EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2426
| 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. | ||
|
always_winter
United States195 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Similarly, we can say the U.S. did the same thing in Iran. There was a stable government and we overthrew it to install someone who was more favorable to us. The backlash came, and Iran is what it is today. | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
On October 22 2015 01:32 xDaunt wrote: Biden is a walking gaffe machine and already a multi-time, failed presidential candidate. Policy and position considerations aside, Biden simply is not a good democratic candidate and never was going to be one, which is why so many on the right found it hilarious that so many democrats were looking at Biden as a potential savior (you may recall snarky posts from me and others on this point). To be fair, Reagan ran for president twice before winning on his third try, and many people thought he was a joke (starring in Bedtime for Bonzo didn't help) . While Biden may be gaffe prone, and that is the accepted goto narrative regarding him, I don't think he is in fact any more gaffe prone than any of the Republican candidates. And the gaffes are balanced by the genuineness that comes across when he speaks off the cuff. People see that too. Not to mention, being gaffe-prone doesn't mean you are a joke of a candidate. It may not help your candidacy, but having crappy policy positions ought to be the deciding factor there. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24505 Posts
On October 22 2015 01:32 xDaunt wrote: Biden is a walking gaffe machine and already a multi-time, failed presidential candidate. Policy and position considerations aside, Biden simply is not a good democratic candidate and never was going to be one, which is why so many on the right found it hilarious that so many democrats were looking at Biden as a potential savior (you may recall snarky posts from me and others on this point). Who is the potential Republican/conservative savior again? We all know it isn't Scott Walker, despite the early conservative hype. | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
On October 22 2015 01:45 Mohdoo wrote: Bush created a terrible situation. Obama was getting things going a good direction, then let politics pull us out of Iraq. Now, if Russia ends up securing both Iraq and Syria, Iraq complete disaster and we become 100x more reliant on Israel than previously. I think it is fair to blame Obama for how he treats the disaster. Every president will inherit disasters. I am still a strong Obama supporter, but there's no way to say that Russian relations with Iraq would be clearly our fault. If the bar for any intervention the US does will be set such that henceforth nobody the US dislikes will have relations with the intervened upon country, then the US might as well just conquer them and officially make them US Territories. Historically Russia/Soviet Union had closer ties to Iraq and Syria than the US ever did prior to the US invasion of Iraq. They are on Russia's backdoor after all. It seems silly and even counter-productive to me to expect them to abstain from the usual sorts of relations great powers have with smaller countries in their regions. If your fear is that Russia will begin to have de facto control over these countries, then I concede that wouldn't be desireable, but I don't see where one gets from aiding direct to controlling when the US is still so heavily involved. | ||
KwarK
United States44442 Posts
One must remember that Russia, as a serious global power, has been around for about 70 years and hasn't really done much of anything in that time outside of Europe. | ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9016 Posts
On October 22 2015 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote: Who is the potential Republican/conservative savior again? We all know it isn't Scott Walker, despite the early conservative hype. Republicans don't need a savior, we actually have a legit race going on.  | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24505 Posts
On October 22 2015 04:19 LuckyFool wrote: Republicans don't need a savior, we actually have a legit race going on. Not sure if that's sarcasm or not? If Republicans think the ~50% supporting Carson and Trump is a "legit race" you all can run with that lol. | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
On October 22 2015 04:13 KwarK wrote: Historically Russia/USSR have had no impact on the Persian Gulf countries. Historically that area was dominated by the imperial European powers while Russia had no influence outside of the Black Sea. Historically Russia was meant to become a Mediterranean power at the expense of Ottoman Turkey but the collapse of Imperial Russia and their exit from the Great War ended that. Historically the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East fell under Anglo French domination following the end of the Great War with Soviet power reaching no further south than the Caspian and northern Afghanistan. While Hitler did historically suggest that Stalin make an attempt on the British Near East and India during the Second World War historically speaking that did not happen and there were no territorial ambitions in that area until the invasion of Afghanistan which, historically speaking, had always been a buffer zone between the British and the Russians and, geographically speaking, is nowhere near Iraq. One must remember that Russia, as a serious global power, has been around for about 70 years and hasn't really done much of anything in that time outside of Europe. Not true. I give you the Great Game. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
Plus you can't deny the active involvement the Soviet Union had with Iraq (providing arms, etc., including during the Iran-Iraq war), and later Russia was one of Iraq's sole supporters after the first Gulf War. To state "Historically Russia/USSR have had no impact on the Persian Gulf countries" is silly. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On October 22 2015 02:58 ticklishmusic wrote: Iran's Supreme Leader Approves Nuclear Deal He uses a lot of the old Great Satan rhetoric, but IMO it's more sticking to form than anything. He doesn't make any demands that materially affect the deal. That's pretty impressive. I was expecting him to rail against the deal. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22703 Posts
