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 May 07 2016 04:04 LegalLord wrote: Refugees (and "refugees" who just want citizenship) lie and say exactly what they know their host nation would want them to say. I know this from experience.
I don't really understand why you would lie about the question "are you more afraid of Assad or Isis" in an opinion poll. It's not like either answer gets you anything
well, many of them come from very corrupt places, where you can't trust an opinion poll to not be used by the government. e.g. if you got an opinion poll in Soviet Russia, you'd be mighty careful how you answer.
On Libya, I agree we need more research and planning on how to handle post-war situations. One major challenge is the need for legitimacy by having locals involved in teh government, but the locals that are left are mostly corrupt. Otherwise one could have a prepared set of people from many countries (i.e. have a portable governance group with judges, mayors, and some mid/high bureaucrats and administrators who could run things for awhile and teach/mentor the locals for a decade or two or maybe just a few years, while things are set up).
You can't trust opinion polls ANYWHERE as a refugee seeking asylum. US is guilty of abusing such polls for determining refugee eligibility, and I am quite certain that Europe is as well.
Your plan has been implemented in the past, and it's better known as "colonialism." I'll leave it to you to judge how well that worked out.
results of colonialism are hit or miss. Having a multinational (preferably UN backed) group doing it should help limit some of the risks of it. But also just as a practical matter; even during a temporary occupation that might only last a few years, it'd be good to have some people ready to run things. e.g. after the invasion of Iraq, it still took some time to setup the new Iraq government; so having some people who're capable at being a city mayor and such posts to run things in the meanwhile.
On May 07 2016 05:35 Nyxisto wrote: Blameworthiness is pretty irrelevant compared to consequences. It's not like the decision to to nothing rather than something means that the situation doesn't get worse
From a logical standpoint the current situation is the best outcome. The factions in the middle east are destroying themselves in a meatgrinder. It will ensure Western safety much better then any form of intervention. The lives being lost are regrettable but they are not our citizens.
ISIS exists because the west allows it, we could roll in and remove them from the face of the earth as a nation (the terrorist organization is ofc much much harder to root out. The sad and ugly truth no one wants to hear is that the current situation is just fine.
On May 06 2016 12:30 oneofthem wrote: you'd just watch atrocities take place then? what kind of counterfactual are you working with here
Libya: Overthrew a pretty bad dictator, turned a nation that was stable by comparison into a black hole. So bad that Obama cited it as one of his worst policy decisions in his tenure as presidency (no shit? but maybe his highly experienced SoS should have used her experience to tell him what would happen when you create a power vacuum). Incidentally, that tends to lead to even more death and atrocities than just choosing to do nothing.
Atrocity prevented!
I could go on about how stupid many of the decisions she spearheaded were, as there is a lot to criticize that could be seen even before the fact, but if "preventing atrocities" is the best you can come up with to justify stupid FP then I see no point.
I don't think the Libya intervention was a great idea, but the narrative is over simplified here.
In Syria the West let the regime massacring the opposition, and now the country is utter chaos, and everybody wonders why we didn't do anything.
In Libya, the West helped militarily the opposition but said opposition was unable to stabilize the country and everybody wonders why we went there.
The situation in both country was not that different. A popular uprising against a dictator with some fundamentalist elements.
I don't think we can blame HC for what appears to be a blunder, because the other alternative was maybe worse. I think both Libya and Syria were doomed, and it looks like of the two, Libya is the one doing better.
It's mainly in chaos because of Iraq ... Most of ISIS commanders are Iraqis, things would have turned a lot different if it was not for Iraq. Syria is both a civil war and an invasion.
Whatever the dislike one can have for Hillary, I think it's safe to say she is not responsible for the sorry state of the middle east.
The problem with GH and overal the vibe I get from Bernie right now is that he forgot what was his strength - discussing what actually matter - and lost itself in mud politics. Who cares about Hillary ? Discuss the policies, that's where she is weak by the way, as she is always running after others.
I can't for the life of me understand how the Sanders campaign has turned into personal attacks, ad hominem and mud politics, considering how much he had to offer to the American politics. That's just tragic. From what I have heard and seen, Sandernistas attitude has been toxic from almost the very beginning.
