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.
On March 12 2016 06:41 Danglars wrote: If we're talking about appeals to emotion, the right answer is to make sure more atrocities occur, more killings, and bring chaos to many more millions of people. I swear y'all will dream up arguments for outright colonialism and taking sides in every civil war if this continues.
On March 12 2016 06:33 ticklishmusic wrote: Err... so if I remember correctly there were all sorts of atrocities going on and Qaddafi had an armored convoy headed over for what was probably not a picnic and probably involved killing 10's of thousands of civilians/ rebels who really couldn't fight back. Were we supposed to just sit on our hands and let that happen?
Khadafi was about to reveal he financed Sarkozy's campaign. Then France put all his weight to start this war because Sarkozy did not want to deal with this kind stuff. + Show Spoiler +
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has signed one of the nation's most aggressive pieces of pro-climate legislation into law.
The measure signed on Friday makes Oregon the first state to eliminate coal from its energy supply by legislation, which will happen in phases through 2030.
It also requires utilities to provide half of their customers' power from renewable sources by 2040, which doubles the previous standard. That helps Oregon climb the ranks for renewable energy as well, joining five other states with the most stringent requirements in the U.S.
Brown and her fellow Democrats said it's an important step in Oregon's shift from fossil fuels to clean energy. Republican lawmakers strongly opposed it, citing concerns about rising consumer costs and overstated environmental benefits.
Super proud of Brown. She's done a lot of good for our state. She is one cut throat woman and watching her rise to governor was like something out of house of cards. Do not mess with that woman.
On March 12 2016 06:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Clinton has managed to piss even her supporters off with that Nancy Reagan tribute speech and AIDS.
She says she misspoke... That sounds like a load.
That's a long pronounced point she's making, not accidentally saying one name instead of another or something. She believed what she said, I think that is pretty clear.
i actually appreciate when my candidate is willing to admit she's wrong. i guess some people view it through some weird lens where nothing she says is sincere though.
i also feel it necessary to point out that the clinton administration did a lot for the LGBT community (including funding AIDS research).
Even the Alzheimer's defense is seemingly far fetched as Nancy Reagan only advocated for Stem Cell Research after it was found out Ronnie had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's.
On March 12 2016 07:22 ticklishmusic wrote: ah yes it's time for the 5 minute hillary hate
i actually appreciate when my candidate is willing to admit she's wrong. i guess some people view it through some weird lens where nothing she says is sincere though.
It's actually the opposite of that. She said something she either knew was ridiculous or was completely ignorant about what she was talking about.
Misspeaking suggests she didn't mean to say what she did or was imperfect/unclear in saying it. That's obviously not what happened.
On March 12 2016 06:47 Ghanburighan wrote: ...its influence in drafting the Treaty of Versailles...
Am I wrong here or wasn't that treaty a complete loss for Wilson. France and the UK basically took him for a ride. Which is in part why the US fucked over their colonial interests post WWII almost as payback.
...and its unabashed supply-side support of at least the UK if not all the allies in the WW...
Not to be picky, but you are carelessly using inaccurate terminology here. you mean lend-lease, right?
...or due to the famous Chomsky/Buckley debates...
What? They debated? Once again I nitpick, but I thought Chomsky was just a guest on his show once or twice and they debated in that context. And that those 'debates' are at best a minor footnote to a minor footnote to a tangential sideshow to US foreign policy history.
Anyone who watched the last debate can tell what's going on. Hillary herself didn't interrupt Bernie, but the moderators repeatedly let her drone on and constantly interrupted Bernie.
On March 12 2016 05:34 Lord Tolkien wrote: In regards to the intervention in Libya, I maintain the intervention there was absolutely necessary and warranted (as was a full intervention in Syria at the onset), even with its current woes, as without going to hell in a hand-basket. The failure in Libya was one of insufficient post-intervention institution-building: new democracies are especially fragile, especially in states where no such legacy exists: where civil society is weak and disorganized after decades of repression and state control, the government had been staffed by appointees of the old autocracy, and political parties entirely nascent. Without adequate support, such regimes are torn apart by internal political forces.
