|
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 October 15 2016 22:55 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 22:41 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud. If she has not made such a statement, and I don't know whether she has or not, that's still a hell of a long way from your initial assertion that Clinton being pro-Al Qaeda is not "farfetched". The fact she supervised directly the hunt and killng of Bin Laden doesn't seem to bother our brilliants Trumpists. Anyway. We are not having a serious discussion here. The might of Imfromportugal and Zeo combined have reduced this discussion into a bizarre rant about Hillary wanting nuclear apocalypse and being a terrorist, and seriously it's not interesting. Can we move on? Yet you fail to counter the claim that she wants to arm Alqaeda and other extremist groups in Syria and accepts donations from countries that support isis.
She doesn't want to arm Al'quaeda and other extremists. Let's get some facts in here.
And while Saudi royalty and Qatari businesses sponsor ISIS, pecunia non olet. If they want to donate to the Clinton Foundation, their money is welcome. Unless you can show there were strings attached and the foundation is being used for self enrichment and quid pro quo deals, I am going to assume that they want to help counter HIV in Africa.
|
On October 15 2016 22:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:34 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works. We are at least partially to blame for the state of Russia's economy. If the world had any true sense of justice and equality on a state level, we'd have imposed the same (or, really, much worse, considering all the death) sanctions on the US for invading Iraq. But no, only Russia has to suffer such consequences. The US just made a mistake in Iraq, it wasn't intentional, so they're off the hook, right? Russia annexed a country that asked to join with them! How dare they! We've gone over this, but I really don't see Russia as an expansionist power, and I'm not sure where you're getting that from. You can point at the Republic of Crimea all you like, but in UN conducted polls from 2008 to 2011 the results were consistently 70% in favour of a referendum suggesting joining with Russia (15% undecided, 15% no). Then rebels overthrew the elected government... We need to stop going in circles about this. And when it comes to maintaining balance, I hold the belief that you don't achieve stability by upending supposed fascist governments that are largely supported by its people, or supporting factions that violently overthrow elected governments. Does that mean I support fascism? No, I think the people should rise up against fascists. But it is up to the people there to bring about a revolution, because without the support of the vast majority of the people, there will be bloodshed. Giving people weapons just means more bloodshed. Peaceful transition towards democracy is a difficult slow process, it didn't happen in Europe or America, but it can be done. You don't need to invade every country that is still working towards it. And even if there are signs of genocide, there are better means than responding with more violence. We should find diplomatic ways to shelter people from violence, not bring more violence to them. Offer sanctuary and whatnot. So if Noord Brabant got a majority wanting to separate from NL and join Brabant instead, you'd be ok with Belgium invading and annexing it? Also if the Belgians had oppressed NL for most of the previous century, and the only reason that majority existed in the first place was because of Belgian resettlement programs? While I am fairly pragmatic in that regard, and would support Crimeans right to decide fort themselves, I am also a strong believer in using lawful means, and Russia very clearly did no such thing. Crimea was invaded and unlawfully annexed, after which there was a farce of a referendum to justify the invasion post hoc. There should be consequences for such advise of power, and that is what the sanctions are (in addition to being a pressure tool to incentivies Russia to stop their bellicose meddling in the Ukraine). PS. I used Brabant because of its economic importance. Crimea's importance is strategic rather than economic, but it is not an insignificant tract of land for either Ukraine or Russia.
As far as I know, there are no really specific UN rules regarding annexation. I am completely unaware of any UN rules to be honest, and I am echoing someone else's words on this, but there you go. If there was violence in the rest of the Netherlands, and Noord Brabant held a referendum to join Belgium, I wouldn't be surprised if some Belgium troops arrived there. Even less so if Belgium already had a legitimate military base in Noord Brabant. And you speak of a history of violence, well, I can tell you there's been quite a bit of violence in the Netherlands over its long history, so yeah, we already share that with the Ukranian-Russian relationship.
