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 June 17 2016 10:32 Deathstar wrote: We can kill everyone who opposes us. We have the means. We just need the will.
It's really a matter of making an example out of ISIS to send a message to other muslim countries that want to flirt with terrorism.
I think video games must be having a malicious effect on people after all. Quite a few people here seem to think that enemies are a static thing like you're playing a round of Starcraft II on Frozen Temple. But bodies of people are highly unstable.* So, first of all: You absolutely cannot kill everyone who opposes you, because you cannot know who exactly opposes you. And every time an air-to-surface missile comes crashing down into a town, killing a few bystanders anonymously yet clearly being launched by an American drone, you potentially radicalize a few more people. How you gon' win that fight?
The West has had a history of inadvertently strengthening what you would call "radical islamic terrorism" since the Iranian Revolution of the 1970s. We fuel resentment in the region that finds it outlet wherever it can. It was not at all a historical necessity that the Iranian Revolution would become mostly religious (or pseudo-religious) in its direction; Khomeini did not immediately emerge as a leader of the revolution, and at several points more moderate leaders were close to taking over the movement instead. This was a critical bifurcation (there have been a few others, such as the shit the Russians did in Afghanistan). Since then, however, most reactionary movements against Western power in the Middle East have found their primary expression in radicalized (and in many ways falsified) Islam. But that is a long way from "islam = bad lul". Terrorism is a form of blowback (or a form of decolonial violence, if you will) against Western imperialism; it happens to usually express itself pseudo-islamically because that happens to be the most stable cultural identity that you can, as an individual, unite yourself with. That doesn't make Islam the problem, it makes our continued oppressive presence in the middle east the problem. As long as someone's daughter accidentally gets killed by a drone strike, or as long as every now and then a team of soldiers raids the wrong house and murders an innocent family, you cannot beat terrorism. None of this means that I know what the solution is, but it sure as fuck ain't staying the current course, let alone "having the will to kill everyone who opposes us".
* Up until a few centuries ago, even European armies were constantly shifting things, more like a viscous blob than a solid block. A large portion of the army was not a standing army but rather paid mercenaries. The army was (and to some degree still is, as many a homecoming veteran can tell you who can't cope with civilian life any more) never really part of either the nation nor the state.
The book is not directly related to this discussion, but I would still heavily recommend to everyone in this thread William McNeill's Pursuit of Power. I know, I know, all I'm doing is recommending books, but I find it exceedingly myopic to discuss politics on the basis of everyone's gut feelings (which is why I think this thread sucks balls and always will). It is a book about warfare between the 10th and the 20th century, and it may help you see that warfare is something exceedingly complicated, and any of the "solutions" by either the Obama or the a potential Clinton or Trump administration are far too reliant on this simplistic idea that it is a trivial issue to find out who the enemy is. But finding out who the actual enemy has always been and continues to be an absolutely enormous problem. If we are going with simplified pop cultural goods, the last few seasons of Game of Thrones are an at least slightly better representation of warfare than a video game: You have no fucking idea who your enemy is and all of your clever tricks will probably result in blowback (just ask Cersei this season). And in the real world, there are no dragons that make a body of people reliably and permanently swear allegiance to you.
As the general election shifts into high gear, a pair of Republican governors and a 15-term representative this week voiced their frustrations with the party's presumptive presidential nominee and have decided they cannot get onboard the Trump train.
Fred Upton, R-Mich., joins Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and also Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who ran for president against Donald Trump.
This pushback comes as the presumptive Republican nominee marks the one-year anniversary of the start of his remarkable and unconventional candidacy, and as the GOP is at yet another crossroads as to how to maintain party unity with him at the top of the ticket. Meanwhile, presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is launching an eight-figure, multi-battleground state campaign ad blitz.
On Thursday The Detroit News reported that Upton had said he was going to "stay in my lane," adding that neither Trump nor Clinton should expect his support.
"'There's a lot of things that folks are not happy about with either of these two candidates,' he said. 'We're running our own race, and don't look for me to endorse anyone in this race probably the rest of the year.'
"Upton, who has served in Congress since 1987, joins other Michigan GOP U.S. Reps. Justin Amash of Cascade Falls, Bill Huizenga of Zeeland and John Moolenaar of Midland in not endorsing Trump."
