US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5407

On October 10 2016 03:02 JW_DTLA wrote:


What about the more moderate liberals out there who think TTIP isn't so bad and that maybe Obama could have intervened more? Sure, the Greens think everything is a corrupt corporatist conspiracy. But I can't be alone in thinking that Obama Policies + a little more bombing could be good.

On October 10 2016 02:13 biology]major wrote:
Given these recent trump tapes, her reluctance to do press conferences makes perfect sense. I'd wondered how she was so confident to just run out the clock, this is why. As for the debate tonight, trump is going to go down in flames and drag everyone he can down with him. I don't even know if there will be a third debate. Unless a 4D chess playing, humble, policy focused version shows up, one can dream.

On October 10 2016 02:41 IgnE wrote:


now that one looks a little fucked up but maybe a case can be made that that highway corridor should
comprise a district. demographic comparisons would be interesting

like i assume that district was drawn to corral democratic votes. some of the swings away from the highway look suspicious.

On October 10 2016 03:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
why do you want more bombing?

On October 10 2016 03:38 pmh wrote:
Hillary is such a weak candidate that the risk that trump wins is still to big,so now they try eliminate trump,s ticket before the election lol. I think that right after the election all "shit" will come to the surface and we will see a small collapse on the financial markets.

On October 10 2016 03:39 JW_DTLA wrote:


Bush2 was all about invading other countries and spreading American systems by force. Obama represents a big retreat from American Interventionism abroad. I think there is an argument to be made that we should have been intervening more during the Arab Spring. I know nobody likes this, but the Libya intervention needed to have more people on the ground. Ambassador Stevens and the CIA mission in Benghazi should have been models for a lighter foot print intervention to make sure forces of order won after the destruction of the Ghadaffi regime. The response to the Benghazi attacks should have been doubling down and putting more money and men into making sure the tattered remnants of the secular armed forces of Libya held more ground. Instead, we ran away and now ISIS and Jihadists are seizing Libyan cities. HRC was the big proponent behind a harder Libyan intervention. Yes, we lost people in the Benghazi attack, but that should have been a lesson in going in with more security and proof we needed to be there.

EDIT: also, at the time I opposed any intervention in Syria in the early stages. Now I am questioning whether that was a good idea (500k+ dead has made me doubt nonintervention). Obama is doing pinpoint bombing of ISIS, which I approve of. But that is all we will ever be able to do because the Russians have squatted all over the place.

On October 10 2016 03:40 JinDesu wrote:


Alternatively: Trump's such a shit candidate that his ticket can't even make it to the election.

On October 10 2016 03:46 zeo wrote:
Bloody hell, why do all these debates have to be at 3am CET -.-

Yeah we aren't voting and have absolutely no impact on anything but at least move it back one hour guys

On October 10 2016 03:45 zlefin wrote:

the places are a shitshow; there is no intervention that will be truly effective; the ones that would be most effective are enormously expensive; and I'm still not sure how they screwed pu so bad on properly rebuilding iraq.
Intervention tends to be very costly, do you want to pay that much in money and lives? there's a lot of places in the world which could use intervention, we can't afford to fix them all. I'd say before intervening more, we should work on improving our nation building capabilities so we can usefully intervene and leave places in better shape. Otherwise intervention just isn't worth it.

On October 10 2016 03:45 zlefin wrote:

the places are a shitshow; there is no intervention that will be truly effective; the ones that would be most effective are enormously expensive; and I'm still not sure how they screwed pu so bad on properly rebuilding iraq.
Intervention tends to be very costly, do you want to pay that much in money and lives? there's a lot of places in the world which could use intervention, we can't afford to fix them all. I'd say before intervening more, we should work on improving our nation building capabilities so we can usefully intervene and leave places in better shape. Otherwise intervention just isn't worth it.

On October 10 2016 03:39 JW_DTLA wrote:


Bush2 was all about invading other countries and spreading American systems by force. Obama represents a big retreat from American Interventionism abroad. I think there is an argument to be made that we should have been intervening more during the Arab Spring. I know nobody likes this, but the Libya intervention needed to have more people on the ground. Ambassador Stevens and the CIA mission in Benghazi should have been models for a lighter foot print intervention to make sure forces of order won after the destruction of the Ghadaffi regime. The response to the Benghazi attacks should have been doubling down and putting more money and men into making sure the tattered remnants of the secular armed forces of Libya held more ground. Instead, we ran away and now ISIS and Jihadists are seizing Libyan cities. HRC was the big proponent behind a harder Libyan intervention. Yes, we lost people in the Benghazi attack, but that should have been a lesson in going in with more security and proof we needed to be there.

EDIT: also, at the time I opposed any intervention in Syria in the early stages. Now I am questioning whether that was a good idea (500k+ dead has made me doubt nonintervention). Obama is doing pinpoint bombing of ISIS, which I approve of. But that is all we will ever be able to do because the Russians have squatted all over the place.

On October 10 2016 03:52 Gorsameth wrote:

They screwed Iraq up because they didn't stay for 50 years.

They needed a generation of Iraqi's who grew up with democratic values. A generation brought up knowing they would need to hold the reigns for themselves and keep those values safe when the West withdraw the majority of its presence.

When it comes to overthrowing governments and cultures you need to either be willing to commit to generation building or you need to not bother.
Anything else just leaves a power vacuum that will blow up in your face.

On October 10 2016 03:50 JW_DTLA wrote:


When it comes to intervention, I have heard the following arguments of which I largely approve. We need to imagine three realms of intervention.

(1) The Arab world (Levant, North Africa, Syria). We will do only pure kinetic intervention here. Drones, special forces, contractors will be sent to hunt and kill Jihadists to keep their logistical strength down. America tried to intervene and build up new societies (Iraq war 2) but it was a disaster.

(2) The near Muslim world (Nigeria, Philippines, Indonesia, Central Africa, etc.). We send substantial aid and foreign deployed trainers to make sure that forces of order don't fall to occasional Jihadists uprisings. We don't engage in firefights, but we provide a sort of "Arsenal of Democracy" welfare line to weaker governments.

(3) Afghanistan. Permanent low intensity occupation to save American credibility.