I don't see how you can call it a farce when it echoes the will of the people as independently polled in the years leading up to it.
|
On October 15 2016 23:02 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:55 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 22:41 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud. If she has not made such a statement, and I don't know whether she has or not, that's still a hell of a long way from your initial assertion that Clinton being pro-Al Qaeda is not "farfetched". The fact she supervised directly the hunt and killng of Bin Laden doesn't seem to bother our brilliants Trumpists. Anyway. We are not having a serious discussion here. The might of Imfromportugal and Zeo combined have reduced this discussion into a bizarre rant about Hillary wanting nuclear apocalypse and being a terrorist, and seriously it's not interesting. Can we move on? Yet you fail to counter the claim that she wants to arm Alqaeda and other extremist groups in Syria and accepts donations from countries that support isis. She doesn't want to arm Al'quaeda and other extremists. Let's get some facts in here. And while Saudi royalty and Qatari businesses sponsor ISIS, pecunia non olet. If they want to donate to the Clinton Foundation, their money is welcome. Unless you can show there were strings attached and the foundation is being used for self enrichment and quid pro quo deals, I am going to assume that they want to help counter HIV in Africa.
Why would the same people that sponsor extremism and are much against the american ideals would donate to a fundation that as you say wants to counter HIV in Africa?
She doesn't want to arm Al'quaeda and other extremists.
By giving weapons to the rebels in Aleppo she is pretty much empowering Alqaeda and other extremist groups.
|
On October 15 2016 22:55 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 22:41 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud. If she has not made such a statement, and I don't know whether she has or not, that's still a hell of a long way from your initial assertion that Clinton being pro-Al Qaeda is not "farfetched". The fact she supervised directly the hunt and killng of Bin Laden doesn't seem to bother our brilliants Trumpists. Anyway. We are not having a serious discussion here. The might of Imfromportugal and Zeo combined have reduced this discussion into a bizarre rant about Hillary wanting nuclear apocalypse and being a terrorist, and seriously it's not interesting. Can we move on? Yet you fail to counter the claim that she wants to arm Alqaeda and other extremist groups in Syria and accepts donations from countries that support isis. Show nested quote +Assad is an enemy for historical reasons, not because of any moral judgement of him. His government is very anti-Israel, and is historically aligned with Russia, which has precluded alignment with the US. So, from a US pov, it'd be great to install someone with a more pro-US perspective, and they could then go back to ignoring the moral aspect of having brutal totalitarian governments in the M.E. You are correct, but the problem with this is that in doing so it created a great ambient for extremists to prosper and gain a foothold in a very volatile region of the globe. How do you see a post-assad Syria where the rebels were able to defeat the regime ?
Actually, all of that happened without any US action at all. The US had a very hands-off approach to the first years of the civil war. It was really only when it started spilling over into Iraq that the US' started taking action.
Sure, the US would be quite happy for Assad to be overthrown, but they did nothing of note to further that goal until the war was very much entrenched. They tried supporting some of the rebel groups, but it never went anywhere, and I'd say the US interventions pre-air strikes had a very limited effect, if any, on the war. If anything, it was more verbal than anything, with the US verbally supporting overthrowing Assad.
As for how I see a post-war Syria? I think Assad leading a transition government is the only real hope, but it is very slim. The conflict, however, has no real ending in sight atm. However unfortunate that is.
|
On October 15 2016 23:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:55 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 22:41 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud. If she has not made such a statement, and I don't know whether she has or not, that's still a hell of a long way from your initial assertion that Clinton being pro-Al Qaeda is not "farfetched". The fact she supervised directly the hunt and killng of Bin Laden doesn't seem to bother our brilliants Trumpists. Anyway. We are not having a serious discussion here. The might of Imfromportugal and Zeo combined have reduced this discussion into a bizarre rant about Hillary wanting nuclear apocalypse and being a terrorist, and seriously it's not interesting. Can we move on? Yet you fail to counter the claim that she wants to arm Alqaeda and other extremist groups in Syria and accepts donations from countries that support isis. Assad is an enemy for historical reasons, not because of any moral judgement of him. His government is very anti-Israel, and is historically aligned with Russia, which has precluded alignment with the US. So, from a US pov, it'd be great to install someone with a more pro-US perspective, and they could then go back to ignoring the moral aspect of having brutal totalitarian governments in the M.E. You are correct, but the problem with this is that in doing so it created a great ambient for extremists to prosper and gain a foothold in a very volatile region of the globe. How do you see a post-assad Syria where the rebels were able to defeat the regime ? Actually, all of that happened without any US action at all. The US had a very hands-off approach to the first years of the civil war. It was really only when it started spilling over into Iraq that the US' started taking action. Sure, the US would be quite happy for Assad to be overthrown, but they did nothing of note to further that goal until the war was very much entrenched. They tried supporting some of the rebel groups, but it never went anywhere, and I'd say the US interventions pre-air strikes had a very limited effect, if any, on the war. If anything, it was more verbal than anything, with the US verbally supporting overthrowing Assad. As for how I see a post-war Syria? I think Assad leading a transition government is the only real hope, but it is very slim. The conflict, however, has no real ending in sight atm. However unfortunate that is.