The really really sad thing is that it will be remembered as the left wing Trump, anti-establishment populism, while his platform was mostly positive and had an enormous amount to bring to the national debate.
GH is a good example; he seem to think that Clinton is the devil, while the one thing that REALLY matters is to prevent a lunatic egomaniac monster to become the most powerful man in the world. When people start to consider their own side as the enemy, you know something has gone wrong.
I don't think Clinton is the devil, she's just a terrible candidate to put into the general. By the end of the election if it's those two, somewhere between 60-70% of the country won't like or trust either candidate. That's bad news for Democracy.
On May 06 2016 12:30 oneofthem wrote: you'd just watch atrocities take place then? what kind of counterfactual are you working with here
Libya: Overthrew a pretty bad dictator, turned a nation that was stable by comparison into a black hole. So bad that Obama cited it as one of his worst policy decisions in his tenure as presidency (no shit? but maybe his highly experienced SoS should have used her experience to tell him what would happen when you create a power vacuum). Incidentally, that tends to lead to even more death and atrocities than just choosing to do nothing.
Atrocity prevented!
I could go on about how stupid many of the decisions she spearheaded were, as there is a lot to criticize that could be seen even before the fact, but if "preventing atrocities" is the best you can come up with to justify stupid FP then I see no point.
I don't think the Libya intervention was a great idea, but the narrative is over simplified here.
In Syria the West let the regime massacring the opposition, and now the country is utter chaos, and everybody wonders why we didn't do anything.
In Libya, the West helped militarily the opposition but said opposition was unable to stabilize the country and everybody wonders why we went there.
The situation in both country was not that different. A popular uprising against a dictator with some fundamentalist elements.
I don't think we can blame HC for what appears to be a blunder, because the other alternative was maybe worse. I think both Libya and Syria were doomed, and it looks like of the two, Libya is the one doing better.
It's mainly in chaos because of Iraq ... Most of ISIS commanders are Iraqis, things would have turned a lot different if it was not for Iraq. Syria is both a civil war and an invasion.
Whatever the dislike one can have for Hillary, I think it's safe to say she is not responsible for the sorry state of the middle east.
The problem with GH and overal the vibe I get from Bernie right now is that he forgot what was his strength - discussing what actually matter - and lost itself in mud politics. Who cares about Hillary ? Discuss the policies, that's where she is weak by the way, as she is always running after others.
I can't for the life of me understand how the Sanders campaign has turned into personal attacks, ad hominem and mud politics, considering how much he had to offer to the American politics. That's just tragic. From what I have heard and seen, Sandernistas attitude has been toxic from almost the very beginning.
The really really sad thing is that it will be remembered as the left wing Trump, anti-establishment populism, while his platform was mostly positive and had an enormous amount to bring to the national debate.
GH is a good example; he seem to think that Clinton is the devil, while the one thing that REALLY matters is to prevent a lunatic egomaniac monster to become the most powerful man in the world. When people start to consider their own side as the enemy, you know something has gone wrong.
I don't think Clinton is the devil, she's just a terrible candidate to put into the general. By the end of the election if it's those two, somewhere between 60-70% of the country won't like or trust either candidate. That's bad news for Democracy.
This is the case in every election, especially in a 2 party system where the only chance to stop A is to vote for B.
The current election is a bit more polarized then usual but don't pretend this is something unheard off or unseen before.
On May 07 2016 05:35 Nyxisto wrote: Blameworthiness is pretty irrelevant compared to consequences. It's not like the decision to to nothing rather than something means that the situation doesn't get worse
From a logical standpoint the current situation is the best outcome. The factions in the middle east are destroying themselves in a meatgrinder. It will ensure Western safety much better then any form of intervention. The lives being lost are regrettable but they are not our citizens.
ISIS exists because the west allows it, we could roll in and remove them from the face of the earth as a nation (the terrorist organization is ofc much much harder to root out. The sad and ugly truth no one wants to hear is that the current situation is just fine.
From a cruelty standpoint, its the worse outcome.
It always makes sense to not help others if its hard, until it is you who needs the help.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of the US getting blamed for everything that I would rather let atrocities happen than have the US get into another quagmire again. Even if it's under the UN, it's pretty obvious that the US is going to do the heavy lifting while other countries will do the finger pointing. And it's going to be "The US is meddling in another country again" and "The UN is just a US puppet" bla bla bla.
