|
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 August 20 2016 04:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 04:18 zlefin wrote:
falling ->
I'd say the problem is that there's some bad posters who aren't just doing one liners; but they do make long cited posts, which are then shown to be unsound repeatedly. They rely on terrible sources; and they keep using them over and over; with some things it's easier to avoid (i.e. certain known semi-news sites), with others it's less immediately obvious. Sometimes they fail ot have a good grasp on basics of reality, and never listen no matter how many times things are demonstrated to be to the contrary.
After awhile it just becomes clear that no useful discussion is possible; as they're clearly not interested in counter-evidence, and what they provide is never any good.
likewise people can be uselessly horribly partisan.
in a years long running thread, it's quite feasible to get to the point where it's clear that some people are simply not worth talking to; because there's such a long history of evidence to assess their average quality.
it also doesn't help imho that people are allowed a lot of slack to semi-shitpost, which makes people combative and less likely to usefully engage, and makes people just not worth dealing with. One important thing to keep in mind when discussing on the internet is that very, very few people will actually adjust their opinion during a discussion. It normally takes a combination of a special type of person coupled with an extraordinarily persuasive argument for someone to actually change an opinion he felt strongly enough about to articulate an argument for, especially online. But many, many other people read the exchanges, these are the people you are really trying to reach. I've hardly ever reverted an opinion because of an internet argument I've been involved in, and I've rarely even made significant adjustments, but I have on many occasions formed opinions on subjects where I was initially neutral because of persuasive arguments. And this is much more likely to happen following a long, elaborate post containing sources.
such people tend to be silent though; so there's a lack of the positive feedback that makes it worthwhile. It's a lot easier to make good posts when it's clear and apparent that there are readers who are benefiting from them.
it's certainly a lot nicer when actually neutral people are in the discussions, or are seeking info, as then you actually can see results more clearly.
|
Hey, we changed Templar’s opinion on the Wall, so I consider that my accomplishment for this election season.
|
There have been a significant number of times in this thread that a Trump supporter has contorted and adjusted his argument in response to the refutation of others. He won't acknowledge it, of course, but it was an inevitable that he had to insert a different meaning to Trump's words in order to defend them. It's more common to Trump supporters because they're in the position of having to deal with the face value of his statements. So that is one instance of opinions changing ITT.
|
On August 20 2016 04:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 04:18 zlefin wrote:
falling ->
I'd say the problem is that there's some bad posters who aren't just doing one liners; but they do make long cited posts, which are then shown to be unsound repeatedly. They rely on terrible sources; and they keep using them over and over; with some things it's easier to avoid (i.e. certain known semi-news sites), with others it's less immediately obvious. Sometimes they fail ot have a good grasp on basics of reality, and never listen no matter how many times things are demonstrated to be to the contrary.
After awhile it just becomes clear that no useful discussion is possible; as they're clearly not interested in counter-evidence, and what they provide is never any good.
likewise people can be uselessly horribly partisan.
in a years long running thread, it's quite feasible to get to the point where it's clear that some people are simply not worth talking to; because there's such a long history of evidence to assess their average quality.
it also doesn't help imho that people are allowed a lot of slack to semi-shitpost, which makes people combative and less likely to usefully engage, and makes people just not worth dealing with. One important thing to keep in mind when discussing on the internet is that very, very few people will actually adjust their opinion during a discussion. It normally takes a combination of a special type of person coupled with an extraordinarily persuasive argument for someone to actually change an opinion he felt strongly enough about to articulate an argument for, especially online. But many, many other people read the exchanges, these are the people you are really trying to reach. I've hardly ever reverted an opinion because of an internet argument I've been involved in, and I've rarely even made significant adjustments, but I have on many occasions formed opinions on subjects where I was initially neutral because of persuasive arguments. And this is much more likely to happen following a long, elaborate post containing sources.