Hogan doubled down on earlier claims that he will not support Trump in the fall. He had supported New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's presidential bid but has resisted following Christie's lead to embrace Trump.
Hogan told reporters Wednesday not only will he not endorse Trump but he does not plan to vote for him either. Asked whom he would vote for, Hogan told the Washington Post, " 'I guess when I get behind the curtain I'll have to figure it out. Maybe write someone in. I'm not sure.' "
Kasich also expressed his unease with Trump at the top of the GOP ticket. But he did leave the door open to supporting him down the line.
seems like a lot of people are voting based on this idea of politically exciting or genuine. a simple solution to simple problems is exciting, but it is also possible that some problems are not so easy and there are no easy solutions, only steady and hard work can resolve them.
not many people are excited about doing chores, doesn't mean you shouldn't be minding the chores. it's the same thing with hillary clinton. there is no great confidence that her or any policy can completely change things, but this is the same idea as recognizing that politics is less powerful than we imagine and there are no magical solutions.
On June 17 2016 22:16 oneofthem wrote: seems like a lot of people are voting based on this idea of politically exciting or genuine. a simple solution to simple problems is exciting, but it is also possible that some problems are not so easy and there are no easy solutions, only steady and hard work can resolve them.
not many people are excited about doing chores, doesn't mean you shouldn't be minding the chores. it's the same thing with hillary clinton. there is no great confidence that her or any policy can completely change things, but this is the same idea as recognizing that politics is less powerful than we imagine and there are no magical solutions.
I think people feel empowered when people like Bernie and Trump are willing to present issues in simple, easily understood ways. It's manipulative, but it works really well nowadays.
On June 17 2016 09:56 SolaR- wrote: Yeah it's the same message that Obama tried to play.
How many Islamic attacks will it take for people to acknowledge that radical Islam is a problem?
President Obama (AKA The Lord of Drones and Slayer of Terrorists) has launched 12,685 strikes in the fight against ISIS. Don't mistake Cruzian spin for reality.
As of 4:59 p.m. EST June 1, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 12,685 strikes (8,661 Iraq / 4,024 Syria). U.S. has conducted 9,663 strikes in Iraq and Syria (5,876 Iraq / 3,787 Syria)
Which is what? half the amount of air strikes that we launched during the first days of the Iraq War?
(1) We use more precise weapons now against smaller, man-sized targets and (2) the point is that Obama understands the dangers of Islamic Radicalism and Jihadism quite well, but he wants to keep Saudi Arabia as part of our pseudo coalition, much like all Presidents since FDR, so he consciously avoids language that might antagonize our critical Muslim-Arab allies.
10 million people live under Isis control. Yeah he's been doing a pretty good job
Pretty sure mass bombings of ISIS just leads to more ISIS recruits. They want a war with the west, especially the US.
Im pretty sure they aren't even bombing them. It is in no countries interest right now to see ISIS gone except Syria.
Populist ideas always gain some level of traction. The problem is when politicians cynically use the populist promises to get elected. As much of a pain as Bernie was, I don’t believe he is cynical and really wants to implement the things he exposes. My problem with him is his distain of pragmatism, which mirrors a lot of my problems other progressives. I will take 1/2% ever month over the chance 100% every 8 years. But some people don’t like that. But to be fair, I am also a firmly middle class guy that has a pretty stable life, so I have the luxury of patience.
But that form of populism worked in the last couple mid terms. Promises of removing the ACA, which people knew was impossible. But they promised it anyways because it got votes. Its like overturning Roe V Wade since the ruling. They know they can’t just overturn without an amazing confluence of events, but they keep promising it.
On June 17 2016 09:56 SolaR- wrote: Yeah it's the same message that Obama tried to play.
How many Islamic attacks will it take for people to acknowledge that radical Islam is a problem?
President Obama (AKA The Lord of Drones and Slayer of Terrorists) has launched 12,685 strikes in the fight against ISIS. Don't mistake Cruzian spin for reality.
