EPTThe half-hearted nation building that relies on arming third parties has every time created more failed states and terrorism than it has created functioning democracies.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1413
| 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. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
The half-hearted nation building that relies on arming third parties has every time created more failed states and terrorism than it has created functioning democracies. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On November 08 2014 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah that worked wonders in Iraq didn't it? I didn't know Rummy was on this forum  Also have you served in the military?There is a categorical difference between Iraq, which was essentially invading a functioning nation state with, at the time, no organized domestic opposition or ongoing conflict, and Syria, where Assad was either actively suppressing pro-democracy protestors and groups, and there was an active civil war going with pro-democracy rebel groups at the forefront in the initial stages of the war. The comparison between Syria and Iraq is inane: Syria is MUCH CLOSER to Bosnia or Kosovo, Rwanda, OR Libya than it is to Iraq, and anyone with any basic analytical skills could see THAT much. Intervention does not require "boots on the ground". Intervention could've been in the form of materiel as was widely requested by pro-democracy rebels or the airstrikes that were carried out in Libya or that we're carrying out now against ISIL. Also, why does me having served in the military matter in any way? Also, no. On November 08 2014 03:00 Nyxisto wrote: I think to really make sure that a military strategy works the US would have to completely occupy the territories in question for an indefinite amount of time. Just pulling out a few years later doesn't actually seem to do anything positive. I really doubt that there is enough money and political will for some kind of full blown occupation at the moment. The half-hearted nation building that relies on arming third parties has every time created more failed states and terrorism than it has created functioning democracies. Does Libya currently require boots on the ground, or does Egypt? Utter nonsense. Iraq and Afghanistan are entirely different cases than Syria. On November 08 2014 02:55 oneofthem wrote: LT what do you say about the concern that the islamists would have taken syria regardless given the highly porous border they have with iraq and the lack of security presence on the syrian side of that border. IIRC the assad civil war was primarily concentrated around urban areas far away from the iraq border region. I think that's bull. Early intervention on the side of moderate, liberal rebels would've ended the war quite quickly in their favor. There's a growing shift to extreme Islamic groups because they ended up being the most effective rebel fighters, and due to a lack of US support for any moderate rebel groups (and the disillusionment thereof). Even so, the Syrian border with Iraq has always been porous, but the main issue that lead to ISIL growing in strength was the complete lack of central authority in Syria to crack down on them; there being an ongoing war going on which fed ISIL men, equipment, and land. Ending the war earlier and having an organized government in Damascus, as opposed to a major civil war (no matter the flavor of government, be it Assad, liberal democratic, or even moderate Islamist, they would've ALL been opposed to ISIL), groups such as ISIL would be significantly weaker. Essentially: could ISIL have taken root in Syria? Possibly. Could they be anywhere near the threat they are now? Hell no. On November 08 2014 03:12 oneofthem wrote: third party support is not all bad. problem is when you support nasty groups without considering risk. The lessons of Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Honduras...basically the entire history of Cold War-era US CIA actions. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
To me the whole "let's arm some "freedom fighters"" approach just is the cheapest and dirtiest way to try to get what you want and as a result it has really produced terrible results. I feel if you genuinely want to build democratic structures at the other end of the world you need a little more than just some kind of minimum effort plan. Does Libya currently require boots on the ground, or does Egypt? Utter nonsense. Iraq and Afghanistan are entirely different cases than Syria. Well Libya's government is pretty weak and has changed probably half a dozen times over the last few years, I don't know how this is going to pan out. The only country that has come out really positive out of the Arab Spring is Tunisia. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On November 08 2014 03:22 Nyxisto wrote: Well you really should double check To me the whole "let's arm some "freedom fighters" approach just is the cheapest and dirtiest way to try to get what you want and as a result it has really produced terrible results. I feel if you genuinely want to build democratic structures at the other end of the world you need a little more than just some kind of minimum effort plan. And I agree. The lack of US (and European) support for developing Libyan democracy and institutions has been abysmal. But in any event, whatever Libya has now is infinitely better than what Syria has been experiencing. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23287 Posts
On November 08 2014 03:21 Lord Tolkien wrote: There is a categorical difference between Iraq, which was essentially invading a functioning nation state with, at the time, no organized domestic opposition or ongoing conflict, and Syria, where Assad was either actively suppressing pro-democracy protestors and groups, and there was an active civil war going with pro-democracy rebel groups at the forefront in the initial stages of the war. The comparison between Syria and Iraq is inane: Syria is MUCH CLOSER to Bosnia or Kosovo, Rwanda, OR Libya than it is to Iraq, and anyone with any basic analytical skills could see THAT much. Intervention does not require "boots on the ground". Intervention could've been in the form of materiel as was widely requested by pro-democracy advocates. or the airstrikes that were carried out in Libya or that we're carrying out now against ISIL. Also, why does me having served in the military matter in any way? Also, no. Does Libya currently require boots on the ground, or does Egypt? Utter nonsense. Iraq and Afghanistan are entirely different cases than Syria. I think that's bull. Early