The one thing that can't be forgotten with all of this fetishizing of sources is that the sources don't mean dick if they are being used to support points that fall outside of the bounds of the argument at hand.
|
Norway28911 Posts
imo, you can chalk up trump supporters deflecting to 'extremely persuasive arguments'.  (In seriousness, firstly the trump supporters who have deflected have also shown themselves as having greater than normal willingness to listen to the other side, secondly trump is a special case, thirdly people can adjust segments of their arguments without really changing their opinion, this happens with some frequency. For example 'okay, I agree that the wall isn't a sound idea' isn't normally followed by 'and for that reason I have concluded that Trump either is lying or doesn't know what he's talking and I have chosen to vote for someone else', but it is rather followed by 'but I'm still gonna vote for him because I agree with his overall message and he's much better than Hillary'. )
|
On August 20 2016 04:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 03:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:It is one of the many ironies of the 2016 presidential campaign that the United States is at war in varying degrees in four different countries in the Middle East and North Africa—Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen—as well as continuing its “longest war” in Afghanistan. All five of these wars now involve ISIS to some degree—ISIS is the central focus of the wars in Iraq, Syria, and Libya—and probably to a degree that seriously threatens the future stability of the MENA region and U.S. strategic interests.
Neither Trump nor Clinton have seriously addressed U.S. policy for any of these five wars, and the Obama Administration has not publically stated its grand strategy for any conflict. For the first time in its national history, the United States may get through a Presidential campaign amidst multiple wars without seriously debating or discussing where any of its wars are going, or what their longer-term impact will be.
If anything, both American politics and the media seem to focus far more on whether or not President Obama failed to keep his 2008 campaign promises to end very different wars. This focus disregards whether or not his legacy involves the ability to actually win any of what are now very different conflicts in a form that will have an outcome that serves U.S. interests and those of our allies. Source Just like we have drones defending why a ransom isn't ransom, we have the same drones saying why Obama's handling isn't his fault or is in despite of the best expert policy, and why Hillary is most capable of fixing the trouble. Expect to see a rise in reporting if Trump is elected.
The president's got style and substance fused pretty well - he's not doing much of anything and not making any spectacle of it. That's the unfortunate climate we're in, or he thinks we're in, that he's politically afraid to practice robust foreign policy because people might think any actions the US would abroad are too dirty and stop voting. So we get these kick the bucket fetuses of haphazard policy involving supplying arms, sanctions, drone strikes, and having fewer troops in the Middle East than in Germany, and hoping nothing ends up bad enough that the Democrats would either 1) lose elections over it or 2) have to do something decisive like start a war that they would then lose elections over.
Edit: I mean kick the can, not kick the bucket.
|
On August 20 2016 05:49 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 04:19 Danglars wrote:On August 20 2016 03:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:It is one of the many ironies of the 2016 presidential campaign that the United States is at war in varying degrees in four different countries in the Middle East and North Africa—Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen—as well as continuing its “longest war” in Afghanistan. All five of these wars now involve ISIS to some degree—ISIS is the central focus of the wars in Iraq, Syria, and Libya—and probably to a degree that seriously threatens the future stability of the MENA region and U.S. strategic interests.
Neither Trump nor Clinton have seriously addressed U.S. policy for any of these five wars, and the Obama Administration has not publically stated its grand strategy for any conflict. For the first time in its national history, the United States may get through a Presidential campaign amidst multiple wars without seriously debating or discussing where any of its wars are going, or what their longer-term impact will be.
If anything, both American politics and the media seem to focus far more on whether or not President Obama failed to keep his 2008 campaign promises to end very different wars. This focus disregards whether or not his legacy involves the ability to actually win any of what are now very different conflicts in a form that will have an outcome that serves U.S. interests and those of our allies. Source Just like we have drones defending why a ransom isn't ransom, we have the same drones saying why Obama's handling isn't his fault or is in despite of the best expert policy, and why Hillary is most capable of fixing the trouble. Expect to see a rise in reporting if Trump is elected. The president's got style and substance fused pretty well - he's not doing much of anything and not making any spectacle of it. That's the unfortunate climate we're in, or he thinks we're in, that he's politically afraid to practice robust foreign policy because people might think any actions the US would abroad are too dirty and stop voting. So we get these kick the bucket fetuses of haphazard policy involving supplying arms, sanctions, drone strikes, and having fewer troops in the Middle East than in Germany, and hoping nothing ends up bad enough that the Democrats would either 1) lose elections over it or 2) have to do something decisive like start a war that they would then lose elections over.