They didn't, they covertly supported the rebels, and gave permission for their gulf allies to send weapons.
Wikileaks has reported that the US government has been covertly funding the Syrian opposition since 2006.[40] Special Activities Division teams are speculated to have been deployed to Syria during the uprising to ascertain rebel groups, leadership and potential supply routes.[41]
In early September 2013, President Obama told U.S. Senators that the CIA had trained the first 50-man insurgent element and that they had been inserted into Syria.[42] The deployment of this unit and the supplying of weapons may be the first tangible measure of support since the U.S. stated they would begin providing assistance to the opposition.[43][44]
|
On October 15 2016 23:07 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:50 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2016 22:34 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works. We are at least partially to blame for the state of Russia's economy. If the world had any true sense of justice and equality on a state level, we'd have imposed the same (or, really, much worse, considering all the death) sanctions on the US for invading Iraq. But no, only Russia has to suffer such consequences. The US just made a mistake in Iraq, it wasn't intentional, so they're off the hook, right? Russia annexed a country that asked to join with them! How dare they! We've gone over this, but I really don't see Russia as an expansionist power, and I'm not sure where you're getting that from. You can point at the Republic of Crimea all you like, but in UN conducted polls from 2008 to 2011 the results were consistently 70% in favour of a referendum suggesting joining with Russia (15% undecided, 15% no). Then rebels overthrew the elected government... We need to stop going in circles about this. And when it comes to maintaining balance, I hold the belief that you don't achieve stability by upending supposed fascist governments that are largely supported by its people, or supporting factions that violently overthrow elected governments. Does that mean I support fascism? No, I think the people should rise up against fascists. But it is up to the people there to bring about a revolution, because without the support of the vast majority of the people, there will be bloodshed. Giving people weapons just means more bloodshed. Peaceful transition towards democracy is a difficult slow process, it didn't happen in Europe or America, but it can be done. You don't need to invade every country that is still working towards it. And even if there are signs of genocide, there are better means than responding with more violence. We should find diplomatic ways to shelter people from violence, not bring more violence to them. Offer sanctuary and whatnot. So if Noord Brabant got a majority wanting to separate from NL and join Brabant instead, you'd be ok with Belgium invading and annexing it? Also if the Belgians had oppressed NL for most of the previous century, and the only reason that majority existed in the first place was because of Belgian resettlement programs? While I am fairly pragmatic in that regard, and would support Crimeans right to decide fort themselves, I am also a strong believer in using lawful means, and Russia very clearly did no such thing. Crimea was invaded and unlawfully annexed, after which there was a farce of a referendum to justify the invasion post hoc. There should be consequences for such advise of power, and that is what the sanctions are (in addition to being a pressure tool to incentivies Russia to stop their bellicose meddling in the Ukraine). PS. I used Brabant because of its economic importance. Crimea's importance is strategic rather than economic, but it is not an insignificant tract of land for either Ukraine or Russia. As far as I know, there are no really specific UN rules regarding annexation. I am completely unaware of any UN rules to be honest, and I am echoing someone else's words on this, but there you go. If there was violence in the rest of the Netherlands, and Noord Brabant held a referendum to join Belgium, I wouldn't be surprised if some Belgium troops arrived there. Even less so if Belgium already had a legitimate military base in Noord Brabant. And you speak of a history of violence, well, I can tell you there's been quite a bit of violence in the Netherlands over its long history, so yeah, we already share that with the Ukranian-Russian relationship. I don't see how you can call it a farce when it echoes the will of the people as independently polled in the years leading up to it.
