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 October 13 2016 20:29 Biff The Understudy wrote: Now, now gentlemen. Let me lighten the mood:
So, Zhirinovsky is one of those "opposition party" candidates who get off on saying crazy stuff. He spends a substantial amount of his time going on different talk shows and getting attention in a matter not unlike the Trump man himself. Russians laugh at him too.
I said I wanted to lighten the mood, why so serious?
That being said, having an american president you can manipulate with a tweet must be incredibly appealing for former KGB official Vladimir Putin. Everybody plays 3D chess and suddenly your main enemy is an orange clown who struggles to play checker.
Also, you should look into the other tweet I posted, because that's not as fun, but it's actually quite enlightening.
I think a better analogy is that everyone else plays 3D chess while Trump runs around throwing his own shit at the wall. No-one wants to be around that.
On October 13 2016 18:53 RenSC2 wrote: One theme I've noticed from a few posters here on foreign policy is that intervention = bad. They see any intervention by the United States as a terrible thing and will sometimes even call it a war crime. In a few cases, they then link Hillary Clinton to those interventions and use that as a reason why she's dangerous/evil/corrupt/theDevil.
I'll admit to not being as knowledgeable on FP as some of the members here. I don't know the entire history of every conflict or all the shady dealings going on behind the scenes. However, I do recognize that there is a lot of moral grey area in intervention that seems to be forgotten by some posters. It essentially boils down to, "If you have great power, do you also have great responsibility?" The US clearly has great military power, so does it have a responsibility to use it for good? If the Libyan military is about to slaughter rebels, do we have a responsibility to protect the rebels if we feel they are the side of "good"? In that case, we did intervene and the country did become a mess, but does that truly mean it was wrong to intervene? Should we have just let the "good" guys die? In other conflicts, should we accept genocide as "not our problem"? We've done that before and while we generally don't get blamed for the deaths, a lot of people look to the United States and say, "how could you not help stop this?"
When we're attacked by a foreign nation (such as in WWII), the situation becomes pretty black and white. However, most conflicts aren't that simple for us. When you look at US foreign policy as right/wrong, it won't make sense at all. It's a mess and you'll end up coming to some conclusions that aren't right and attribute it to evil/greed/etc. However, if you look at our foreign policy through the lens of a lot of moral grey area, it makes a lot more sense. There are a lot of people who genuinely feel that we should be using our military to help the "good" guys around the world. They see it as a moral responsibility. Of course, they too may be suffering from seeing the world as good vs bad rather than lots of shades of grey, so perhaps you aren't as different from them as you'd like to believe.
Well a lot of the time, the question of intervention is not just noticing a conflict, but also seeing whether or not you can actually influence things on positive terms. Too often, both sides are not really the "good guys" or personal profit motives color the decision of intervention. The position is not so much non-interventionism as it is stepping back and assessing the consequences of a potential intervention with some more long-term oriented perspective. Libya is a great example of going in and making things worse by destroying a (genuinely terrible) government without enough forethought as to what will follow when you leave a power vacuum in a region where Islamists want power.
The U.S. military launched cruise missile strikes on Thursday to knock out three coastal radar sites in areas of Yemen controlled by Iran-aligned Houthi forces, retaliating after failed missile attacks this week on a U.S. Navy destroyer, U.S. officials said.
The strikes, authorized by President Barack Obama, represent Washington's first direct military action against suspected Houthi-controlled targets in Yemen's conflict.
Still, the Pentagon appeared to stress the limited nature of the strikes, aimed at radar that enabled the launch of at least three missiles against the U.S. Navy ship USS Mason on Sunday and Wednesday.
"These limited self-defense strikes were conducted to protect our personnel, our ships and our freedom of navigation," Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said.
U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.S. Navy destroyer USS Nitze launched the Tomahawk cruise missiles around 4 a.m. (0100 GMT).