Yeah, the lack of US wars/invasions is really a dissappointing low point in US foreign policy. I wonder how the US citizens can accept this lack of action.
|
On August 20 2016 06:04 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 05:49 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 04:19 Danglars wrote:On August 20 2016 03:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:It is one of the many ironies of the 2016 presidential campaign that the United States is at war in varying degrees in four different countries in the Middle East and North Africa—Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen—as well as continuing its “longest war” in Afghanistan. All five of these wars now involve ISIS to some degree—ISIS is the central focus of the wars in Iraq, Syria, and Libya—and probably to a degree that seriously threatens the future stability of the MENA region and U.S. strategic interests.
Neither Trump nor Clinton have seriously addressed U.S. policy for any of these five wars, and the Obama Administration has not publically stated its grand strategy for any conflict. For the first time in its national history, the United States may get through a Presidential campaign amidst multiple wars without seriously debating or discussing where any of its wars are going, or what their longer-term impact will be.
If anything, both American politics and the media seem to focus far more on whether or not President Obama failed to keep his 2008 campaign promises to end very different wars. This focus disregards whether or not his legacy involves the ability to actually win any of what are now very different conflicts in a form that will have an outcome that serves U.S. interests and those of our allies. Source Just like we have drones defending why a ransom isn't ransom, we have the same drones saying why Obama's handling isn't his fault or is in despite of the best expert policy, and why Hillary is most capable of fixing the trouble. Expect to see a rise in reporting if Trump is elected. The president's got style and substance fused pretty well - he's not doing much of anything and not making any spectacle of it. That's the unfortunate climate we're in, or he thinks we're in, that he's politically afraid to practice robust foreign policy because people might think any actions the US would abroad are too dirty and stop voting. So we get these kick the bucket fetuses of haphazard policy involving supplying arms, sanctions, drone strikes, and having fewer troops in the Middle East than in Germany, and hoping nothing ends up bad enough that the Democrats would either 1) lose elections over it or 2) have to do something decisive like start a war that they would then lose elections over. Yeah, the lack of US wars/invasions is really a dissappointing low point in US foreign policy. I wonder how the US citizens can accept this lack of action.
Most Americans aren't buying it, actually:
+ Show Spoiler +
They might have thought differently if US foreign policy was working even without the military.
|
On August 20 2016 06:20 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 06:04 mahrgell wrote:On August 20 2016 05:49 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 04:19 Danglars wrote:On August 20 2016 03:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:It is one of the many ironies of the 2016 presidential campaign that the United States is at war in varying degrees in four different countries in the Middle East and North Africa—Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen—as well as continuing its “longest war” in Afghanistan. All five of these wars now involve ISIS to some degree—ISIS is the central focus of the wars in Iraq, Syria, and Libya—and probably to a degree that seriously threatens the future stability of the MENA region and U.S. strategic interests.
Neither Trump nor Clinton have seriously addressed U.S. policy for any of these five wars, and the Obama Administration has not publically stated its grand strategy for any conflict. For the first time in its national history, the United States may get through a Presidential campaign amidst multiple wars without seriously debating or discussing where any of its wars are going, or what their longer-term impact will be.