Some countries are just not culturally ready to be a developed country. They need to fix their shit on their own terms. Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea advanced economically under dictatorships before transitioning to a more democratic government. At the end of the day, they are not our citizens and the western world shouldn't be responsible to fix everybody else's problems. Let Russia and China accept refugees if they are so great.
On May 06 2016 12:30 oneofthem wrote: you'd just watch atrocities take place then? what kind of counterfactual are you working with here
Libya: Overthrew a pretty bad dictator, turned a nation that was stable by comparison into a black hole. So bad that Obama cited it as one of his worst policy decisions in his tenure as presidency (no shit? but maybe his highly experienced SoS should have used her experience to tell him what would happen when you create a power vacuum). Incidentally, that tends to lead to even more death and atrocities than just choosing to do nothing.
Atrocity prevented!
I could go on about how stupid many of the decisions she spearheaded were, as there is a lot to criticize that could be seen even before the fact, but if "preventing atrocities" is the best you can come up with to justify stupid FP then I see no point.
I don't think the Libya intervention was a great idea, but the narrative is over simplified here.
In Syria the West let the regime massacring the opposition, and now the country is utter chaos, and everybody wonders why we didn't do anything.
In Libya, the West helped militarily the opposition but said opposition was unable to stabilize the country and everybody wonders why we went there.
The situation in both country was not that different. A popular uprising against a dictator with some fundamentalist elements.
I don't think we can blame HC for what appears to be a blunder, because the other alternative was maybe worse. I think both Libya and Syria were doomed, and it looks like of the two, Libya is the one doing better.
It's mainly in chaos because of Iraq ... Most of ISIS commanders are Iraqis, things would have turned a lot different if it was not for Iraq. Syria is both a civil war and an invasion.
Whatever the dislike one can have for Hillary, I think it's safe to say she is not responsible for the sorry state of the middle east.
The problem with GH and overal the vibe I get from Bernie right now is that he forgot what was his strength - discussing what actually matter - and lost itself in mud politics. Who cares about Hillary ? Discuss the policies, that's where she is weak by the way, as she is always running after others.
I can't for the life of me understand how the Sanders campaign has turned into personal attacks, ad hominem and mud politics, considering how much he had to offer to the American politics. That's just tragic. From what I have heard and seen, Sandernistas attitude has been toxic from almost the very beginning.
The really really sad thing is that it will be remembered as the left wing Trump, anti-establishment populism, while his platform was mostly positive and had an enormous amount to bring to the national debate.
GH is a good example; he seem to think that Clinton is the devil, while the one thing that REALLY matters is to prevent a lunatic egomaniac monster to become the most powerful man in the world. When people start to consider their own side as the enemy, you know something has gone wrong.
I don't think Clinton is the devil, she's just a terrible candidate to put into the general. By the end of the election if it's those two, somewhere between 60-70% of the country won't like or trust either candidate. That's bad news for Democracy.
This is the case in every election, especially in a 2 party system where the only chance to stop A is to vote for B.
The current election is a bit more polarized then usual but don't pretend this is something unheard off or unseen before.
People forget that Bill Clinton didn’t really light the world on fire. I don’t think anyone was super pumped with George Bush vs Michael Dukakis either. The presidential race isn’t really about getting exactly what you want. We have the house and senate for that.
On May 07 2016 06:10 andrewlt wrote: Personally, I'm sick and tired of the US getting blamed for everything that I would rather let atrocities happen than have the US get into another quagmire again. Even if it's under the UN, it's pretty obvious that the US is going to do the heavy lifting while other countries will do the finger pointing. And it's going to be "The US is meddling in another country again" and "The UN is just a US puppet" bla bla bla.
Some countries are just not culturally ready to be a developed country. They need to fix their shit on their own terms. Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea advanced economically under dictatorships before transitioning to a more democratic government. At the end of the day, they are not our citizens and the western world shouldn't be responsible to fix everybody else's problems. Let Russia and China accept refugees if they are so great.
When it comes to the Middle East, those complains are pretty valid for a lot of countries. The West in general has been messing around in that region for over a century. Syria, the nation, was not created by the people who lived there at the time. Same with many other “nations” in that region.