What? How is a brief war in the early 19th century at all comparable to the USSR? I would, in fact, be very hard-pressed to find 2 neighboring countries with a more amicable relationship than NL-BE. For most of that long history Flanders was actually part of the same country as modern-day Netherlands, which I presume you know. There was political one-upmanship between Flanders and Holland, throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, but being surrounded by England and France kept them working together rather well until Napoleon went and fucked it up.
But I digress, if you would be ok with such a situation, at least your pov with regards to Crimea is consistent.
|
On October 15 2016 23:15 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 23:02 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2016 22:55 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 22:41 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud. If she has not made such a statement, and I don't know whether she has or not, that's still a hell of a long way from your initial assertion that Clinton being pro-Al Qaeda is not "farfetched". The fact she supervised directly the hunt and killng of Bin Laden doesn't seem to bother our brilliants Trumpists. Anyway. We are not having a serious discussion here. The might of Imfromportugal and Zeo combined have reduced this discussion into a bizarre rant about Hillary wanting nuclear apocalypse and being a terrorist, and seriously it's not interesting. Can we move on? Yet you fail to counter the claim that she wants to arm Alqaeda and other extremist groups in Syria and accepts donations from countries that support isis. She doesn't want to arm Al'quaeda and other extremists. Let's get some facts in here. And while Saudi royalty and Qatari businesses sponsor ISIS, pecunia non olet. If they want to donate to the Clinton Foundation, their money is welcome. Unless you can show there were strings attached and the foundation is being used for self enrichment and quid pro quo deals, I am going to assume that they want to help counter HIV in Africa. Why would the same people that sponsor extremism and are much against the american ideals would donate to a fundation that as you say wants to counter HIV in Africa? By giving weapons to the rebels in Aleppo she is pretty much empowering Alqaeda and other extremist groups.
While you see the world through a black and white lens, people are not either saints or scum of the earth. It is absolutely not inconsistent to both support the idea of an Islamic caliphate and want to be charitable (or if you want to see them as evil incarnate: seen by allies as being charitable).
In your other part you are conflating the final outcome of actions with her intentions. Also, not an expert on this, but hasn't the US mostly speed arming the rebels that just joined al Nusra anyway, and focuses more on the Kurds, to the great annoyance of Turkey?
|
On October 15 2016 22:55 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 22:41 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud. If she has not made such a statement, and I don't know whether she has or not, that's still a hell of a long way from your initial assertion that Clinton being pro-Al Qaeda is not "farfetched". The fact she supervised directly the hunt and killng of Bin Laden doesn't seem to bother our brilliants Trumpists. Anyway. We are not having a serious discussion here. The might of Imfromportugal and Zeo combined have reduced this discussion into a bizarre rant about Hillary wanting nuclear apocalypse and being a terrorist, and seriously it's not interesting. Can we move on? Yet you fail to counter the claim that she wants to arm Alqaeda and other extremist groups in Syria and accepts donations from countries that support isis. Show nested quote +Assad is an enemy for historical reasons, not because of any moral judgement of him. His government is very anti-Israel, and is historically aligned with Russia, which has precluded alignment with the US. So, from a US pov, it'd be great to install someone with a more pro-US perspective, and they could then go back to ignoring the moral aspect of having brutal totalitarian governments in the M.E. You are correct, but the problem with this is that in doing so it created a great ambient for extremists to prosper and gain a foothold in a very volatile region of the globe. How do you see a post-assad Syria where the rebels were able to defeat the regime ?
Listen, you post compulsively and repeat over and over and over and over again the same two dumb things with some variation on the theme of nuclear apocalypse and conspiracy theories.
I have little illusion that you will ignore what I say and keep repeating this stuff, and it's annoying because the thread has turned into liquid shit, and I'm sorry to say that it started very precisely when you arrived and started posting 12 posts per page. But I'm a bit naive so I'll try.
1. Al-Qaeda. That makes 0 sense. Clinton as secretary of state has KILLED FUCKING BIN LADEN and has been droning the shit out of Al-Qaeda everywhere in the Middle East. Now, the situation in Syria is horrendously complex, and it's really hard to see who is the rebel factions is to be supported and who is on the jihady spectrum.
The US administration has made a choice not to support Al Assad, because he is responsible in the first place for the civil war and has been butchering civilians for years. We are talking 250K people there.