If anything, both American politics and the media seem to focus far more on whether or not President Obama failed to keep his 2008 campaign promises to end very different wars. This focus disregards whether or not his legacy involves the ability to actually win any of what are now very different conflicts in a form that will have an outcome that serves U.S. interests and those of our allies. Source Just like we have drones defending why a ransom isn't ransom, we have the same drones saying why Obama's handling isn't his fault or is in despite of the best expert policy, and why Hillary is most capable of fixing the trouble. Expect to see a rise in reporting if Trump is elected. The president's got style and substance fused pretty well - he's not doing much of anything and not making any spectacle of it. That's the unfortunate climate we're in, or he thinks we're in, that he's politically afraid to practice robust foreign policy because people might think any actions the US would abroad are too dirty and stop voting. So we get these kick the bucket fetuses of haphazard policy involving supplying arms, sanctions, drone strikes, and having fewer troops in the Middle East than in Germany, and hoping nothing ends up bad enough that the Democrats would either 1) lose elections over it or 2) have to do something decisive like start a war that they would then lose elections over. Yeah, the lack of US wars/invasions is really a dissappointing low point in US foreign policy. I wonder how the US citizens can accept this lack of action. Most Americans aren't buying it, actually: + Show Spoiler +They might have thought differently if US foreign policy was working even without the military.
you should really cite more recent polling.
and just because public is unhappy doesn't mean the calls were bad; most people have a terrible understanding of geopolitics and the military capabilities.
|
Disapproval in itself does not show us the whole picture. If you pair that poll with another one showing our wiliness to become engages in another conflict in the Middle East, I bet it would show the US population is now interested in another war in that area. That is what is showed when it came to Syria.
|
On August 20 2016 06:20 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 06:04 mahrgell wrote:On August 20 2016 05:49 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 04:19 Danglars wrote:On August 20 2016 03:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:It is one of the many ironies of the 2016 presidential campaign that the United States is at war in varying degrees in four different countries in the Middle East and North Africa—Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen—as well as continuing its “longest war” in Afghanistan. All five of these wars now involve ISIS to some degree—ISIS is the central focus of the wars in Iraq, Syria, and Libya—and probably to a degree that seriously threatens the future stability of the MENA region and U.S. strategic interests.
Neither Trump nor Clinton have seriously addressed U.S. policy for any of these five wars, and the Obama Administration has not publically stated its grand strategy for any conflict. For the first time in its national history, the United States may get through a Presidential campaign amidst multiple wars without seriously debating or discussing where any of its wars are going, or what their longer-term impact will be.
If anything, both American politics and the media seem to focus far more on whether or not President Obama failed to keep his 2008 campaign promises to end very different wars. This focus disregards whether or not his legacy involves the ability to actually win any of what are now very different conflicts in a form that will have an outcome that serves U.S. interests and those of our allies. Source Just like we have drones defending why a ransom isn't ransom, we have the same drones saying why Obama's handling isn't his fault or is in despite of the best expert policy, and why Hillary is most capable of fixing the trouble. Expect to see a rise in reporting if Trump is elected. The president's got style and substance fused pretty well - he's not doing much of anything and not making any spectacle of it. That's the unfortunate climate we're in, or he thinks we're in, that he's politically afraid to practice robust foreign policy because people might think any actions the US would abroad are too dirty and stop voting. So we get these kick the bucket fetuses of haphazard policy involving supplying arms, sanctions, drone strikes, and having fewer troops in the Middle East than in Germany, and hoping nothing ends up bad enough that the Democrats would either 1) lose elections over it or 2) have to do something decisive like start a war that they would then lose elections over. Yeah, the lack of US wars/invasions is really a dissappointing low point in US foreign policy. I wonder how the US citizens can accept this lack of action. Most Americans aren't buying it, actually: + Show Spoiler +They might have thought differently if US foreign policy was working even without the military.
Would staying in Iraq for decades count as 'it's working' any more than this though? Or what is the proposed alternative here?
|
If you look at average citizen approval for a given topic, and then look at the average citizen education level for that same topic, the low approval should give you confidence in our direction, not hesitation. What the fuck use is an opinion if it isn't actually grounded in anything?
|
On August 20 2016 05:13 Plansix wrote:
Hey, we changed Templar’s opinion on the Wall, so I consider that my accomplishment for this election season.