As of 4:59 p.m. EST June 1, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 12,685 strikes (8,661 Iraq / 4,024 Syria). U.S. has conducted 9,663 strikes in Iraq and Syria (5,876 Iraq / 3,787 Syria)
Which is what? half the amount of air strikes that we launched during the first days of the Iraq War?
(1) We use more precise weapons now against smaller, man-sized targets and (2) the point is that Obama understands the dangers of Islamic Radicalism and Jihadism quite well, but he wants to keep Saudi Arabia as part of our pseudo coalition, much like all Presidents since FDR, so he consciously avoids language that might antagonize our critical Muslim-Arab allies.
10 million people live under Isis control. Yeah he's been doing a pretty good job
Pretty sure mass bombings of ISIS just leads to more ISIS recruits. They want a war with the west, especially the US.
Im pretty sure they aren't even bombing them. It is in no countries interest right now to see ISIS gone except Syria.
On June 17 2016 22:41 Plansix wrote: Populist ideas always gain some level of traction. The problem is when politicians cynically use the populist promises to get elected. As much of a pain as Bernie was, I don’t believe he is cynical and really wants to implement the things he exposes. My problem with him is his distain of pragmatism, which mirrors a lot of my problems other progressives. I will take 1/2% ever month over the chance 100% every 8 years. But some people don’t like that. But to be fair, I am also a firmly middle class guy that has a pretty stable life, so I have the luxury of patience.
But that form of populism worked in the last couple mid terms. Promises of removing the ACA, which people knew was impossible. But they promised it anyways because it got votes. Its like overturning Roe V Wade since the ruling. They know they can’t just overturn without an amazing confluence of events, but they keep promising it.
On June 17 2016 09:56 SolaR- wrote: Yeah it's the same message that Obama tried to play.
How many Islamic attacks will it take for people to acknowledge that radical Islam is a problem?
President Obama (AKA The Lord of Drones and Slayer of Terrorists) has launched 12,685 strikes in the fight against ISIS. Don't mistake Cruzian spin for reality.
As of 4:59 p.m. EST June 1, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 12,685 strikes (8,661 Iraq / 4,024 Syria). U.S. has conducted 9,663 strikes in Iraq and Syria (5,876 Iraq / 3,787 Syria)
Which is what? half the amount of air strikes that we launched during the first days of the Iraq War?
(1) We use more precise weapons now against smaller, man-sized targets and (2) the point is that Obama understands the dangers of Islamic Radicalism and Jihadism quite well, but he wants to keep Saudi Arabia as part of our pseudo coalition, much like all Presidents since FDR, so he consciously avoids language that might antagonize our critical Muslim-Arab allies.
10 million people live under Isis control. Yeah he's been doing a pretty good job
Pretty sure mass bombings of ISIS just leads to more ISIS recruits. They want a war with the west, especially the US.
Im pretty sure they aren't even bombing them. It is in no countries interest right now to see ISIS gone except Syria.
On June 17 2016 09:11 SolaR- wrote: To be honest I don't see why it matters if it was a direct attack from ISIS or not. It is still ISIS's influence, it is still radical Islamic terrorism, and it is clear the guy was heavily inspired by ISIS. So, what is the point? I actually think it's much worse of a situation, that an American citizen became a home grown Islamic terrorist, influenced by a radical group from the other side of the globe.
The guy claimed allegiance with three terrorist groups who all at the same time are at war with each other. Isis is a brand for those guys. It makes about as much sense as blaming Ford when someone drives a Fiesta into a crowd of people.
These terrorists are basically like pirates, they aren't Osama Bin Laden. The lawyer of the French cell leader described the guy as "as stupid as an empty ashtray who hadn't even read the Quran". You're not dealing with the same terrorists we had 20 years ago.
Again, why does it matter? It doesn't matter that his ideas were disjointed and that he supported multiple groups. What does matter is that Radical Islam is influencing more and more Islamic youth at a drastic pace.
I think this form of terrorism is much worse and much more alarming. At least 20 years there was some semblance of who the enemy was. Now anyone can be an Islamic terrorist.
It matters because it means that his primary motivation likely lay elsewhere. If he wouldn't have taken Islam as a motivation he could have put on a black trenchcoat and we'd be back to discussing videogames.