It is not excuse, but we would be wrong to dismiss that history. Like some middle east experts, the US’s memory is too short, but middle east’s memory is too long.
On May 07 2016 06:10 andrewlt wrote: Personally, I'm sick and tired of the US getting blamed for everything that I would rather let atrocities happen than have the US get into another quagmire again. Even if it's under the UN, it's pretty obvious that the US is going to do the heavy lifting while other countries will do the finger pointing. And it's going to be "The US is meddling in another country again" and "The UN is just a US puppet" bla bla bla.
Some countries are just not culturally ready to be a developed country. They need to fix their shit on their own terms. Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea advanced economically under dictatorships before transitioning to a more democratic government. At the end of the day, they are not our citizens and the western world shouldn't be responsible to fix everybody else's problems. Let Russia and China accept refugees if they are so great.
I'm not sure if you're just an idiot or the product of a proper American history education.
This isn't me having a go, but describing the US as the magnanimous, well intentioned saviour who who gets blamed when things go wrong requires such strong reality distortion that it's really frightening.
Actually, I take back the idiot part, I think it's probably the US self-characterisation and the way the media portrays even the wars they're critical of.
The current discussion of the OIL is so instructive: Even Bernie, who might be on the more dovish side of of spectrum, describes the Operation Iraqi Liberation as a blunder. Well blunder means a strategic mistake, not something that is fundamentally immoral and wrong.
On May 06 2016 12:30 oneofthem wrote: you'd just watch atrocities take place then? what kind of counterfactual are you working with here
Libya: Overthrew a pretty bad dictator, turned a nation that was stable by comparison into a black hole. So bad that Obama cited it as one of his worst policy decisions in his tenure as presidency (no shit? but maybe his highly experienced SoS should have used her experience to tell him what would happen when you create a power vacuum). Incidentally, that tends to lead to even more death and atrocities than just choosing to do nothing.
Atrocity prevented!
I could go on about how stupid many of the decisions she spearheaded were, as there is a lot to criticize that could be seen even before the fact, but if "preventing atrocities" is the best you can come up with to justify stupid FP then I see no point.
I don't think the Libya intervention was a great idea, but the narrative is over simplified here.
In Syria the West let the regime massacring the opposition, and now the country is utter chaos, and everybody wonders why we didn't do anything.
In Libya, the West helped militarily the opposition but said opposition was unable to stabilize the country and everybody wonders why we went there.
The situation in both country was not that different. A popular uprising against a dictator with some fundamentalist elements.
I don't think we can blame HC for what appears to be a blunder, because the other alternative was maybe worse. I think both Libya and Syria were doomed, and it looks like of the two, Libya is the one doing better.
It's mainly in chaos because of Iraq ... Most of ISIS commanders are Iraqis, things would have turned a lot different if it was not for Iraq. Syria is both a civil war and an invasion.
Whatever the dislike one can have for Hillary, I think it's safe to say she is not responsible for the sorry state of the middle east.
The problem with GH and overal the vibe I get from Bernie right now is that he forgot what was his strength - discussing what actually matter - and lost itself in mud politics. Who cares about Hillary ? Discuss the policies, that's where she is weak by the way, as she is always running after others.
I can't for the life of me understand how the Sanders campaign has turned into personal attacks, ad hominem and mud politics, considering how much he had to offer to the American politics. That's just tragic. From what I have heard and seen, Sandernistas attitude has been toxic from almost the very beginning.
The really really sad thing is that it will be remembered as the left wing Trump, anti-establishment populism, while his platform was mostly positive and had an enormous amount to bring to the national debate.
GH is a good example; he seem to think that Clinton is the devil, while the one thing that REALLY matters is to prevent a lunatic egomaniac monster to become the most powerful man in the world. When people start to consider their own side as the enemy, you know something has gone wrong.
I don't think Clinton is the devil, she's just a terrible candidate to put into the general. By the end of the election if it's those two, somewhere between 60-70% of the country won't like or trust either candidate. That's bad news for Democracy.
This is the case in every election, especially in a 2 party system where the only chance to stop A is to vote for B.
The current election is a bit more polarized then usual but don't pretend this is something unheard off or unseen before.