But to suppose that the US administration wants Al Qaeda to win and is actively trying to arm them is so uninformed that I don't even know what to say. That's so idiotic it's revolting. And no, the US is not "arming Al Qaeda". It's trying to support moderate groups, in a policy that has mostly be a fuck up, with some of its weapon ending up, that's true, in very bad hands. See the difference? Probably not but I tried.
2. Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia doesn't "support ISIS". Some influent people from Saudi Arabia probably do. The fact is that ISIS is doing suicide attacks against Saudi Arabia, that have made more casualties than the Paris attacks, and that Saudi Arabia is a horrendously complex country. It's also a country that holds the US by the balls, because it's a crucial ally against Iran, and because it has the power to fuck up anyone's economy with its mighty oil leverage. If you think it's gonna change if Trump gets in power you are really quite fucking wrong.
tldr; you make a very, very, very complex and subtle situation in which you understand and know clearly nothing very simple, and you repeat your two simplistic conclusions again and again and again at the speed of a machinegun (every other post is from you in the last ten pages, to a point where you literally monopolized the discussion). It's fucking annoying. Stop it, please. You made your point, I think everyone here except Zeo thinks it makes 0 sense, please move on.
|
Have fun on the day after the election, America
|
On October 15 2016 23:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 23:15 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 23:02 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2016 22:55 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 22:41 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud. If she has not made such a statement, and I don't know whether she has or not, that's still a hell of a long way from your initial assertion that Clinton being pro-Al Qaeda is not "farfetched". The fact she supervised directly the hunt and killng of Bin Laden doesn't seem to bother our brilliants Trumpists. Anyway. We are not having a serious discussion here. The might of Imfromportugal and Zeo combined have reduced this discussion into a bizarre rant about Hillary wanting nuclear apocalypse and being a terrorist, and seriously it's not interesting. Can we move on? Yet you fail to counter the claim that she wants to arm Alqaeda and other extremist groups in Syria and accepts donations from countries that support isis. She doesn't want to arm Al'quaeda and other extremists. Let's get some facts in here. And while Saudi royalty and Qatari businesses sponsor ISIS, pecunia non olet. If they want to donate to the Clinton Foundation, their money is welcome. Unless you can show there were strings attached and the foundation is being used for self enrichment and quid pro quo deals, I am going to assume that they want to help counter HIV in Africa. Why would the same people that sponsor extremism and are much against the american ideals would donate to a fundation that as you say wants to counter HIV in Africa? She doesn't want to arm Al'quaeda and other extremists. By giving weapons to the rebels in Aleppo she is pretty much empowering Alqaeda and other extremist groups. While you see the world through a black and white lens, people are not either saints or scum of the earth. It is absolutely not inconsistent to both support the idea of an Islamic caliphate and want to be charitable (or if you want to see them as evil incarnate: seen by allies as being charitable). In your other part you are conflating the final outcome of actions with her intentions. Also, not an expert on this, but hasn't the US mostly speed arming the rebels that just joined al Nusra anyway, and focuses more on the Kurds, to the great annoyance of Turkey?
The US gave a big middle finger to kurdish aspirations of uniting the cantons and by not denouncing in a stronger manner the Turkish attacks against YPG and SDF that are supported by the west.
Both Kurdish-dominated militias and Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels, who are backed by Turkey, are targeting the town of al-Bab, northeast of the besieged city of Aleppo. This complicates already testy relations between Washington and Ankara, and adds stress to an already unstable anti-IS alliance featuring an array of proxies and partners who are bitter foes.
Neither side — the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which are dominated by the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), nor FSA factions and their Islamist allies — are ready to give way to each other. Both have announced the start of campaigns to capture al-Bab, the only major town currently held by the jihadists in Aleppo province.
http://www.voanews.com/a/us-allies-headed-for-syria-clash-shaking-already-unstable-alliance/3515595.html
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan joined Wednesday other Turkish leaders and officials criticizing U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on arming the YPG/PYD in northern Syria in order to defeat Daish.
Speaking at a ceremony for appointing judges and public prosecutors which was held in the Beştepe Presidential Complex in the capital Ankara, Erdoğan reiterated his criticism on the U.S. policy of arming Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which is dominated by the PKK terror group's Syrian wing the PYD.