No it doesn't. It is clear that is motivation stemmed from radical Islamic beliefs. His motivation stemmed from radical Islam in general. He didn't care about the inside political war between the different extremists groups in the middle east. He related to their ideals, and their hatred of western culture.
says who exactly? Claiming allegiance isn't sufficient. Breivik claimed to be influenced by Christians and thought he was some kind of templar. This doesn't mean that we're going to hold any church responsible for his lunacy.
According to Wikipedia, he said his religion was "Odinism," he wrote his own manifesto, and the templar stuff was a schizophrenic fabrication? In other words, he said he was loyal to an organization that doesn't exist and therefore has no history of spreading propaganda or controlling territory or calling for terrorist attacks, may as well have said he was an Illuminati. The difference is between Charles Manson crazying up some "Helter Skelter" nonsense and Dylann Roof actually being seduced by neo-Nazism.
Breivik originally identified as a christian conservative anti-jihadist and anti-culturalmarxist. The odinism is a more recent thing, and marks his recent attempts at tying himself towards classical nationalism and neo-nazism rather than what he claimed post 11th july.
If anything, Breivik is an example that you cannot take the words of such people at face value. They will claim association and ideologies to make their actions seem grander, justified and to fit a narrative. Tjeir actual motivation isnt neccessarily apparent, even to themselves.
Blamimg the big scary muslim for the gay bar shooting is very much misfiring your ammunition.
We already understood the idea of a loner feeling rejected by society seeing the distant light of ISIS Jihad and signing up with their open membership program. He doesn't have to be a member with two way communication with HQ. He only needs to be inspired. ISIS itself gave encouragement earlier this month before the attacks for any jihadist to hear the call and commit terrorist acts. Just look at year-to-year victims of terrorists explicitly praising ISIS. You're simply unbelievable deflecting with "big scary muslim" rhetoric. Maybe if terror attacks were once a year, maybe if he was the first lone gunman to ever identify with ISIS. It's been an identified pattern.
But take heart, the president himself called ISIS a nihilistic ideology. That's one fun step further than you: he claims the entire organization knowingly rejects Muslim teaching in favor of, well, a power goal free from religious meaning. So you can call ISIS non-Muslim *period* and have support too.
On June 17 2016 22:41 Plansix wrote: Populist ideas always gain some level of traction. The problem is when politicians cynically use the populist promises to get elected. As much of a pain as Bernie was, I don’t believe he is cynical and really wants to implement the things he exposes. My problem with him is his distain of pragmatism, which mirrors a lot of my problems other progressives. I will take 1/2% ever month over the chance 100% every 8 years. But some people don’t like that. But to be fair, I am also a firmly middle class guy that has a pretty stable life, so I have the luxury of patience.
But that form of populism worked in the last couple mid terms. Promises of removing the ACA, which people knew was impossible. But they promised it anyways because it got votes. Its like overturning Roe V Wade since the ruling. They know they can’t just overturn without an amazing confluence of events, but they keep promising it.
On June 17 2016 22:41 NukeD wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:16 Hexe wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:07 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:05 Hexe wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:03 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
On June 17 2016 09:56 SolaR- wrote: Yeah it's the same message that Obama tried to play.
How many Islamic attacks will it take for people to acknowledge that radical Islam is a problem?
President Obama (AKA The Lord of Drones and Slayer of Terrorists) has launched 12,685 strikes in the fight against ISIS. Don't mistake Cruzian spin for reality.
As of 4:59 p.m. EST June 1, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 12,685 strikes (8,661 Iraq / 4,024 Syria). U.S. has conducted 9,663 strikes in Iraq and Syria (5,876 Iraq / 3,787 Syria)
Which is what? half the amount of air strikes that we launched during the first days of the Iraq War?
(1) We use more precise weapons now against smaller, man-sized targets and (2) the point is that Obama understands the dangers of Islamic Radicalism and Jihadism quite well, but he wants to keep Saudi Arabia as part of our pseudo coalition, much like all Presidents since FDR, so he consciously avoids language that might antagonize our critical Muslim-Arab allies.
10 million people live under Isis control. Yeah he's been doing a pretty good job
Pretty sure mass bombings of ISIS just leads to more ISIS recruits. They want a war with the west, especially the US.