On October 22 2015 04:42 JinDesu wrote: That's pretty impressive. I was expecting him to rail against the deal. Pretty sure the deal would not have moved forward if he hadn't already given his support behind the scenes. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44442 Posts
I suggest you read that article. It is not concerned with Iraq. It refers primarily to the conflicts in Afghanistan between the British Empire and Imperial Russia with India and western China as a periphery. The gulf states aren't really involved and were outside Russia's sphere of influence. I don't know exactly what "Russia's backdoor" means to you but Iraq is a far distance from Russia. | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
On October 22 2015 05:02 KwarK wrote: I suggest you read that article. It is not concerned with Iraq. It refers primarily to the conflicts in Afghanistan. You made many categorical statements in your post regarding Russia's historical ambitions, the Great Game refutes a few of them. It deals with Persia as well as Afghanistan. You stated While Hitler did historically suggest that Stalin make an attempt on the British Near East and India during the Second World War historically speaking that did not happen and there were no territorial ambitions in that area until the invasion of Afghanistan and the Great Game refutes that assertion as both Afghanistan and Persia factored into Russia's territorial and influence ambitions way back in the 19th century. See also the Anglo-Russian invasion of Iran.It is true that Russia's involvement with middle-eastern nations (Meaning Iraq, Syria) doesn't really ramp up much until the advent of the 20th century, but that involvement has been extensive in Iraq and Syria, especially since the 50's. That is a historical relationship at least as important as the US involvement in that timeframe, if not almost certainly more important. | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
On October 22 2015 05:02 KwarK wrote: I don't know exactly what "Russia's backdoor" means to you but Iraq is a far distance from Russia. Iraq is as far from Russia as Milwaukee is from Minneapolis. If Honduras and Nicaragua are at our backdoor so to speak, I think you can concede that Iraq is at Russia's backdoor. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24505 Posts
Sounds like Ryan squeaked out of that one... maybe. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) made clear what would need to happen for him to jump into the speaker's race. But the conservative hardliners that have been roiling their own leadership aren't about to make it easy for him "With a lot of the folks in the Freedom Caucus, he's still up in the air," Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) -- speaking of the group blamed for pushing Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to resign and causing his presumed successor House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to withdraw his candidacy -- told TPM. "Most folks have never been used to someone applying for a job and telling you, 'I don't do windows, I don't do beds," Salmon said After being begged by many members to jump in the race, Ryan laid out his conditions Tuesday -- a unified party, weekends with his family, and the nixing of procedural maneuvers hardliners often used to threaten coups against the speaker. Coming out of a conference meeting Wednesday morning, some conservatives were rubbed the wrong by some of those demands, as well as the demand-making itself. "His list of demands were so bold, they pass into almost the unreasonable," Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said on CNN Wednesday morning. Boehner announced Wednesday that caucus elections for speaker will take place Oct. 28 and the full floor vote on Oct. 29. Ryan said he wanted by Friday the endorsement of three influential conference groups across the party's spectrum: the Freedom Caucus, the more traditionally conservative Republican Study Committee and the pragmatic Tuesday Group. He will have mere days to meet with the groups and round up their support, otherwise the speaker race could be pushed into chaos. Of most concern to the hardliners is the suggestion that Ryan wanted to get rid of what is know as the motion to vacate the chair. Source | ||
|
KwarK
United States44442 Posts
On October 22 2015 05:20 frazzle wrote: Iraq is as far from Russia as Milwaukee is from Minneapolis. If Honduras and Nicaragua are at our backdoor so to speak, I think you can concede that Iraq is at Russia's backdoor. Nicaragua is not at your backdoor. New York is closer to Moscow than Vladivostok but I'm not about to use that fact to prove that New York is on Russia's backdoor, all it proves is that Russia is pretty big. | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
On October 22 2015 05:31 KwarK wrote: Nicaragua is not at your backdoor. New York is closer to Moscow than Vladivostok but I'm not about to use that fact to prove that New York is on Russia's backdoor, all it proves is that Russia is pretty big. Perhaps backyard is the better term. In any case the exact term is unimportant, it is the sense I was trying, and apparently failing, to convey that matters. You could argue over what "close by" means, but it would be disingenuous to use your comparison. Iraq is a mere 400 miles from North-South-Ossetia in which Russia was recently involved in militarily. Iraq is 600 miles from Crimea. We're not talking Siberia or meaningless Russian territories. Meanwhile Iraq is nearly 7,000 miles from the United States. Are we really going to argue over this point? In terms of proximity, without knowing anything else, I think it is reasonable to say that one would think it more likely for Russia to be involved in Iraq than the United States, or to put it in geo-political terms, for Iraq to be in Russia's sphere of influence. | ||
| ||