Touching upon Clinton's comments, "I find Mrs. Clinton's remarks on arming the YPG/PYD very unfortunate, I consider it political inexperience," Erdoğan said.
http://www.dailysabah.com/war-on-terror/2016/10/12/clintons-remarks-on-ypgpyd-unfortunate-show-political-inexperience-president-erdogan-says
|
Well, and that looks like someone who is a genuine threat to democracy. Although it's always hard to say what is machisto boasting and what he means, if he ever means anything.
Looks like that worries the WP among others
This language — which he read from a prepared text fed into a teleprompter — is inflammatory beyond any demagoguery Mr. Trump had offered previously. Coupled with his repeated warnings, echoed by his followers, that the Democrats may be cooking up Election Day fraud, the speech seems to prepare the ground for resistance in the increasingly likely event that things don’t go his way Nov. 8. Indeed, anyone who agrees that the alternative to a Trump victory is civilizational disaster, the fruit of a “sinister deal,” as Mr. Trump put it in another Florida speech, would feel obligated to deny the legitimacy of a Clinton victory, should it occur. Trump-for-President is not a campaign to redeem American democracy or even to “take it back,” as Mr. Trump puts it; it has morphed into a campaign of destabilization.
|
On October 15 2016 23:20 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 23:16 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2016 22:55 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 22:41 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud. If she has not made such a statement, and I don't know whether she has or not, that's still a hell of a long way from your initial assertion that Clinton being pro-Al Qaeda is not "farfetched". The fact she supervised directly the hunt and killng of Bin Laden doesn't seem to bother our brilliants Trumpists. Anyway. We are not having a serious discussion here. The might of Imfromportugal and Zeo combined have reduced this discussion into a bizarre rant about Hillary wanting nuclear apocalypse and being a terrorist, and seriously it's not interesting. Can we move on? Yet you fail to counter the claim that she wants to arm Alqaeda and other extremist groups in Syria and accepts donations from countries that support isis. Assad is an enemy for historical reasons, not because of any moral judgement of him. His government is very anti-Israel, and is historically aligned with Russia, which has precluded alignment with the US. So, from a US pov, it'd be great to install someone with a more pro-US perspective, and they could then go back to ignoring the moral aspect of having brutal totalitarian governments in the M.E. You are correct, but the problem with this is that in doing so it created a great ambient for extremists to prosper and gain a foothold in a very volatile region of the globe. How do you see a post-assad Syria where the rebels were able to defeat the regime ? Actually, all of that happened without any US action at all. The US had a very hands-off approach to the first years of the civil war. It was really only when it started spilling over into Iraq that the US' started taking action. Sure, the US would be quite happy for Assad to be overthrown, but they did nothing of note to further that goal until the war was very much entrenched. They tried supporting some of the rebel groups, but it never went anywhere, and I'd say the US interventions pre-air strikes had a very limited effect, if any, on the war. If anything, it was more verbal than anything, with the US verbally supporting overthrowing Assad. As for how I see a post-war Syria? I think Assad leading a transition government is the only real hope, but it is very slim. The conflict, however, has no real ending in sight atm. However unfortunate that is. They didn't, they covertly supported the rebels, and gave permission for their gulf allies to send weapons. Show nested quote +Wikileaks has reported that the US government has been covertly funding the Syrian opposition since 2006.[40] Special Activities Division teams are speculated to have been deployed to Syria during the uprising to ascertain rebel groups, leadership and potential supply routes.[41]
In early September 2013, President Obama told U.S. Senators that the CIA had trained the first 50-man insurgent element and that they had been inserted into Syria.[42] The deployment of this unit and the supplying of weapons may be the first tangible measure of support since the U.S. stated they would begin providing assistance to the opposition.[43][44]
I used to think this was conspiracy-level or hollywood movie kind of stuff, right up there with the idea of mass global surveillance. Or at the very least a thing of past, something that only happened during the Cold War. America says they won the Cold War, but it seems like they never stopped fighting it.