So what do you do when you have to build a "new democracy" in a country that's too fragile for it, like Libya (or Iraq, or Syria) was? How do you prevent them to be "torn apart by internal political forces"? Do you occupy the country for years and years? Or do you spend your citizens' money to help them?
And you've now hit one of the critical questions of international development. How do we strengthen weak and failing states (not just democracies) and improve internal governance practices? This has been something that we've been trying to answer for decades, really, and as the slow progress of Africa highlights, one we've still not found any easy answers to that. Slowly and with much patience is what we've come up with. It takes time to acclimate populations to peacefully voicing their concerns, to develop functioning political coalitions, to institute good governance practices, etc.
But for your questions, it may certainly require a peacekeeping force, though not always. Yes, it does require international aid, but this is usually multifaceted and involves a combination of IGO, NGO, and government assistance. Additionally, most countries give but a pittance towards international developmental aid as opposed to, say, defense spending or mandatory spending. Most developed countries spend below even 1% of their budget on it as opposed to the size of their mandatory and discretionary spending. For the US, we spend ~0.7% of the budget on developmental aid (or ~1% on international aid if you factor in military assistance into it). Other countries tend to have slightly higher, but relatively similar figures.
Post-genocide Rwanda is a decent case study, and one that you should look at. Very few would predict Rwanda, after a genocide, the fleeing of many thousands of Hutus (causing conflict spillover into the Congo, which should be noted is a reason for intervention), and the utter decimation of the former political structure could rebuild either a functioning government, or one of the fastest growing economies in Africa.
And more importantly, why do you consider that a foreign country is legitimate to intervene in a civil war?
Several reasons really, ranging from the pragmatic (protecting economic interests, ensuring regional stability, promoting our political ideology, values, and influence in the region) to the humanitarian (need I point to past "civil wars" such as Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, or even Syria right now, as damning evidence as to why a military intervention can be entirely necessary, if only to mitigate the scale of human catastrophe). It should also be noted that the rebels in Libya asked for Western assistance (as did Syrian rebels), so it wasn't as if it was unilateral in the slightest: the Libyan intervention was carried with the express approval of the Arab League and the UN, among others and, despite the mess it is currently in, the scale of human suffering it would be in had we done nothing is incomparable.
Very interesting post, thank you for answering me. I'll look up Rwanda, as my knowledge of politics and economics of African states is quite lacking.
On March 12 2016 07:36 kwizach wrote: Sanders accused Hillary of interrupting him often. The facts say he interrupts her much more often (three times more, in fact) than the opposite.
That count is extremely specious. Particularly with no accounting of speaking times, or how long they spoke before being interrupted by another candidate or the moderators.
On March 12 2016 07:36 kwizach wrote: Sanders accused Hillary of interrupting him often. The facts say he interrupts her much more often (three times more, in fact) than the opposite.
That count is extremely specious. Particularly with no accounting of speaking times, or how long they spoke before being interrupted by another candidate or the moderators.
But she's got to be kidding on this AIDS comment.
Again: Sanders accused her of interrupting him. The facts say he interrupts her much more often (three times more, in fact) than the opposite. If he wanted to complain about something else, like his speaking time, he shouldn't have complained about her interrupting him.
Also: an unjustified compliment to a deceased person that she ended up apologizing for... Was she wrong to praise them? Sure. But she apologized and could simply have been poorly briefed on their record. Not the huge deal some people are making it out to be.
On March 12 2016 08:19 Sent. wrote: Would be really funny if people here started arguing about what Clinton said in the same way they argued about Trump's "Islam hates us"
How you think the two are equivalent in any way, shape or form is beyond me.
EPT![[image loading]](http://media.rtl.fr/online/image/2014/1114/7775326438_sarkozy-kadhafi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2016/03/2016_03_09_DemDebateInterruptions-r3-MN2414577921.png)
