|
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. |
On April 05 2016 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:
Imperialism is nothing new. The weak get overtaken. The only difference is that now we see failed states as something worth saving.
Yeah, natural selection has a lot to do with geo-political relations. These are super good points you are making here. Failed states are where terrorism finds a home, so if you want more of them, you want more terrorism.
|
On April 05 2016 06:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party? It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did. Or perhaps the Syrian people should be expected to solve their own problems else face the consequences of other countries that couldn't make it.
You can expect it but this has some very clear downsides:
1) You undermine the role of the UN and the principles on which the current security situation is built:
a) According to the UN, you ought to intervene in a conflict if it has "cross-border" implications, such as creating a refugee crisis. The Syrian conflict has created the greatest refugee crisis since WWII.
b) According to the UN, you ought to intervene if there are war crimes or crimes against humanity (hello chemical weapons against civilians): "The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." (paragraph 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome document.
If you fail to intervene, you encourage states to ignore these limits. Who's next to use chemical weapons, I wonder. And if you fail to act, you encourage unilateral intervention (hello, bombing ISIS under no clear plan).
2) There's a clear moral argument for not being non-interventionist. Repressive military dictatorships are called that for a reason. They hold onto power with force. You generally need force (not necessarily military) to dislodge them. To ask civilians to achieve this when the state is actively dedicating most of its resources to avoiding it is cruel, if a better alternative can be found. I'd like to remind you that without US intervention, even if not military, I wouldn't be writing these words now.
3) You avoid becoming isolated and bigoted. Instead of thinking that Syrians are savages (something you haven't yet apologized for), you might meet them and find them charming. Because all people, no matter where they live and what color their skin, are generally nice and worth keeping alive.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 04 2016 22:23 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:ye taiwan where all the elites went and got colonized and improved by japan as one of the only colonies japan treated well enough to like japan after the imperial period great comparison i honestly cant get over how good this suggestion is Show nested quote +i mean srsly, referencing india to defend china is retarded. compare it to taiwan its a work of art im considering incorporating it into my sig i'll be generous and break it down for you in short form
citing taiwan as alternate comparison refers to cultural and social factors present in both and lacking with india. whitedoge wants to draw comparison by population size which is just dumb.
as for elite taiwan's education system was established before the nationalist govt got kicked there. the education attainment of even the bottom half of the taiwan population was far superior to maoist china. this should not even be arguable because of how shitty education in mao's china was. i mean you are literally looking at great leap forward and cultural revolution lol. china during mao pales to taiwan in development because of mao, not because of taiwan being that good. get that through your skull
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
and gh here's the evidence you wanted in case you didn't see earlier.
https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/bernie-vs-hillary-boils-over-nevada-clark-convention
look into the link in that. we've got a sanders volunteer mailing clinton delegate information to sanders campaign, falsifying information about the convention, and all the while making highly charged and biased remarks on social media declaring her partisan status.
it's further noted in the link that she tried to mislead and in some instances force people to pay a POLL TAX to attend the convention.
|
On April 05 2016 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:34 puerk wrote:On April 05 2016 06:25 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party? It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did. Or perhaps the Syrian people should be expected to solve their own problems else face the consequences of other countries that couldn't make it. ... yeah "they should solve their own problems that we caused" - makes sense Are you familiar with how modern day borders were established? Are these the same borders as 600 years ago? What changed and why? Weak, failed states need to crumble.
You mean the Sykes-Picot agreement between the UK and France that created artificial state borders that make no sense? http://www.theguardian.com/world/on-the-middle-east/2015/dec/30/middle-east-still-rocking-from-first-world-war-pacts-made-100-years-ago
|
Sorry that this is off-topic, but a quick US politics question:
I am the polar opposite of a Trump supporter, but watching the leadership of the Republican party be so against the person who has been the frontrunner for essentially the entire primary sits very oddly with me. Can anyone think of an example similar to this, where the leadership of a party openly talk against the frontrunner, or just the negativity in general?
|
On April 05 2016 06:41 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:34 puerk wrote:On April 05 2016 06:25 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party? It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did. Or perhaps the Syrian people should be expected to solve their own problems else face the consequences of other countries that couldn't make it. ... yeah "they should solve their own problems that we caused" - makes sense Are you familiar with how modern day borders were established? Are these the same borders as 600 years ago? What changed and why? Weak, failed states need to crumble. yes, no, imperialism, and are you familiar with the iraq war?