Im pretty sure they aren't even bombing them. It is in no countries interest right now to see ISIS gone except Syria.
Yeah Iraq and Syria are fighting them. I wonder what Iraqis think about their "US backup".
They are the ones with people on the ground, so yes. We are providing air support and likely logistics. I don’t understand your point. We are not sending troops into that nightmare conflict. ISIS wants a direct conflict with the West to further their recruiting and make their fight not about killing other Muslims. We should not hand that to them.
On June 17 2016 22:41 Plansix wrote: Populist ideas always gain some level of traction. The problem is when politicians cynically use the populist promises to get elected. As much of a pain as Bernie was, I don’t believe he is cynical and really wants to implement the things he exposes. My problem with him is his distain of pragmatism, which mirrors a lot of my problems other progressives. I will take 1/2% ever month over the chance 100% every 8 years. But some people don’t like that. But to be fair, I am also a firmly middle class guy that has a pretty stable life, so I have the luxury of patience.
But that form of populism worked in the last couple mid terms. Promises of removing the ACA, which people knew was impossible. But they promised it anyways because it got votes. Its like overturning Roe V Wade since the ruling. They know they can’t just overturn without an amazing confluence of events, but they keep promising it.
On June 17 2016 22:41 NukeD wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:16 Hexe wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:07 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:05 Hexe wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:03 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
On June 17 2016 09:56 SolaR- wrote: Yeah it's the same message that Obama tried to play.
How many Islamic attacks will it take for people to acknowledge that radical Islam is a problem?
President Obama (AKA The Lord of Drones and Slayer of Terrorists) has launched 12,685 strikes in the fight against ISIS. Don't mistake Cruzian spin for reality.
As of 4:59 p.m. EST June 1, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 12,685 strikes (8,661 Iraq / 4,024 Syria). U.S. has conducted 9,663 strikes in Iraq and Syria (5,876 Iraq / 3,787 Syria)
Which is what? half the amount of air strikes that we launched during the first days of the Iraq War?
(1) We use more precise weapons now against smaller, man-sized targets and (2) the point is that Obama understands the dangers of Islamic Radicalism and Jihadism quite well, but he wants to keep Saudi Arabia as part of our pseudo coalition, much like all Presidents since FDR, so he consciously avoids language that might antagonize our critical Muslim-Arab allies.
10 million people live under Isis control. Yeah he's been doing a pretty good job
Pretty sure mass bombings of ISIS just leads to more ISIS recruits. They want a war with the west, especially the US.
Im pretty sure they aren't even bombing them. It is in no countries interest right now to see ISIS gone except Syria.
Yeah Iraq and Syria are fighting them. I wonder what Iraqis think about their "US backup".
They are the ones with people on the ground, so yes. We are providing air support and likely logistics. I don’t understand your point. We are not sending troops into that nightmare conflict. ISIS wants a direct conflict with the West to further their recruiting and make their fight not about killing other Muslims. We should not hand that to them.
His point is that we don't like anyone in the middle east so them killing themselves in a giant meatgrinder and burning their funding is fine from a logical (but not moral) standpoint. Plus while ISIS is focused on the ground war they spend less resources on preparing attacks on US soil.
Ending the war by destroying the ISIS state is likely to lead to a worse situation with regards to terrorist attacks.
On June 17 2016 22:41 Plansix wrote: Populist ideas always gain some level of traction. The problem is when politicians cynically use the populist promises to get elected. As much of a pain as Bernie was, I don’t believe he is cynical and really wants to implement the things he exposes. My problem with him is his distain of pragmatism, which mirrors a lot of my problems other progressives. I will take 1/2% ever month over the chance 100% every 8 years. But some people don’t like that. But to be fair, I am also a firmly middle class guy that has a pretty stable life, so I have the luxury of patience.
But that form of populism worked in the last couple mid terms. Promises of removing the ACA, which people knew was impossible. But they promised it anyways because it got votes. Its like overturning Roe V Wade since the ruling. They know they can’t just overturn without an amazing confluence of events, but they keep promising it.