No it's really not. Hillary would have the worst numbers ever if it weren't for Trump edging her out. There's a chart I saw somewhere that shows it but I can't find it at the moment. But you can check yourself, you won't find any nominees in modern polling history with worse numbers. It's not a polarization thing, it's a America doesn't like (or trust) our candidates thing
On May 07 2016 05:35 Nyxisto wrote: Blameworthiness is pretty irrelevant compared to consequences. It's not like the decision to to nothing rather than something means that the situation doesn't get worse
From a logical standpoint the current situation is the best outcome. The factions in the middle east are destroying themselves in a meatgrinder. It will ensure Western safety much better then any form of intervention. The lives being lost are regrettable but they are not our citizens.
ISIS exists because the west allows it, we could roll in and remove them from the face of the earth as a nation (the terrorist organization is ofc much much harder to root out. The sad and ugly truth no one wants to hear is that the current situation is just fine.
From a cruelty standpoint, its the worse outcome.
It always makes sense to not help others if its hard, until it is you who needs the help.
Its nothing to do with hard, its to do with what outcome is the best and how likely it is to occur.
I'm not saying the current situation is great but look at the token effort our armies are doing and compare it to what we know they can do. You cant tell me anyone is trying to actually resolve the conflict.
Yeah, if the US or any other biggish power wanted, Isis would just get ran over. But this would mean either serious casualties on both sides or bombing the whole place with total disregard to the people there.
Won't happen, the place is just not important enough.
nevermind that the people there deserve better and are mostly not meat, it is not good for the west to have continued 'meatgrinder.'
a bit crude but western foreign policy, like domestic institutions, is trying to have the cake of ethics while eating the realism, and being forced into a choice will stress this rather uneasy balance. this stress is transferred by way of refugee flow but also in the general attitude towards a sense of moral progress in institutional goals and design. you have not only moral fatigue but active subversion of the liberal order by reactionaries. even without these, you have obvious fiscal burden and the static euro econ model. you then have dudes talking about creating different levels of citizenship to address these stress and contradictions
with north africa in play the migratory flow is not easy to stop. it is a serious long term threat to european system.
On May 07 2016 06:37 Velr wrote: Yeah, if the US or any other biggish power wanted, Isis would just get ran over. But this would mean either serious casualties on both sides or bombing the whole place with total disregard to the people there.
Won't happen, the place is just not important enough.
Funny how if we would have just decisively blown the whole thing to space 50 years ago, the total # of deaths would probably be fewer modern day. Our unwillingness to act decisively has only led to more death long term.
On May 07 2016 06:10 andrewlt wrote: Personally, I'm sick and tired of the US getting blamed for everything that I would rather let atrocities happen than have the US get into another quagmire again. Even if it's under the UN, it's pretty obvious that the US is going to do the heavy lifting while other countries will do the finger pointing. And it's going to be "The US is meddling in another country again" and "The UN is just a US puppet" bla bla bla.
Some countries are just not culturally ready to be a developed country. They need to fix their shit on their own terms. Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea advanced economically under dictatorships before transitioning to a more democratic government. At the end of the day, they are not our citizens and the western world shouldn't be responsible to fix everybody else's problems. Let Russia and China accept refugees if they are so great.
I'm not sure if you're just an idiot or the product of a proper American history education.
This isn't me having a go, but describing the US as the magnanimous, well intentioned saviour who who gets blamed when things go wrong requires such strong reality distortion that it's really frightening.
Actually, I take back the idiot part, I think it's probably the US self-characterisation and the way the media portrays even the wars they're critical of.
The current discussion of the OIL is so instructive: Even Bernie, who might be on the more dovish side of of spectrum, describes the Operation Iraqi Liberation as a blunder. Well blunder means a strategic mistake, not something that is fundamentally immoral and wrong.
There were 3 blunders in Iraq
1st) Bad intel/falsified intel. The primary "reason" we were sold to convince us to go was wrong--that of Chemical weapons being or about to be used on citizens and opposing nations. Had this turned out to be true, then no one would complain about fighting in Iraq. Now some say this was a lie, others say it was well intentioned, blah blah blah. Doesn't really matter in the end. The cause for us to go was false.