I don't know if *we* did that, or if that was just Trump going far enough off the deep end.
|
On August 20 2016 06:29 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 06:20 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 06:04 mahrgell wrote:On August 20 2016 05:49 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 04:19 Danglars wrote:On August 20 2016 03:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:It is one of the many ironies of the 2016 presidential campaign that the United States is at war in varying degrees in four different countries in the Middle East and North Africa—Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen—as well as continuing its “longest war” in Afghanistan. All five of these wars now involve ISIS to some degree—ISIS is the central focus of the wars in Iraq, Syria, and Libya—and probably to a degree that seriously threatens the future stability of the MENA region and U.S. strategic interests.
Neither Trump nor Clinton have seriously addressed U.S. policy for any of these five wars, and the Obama Administration has not publically stated its grand strategy for any conflict. For the first time in its national history, the United States may get through a Presidential campaign amidst multiple wars without seriously debating or discussing where any of its wars are going, or what their longer-term impact will be.
If anything, both American politics and the media seem to focus far more on whether or not President Obama failed to keep his 2008 campaign promises to end very different wars. This focus disregards whether or not his legacy involves the ability to actually win any of what are now very different conflicts in a form that will have an outcome that serves U.S. interests and those of our allies. Source Just like we have drones defending why a ransom isn't ransom, we have the same drones saying why Obama's handling isn't his fault or is in despite of the best expert policy, and why Hillary is most capable of fixing the trouble. Expect to see a rise in reporting if Trump is elected. The president's got style and substance fused pretty well - he's not doing much of anything and not making any spectacle of it. That's the unfortunate climate we're in, or he thinks we're in, that he's politically afraid to practice robust foreign policy because people might think any actions the US would abroad are too dirty and stop voting. So we get these kick the bucket fetuses of haphazard policy involving supplying arms, sanctions, drone strikes, and having fewer troops in the Middle East than in Germany, and hoping nothing ends up bad enough that the Democrats would either 1) lose elections over it or 2) have to do something decisive like start a war that they would then lose elections over. Yeah, the lack of US wars/invasions is really a dissappointing low point in US foreign policy. I wonder how the US citizens can accept this lack of action. Most Americans aren't buying it, actually: + Show Spoiler +They might have thought differently if US foreign policy was working even without the military. Would staying in Iraq for decades count as 'it's working' any more than this though? Or what is the proposed alternative here?
Those are the only two foreign policy multiple choices, occupy a specific country for decades or continue with exactly what the government's doing now.
|
On August 20 2016 06:46 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 06:29 Dan HH wrote:On August 20 2016 06:20 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 06:04 mahrgell wrote:On August 20 2016 05:49 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 04:19 Danglars wrote:On August 20 2016 03:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:It is one of the many ironies of the 2016 presidential campaign that the United States is at war in varying degrees in four different countries in the Middle East and North Africa—Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen—as well as continuing its “longest war” in Afghanistan. All five of these wars now involve ISIS to some degree—ISIS is the central focus of the wars in Iraq, Syria, and Libya—and probably to a degree that seriously threatens the future stability of the MENA region and U.S. strategic interests.
Neither Trump nor Clinton have seriously addressed U.S. policy for any of these five wars, and the Obama Administration has not publically stated its grand strategy for any conflict. For the first time in its national history, the United States may get through a Presidential campaign amidst multiple wars without seriously debating or discussing where any of its wars are going, or what their longer-term impact will be.