That's the place where america took out its leaders, then left it without a strong leader, and so it got overridden by ISIS, something easily stopped from happening had the US simply stayed in Iraq long enough for 2-3 generations of iraqis to only know a life working with the united states instead of children who are still too close to the original war.
|
On April 05 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:
Imperialism is nothing new. The weak get overtaken. The only difference is that now we see failed states as something worth saving. Yeah, natural selection has a lot to do with geo-political relations. These are super good points you are making here. Failed states are where terrorism finds a home, so if you want more of them, you want more terrorism.
Ehm, without Western intervention ISIS is winning, it is not the failed state in this scenario.
Terrorism is coming from the strong state that is allowed to fester by the failing of the surrounding weak states, which were propped up by Western support for decades.
|
On April 05 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:
Imperialism is nothing new. The weak get overtaken. The only difference is that now we see failed states as something worth saving. Yeah, natural selection has a lot to do with geo-political relations. These are super good points you are making here. Failed states are where terrorism finds a home, so if you want more of them, you want more terrorism.
What are you saying here? Natural selection played no role in the establishment of modern day borders? When did natural selection stop being acceptable? When would a state not be worth saving?
On April 05 2016 06:56 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:34 puerk wrote:On April 05 2016 06:25 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party? It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did. Or perhaps the Syrian people should be expected to solve their own problems else face the consequences of other countries that couldn't make it. ... yeah "they should solve their own problems that we caused" - makes sense Are you familiar with how modern day borders were established? Are these the same borders as 600 years ago? What changed and why? Weak, failed states need to crumble. You mean the Sykes-Picot agreement between the UK and France that created artificial state borders that make no sense? http://www.theguardian.com/world/on-the-middle-east/2015/dec/30/middle-east-still-rocking-from-first-world-war-pacts-made-100-years-ago
Who did the borders make no sense to? Why weren't they able to change it? Where was their voice? Did their voice have enough power to influence borders?
|
natural selection stopped being acceptable when we became conscious enough and able to be compassionate
|
On April 05 2016 06:57 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:41 puerk wrote:On April 05 2016 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:34 puerk wrote:On April 05 2016 06:25 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party? It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did. Or perhaps the Syrian people should be expected to solve their own problems else face the consequences of other countries that couldn't make it. ... yeah "they should solve their own problems that we caused" - makes sense Are you familiar with how modern day borders were established? Are these the same borders as 600 years ago? What changed and why? Weak, failed states need to crumble. yes, no, imperialism, and are you familiar with the iraq war? That's the place where america took out its leaders, then left it without a strong leader, and so it got overridden by ISIS, something easily stopped from happening had the US simply stayed in Iraq long enough for 2-3 generations of iraqis to only know a life working with the united states instead of children who are still too close to the original war.
I once made a similar point about instating democracy in another country (like was tried in Iraq). It would be a process that takes generations to cultivate, during which you have to oversee the smooth functioning of society and protect the very fragile process.
No one is willing to commit to such a timeline, which is why these attempts keep failing.
Either do it right or don't touch it, you will only make it worse.
|
On April 05 2016 06:56 Saryph wrote:
Sorry that this is off-topic, but a quick US politics question:
I am the polar opposite of a Trump supporter, but watching the leadership of the Republican party be so against the person who has been the frontrunner for essentially the entire primary sits very oddly with me. Can anyone think of an example similar to this, where the leadership of a party openly talk against the frontrunner, or just the negativity in general?
Trump is a not a republican. The same way Sanders is a not a Democrat. Sanders does not have Superdelegate support because most democrats hate working with him and find him very difficult to negotiate with--primarily because he is bullheaded and does not accept other viewpoints apart from his own. However, during the primaries, there is no one disallowed from running in them.