2nd) Overemphasis on combat and lack of emphasis on governance. The Iraq war was very quickly and easily won. I think it was 2ish weeks before the country was brought to its knees. The "invasion/occupation" of Iraq, however, was still primarily enforced by the military. There was constant "support" or "encouragement" for the iraqi people to fix their government--but what was really needed was for the US to either be the new Iraq government. This meant that the terrorists knew that time was on their side. They had a victory plan--wait until Americans are sick of the desert. The ONLY solution to this is imperial takeover. Iraq should have been annexed and be an extension of the US in the region. There should have been solid plans to stay there for the next 100-200 years because only then will you be able to grow a government, from scratch, with the ideals and attitudes that you want.
3rd) We weren't done with Afghanistan. Now, lets say there were WMDs in Iraq (false information) and lets also say that we were better prepared for occupation and not just country wide security detail (we weren't) those are all well and good until you realize that WE WERE STILL FIGHTING in Afghanistan.
Conclusion: The actual war with Iraq was an astounding success. We took Baghdad in about a week, and we routed their defenses within minutes of enemy contact. It was absolutely everything else that we messed up.
On May 07 2016 05:35 Nyxisto wrote: Blameworthiness is pretty irrelevant compared to consequences. It's not like the decision to to nothing rather than something means that the situation doesn't get worse
From a logical standpoint the current situation is the best outcome. The factions in the middle east are destroying themselves in a meatgrinder. It will ensure Western safety much better then any form of intervention. The lives being lost are regrettable but they are not our citizens.
ISIS exists because the west allows it, we could roll in and remove them from the face of the earth as a nation (the terrorist organization is ofc much much harder to root out. The sad and ugly truth no one wants to hear is that the current situation is just fine.
From a cruelty standpoint, its the worse outcome.
It always makes sense to not help others if its hard, until it is you who needs the help.
Its nothing to do with hard, its to do with what outcome is the best and how likely it is to occur.
I'm not saying the current situation is great but look at the token effort our armies are doing and compare it to what we know they can do. You cant tell me anyone is trying to actually resolve the conflict.
The issue is not the resolution, but the realization learned from Iraq.
Everything was textbook perfect in Iraq when we left. We had elections, a government appointee that we supported, an Iraqi army trained by the US and armed by the US. Then America walked away and the whole thing collapsed in a matter of months. In a year they were already overrun by a new terror group.
Why? Because the only thing that works is longterm, imperialism style, occupation. You run their country until its strong enough to shove you off on its own free will--or fully assimilate with you. That's the hard part.
On May 07 2016 06:10 andrewlt wrote: Personally, I'm sick and tired of the US getting blamed for everything that I would rather let atrocities happen than have the US get into another quagmire again. Even if it's under the UN, it's pretty obvious that the US is going to do the heavy lifting while other countries will do the finger pointing. And it's going to be "The US is meddling in another country again" and "The UN is just a US puppet" bla bla bla.
Some countries are just not culturally ready to be a developed country. They need to fix their shit on their own terms. Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea advanced economically under dictatorships before transitioning to a more democratic government. At the end of the day, they are not our citizens and the western world shouldn't be responsible to fix everybody else's problems. Let Russia and China accept refugees if they are so great.
I'm not sure if you're just an idiot or the product of a proper American history education.
This isn't me having a go, but describing the US as the magnanimous, well intentioned saviour who who gets blamed when things go wrong requires such strong reality distortion that it's really frightening.
Actually, I take back the idiot part, I think it's probably the US self-characterisation and the way the media portrays even the wars they're critical of.
The current discussion of the OIL is so instructive: Even Bernie, who might be on the more dovish side of of spectrum, describes the Operation Iraqi Liberation as a blunder. Well blunder means a strategic mistake, not something that is fundamentally immoral and wrong.
There were 3 blunders in Iraq
1st) Bad intel/falsified intel. The primary "reason" we were sold to convince us to go was wrong--that of Chemical weapons being or about to be used on citizens and opposing nations. Had this turned out to be true, then no one would complain about fighting in Iraq. Now some say this was a lie, others say it was well intentioned, blah blah blah. Doesn't really matter in the end. The cause for us to go was false.