Are you guys seriously debating US (or about any country in teh world) foreign policy almost exclusively on the basis of morality? Some posts completely excluding the possibilty of US acting on its own interests? That's like saying Real Madrid is playing to entertain the people and not to fucking win and make money. And yes Russia is supporting far-right parties all over Europe. And yes taht is despicable. But for them, that has just become a neccessity due to the development in international relations. Steinmeier (German foreign minister) met with fascist party leader Tyanibok during the Maidan-revolt. So Germany also actively supported far-right groups to further their own interests. The Arab Emirates is one of the countries with the worst human right record right now, but still a close ally to the US. Everyone is basically just doing what they can get away with to improve on their own power base. And moral arguments are usually just a means to a cause. Usually to get people to agree with your war.
On October 13 2016 21:49 RolleMcKnolle wrote: Are you guys seriously debating US (or about any country in teh world) foreign policy almost exclusively on the basis of morality? Some posts completely excluding the possibilty of US acting on its own interests? That's like saying Real Madrid is playing to entertain the people and not to fucking win and make money. And yes Russia is supporting far-right parties all over Europe. And yes taht is despicable. But for them, that has just become a neccessity due to the development in international relations. Steinmeier (German foreign minister) met with fascist party leader Tyanibok during the Maidan-revolt. So Germany also actively supported far-right groups to further their own interests. The Arab Emirates is one of the countries with the worst human right record right now, but still a close ally to the US. Everyone is basically just doing what they can get away with to improve on their own power base. And moral arguments are usually just a means to a cause. Usually to get people to agree with your war.
Fine, as long as we agree that the US (and their allies) and Russia are enemies then, and that Russia's interest is to harm and destabilize the West, I'm with you. No need to talk about goodies and baddies, it's just that we are in the US megathread.
We keep the morality thing to our careful examination of Putin's regime, which is a brutal dictatorship led by a bunch of horrendous cleptocrats, who murder and imprison opponents and journalists.
Although the situation in Libya is less than ideal, I have not heard convincing argument that an absence of intervention would have resulted in a better outcome.
You win. The whole thing just proves that Trump is just repeating crap he's seen on the internet without checking, like me. Is it lame if I defend myself by saying at least I don't run for POTUS and if I ever do, don't vote for me?
You win. The whole thing just proves that Trump is just repeating crap he's seen on the internet without checking, like me. Is it lame if I defend myself by saying at least I don't run for POTUS and if I ever do, don't vote for me?
Oh absolutely, he does read and repeat random stupid stuff without a filter of any kind. I also made a point earlier about how I think he fell into a compliment trap with Putin saying a nice word or two about him. In a way I just find it pretty hilarious since I know how the Republicans have spouted similar BS often in the past, and he is just a very colorful caricature of their political strategy.
Clinton apparently also noticed that the only prominent european politician that openly campaigns for Trump is also a racist bigoted scum.
To come back to our favourite discussion, isn't it a bit rich from Trump to claim that he will jail Clinton while he stands by Assad and Putin. I mean, seriously.
On October 13 2016 21:54 Plansix wrote: Although the situation in Libya is less than ideal, I have not heard convincing argument that an absence of intervention would have resulted in a better outcome.
In this case, the question may not be if it was right to intervene, but when and how. Among MidEast leaders Gaddafi was not a good one. I remember reading in some Israeli history books about how he randomly robbed reporters and then covertly bragged about what he stole, which is sort of indicative of how much of a twat he is. However, the way it was done left a power vacuum in the region, which obviously leads to civil war (again) and Islamist involvement similar to that in Chechnya. And in this case it's not really hindsight - the issues of a power vacuum are well explored and the consequences should have been clear.
This is of course one of those "no good options" scenarios to be sure. The way it was conducted was quite far from the "least bad" approach though.
On October 13 2016 21:54 Plansix wrote: Although the situation in Libya is less than ideal, I have not heard convincing argument that an absence of intervention would have resulted in a better outcome.
In this case, the question may not be if it was right to intervene, but when and how. Among MidEast leaders Gaddafi was not a good one. I remember reading in some Israeli history books about how he randomly robbed reporters and then covertly bragged about what he stole, which is sort of indicative of how much of a twat he is. However, the way it was done left a power vacuum in the region, which obviously leads to civil war (again) and Islamist involvement similar to that in Chechnya. And in this case it's not really hindsight - the issues of a power vacuum are well explored and the consequences should have been clear.