If anything, both American politics and the media seem to focus far more on whether or not President Obama failed to keep his 2008 campaign promises to end very different wars. This focus disregards whether or not his legacy involves the ability to actually win any of what are now very different conflicts in a form that will have an outcome that serves U.S. interests and those of our allies. Source Just like we have drones defending why a ransom isn't ransom, we have the same drones saying why Obama's handling isn't his fault or is in despite of the best expert policy, and why Hillary is most capable of fixing the trouble. Expect to see a rise in reporting if Trump is elected. The president's got style and substance fused pretty well - he's not doing much of anything and not making any spectacle of it. That's the unfortunate climate we're in, or he thinks we're in, that he's politically afraid to practice robust foreign policy because people might think any actions the US would abroad are too dirty and stop voting. So we get these kick the bucket fetuses of haphazard policy involving supplying arms, sanctions, drone strikes, and having fewer troops in the Middle East than in Germany, and hoping nothing ends up bad enough that the Democrats would either 1) lose elections over it or 2) have to do something decisive like start a war that they would then lose elections over. Yeah, the lack of US wars/invasions is really a dissappointing low point in US foreign policy. I wonder how the US citizens can accept this lack of action. Most Americans aren't buying it, actually: + Show Spoiler +They might have thought differently if US foreign policy was working even without the military. Would staying in Iraq for decades count as 'it's working' any more than this though? Or what is the proposed alternative here? Those are the only two foreign policy multiple choices, occupy a specific country for decades or continue with exactly what the government's doing now.
Hence the 2nd question in my comment. If occupation is bad, and leaving is bad, what is this 'robust foreign policy' you are referencing cryptically that at the same time involves having more troops in the Middle East but without occupying anything?
|
Trump keeps going to all white neighborhoods to do his black outreach
Donald Trump promised Friday night that if elected president, he will win 95 percent of the African-American vote in his reelection effort.
Trump told the Dimondale, Michigan, crowd that “we can never fix our problems by relying on the same politicians who created our problems in the first place. A new future requires brand-new leadership.”
“You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs. Fifty-eight percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?” Trump said. “And at the end of four years, I guarantee you that I will get over 95 percent of the African-American vote. I promise you. Because I will produce.”
diamondale has .7% african american population in the 2010 census.
he did the same thing last week in a east coast suburb
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-african-american-vote-227218
|
|
|
On August 20 2016 06:55 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 06:46 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 06:29 Dan HH wrote:On August 20 2016 06:20 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 06:04 mahrgell wrote:On August 20 2016 05:49 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 04:19 Danglars wrote:On August 20 2016 03:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:It is one of the many ironies of the 2016 presidential campaign that the United States is at war in varying degrees in four different countries in the Middle East and North Africa—Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen—as well as continuing its “longest war” in Afghanistan. All five of these wars now involve ISIS to some degree—ISIS is the central focus of the wars in Iraq, Syria, and Libya—and probably to a degree that seriously threatens the future stability of the MENA region and U.S. strategic interests.
Neither Trump nor Clinton have seriously addressed U.S. policy for any of these five wars, and the Obama Administration has not publically stated its grand strategy for any conflict. For the first time in its national history, the United States may get through a Presidential campaign amidst multiple wars without seriously debating or discussing where any of its wars are going, or what their longer-term impact will be.
If anything, both American politics and the media seem to focus far more on whether or not President Obama failed to keep his 2008 campaign promises to end very different wars. This focus disregards whether or not his legacy involves the ability to actually win any of what are now very different conflicts in a form that will have an outcome that serves U.S. interests and those of our allies. Source Just like we have drones defending why a ransom isn't ransom, we have the same drones saying why Obama's handling isn't his fault or is in despite of the best expert policy, and why Hillary is most capable of fixing the trouble. Expect to see a rise in reporting if Trump is elected. The president's got style and substance fused pretty well - he's not doing much of anything and not making any spectacle of it. That's the unfortunate climate we're in, or he thinks we're in, that he's politically afraid to practice robust foreign policy because people might think any actions the US would abroad are too dirty and stop voting. So we get these kick the bucket fetuses of haphazard policy involving supplying arms, sanctions, drone strikes, and having fewer troops in the Middle East than in Germany, and hoping nothing ends up bad enough that the Democrats would either 1) lose elections over it or 2) have to do something decisive like start a war that they would then lose elections over. Yeah, the lack of US wars/invasions is really a dissappointing low point in US foreign policy. I wonder how the US citizens can accept this lack of action. Most Americans aren't buying it, actually: + Show Spoiler +They might have thought differently if US foreign policy was working even without the military. Would staying in Iraq for decades count as 'it's working' any more than this though? Or what is the proposed alternative here? Those are the only two foreign policy multiple choices, occupy a specific country for decades or continue with exactly what the government's doing now. Hence the 2nd question in my comment. If occupation is bad, and leaving is bad, what is this 'robust foreign policy' you are referencing cryptically that at the same time involves having more troops in the Middle East but without occupying anything?