So we have Sanders on one side, Trump on the other. The Democrats made Superdelegates so when popular figures who don't have the same beliefs as the party appear, (such as Trump vs the GOP) the party has a chance to correct it.
For example, Trump could have easily started his campaign running as democrat, told all his teaparty supporters to switch democrat and fill the lines with their votes. And suddenly you have a general election of Republican Cruz vs Democrat Trump. Fearing things like this, Democrats made Superdelegates which means you need to have a lot of internal friends and lots of support from inside the party to really have a chance at winning. Not so with the Republican primaries, and hence why you have Trump.
|
On April 05 2016 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party? Just a note: You call them savages. I have dear friends in Syria. While they themselves are not fighting there, their friends are. Regular people with the kind of education you and I have (probably better than most people in this thread, generally from colleges in the US and Germany), but when your home is bombed and your family starts disappearing, people are willing to fight for what they believe. It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did. A lot of lives were lost that could have been avoided; either by not making empty promises or following up on one's words.
Indeed, though it should be noted that Congressional opposition and a general unpopularity of further foreign engagements within the United States does/did tie Obama's hands on the issue of Syria, and there was little support or effort made by the Europeans to get involved (which was essential for Obama to sell the Libya intervention).
These are of course excuses. With hindsight, it's highly likely that a quick, forceful intervention early on during the civil war would've helped significantly mitigate the crisis and moderately likely to deny ISIS their powerbase in Syria, and 100% what we should've done, but I am the resident liberal internationalist so I do tend to hold these opinions regarding US engagement and the need for US involvement abroad.
It's still unlikely that we're going to get overtly involved in Syria, at least under the current administration. Obama has generally made it clear he wants the US to be less involved and focused on foreign affairs, and has largely shunned the professional foreign policy community. His administration refers to all the foreign policy think tanks in DC as "Arab-occupied territory" after all. No matter how much Secretary Kerry tries to lobby the international community for a concerted effort in Syria, with a reluctant President, it's unlikely anything will be accomplished without US leadership on the issue.
|
On April 05 2016 07:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:57 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 05 2016 06:41 puerk wrote:On April 05 2016 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:34 puerk wrote:On April 05 2016 06:25 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 05 2016 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:We tried to use a group of savages. Turned out to be a group of savages. What a surprise. Edit: It is bizarre how open this whole situation is. It truly is "the media against Trump" 6 Talk Radio Hosts, on a Mission to Stop Trump in Wisconsin
MILWAUKEE — Charlie Sykes, a popular talk radio host here and leader of the “Stop Trump” movement, had spent months hammering Donald J. Trump on his show, calling him a “whiny, thin-skinned bully” and dismissing his supporters as “Trumpkins.”
If Trump loses, and he feels like there is a hint of illegitimacy to his defeat, he will run third party. No doubt in my mind. Why is the GOP trying so hard to make sure he runs as a third party? It's a travesty that the US bungled it's support for moderate rebels as badly as it did. Or perhaps the Syrian people should be expected to solve their own problems else face the consequences of other countries that couldn't make it. ... yeah "they should solve their own problems that we caused" - makes sense Are you familiar with how modern day borders were established? Are these the same borders as 600 years ago? What changed and why? Weak, failed states need to crumble. yes, no, imperialism, and are you familiar with the iraq war? That's the place where america took out its leaders, then left it without a strong leader, and so it got overridden by ISIS, something easily stopped from happening had the US simply stayed in Iraq long enough for 2-3 generations of iraqis to only know a life working with the united states instead of children who are still too close to the original war. I once made a similar point about instating democracy in another country (like was tried in Iraq). It would be a process that takes generations to cultivate, during which you have to oversee the smooth functioning of society and protect the very fragile process. No one is willing to commit to such a timeline, which is why these attempts keep failing. Either do it right or don't touch it, you will only make it worse.