This is of course one of those "no good options" scenarios to be sure. The way it was conducted was quite far from the "least bad" approach though.
Well, I always wonder. After all, the situation in Syria and Libya was not that different at the beginning.
In Lybia the West intervened. In Syria it didn't, and let Assad massacre his people for years.
Might be that the only other scenarios for Libya were a scenario à-la Syrian, in which case they have done wonderfully, or a permanent occupation that was in any case not acceptable.
I'm always annoyed at people pointing fingers at the West saying simultaneously "look what you have done in Libya!!" and "look what you have done in Syria!!". You intervene or you don't, but being blamed for both at the same time is just a bit stupid.
We'll never know what would have happened if NATO had approached Libya the way it has approached Syria and vice versa. It might be that they actually did a shitload of damage control in Libya and would have been inspired to do the same in Syria before the whole thing turned into this shit.
You can only remove "bad" leaders if a majority (one might say a democratic majority) of the population is willing to take action to kick him out. If you come into a country without that majority of people willing to fight against the leader, then you will do nothing but raise hell. This is not a difficult concept. The details are a lot more complicated, obviously, but like what they're doing in Syria, giving a minority faction a bunch of weapons so they can fight, that's just plain stupid if your goal was to increase global stability and security. What the fuck kind of good is that going to do except spread violence and force more refugees into Europe? You have to work with the existing leaders, even if they are evil, or don't involve yourself at all. It's kind of funny, I'm suggesting that you work within the system instead of trying to upend it from outside. Doesn't that sound familiar somehow?
People keep saying "leader X has to be removed because he is evil" but that is never why America does what it does. I mean, come on, you can't believe that, can you? I mean, it doesn't remove evil leaders from corrupt countries where it doesn't have other particular interests such as oil, or whatever kind of weird relationships they have with the Saudis and Israel. If you look at Iraq, it clearly doesn't care about the suffering of the people in those countries where it removes leaders. I don't think I need to bring in any numbers on how many Iraqis died.
National security you say? I believe I recall hearing about CIA reports that warned how invading Iraq would destabilize the region and increase the risk to US national security for an extended period of time. So clearly, it is about energy and not about global security or the suffering of people under those leaders. Please stop pretending that it is.
On October 13 2016 21:54 Plansix wrote: Although the situation in Libya is less than ideal, I have not heard convincing argument that an absence of intervention would have resulted in a better outcome.
In this case, the question may not be if it was right to intervene, but when and how. Among MidEast leaders Gaddafi was not a good one. I remember reading in some Israeli history books about how he randomly robbed reporters and then covertly bragged about what he stole, which is sort of indicative of how much of a twat he is. However, the way it was done left a power vacuum in the region, which obviously leads to civil war (again) and Islamist involvement similar to that in Chechnya. And in this case it's not really hindsight - the issues of a power vacuum are well explored and the consequences should have been clear.
This is of course one of those "no good options" scenarios to be sure. The way it was conducted was quite far from the "least bad" approach though.
Well, I always wonder. After all, the situation in Syria and Libya was not that different at the beginning.
In Lybia the West intervened. In Syria it didn't, and let Assad massacre his people for years.
Might be that the only other scenarios for Libya were a scenario à-la Syrian, in which case they have done wonderfully, or a permanent occupation that was in any case not acceptable.
I'm always annoyed at people pointing fingers at the West saying simultaneously "look what you have done in Libya!!" and "look what you have done in Syria!!". You intervene or you don't, but being blamed for both at the same time is just a bit stupid.
We'll never know what would have happened if NATO had approached Libya the way it has approached Syria and vice versa. It might be that they actually did a shitload of damage control in Libya and would have been inspired to do the same in Syria before the whole thing turned into this shit.