2nd) Overemphasis on combat and lack of emphasis on governance. The Iraq war was very quickly and easily won. I think it was 2ish weeks before the country was brought to its knees. The "invasion/occupation" of Iraq, however, was still primarily enforced by the military. There was constant "support" or "encouragement" for the iraqi people to fix their government--but what was really needed was for the US to either be the new Iraq government. This meant that the terrorists knew that time was on their side. They had a victory plan--wait until Americans are sick of the desert. The ONLY solution to this is imperial takeover. Iraq should have been annexed and be an extension of the US in the region. There should have been solid plans to stay there for the next 100-200 years because only then will you be able to grow a government, from scratch, with the ideals and attitudes that you want.
3rd) We weren't done with Afghanistan. Now, lets say there were WMDs in Iraq (false information) and lets also say that we were better prepared for occupation and not just country wide security detail (we weren't) those are all well and good until you realize that WE WERE STILL FIGHTING in Afghanistan.
Conclusion: The actual war with Iraq was an astounding success. We took Baghdad in about a week, and we routed their defenses within minutes of enemy contact. It was absolutely everything else that we messed up.
Given how naive and ineffective your definition of success is, I suppose the best I can offer you is this. + Show Spoiler +
On May 07 2016 06:10 andrewlt wrote: Personally, I'm sick and tired of the US getting blamed for everything that I would rather let atrocities happen than have the US get into another quagmire again. Even if it's under the UN, it's pretty obvious that the US is going to do the heavy lifting while other countries will do the finger pointing. And it's going to be "The US is meddling in another country again" and "The UN is just a US puppet" bla bla bla.
Some countries are just not culturally ready to be a developed country. They need to fix their shit on their own terms. Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea advanced economically under dictatorships before transitioning to a more democratic government. At the end of the day, they are not our citizens and the western world shouldn't be responsible to fix everybody else's problems. Let Russia and China accept refugees if they are so great.
I'm not sure if you're just an idiot or the product of a proper American history education.
This isn't me having a go, but describing the US as the magnanimous, well intentioned saviour who who gets blamed when things go wrong requires such strong reality distortion that it's really frightening.
Actually, I take back the idiot part, I think it's probably the US self-characterisation and the way the media portrays even the wars they're critical of.
The current discussion of the OIL is so instructive: Even Bernie, who might be on the more dovish side of of spectrum, describes the Operation Iraqi Liberation as a blunder. Well blunder means a strategic mistake, not something that is fundamentally immoral and wrong.
There were 3 blunders in Iraq
1st) Bad intel/falsified intel. The primary "reason" we were sold to convince us to go was wrong--that of Chemical weapons being or about to be used on citizens and opposing nations. Had this turned out to be true, then no one would complain about fighting in Iraq. Now some say this was a lie, others say it was well intentioned, blah blah blah. Doesn't really matter in the end. The cause for us to go was false.
2nd) Overemphasis on combat and lack of emphasis on governance. The Iraq war was very quickly and easily won. I think it was 2ish weeks before the country was brought to its knees. The "invasion/occupation" of Iraq, however, was still primarily enforced by the military. There was constant "support" or "encouragement" for the iraqi people to fix their government--but what was really needed was for the US to either be the new Iraq government. This meant that the terrorists knew that time was on their side. They had a victory plan--wait until Americans are sick of the desert. The ONLY solution to this is imperial takeover. Iraq should have been annexed and be an extension of the US in the region. There should have been solid plans to stay there for the next 100-200 years because only then will you be able to grow a government, from scratch, with the ideals and attitudes that you want.
3rd) We weren't done with Afghanistan. Now, lets say there were WMDs in Iraq (false information) and lets also say that we were better prepared for occupation and not just country wide security detail (we weren't) those are all well and good until you realize that WE WERE STILL FIGHTING in Afghanistan.
Conclusion: The actual war with Iraq was an astounding success. We took Baghdad in about a week, and we routed their defenses within minutes of enemy contact. It was absolutely everything else that we messed up.
Given how naive and ineffective your definition of success is, I suppose the best I can offer you is this. + Show Spoiler +
Do you recall the plans for Iraq? The months of debates that needed to happen before it got the support it needed?
Get rid of Sadam: Accomplished. Remove the threats of WMD's: Technically Accomplished (technically confirmed to not actually be a threat) Minimum losses in attack: Accomplished.