It does work, in a sense, the Philippines was ruled by Spain for 300 years and it went from being warring islands and villages into a unified country. Did it take 300 years? Yes. But that's the kind of commitment you need if you really want to go into a nation and change the way they see themselves. Are people willing to rule foreign lands for 200-300 years at a time now a days? Of course not. Which is why we have problems like Iraq. For the most part, people don't have the stomach or the patience to actually enact change. Most people would rather say they are revolutionary than actually be revolutionary.
|
On April 05 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2016 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:
Imperialism is nothing new. The weak get overtaken. The only difference is that now we see failed states as something worth saving. Yeah, natural selection has a lot to do with geo-political relations. These are super good points you are making here. Failed states are where terrorism finds a home, so if you want more of them, you want more terrorism. What are you saying here? Natural selection played no role in the establishment of modern day borders? When did natural selection stop being acceptable? When would a state not be worth saving?
First of all, the modern borders were established in 1918. Many of the nations in the Middle East "fake nations" filled with people who don't identify as the country they are from. The nations and powers structures around them were not created by the people in those nations. This includes Syria, which was "created" by the French in 1924. And then the revolt took place soon after and was put down by the French.
You can ask for the state to fail, but it won't go back to a group of tribes like it was before the western powers show up. A new nation will rise out of it. At this point, that new nation calls itself ISIS.
On April 05 2016 07:01 puerk wrote:
natural selection stopped being acceptable when we became conscious enough and able to be compassionate
And when you accept the political reality that the people who take over might be totally hostile to you.
|
Lord Tolkien is on point as usual.
Just because it ties in so nicely with this topic, some news about a potential 3rd party run that would shake things up on this front:
In a recent interview with the Daily Caller, retired four-star General James Mattis was pressed as to whether he would consider jumping into the 2016 presidential race as a third party candidate. In recent days, conservative pundits, including Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, have floated the general’s name as a possible alternative to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton if the two front-runners were to secure their respective party’s nominations. Mattis, who is currently serving as a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institute, skirted the subject, saying that he hadn’t heard about Kristol’s comments. “I haven’t seen the reports and I’m quite sure it’s just idle talk,” Mattis told reporter Jamie Weinstein. When asked whether he would consider running if drafted, Mattis asked that Weinstein change the subject. He said, “I prefer not to discuss further, Jamie.” Of course, in presidential politics, not wanting to further “discuss” the prospects of running is a far cry from ruling out the possibility of running. While the general may have not been privy to his name being floated as a presidential candidate in recent weeks, many members of the armed forces have been pushing him to run for the Oval Office for years. In a 2015 speech at Columbia Basin College in Washington state, Mattis was asked if he would consider running for the nation's highest office but dismissed the idea saying he didn’t think his personality would play well in the political world. ”I've lived a very colorful life and I've said some things," he told the audience. "But not once have I taken them back, and I've never apologized for them — and I won't. I like the enemy knowing there are a few guys like me around.” These words may now be coming back to haunt him as the 2016 election cycle has been marked by a backlash against political correctness and a desire among some voters for the very type of straight talk that Mattis is known for. Some of Mattis’ more memorable quotes include: - “The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some a**holes in the world that just need to be shot.” - “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you f*** with me, I’ll kill you all.” - “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” - “No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.” Bluntness aside, Mattis is also known as a student of history and economics and has drawn comparison to Dwight D. Eisenhower, who became president after serving as a general in World War II. Mattis led the First Marine Division into the Euphrates River Valley at the onset of the Iraq War while also serving in a diplomatic capacity as the Commander of U.S. Central Command. Mattis has not addressed the prospect of being a part of a third party ticket since the initial interview with the Daily Caller. Source
|
On April 05 2016 06:55 oneofthem wrote:and gh here's the evidence you wanted in case you didn't see earlier. https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/bernie-vs-hillary-boils-over-nevada-clark-conventionlook into the link in that. we've got a sanders volunteer mailing clinton delegate information to sanders campaign, falsifying information about the convention, and all the while making highly charged and biased remarks on social media declaring her partisan status. it's further noted in the link that she tried to mislead and in some instances force people to pay a POLL TAX to attend the convention.