Well you set that up as a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" dichotomy when it's a bit more complicated than that. In Libya, what happened was that a very unliked leader was ousted with the help of Western military support, but there wasn't really enough effort put in to address the power vacuum that that action created in any useful way, which led to more civil war. In Syria, the big issue is that the US funded and trained rebel groups - a method that has obvious appeal in that it's cheap, covert, and effective at creating an armed opposition to a group you don't like - which is ultimately a bad idea when they fold into ISIS and Al Qaeda and become your enemy (e.g. when ISIS spilled into Iraq and forced the US to make an effort there). There are a wide variety of other ways that these problems could have been dealt with, but it's not hard to argue that both leaving a power vacuum and arming rebels that become ISIS are bad ideas that could have been foreseen.
I also remember some discussion over a rather famous convoy of ISIS oil tankers - stolen oil that ISIS sold to fund its operations - that the US wouldn't bomb because of "environmental concerns" (many people thought that that was just a bad joke). That is, until the Russians went in and destroyed that convoy as part of their Syrian intervention. There is just a hell of a lot of "we want this conflict to end, but we want it to end on our terms" going on in Syria from every side, and the war goes on. It's another one of those "no good options" situations, and in this case the Russian plan of defeating the terrorists (and a lot of the "moderates" who align themselves with ISIS / Al Qaeda), and ensuring relative stability with a terrible, but secular, dictator, is one of the better ones. A scenario where the more reasonable rebel groups also get some notable representation in the government might allow the civil war to end and while that still isn't a fantastic outcome (given that it leaves a shitty dictator in power and legitimate grievances suppressed), it's probably the best that can be done.
On October 13 2016 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: Clinton apparently also noticed that the only prominent european politician that openly campaigns for Trump is also a racist bigoted scum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OefZJvlfM_I To come back to our favourite discussion, isn't it a bit rich from Trump to claim that he will jail Clinton while he stands by Assad and Putin. I mean, seriously.
And her lawyers. I wonder how our posters in the legal profession feel about that.
On October 13 2016 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: Clinton apparently also noticed that the only prominent european politician that openly campaigns for Trump is also a racist bigoted scum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OefZJvlfM_I To come back to our favourite discussion, isn't it a bit rich from Trump to claim that he will jail Clinton while he stands by Assad and Putin. I mean, seriously.
Like/Dislike ratio says it all. No-one is listening to Clinton and that establishment line anymore dude.
Donald Trump's campaign is reportedly pulling out of Virginia and focusing its efforts on four battleground states: Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio.
Unnamed sources, including those directly involved in the GOP’s efforts in the Virginia, confirmed to NBC News that the Trump operation was leaving the state.
Another anonymous Trump staffer told NBC that the campaign’s status in the state was still uncertain, though. "There have been conversations about shifting resources,” the staffer said. “But I haven't gotten any definitive answer on anything."
Polling conducted this month by Roanoke College found Clinton nine points ahead of Trump in the state among likely voters, 45 percent to Trump’s 36 percent. TPM’s PollTracker Average shows Clinton leading Trump 47.3 percent to 36.9 percent:
The move comes just a day after the Trump campaign fired its Virginia state co-chairman, Corey Stewart, after he took part in a protest outside the Republican National Committee headquarters against who he called “establishment pukes” bent on undermining Trump, according to the Washington Post.
“David Bossie’s been a real problem,” Stewart told the Post after he was fired.
Stewart said Bossie, Trump’s deputy campaign manager, “basically refused to support the efforts in Virginia. I can say this now because I’m not a member of the campaign anymore."
"The only thing the campaign had to do was spend money on an ad campaign and it would have been competitive," he told NBC News Wednesday, after news broke of the campaign’s shifting priorities. “I’m just disgusted.”
The decision to not bomb oil tankers due to environmental concerns is completely valid. This isn’t some tree hugging, save the endangered turtle level environmental concern. Attacking those oil tankers would do long term damage to the region, likely well beyond the current conflict. It would damage the eco system, which humans in the area use to feed themselves. There would be no way to clean up the spilled oil due to the conflict. Long term, it could great a depressed region in Syria for decades beyond.
And it’s not like the oil is going to stay in the ocean around Syria.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Cuo1iLpUsAUIYRn.jpg-large.jpeg)