intervention on the side of moderate, liberal rebels would've ended the war quite quickly in their favor. There's a growing shift to extreme Islamic groups because they ended up being the most effective rebel fighters Even so, the Syrian border with Iraq has always been porous, but the main issue that lead to ISIL growing in strength was the complete lack of central authority in Syria to crack down on them; there being an ongoing war going on which fed ISIL men, equipment, and land. Ending the war earlier and having an organized government in Damascus, as opposed to a major civil war, and no matter the flavor of government, be it Assad, liberal democratic, or even moderate Islamist, they would've ALL been opposed to ISIL. Essentially: could ISIL have taken root in Syria? Possibly. Could they be anywhere near the threat they are now? Hell no. The lessons of Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Honduras...basically the entire history of Cold War-era US CIA actions. I'm aware of the differences. I was just wondering where the strategy you outlined was successful in the middle east? As for serving, it's astonishingly consistent that those civilians who want most to commit to wars are the ones who have the least direct experience with them. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On November 08 2014 03:30 oneofthem wrote: ISIL isn't a native syrian organization though. they came from iraq to take advantage of the power vacuum in syria, but stabilizing syria by itself probably won't stop ISIL altogether since they draw strength from the whole sectarian mess in iraq. Yes. However, having a Syria that isn't currently in chaos would result in a drastically weaker ISIL presence, as any Syrian government would be actively working against them and preventing them from seizing land and assets. Again, ISIL can set up in Syria, but without a civil war in Syria, they would not have the same strength, period. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8559 Posts
On November 08 2014 03:33 Lord Tolkien wrote: Yes. However, having a Syria that isn't currently in chaos would result in a drastically weaker ISIL presence, as any Syrian government would be actively working against them and preventing them from seizing land and assets. Again, ISIL can set up in Syria, but without a civil war in Syria, they would not have the same strength, period. That is a pipe dream though, do you really think that the US - or any nation for that matter - would have been able to install anything even close to resembling a stable, democratic government there? The track record in the region, your track region too, says no. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23287 Posts
The only 'compromises' he suggests are a $10 minimum wage and letting 'states decide social issues' like gay marriage and 'legalized pot'. Do the conservatives think a Republican embracing Bill's strategy could make it through the primary saying that kind of stuff? + Show Spoiler + WCS GLOBAL FINALS HYPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On November 08 2014 03:40 Doublemint wrote: That is a pipe dream though, do you really think that the US - or any nation for that matter - would have been able to install anything even close to resembling a stable, democratic government there? The track record in the region, your track region too, says no. No. However, the situation would be more stable. Similarly, while Libya is in deep shit right now (would be better if Europe and the US had committed more non-military resources to help build up the Libyan government, but eh), it's still in a far better position than where Syria is now. Syria as a state has practically disintegrated; a limited intervention earlier on, anytime from 2011 to 2013 really, could have stabilized the situation significantly better than where it is now. @ GreenHorizons: Libya is the most current example, and while the outcome is, currently, not pretty, the alternates were worse. Same with Syria. A better example would be Kosovo and the path to stabilization it took. Again, limited intervention (though very late on the part of the Clinton administration). Somalia is an alternate example, where no intervention has lead to complete state collapse that we are only slowly reversing with concerted international effort. I also don't see any point to the rest of your post, but w/e. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8559 Posts
On November 08 2014 04:01 Lord Tolkien wrote: No. However, the situation would be more stable. Similarly, while Libya is in deep shit right now (would be better if Europe and the US had committed more non-military resources to help build up the Libyan government, but eh), it's still in a far better than where Syria is now. Syria as a state has practically disintegrated; a limited intervention earlier on, anytime from 2011 to 2013 really, could have stabilized the situation significantly better than where it is now. No disagreement here, basically. Though we - as in the western world - just have RELIED on the likes of Assad, Gaddafi and Mubarak etc... to keep things "in order" and make it look like they are terrible and not in any way related to us and our interests. Now that that jinn is out of the bottle,we don't know what the fuck to do. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On the suggestions themselves: 1) Yes to lowering corporate tax rates 2) No to lowering capital gains 3) Minimum wage increases are ultimately meaningless (economic research is pretty clear on this: it'll only affects high schoolers and the very young with no impact on the people who most need it) 4) "securing the border" is a pointless and futile endeavor that's now taken the place of the "tough on crime" campaign, that only serves to make border areas MORE violent, with absolutely no impact on migration flows (we have decades of research and evidence on this). Focus on actually addressing the inability of low-income workers to come into the US, when their labor is desperately needed in a number of domestic industries, with new guest worker program reforms (and the ability to reapply for visas within the US), visa program reforms, and reducing the major hassle most non-developed state residents have entering the US (eg. China). 5) "leave it to the states"...yeah no. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On November 08 2014 04:12 Doublemint wrote: No disagreement here, basically. Though we - as in the western world - just have RELIED on the likes of Assad, Gaddafi and Mubarak etc... to keep things "in order" and make it look like they are terrible and not in any way related to us and our interests. Now that that jinn is out of the bottle,we don't know what the fuck to do. The Western World (mostly FR/UK) fucked up the Middle East since 1918, unfortunately. Artificial borders, the dictators to keep a lid on both Islamism and secular pan-Arab nationalism, and really fking up with Israel/Palestine (The Occupation is one of the main handicaps to US efforts in the Region: the last two US commanders of CENTCOM have both agreed on this). I'll just point to Waltz and say I agree with him here. http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.586082 (interview with an Israeli News site, very interesting to see) Edit: looks like its paywalled now, hmm. Well if someone wants a good piece on Palestine, I'll recommend the movie "The Gatekeepers". The core of it is interviews with all surviving former heads of the Shin Bet. Fantastic documentary. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 08 2014 04:29 Lord Tolkien wrote: The Western World (particularly FR/UK) fucked up the Middle East since 1918, unfortunately. Artificial borders, the dictators to keep a lid on both Islamism and secular pan-Arab nationalism, and really fking up with Israel/Palestine (The Occupation is one of the main handicaps to US efforts in the Region: the last two US commanders of CENTCOM have both agreed on this). I'll just point to Waltz and say I agree with him here. http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.586082 (interview with an Israeli News site, very interesting to see) Way before 1918 actually. But since the end of WW2, it's the US who are fucking things up. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On November 08 2014 04:38 WhiteDog wrote: Way before 1918 actually. But since the end of WW2, it's the US who are fucking things up. Eh. Iran 1950 was instigated by the British first (Operation Ajax was still a CIA affair however), and the Suez crisis was a clusterfk all around. US policy on Israel is tied by the powerful Israel lobby (still political suicide for a politician or government official to criticize Israel [have friends with Albright/Truman scholarships who also are strongly discouraged from it], but that's changing [Jewish-Americans are increasingly disenchanted by Israeli policies, and Evangelical Christians, the main component of the lobby, are dying demographically]). Really, it's more that Europe has had no influence in Mid-East politics since the Suez as no one respects them in the region (I've attended a lecture by a former Rabin cabinet member, who basically stated as much [he was an interesting man; said that Israel could never trust the Arabs, and was also arguing for a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank]). | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 08 2014 04:52 Lord Tolkien wrote: Eh. Iran 1950 was instigated by the British first (Operation Ajax was still a CIA affair however), and the Suez crisis was a clusterfk all around. US policy on Israel is tied by the powerful Israel lobby (still political suicide for a politician or government official to criticize Israel [have friends with Albright/Truman scholarships who also are strongly discouraged from it], but that's changing [Jewish-Americans are increasingly disenchanted by Israeli policies, and Evangelical Christians, the main component of the lobby, are dying demographically]). Really, it's more that Europe has had no influence in Mid-East politics since the Suez as no one respects them in the region (I've attended a lecture by a former Rabin cabinet member, who basically stated as much [he was an interesting man; said that Israel could never trust the Arabs, and was also arguing for a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank]). Europe has no influence since the death of De Gaulle anyway (yeah i'm kinda biased maybe). Too much tard running in office in here. Doesn't change the fact that the US is fucking things up (yeah maybe not exactly since the end of ww2). Accept that you took the mantle man. And anybody coming from Rabin's cabinet is not to be listened (or any other politician to be fair). | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8559 Posts
On November 08 2014 04:52 Lord Tolkien wrote: Eh. Iran 1950 was instigated by the British first (Operation Ajax was still a CIA affair however), and the Suez crisis was a clusterfk all around. US policy on Israel is tied by the powerful Israel lobby (still political suicide for a politician or government official to criticize Israel [have friends with Albright/Truman scholarships who also are strongly discouraged from it], but that's changing [Jewish-Americans are increasingly disenchanted by Israeli policies, and Evangelical Christians, the main component of the lobby, are dying demographically]). Really, it's more that Europe has had no influence in Mid-East politics since the Suez as no one respects them in the region (I've attended a lecture by a former Rabin cabinet member, who basically stated as much [he was an interesting man; said that Israel could never trust the Arabs, and was also arguing for a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank]). This can't change fast enough really. Hardliners making an already absurd clusterfuck of a situation even more impossible to handle. Europeans have their fair share of blame but there's no doubt that the US is standing on the helm right now. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 08 2014 04:21 Lord Tolkien wrote: 3) Minimum wage increases are ultimately meaningless (economic research is pretty clear on this: it'll only affects high schoolers and the very young with no impact on the people who most need it) No it's not. If you raise the minimum wage you effectively raise the wages of everyone near minimum wage. The veterans in retail aren't going to accept suddenly being on equal footing with the high schoolers getting the new minimum wage. http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens. Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high-school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 88 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase are age 20 or older, and 55 percent are women. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23287 Posts
On November 08 2014 05:55 IgnE wrote: No it's not. If you raise the minimum wage you effectively raise the wages of everyone near minimum wage. The veterans in retail aren't going to accept suddenly being on equal footing with the high schoolers getting the new minimum wage. http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm Blows my mind you can pay $2.13 an hour if your patrons tip your employees well enough. | ||
| ||