On June 17 2016 22:41 NukeD wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:16 Hexe wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:07 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:05 Hexe wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:03 CannonsNCarriers wrote: [quote]
President Obama (AKA The Lord of Drones and Slayer of Terrorists) has launched 12,685 strikes in the fight against ISIS. Don't mistake Cruzian spin for reality.
As of 4:59 p.m. EST June 1, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 12,685 strikes (8,661 Iraq / 4,024 Syria). U.S. has conducted 9,663 strikes in Iraq and Syria (5,876 Iraq / 3,787 Syria)
Which is what? half the amount of air strikes that we launched during the first days of the Iraq War?
(1) We use more precise weapons now against smaller, man-sized targets and (2) the point is that Obama understands the dangers of Islamic Radicalism and Jihadism quite well, but he wants to keep Saudi Arabia as part of our pseudo coalition, much like all Presidents since FDR, so he consciously avoids language that might antagonize our critical Muslim-Arab allies.
10 million people live under Isis control. Yeah he's been doing a pretty good job
Pretty sure mass bombings of ISIS just leads to more ISIS recruits. They want a war with the west, especially the US.
Im pretty sure they aren't even bombing them. It is in no countries interest right now to see ISIS gone except Syria.
Yeah Iraq and Syria are fighting them. I wonder what Iraqis think about their "US backup".
They are the ones with people on the ground, so yes. We are providing air support and likely logistics. I don’t understand your point. We are not sending troops into that nightmare conflict. ISIS wants a direct conflict with the West to further their recruiting and make their fight not about killing other Muslims. We should not hand that to them.
His point is that we don't like anyone in the middle east so them killing themselves in a giant meatgrinder and burning their funding is fine from a logical (but not moral) standpoint. Plus while ISIS is focused on the ground war they spend less resources on preparing attacks on US soil.
Ending the war by destroying the ISIS state is likely to lead to a worse situation with regards to terrorist attacks.
No actually my point is that the US doesn't want a strong Syria under Assad and they benefit from Isis in that regard so they are halfassing their efforts.
Putting Assad back in charge isn’t a solution. He nearly got overthrown with very little support from anyone and we are not going to support him, even through back channels. We would lose the limited creditability we have in the Middle East and with a good chunk of the EU. It was easier to back shitty dictators when they were fighting the cold war for us, rather than just oppressing their people full time.
On June 17 2016 22:41 Plansix wrote: Populist ideas always gain some level of traction. The problem is when politicians cynically use the populist promises to get elected. As much of a pain as Bernie was, I don’t believe he is cynical and really wants to implement the things he exposes. My problem with him is his distain of pragmatism, which mirrors a lot of my problems other progressives. I will take 1/2% ever month over the chance 100% every 8 years. But some people don’t like that. But to be fair, I am also a firmly middle class guy that has a pretty stable life, so I have the luxury of patience.
But that form of populism worked in the last couple mid terms. Promises of removing the ACA, which people knew was impossible. But they promised it anyways because it got votes. Its like overturning Roe V Wade since the ruling. They know they can’t just overturn without an amazing confluence of events, but they keep promising it.
On June 17 2016 22:41 NukeD wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:16 Hexe wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:07 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
On June 17 2016 10:05 Hexe wrote: [quote] Which is what? half the amount of air strikes that we launched during the first days of the Iraq War?
(1) We use more precise weapons now against smaller, man-sized targets and (2) the point is that Obama understands the dangers of Islamic Radicalism and Jihadism quite well, but he wants to keep Saudi Arabia as part of our pseudo coalition, much like all Presidents since FDR, so he consciously avoids language that might antagonize our critical Muslim-Arab allies.
10 million people live under Isis control. Yeah he's been doing a pretty good job
Pretty sure mass bombings of ISIS just leads to more ISIS recruits. They want a war with the west, especially the US.
Im pretty sure they aren't even bombing them. It is in no countries interest right now to see ISIS gone except Syria.
Yeah Iraq and Syria are fighting them. I wonder what Iraqis think about their "US backup".
They are the ones with people on the ground, so yes. We are providing air support and likely logistics. I don’t understand your point. We are not sending troops into that nightmare conflict. ISIS wants a direct conflict with the West to further their recruiting and make their fight not about killing other Muslims. We should not hand that to them.