Edit: Dear god that Donald Trump twitter feed is horrifying. I'm imagining hordes of people with nothing but posts like that on their facebook walls, lists of articles that all say the same sort of stuff and tv channels that spout the same nonsense between the shows because your region was deemed to be the target audience for such specific ads through meticulous research. It's really hard not to be horrified at the idea that even my own perception of reality might be sufficiently skewed that anything I think is the result of some subtle low-level kind of indoctrination by watching RT or something. Living in the Middle East must be similarly difficult, with the constant news about US bombings, US weapons, etc. Hard to keep your spirits up at that point, I imagine.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 15 2016 22:08 Plansix wrote:
This discussion of FP is the most basic we have had in a while.
A very valid observation about the bizarre trajectory of this current discussion.
|
On October 15 2016 23:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:55 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 22:41 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud. If she has not made such a statement, and I don't know whether she has or not, that's still a hell of a long way from your initial assertion that Clinton being pro-Al Qaeda is not "farfetched". The fact she supervised directly the hunt and killng of Bin Laden doesn't seem to bother our brilliants Trumpists. Anyway. We are not having a serious discussion here. The might of Imfromportugal and Zeo combined have reduced this discussion into a bizarre rant about Hillary wanting nuclear apocalypse and being a terrorist, and seriously it's not interesting. Can we move on? Yet you fail to counter the claim that she wants to arm Alqaeda and other extremist groups in Syria and accepts donations from countries that support isis. Assad is an enemy for historical reasons, not because of any moral judgement of him. His government is very anti-Israel, and is historically aligned with Russia, which has precluded alignment with the US. So, from a US pov, it'd be great to install someone with a more pro-US perspective, and they could then go back to ignoring the moral aspect of having brutal totalitarian governments in the M.E. You are correct, but the problem with this is that in doing so it created a great ambient for extremists to prosper and gain a foothold in a very volatile region of the globe. How do you see a post-assad Syria where the rebels were able to defeat the regime ? Listen, you post compulsively and repeat over and over and over and over again the same two dumb things with some variation on the theme of nuclear apocalypse and conspiracy theories. I have little illusion that you will ignore what I say and keep repeating this stuff, and it's annoying because the thread has turned into liquid shit, and I'm sorry to say that it started very precisely when you arrived and started posting 12 posts per page. But I'm a bit naive so I'll try. 1. Al-Qaeda. That makes 0 sense. Clinton as secretary of state has KILLED FUCKING BIN LADEN and has been droning the shit out of Al-Qaeda everywhere in the Middle East. Now, the situation in Syria is horrendously complex, and it's really hard to see who is the rebel factions is to be supported and who is on the jihady spectrum. The US administration has made a choice not to support Al Assad, because he is responsible in the first place for the civil war and has been butchering civilians for years. We are talking 250K people there. But to suppose that the US administration wants Al Qaeda to win and is actively trying to arm them is so uninformed that I don't even know what to say. That's so idiotic it's revolting. And no, the US is not "arming Al Qaeda". It's trying to support moderate groups, in a policy that has mostly be a fuck up, with some of its weapon ending up, that's true, in very bad hands. See the difference? Probably not but I tried. 2. Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia doesn't "support ISIS". Some influent people from Saudi Arabia probably do. The fact is that ISIS is doing suicide attacks against Saudi Arabia, that have made more casualties than the Paris attacks, and that Saudi Arabia is a horrendously complex country. It's also a country that holds the US by the balls, because it's a crucial ally against Iran, and because it has the power to fuck up anyone's economy with its mighty oil leverage. If you think it's gonna change if Trump gets in power you are really quite fucking wrong. tldr; you make a very, very, very complex and subtle situation in which you understand and know clearly nothing very simple, and you repeat your two simplistic conclusions again and again and again at the speed of a machinegun (every other post is from you in the last ten pages, to a point where you literally monopolized the discussion). It's fucking annoying. Stop it, please. You made your point, I think everyone except Zeo thinks it makes 0 sense, please move on.
you post compulsively
says the guy with hundreds of posts on the same topics over and over again kek.
Listen, you post compulsively and repeat over and over and over and over again the same two dumb things with some variation on the theme of nuclear apocalypse and conspiracy theories.
never said anything about dumb nuclear and apocalypse conspiracy theories, your straw man is so bad that i wonder if you are really French because you guys usually are smarter than that.
and it's really hard to see who is the rebel factions is to be supported and who is on the jihady spectrum.