I already posted this. We have the hillary camp claiming to have evidence but not actually posting it, and threatening legal action but not taking it. How about some hard evidence? How about everyone on the local level (including the hillary volunteers on the same exact committee) disagreeing with you? You have not brought anything new to the table that I did not bring up with the US uncut article. We know the Hillary camp is alleging voter fraud. They allege a lot of things, something hillary probably picked up too much of from the Benghazi and email hearings. Allegations =\= evidence, let alone proof which is how you seem to treat them.
|
On April 05 2016 06:56 Saryph wrote:
Sorry that this is off-topic, but a quick US politics question:
I am the polar opposite of a Trump supporter, but watching the leadership of the Republican party be so against the person who has been the frontrunner for essentially the entire primary sits very oddly with me. Can anyone think of an example similar to this, where the leadership of a party openly talk against the frontrunner, or just the negativity in general?
It again comes down to the 2 party system.
In most other democratic countries a take over like this could never happen because the diversity within a single party does not exist.
If the Trump/Cruz side of the Republican party and the Bush/Romney side where in different parties then a Trump trying to run as a Bush candidate wouldn't even get 1% of their vote. But because the 2 party system forces these sides to unite you allow for the possibility where a candidate can go against the wishes of the leadership.
It also helps that the Tea Party is a reasonably new movement within the Republican party and they have no supporters in the older and more established leadership. So you have a new young majority within the party who hold very radical views and who have come to the Republican side because the only other option (the Democrats) is even further from their view.
|
On April 05 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 06:58 Mohdoo wrote:On April 05 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2016 06:44 Mohdoo wrote:
Imperialism is nothing new. The weak get overtaken. The only difference is that now we see failed states as something worth saving. Yeah, natural selection has a lot to do with geo-political relations. These are super good points you are making here. Failed states are where terrorism finds a home, so if you want more of them, you want more terrorism. What are you saying here? Natural selection played no role in the establishment of modern day borders? When did natural selection stop being acceptable? When would a state not be worth saving? First of all, the modern borders were established in 1918. Many of the nations in the Middle East "fake nations" filled with people who don't identify as the country they are from. The nations and powers structures around them were not created by the people in those nations. This includes Syria, which was "created" by the French in 1924. And then the revolt took place soon after and was put down by the French. You can ask for the state to fail, but it won't go back to a group of tribes like it was before the western powers show up. A new nation will rise out of it. At this point, that new nation calls itself ISIS. Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 07:01 puerk wrote:
natural selection stopped being acceptable when we became conscious enough and able to be compassionate And when you accept the political reality that the people who take over might be totally hostile to you.
I think you're talking pass each other.
Mohdoo is asking, if Syria can't defend itself from ISIS, then why shouldn't ISIS take over?
|
On April 05 2016 06:55 oneofthem wrote:and gh here's the evidence you wanted in case you didn't see earlier. https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/bernie-vs-hillary-boils-over-nevada-clark-conventionlook into the link in that. we've got a sanders volunteer mailing clinton delegate information to sanders campaign, falsifying information about the convention, and all the while making highly charged and biased remarks on social media declaring her partisan status. it's further noted in the link that she tried to mislead and in some instances force people to pay a POLL TAX to attend the convention.
I see allegations from Hillary's camp and Ralston's apparent misunderstanding of the delegates (surprising because he's one of the most knowledgeable public faces for NV politics). At least that's what my resident caucus rule guru tells me the rules mean.
It's rather telling that all it has from the other side is that video and nothing else. The email thing has been explained in that HFA was having improper conversation (rules say they have to be open). Without the email chain we can't really know which side is telling more of the truth. If information they didn't want public was on the email chain I'm pretty sure HFA had the responsibility of not having that conversation with the committee. It get's complicated and the process is a mess but we have bigger problems ahead, NY, CA, PA all have reports of voter registration problems (like the ones proven in AZ) and none of you will bet on the length of lines because you know, I know, and the NY Democrats, and the DNC all know there are going to be problems but I'm not hearing anything about what they are doing to try to prevent them.
So it rings disingenuous af to get ones panties all in a twist on this (when the problem plain and simple is that not enough Hillary folks showed up regardless of any allegations of foul play) and have nothing to say on the problems we'll see in upcoming states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