Then we took over iraq and the goal post got moved. Suddenly WMD's gave way to "stabilize the region" and "not wanting a vacuum" etc... And as the goal post got moved definitions on how we were doing changed ever so slightly.
But the initial reason we went there? The need to stop Sadam from using WMD on his people and on other countries--that got handled in about a week, most of it travel time as tanks still needed to cross the desert.
On May 07 2016 06:10 andrewlt wrote: Personally, I'm sick and tired of the US getting blamed for everything that I would rather let atrocities happen than have the US get into another quagmire again. Even if it's under the UN, it's pretty obvious that the US is going to do the heavy lifting while other countries will do the finger pointing. And it's going to be "The US is meddling in another country again" and "The UN is just a US puppet" bla bla bla.
Some countries are just not culturally ready to be a developed country. They need to fix their shit on their own terms. Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea advanced economically under dictatorships before transitioning to a more democratic government. At the end of the day, they are not our citizens and the western world shouldn't be responsible to fix everybody else's problems. Let Russia and China accept refugees if they are so great.
I'm not sure if you're just an idiot or the product of a proper American history education.
This isn't me having a go, but describing the US as the magnanimous, well intentioned saviour who who gets blamed when things go wrong requires such strong reality distortion that it's really frightening.
Actually, I take back the idiot part, I think it's probably the US self-characterisation and the way the media portrays even the wars they're critical of.
The current discussion of the OIL is so instructive: Even Bernie, who might be on the more dovish side of of spectrum, describes the Operation Iraqi Liberation as a blunder. Well blunder means a strategic mistake, not something that is fundamentally immoral and wrong.
There were 3 blunders in Iraq
1st) Bad intel/falsified intel. The primary "reason" we were sold to convince us to go was wrong--that of Chemical weapons being or about to be used on citizens and opposing nations. Had this turned out to be true, then no one would complain about fighting in Iraq. Now some say this was a lie, others say it was well intentioned, blah blah blah. Doesn't really matter in the end. The cause for us to go was false.
2nd) Overemphasis on combat and lack of emphasis on governance. The Iraq war was very quickly and easily won. I think it was 2ish weeks before the country was brought to its knees. The "invasion/occupation" of Iraq, however, was still primarily enforced by the military. There was constant "support" or "encouragement" for the iraqi people to fix their government--but what was really needed was for the US to either be the new Iraq government. This meant that the terrorists knew that time was on their side. They had a victory plan--wait until Americans are sick of the desert. The ONLY solution to this is imperial takeover. Iraq should have been annexed and be an extension of the US in the region. There should have been solid plans to stay there for the next 100-200 years because only then will you be able to grow a government, from scratch, with the ideals and attitudes that you want.
3rd) We weren't done with Afghanistan. Now, lets say there were WMDs in Iraq (false information) and lets also say that we were better prepared for occupation and not just country wide security detail (we weren't) those are all well and good until you realize that WE WERE STILL FIGHTING in Afghanistan.
Conclusion: The actual war with Iraq was an astounding success. We took Baghdad in about a week, and we routed their defenses within minutes of enemy contact. It was absolutely everything else that we messed up.
Given how naive and ineffective your definition of success is, I suppose the best I can offer you is this. + Show Spoiler +
Do you recall the plans for Iraq? The months of debates that needed to happen before it got the support it needed?
Get rid of Sadam: Accomplished. Remove the threats of WMD's: Technically Accomplished (technically confirmed to not actually be a threat) Minimum losses in attack: Accomplished.
Then we took over iraq and the goal post got moved. Suddenly WMD's gave way to "stabilize the region" and "not wanting a vacuum" etc... And as the goal post got moved definitions on how we were doing changed ever so slightly.
But the initial reason we went there? The need to stop Sadam from using WMD on his people and on other countries--that got handled in about a week, most of it travel time as tanks still needed to cross the desert.
roflmao, "Suddenly"?! I have a feeling rewriting history is going to be the main theme this election.
We can’t have gone to a country to remove something we were pretty sure wasn’t there to begin with. I mean, sure some of us were mislead, but the people who planned that shit knew WMD were pretty unlikely.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wgqmxGW.jpg)