There's nothing wrong with occupying (or leaving) a country so long as it serves your goals, which the president doesn't have. Instead we get "containment" of ISIS while letting the international community turn Syria into a playground for proxy wars. In the case of Iraq, the government asked the US to withdraw.
|
On August 20 2016 05:13 Plansix wrote:
Hey, we changed Templar’s opinion on the Wall, so I consider that my accomplishment for this election season.
What?
|
On August 20 2016 07:16 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 06:55 Dan HH wrote:On August 20 2016 06:46 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 06:29 Dan HH wrote:On August 20 2016 06:20 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 06:04 mahrgell wrote:On August 20 2016 05:49 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 04:19 Danglars wrote:On August 20 2016 03:17 GGTeMpLaR wrote:It is one of the many ironies of the 2016 presidential campaign that the United States is at war in varying degrees in four different countries in the Middle East and North Africa—Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen—as well as continuing its “longest war” in Afghanistan. All five of these wars now involve ISIS to some degree—ISIS is the central focus of the wars in Iraq, Syria, and Libya—and probably to a degree that seriously threatens the future stability of the MENA region and U.S. strategic interests.
Neither Trump nor Clinton have seriously addressed U.S. policy for any of these five wars, and the Obama Administration has not publically stated its grand strategy for any conflict. For the first time in its national history, the United States may get through a Presidential campaign amidst multiple wars without seriously debating or discussing where any of its wars are going, or what their longer-term impact will be.
If anything, both American politics and the media seem to focus far more on whether or not President Obama failed to keep his 2008 campaign promises to end very different wars. This focus disregards whether or not his legacy involves the ability to actually win any of what are now very different conflicts in a form that will have an outcome that serves U.S. interests and those of our allies. Source Just like we have drones defending why a ransom isn't ransom, we have the same drones saying why Obama's handling isn't his fault or is in despite of the best expert policy, and why Hillary is most capable of fixing the trouble. Expect to see a rise in reporting if Trump is elected. The president's got style and substance fused pretty well - he's not doing much of anything and not making any spectacle of it. That's the unfortunate climate we're in, or he thinks we're in, that he's politically afraid to practice robust foreign policy because people might think any actions the US would abroad are too dirty and stop voting. So we get these kick the bucket fetuses of haphazard policy involving supplying arms, sanctions, drone strikes, and having fewer troops in the Middle East than in Germany, and hoping nothing ends up bad enough that the Democrats would either 1) lose elections over it or 2) have to do something decisive like start a war that they would then lose elections over. Yeah, the lack of US wars/invasions is really a dissappointing low point in US foreign policy. I wonder how the US citizens can accept this lack of action. Most Americans aren't buying it, actually: + Show Spoiler +They might have thought differently if US foreign policy was working even without the military. Would staying in Iraq for decades count as 'it's working' any more than this though? Or what is the proposed alternative here? Those are the only two foreign policy multiple choices, occupy a specific country for decades or continue with exactly what the government's doing now. Hence the 2nd question in my comment. If occupation is bad, and leaving is bad, what is this 'robust foreign policy' you are referencing cryptically that at the same time involves having more troops in the Middle East but without occupying anything? There's nothing wrong with occupying (or leaving) a country so long as it serves your goals, which the president doesn't have. Instead we get "containment" of ISIS while letting the international community turn Syria into a playground for proxy wars. In the case of Iraq, the government asked the US to withdraw.
you still did not answer the question.
also the approach that there is nothing wrong with actions as long as they are selfish is exactly the kind of morally bancrupt stuff we were discussing with kwizach a few months ago...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
