EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1111
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22703 Posts
On June 14 2014 01:20 xDaunt wrote: I'm all for our disentanglement in a responsible way. However, I do not like it when it's done in such a way that our geopolitical enemies (as opposed to our allies) fill the void. Obama's Middle East policy has been haphazard at best. I understand the political pressure he had to put the Iraq War to rest, but the level of his disengagement has been hazardous. Didn't the Iraqi government practically kick out the US troops rather then the slower disentanglement that was planned? | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On June 13 2014 23:31 ticklishmusic wrote: http://www.salon.com/2014/06/11/eric_cantors_victorious_opponent_has_no_idea_how_to_answer_basic_policy_questions/ An econ professor from Princeton (Technical Institute) can't answer questions on the minimum wage. Eric Cantor has got to be wondering how he lost to this guy. I don't even like the guy, but I find the fact that he does not answer complex policy questions on the spot completely ok. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 14 2014 01:27 aksfjh wrote: What makes you think Iran can "fill the void" any better than the US? Take a step back and take off your Obama-hating-goggles and look at Middle East history. It should be as ingrained in geopolitical strategy as "Never start a land war with Russia!" by now, "Never perform serious military operations in the Middle East." What Obama-hating goggles? You aren't really going to argue that Obama has done a "good job" with regards to Middle East policy, are you? The only thing that he hasn't done is gotten us involved in another war, but it isn't exactly difficult to do nothing. In fact, it's his doing nothing that is the problem. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 14 2014 01:33 Gorsameth wrote: Didn't the Iraqi government practically kick out the US troops rather then the slower disentanglement that was planned? Sorta. The issue was that the US and Iraq couldn't arrive at a deal. Part of the problem was that US didn't want to give the level of commitments that Maliki wanted. And let's just be clear. Maliki is as responsible for this shitstorm as anyone by fostering sectarian tensions. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On June 14 2014 01:35 xDaunt wrote: What Obama-hating goggles? You aren't really going to argue that Obama has done a "good job" with regards to Middle East policy, are you? The only thing that he hasn't done is gotten us involved in another war, but it isn't exactly difficult to do nothing. In fact, it's his doing nothing that is the problem. Why is that a problem ? Anyone pretending to know what consequences of their international interactions will be is lying. Especially if we are talking about Middle East. Thus unless there is clear threat to the national existence itself the best strategy is just to do the cheapest thing, which mostly mean doing nothing. Just look at the whole Syria debacle. There was no way to tell beforehand what was the best course of action, even now we still don't know what would have been the best course of action and we have hindsight. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22703 Posts
On June 14 2014 01:38 xDaunt wrote: Sorta. The issue was that the US and Iraq couldn't arrive at a deal. Part of the problem was that US didn't want to give the level of commitments that Maliki wanted. And let's just be clear. Maliki is as responsible for this shitstorm as anyone by fostering sectarian tensions. Also considering how total the collapse of the military is, a slower pull out wouldn't have changed much except that this same situation would have been reached a little later. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 14 2014 01:42 mcc wrote: Why is that a problem ? Anyone pretending to know what consequences of their international interactions will be is lying. Especially if we are talking about Middle East. Thus unless there is clear threat to the national existence itself the best strategy is just to do the cheapest thing, which mostly mean doing nothing. Just look at the whole Syria debacle. There was no way to tell beforehand what was the best course of action, even now we still don't know what would have been the best course of action and we have hindsight. Every single one of our allies in the Middle East expressed their displeasure with our staying on the sidelines during Obama's presidency. It's not like no one saw this coming or could have seen it coming. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On June 14 2014 01:45 xDaunt wrote: Every single one of our allies in the Middle East expressed their displeasure with our staying on the sidelines during Obama's presidency. It's not like no one saw this coming or could have seen it coming. While they themselves did the exact same thing we did: 'nothing'. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On June 14 2014 01:45 xDaunt wrote: Every single one of our allies in the Middle East expressed their displeasure with our staying on the sidelines during Obama's presidency. It's not like no one saw this coming or could have seen it coming. Maybe their displeasure is the best outcome you could have gotten. What if any other course of action was actually worse ? Problem is you are seeing bad stuff happening and think that it could have been better. Nobody can give you any reliable prediction or even hindsight analysis. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6326 Posts
On June 14 2014 01:33 Gorsameth wrote: Didn't the Iraqi government practically kick out the US troops rather then the slower disentanglement that was planned? Yes they did. They realise it was a mistake though an Iraqi politician recommended Afghanistan to make a deal for US troops to stay asap. