NATO, Paris agreement etc.

 

Then you have the entire bypassing congress, reducing authorisation to undertake stuff, legal challenges, aggressive style and polarising views.

 

It’s almost like he doesn’t care about conflict and just bulldozes his way to what he wants. 
 

Almost like an aggressive businessman, rather than a politician!

 

I can’t think of a similar leader in history that is really like him. Napoleon maybe? You could have see him bashing Twitter back in the day! Obviously Trump hasn’t gone around the globe trying to conquer half of it though. 
 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Sly said:

Trump is completely different as a President in how he acts to his predecessors. 
 

He’s leveraging social media to bully and push his agenda, rather than use the “old school” media. He’s basically cut out any sort of PR person to round the rough edges off what he’s saying. 
 

He publicly criticises peoples and challenges his own allies. Even the entire impeachment stuff and how it played out was bonkers in reality. It’s just a lack of traditional respect. 

 

Then you have the entire MAGA and American first approach, whereby he’s questioned NATO, Paris agreement etc.

 

Then you have the entire bypassing congress, reducing authorisation to undertake stuff, legal challenges, aggressive style and polarising views.

 

It’s almost like he doesn’t care about conflict and just bulldozes his way to what he wants. 
 

Almost like an aggressive businessman, rather than a politician!

 

I can’t think of a similar leader in history that is really like him. Napoleon maybe? You could have see him bashing Twitter back in the day! Obviously Trump hasn’t gone around the globe trying to conquer half of it though. 
 

 

 

 

Pick any one that genuinely believes in the superiority of his "tribe" and is ready to back up that feeling with coercion and sometimes outright violence. 

 

The attitude and lack of any kind of class are relatively unique, though. 

 

In any case, such mentality has no place in power in the world we live in today, given the harm it can and does cause. 

[StanSP]

9 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

It's all leading up to a war over greenland/shipping route 

I'll back the Vikings. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

47 minutes ago, Sly said:

Bin Laden was the world’s most wanted person and arguably the US was at war with Al Qaeda. Slightly different situation. It didn’t get congress approval, however it was done under the “authorised use of force act” from memory, that allowed the US President to bypass congress. Al-Zawahiri was also authorised under the same act I believe (by Biden). Were they within International Law, now that is debatable! 

 

The US didn’t invade Libya.The UN authorised a measure to protect Libyan civilians after the country was in all out civil war. The US undertook initial air strikes, but it was more of a NATO thing.

 

Every President since the “Authorised use of Military Force” act was put in place, has used it.

 

Bush for Afghanistan. 

 

Obama in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. 
 

Biden as mentioned above. 
 

Trump against ISIS and the killing of Soleimani at Baghdad airport. The argument here is that he’s actually relaxed the laws for authorisation further. 

 

I don’t think any of them truly clean hands, in relation to “should we have got involved” if we are honest. It just depends on where you sit in terms of personal opinion. 
 

I’ve not really looked into it in that much detail to understand if it was an about oil (which was my initial assumption), or whether they believe he’s an actual cause of drugs trafficking. 

It’s now come out that 40 people (civilian and military) were killed in the operation, so whilst they’ve taken Maurdo, it has come at the cost of life. 

 

I’ll underpin this with though, is Venezuela trafficking as many drugs into the US as Mexico and Colombia? The answer is no. Trump say what he wants to suit his narrative.
 

A ground war against Mexican cartels would be a huge ground offensive though and that would start a massive conflict in the region, causing massive refugee transit into US soil I’d imagine. 

All of this is complete different to continually popping off Greenland! 

Bin Laden also was not a head of state, he was a terrorist whose people willingly followed him, but who had to act covertly, even in his own country.

 

The Gaddafi comparison is more relevant, though it probably drew less criticism because I benefited us and most of the world, not just the USA.

 

Though as memory serves (I'm very open to being corrected) wasn't that more a clinical Navy Seal insertion taking him out in a relatively small compound, rather that bombs and bullets flying everywhere?

[Bellend Sebastian]

In more positive news, concerted efforts on the cards to reduce the stubbornly high (yet weirdly accepted at societal level as a sort of background hum of carnage that doesn't really matter) level of deaths on UK roads: 

 

https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/new-road-safety-strategy-promises-to-save-thousands-of-lives/

[Finnegan]

10 hours ago, Sly said:

We’ll when you consider he’s also taken aim at Cuba, Mexico, Greenland and Colombia in the past 48 hours, is a little concerning. 
 

The Epstein files are just another issue altogether. At this point I think the word has largely assumed that a high proportion of socialite type celebrities will have visited the Island. 

 

The problem for Trump isn't that he "visited the island", the problem for Trump is he was a major co-conspirator and trafficker who is almost certainly the most heavily named pedophile in the evidence of Epstein's operation. They were extremely close friends and confidants. If the full thing is leaked, he'll lose his base and be in genuine danger of prosecution, for real this time. 

 

They 100% want Venezuelan oil, even ****ing Murdoch owned Sky News haven't bothered hiding how much the Americans want and need the heavy crude there, but the timing is definitely about the file release. Pretty sure Maduro was taken the exact day Bondi was supposed to disclose the last batch, no? 

 

They're never subtle.