His point is that we don't like anyone in the middle east so them killing themselves in a giant meatgrinder and burning their funding is fine from a logical (but not moral) standpoint. Plus while ISIS is focused on the ground war they spend less resources on preparing attacks on US soil.
Ending the war by destroying the ISIS state is likely to lead to a worse situation with regards to terrorist attacks.
No actually my point is that the US doesn't want a strong Syria under Assad and they benefit from Isis in that regard so they are halfassing their efforts.
I don't see it. I get your point about the strategic benefit; but ISIS also hurts US interests alot. The benefit vs assad It's not enough reason to go easy on ISIS. it certainly doesn't seem like the likeliest explanation.
I don't think anyone, at all, has a clue of what to do with Syria. There is just a panel of really horrible options.
. Carpet bombing everything à-la Trump is certainly the one most stupid idea. I don't know how anyone can be dumb enough to believe he has a comprehensive plan. A lot of words and a macho attitude, but if it was as simple as launching a lot of bombs or sending the army, the Iraq war would have been a great success. . Assad is not an option anymore, he has 0 credibility, and anybody who would support him would lose his. And it's unlikely the country will ever be at peace again with him in power. . The Syrian free army is decimated and nobody has a clue about who the hell is who and who fights for what in that heteroclite coalition. They would need massive support to win anything. . Isis, well, everybody wants ISIS destroyed.
On top of that the Russians will defend Assad every time he is threatened. Nobody really wants a proxy war with the Russians.
I guess the kurds are the last guys on the ground one can support without creating further disaster. And across the frontier, the corrupt and weak Iraqi government. Probably (?) But that doesn't solve anything on the Syrian front.
Have to thank Bush and the neocons hawks of the GOP for the cosmic mess they have made. Not only they haven't learnt a thing, but now they blame Obama for it. It's just hilarious.
Honestly if the Russians support Assad, then Assad is more than likely going to get back on that seat. To the detriment of Syrians.
I still think it's a little easy to play the "everything is USA's fault game" when the Cold War was fought by both the USA and Russia. Like it or not, we're still dealing with the consequences of the Cold War, itself a consequence of the second world war. These problems don't just go away because someone flicks a "peace" switch.
re: biff I'd say people do have plans, it's just that like you say all the options are terrible. My impression is that that's what Obama plan is doing, trying to address the issues in the least horrible way (still horrible of course),
On June 17 2016 22:41 Plansix wrote: Populist ideas always gain some level of traction. The problem is when politicians cynically use the populist promises to get elected. As much of a pain as Bernie was, I don’t believe he is cynical and really wants to implement the things he exposes. My problem with him is his distain of pragmatism, which mirrors a lot of my problems other progressives. I will take 1/2% ever month over the chance 100% every 8 years. But some people don’t like that. But to be fair, I am also a firmly middle class guy that has a pretty stable life, so I have the luxury of patience.
The problem is that, say, 20% over 5 years do not amount to the same thing as 100% NAOW. It's like escape velocity: you need a certain amount of speed to escape the gravitational pull of earth, or all the energy that you used up will get you nowhere, eventually you'll tumble down back towards earth again. Trying to enact incremental change often leads to no change at all. You need a certain force to dislodge something from its system, or it will return to its old stable state. I don't think the progressive movement, whatever that actually entails in detail, cannot afford to go for incrementalism any more.
On June 17 2016 22:41 Plansix wrote: Populist ideas always gain some level of traction. The problem is when politicians cynically use the populist promises to get elected. As much of a pain as Bernie was, I don’t believe he is cynical and really wants to implement the things he exposes. My problem with him is his distain of pragmatism, which mirrors a lot of my problems other progressives. I will take 1/2% ever month over the chance 100% every 8 years. But some people don’t like that. But to be fair, I am also a firmly middle class guy that has a pretty stable life, so I have the luxury of patience.
Most Bernie supporters are white people with high educations.
People really in need know better than fantasies of revolutions. They want concrete things, and most of all, they want things that are achievable. Which is why they supported Obama and now support Clinton.
I'm talking of the left of course. Right wing poor people are being sold myths.
EPT