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On June 13 2014 23:04 coverpunch wrote: Uh, people don't realize how prevalent it was because it was never mainstream or substantial as a movement in the US. Trust-busting and progressivism may take cues from socialist thought but they do not represent socialist government at all. Teddy Roosevelt was sympathetic to unions and hard on corporate owners, which was unusual and a sea change at the time, but he was not at all in favor of union ownership of the corporation or of unionized control of the state. FDR expanding the social net and government control is the same thing - it was a movement away from the social Darwinists of the Depression era who believed poor people deserved what they got, which might include unemployment, homelessness, and malnutrition (or even worse, that it was a kind of penance). But it was not a movement towards socialism by any stretch of the imagination. EDIT: To be explicit, social democracy is not socialism. Americans have always prospered so much from commerce and the exchange of goods and ideas that they've never been proper socialists or communists or isolationists. As for change, American bureaucracy and the reality of dealing with Republicans ensures that any big changes need to be glacial and gradual. That's not necessarily bad, as Americans generally look on with ambivalent feelings of optimism, bemusement, and horror when they see revolutions or economic meltdowns bringing governments to their knees or toppling them altogether. People don't realize how prevalent it was because the histories were rewritten in the wake of McCarthy. The socialist movement (yes, socialist) had widespread populist support despite your assertions to the contrary. Labor strikes were far more common and were often organized by socialist groups like the IWW. New York city had multiple riots and protests, as did many other cities across the country. The national guard was called upon repeatedly in order to break strikes. Many people that you hear about in the history books were actually socialists (Upton Sinclair, Jack London, Theodore Dreiser, and many feminist leaders, even Helen Keller). But that was ignored in your AP US History book. Eugene Debs, a man jailed for his socialism, who published a ton of incendiary socialist literature, received 6% of the popular vote in 1908 and in 1912, in a 2-party system no less. You had towns like Spokane passing laws to prevent assembly in the streets in order to curb socialist gatherings and protests. Thousands of people were jailed for expressing their First Amendment rights, and vigilantes were killing dozens of socialists in a loosely organized campaign of intimidation. States in the west, like Oklahoma, had hundreds of socialists elected to local office, including some to the state legislature, and there were dozens of socialists newspapers being printed. Only modern arrogance would assert that the Tea Party movement is significant while the popular socialist movements of the last century were "never mainstream or substantial." You misinterpreted what I said about the Roosevelts because you don't understand how importunate the left really was during that time period. I know that they didn't actually enact socialist policies, but that's entirely my point. They brokered a deal between the left and the status quo, essentially saying to the capitalists that they should work with labor unions on working conditions and wages, otherwise the socialists, or worse, the communists, who are clamoring for change will force their hand. Roosevelt's advisers were almost exclusively capitalist representatives from the worlds of finance and industry. Without the socialist movement it is unlikely that the unions ever gain enough support in the 30s to set up the modest wage growth and workers' rights that propelled national growth in the post-war era before Reagan and the Thatcherites set out to destroy union power in the 70s and 80s. On the other hand, in many ways the political tumult of the early 20th century galvanized the JP Morgans, Rockefellers, and Carnegies prompting them to organize a reactionary movement that neutralized a considerable growing threat to their power. But your dismissal of the rampant homelessness, destitution, dangerous working conditions, and generally shitty life held by the majority of laborers in this time as attributable to "social Darwinism" rather than the rather plain struggle between capital and labor is to be expected from someone mired in the post-McCarthy glorification of liberal democracy written by capitalist apologists. Lastly I look forward to the news in a few months that we have been going through a recession since January, since GDP actually declined in the first quarter of 2014. Americans may look on in horror when they see economic meltdowns bringing governments to their knees, but at some point they are going to have to realize that it's democratic capitalism that brings on the economic meltdowns in the first place. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
![[image loading]](http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/dead-horse.gif) User was warned for this post | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
![[image loading]](https://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1395/61/1395610762366.jpg) User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 14 2014 01:45 xDaunt wrote: Every single one of our allies in the Middle East expressed their displeasure with our staying on the sidelines during Obama's presidency. It's not like no one saw this coming or could have seen it coming. It wouldn't have even taken a prescient man to negotiate a SOFA of appropriate strength, knowing how easy it would be for active terrorist groups to take control and turn Iraq into a base for terrorist operations once again. This will stand as a great collapse of sensible national security and foreign policy. American troops fought and died to regain national self-determination for the citizens of Iraq. Now, an invading force (ISIS) stands poised to expand territory further and threaten Iraqi control of their own country. Iraq's Shia government has more reason to expect useful aid from Iran than the US, given Obama's response to this situation. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 14 2014 07:12 Danglars wrote: It wouldn't have even taken a prescient man to negotiate a SOFA of appropriate strength, knowing how easy it would be for active terrorist groups to take control and turn Iraq into a base for terrorist operations once again. This will stand as a great collapse of sensible national security and foreign policy. American troops fought and died to regain national self-determination for the citizens of Iraq. Now, an invading force (ISIS) stands poised to expand territory further and threaten Iraqi control of their own country. Iraq's Shia government has more reason to expect useful aid from Iran than the US, given Obama's response to this situation. And that's probably way more reasonable then good old western nation building. When it comes to middle eastern foreign politics the US really has screwed it up hard. Stability needs to be created locally and gradually. As bad as the dictators seemed at least the countries remained functional. Now the whole region is a giant clusterfuck with raging Islamist terrorists everywhere because there isn't any kind of functional government/authority left in the region. | ||
| ||