The situation is complex but the us knows damn well who the extremists are, they had several programs that vetted selected rebels that worked fairly well ex: TOW PROGRAM.
But to suppose that the US administration wants Al Qaeda to win and is actively trying to arm them is so uninformed that I don't even know what to say. That's so idiotic it's revolting. And no, the US is not "arming Al Qaeda"
They want the rebels to win and mostly assad and russia to fail, in doing so they will use anything in their power even empowering extremist groups and that's where my argument lays because i'm pointing out the hypocrisy of doing so. ALQAEDA has proven to be the strongest faction in the Aleppo offensive for the rebels and in further providing them with assistance will only make them stronger and make the rebels more reliable on extremist groups.
tldr; you make a very, very, very complex and subtle situation in which you understand and know clearly nothing very simple, and you repeat your two simplistic conclusions again and again and again at the speed of a machinegun
I have been following the conflict since its inception and i know every name for each rebel group that has appeared and disappeared in this long years of war, i have seen them come and go and how allegiances shifted and groups become less "moderate", so your attacks make me laugh as you accuse others of being simplistic when i know much more about the conflict that you will ever care to know. But nice try bro.
|
On October 15 2016 23:52 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 23:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 22:55 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 22:41 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud. If she has not made such a statement, and I don't know whether she has or not, that's still a hell of a long way from your initial assertion that Clinton being pro-Al Qaeda is not "farfetched". The fact she supervised directly the hunt and killng of Bin Laden doesn't seem to bother our brilliants Trumpists. Anyway. We are not having a serious discussion here. The might of Imfromportugal and Zeo combined have reduced this discussion into a bizarre rant about Hillary wanting nuclear apocalypse and being a terrorist, and seriously it's not interesting. Can we move on? Yet you fail to counter the claim that she wants to arm Alqaeda and other extremist groups in Syria and accepts donations from countries that support isis. Assad is an enemy for historical reasons, not because of any moral judgement of him. His government is very anti-Israel, and is historically aligned with Russia, which has precluded alignment with the US. So, from a US pov, it'd be great to install someone with a more pro-US perspective, and they could then go back to ignoring the moral aspect of having brutal totalitarian governments in the M.E. You are correct, but the problem with this is that in doing so it created a great ambient for extremists to prosper and gain a foothold in a very volatile region of the globe. How do you see a post-assad Syria where the rebels were able to defeat the regime ? Listen, you post compulsively and repeat over and over and over and over again the same two dumb things with some variation on the theme of nuclear apocalypse and conspiracy theories. I have little illusion that you will ignore what I say and keep repeating this stuff, and it's annoying because the thread has turned into liquid shit, and I'm sorry to say that it started very precisely when you arrived and started posting 12 posts per page. But I'm a bit naive so I'll try. 1. Al-Qaeda. That makes 0 sense. Clinton as secretary of state has KILLED FUCKING BIN LADEN and has been droning the shit out of Al-Qaeda everywhere in the Middle East. Now, the situation in Syria is horrendously complex, and it's really hard to see who is the rebel factions is to be supported and who is on the jihady spectrum. The US administration has made a choice not to support Al Assad, because he is responsible in the first place for the civil war and has been butchering civilians for years. We are talking 250K people there. But to suppose that the US administration wants Al Qaeda to win and is actively trying to arm them is so uninformed that I don't even know what to say. That's so idiotic it's revolting. And no, the US is not "arming Al Qaeda". It's trying to support moderate groups, in a policy that has mostly be a fuck up, with some of its weapon ending up, that's true, in very bad hands. See the difference? Probably not but I tried. 2. Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia doesn't "support ISIS". Some influent people from Saudi Arabia probably do. The fact is that ISIS is doing suicide attacks against Saudi Arabia, that have made more casualties than the Paris attacks, and that Saudi Arabia is a horrendously complex country. It's also a country that holds the US by the balls, because it's a crucial ally against Iran, and because it has the power to fuck up anyone's economy with its mighty oil leverage. If you think it's gonna change if Trump gets in power you are really quite fucking wrong. tldr; you make a very, very, very complex and subtle situation in which you understand and know clearly nothing very simple, and you repeat your two simplistic conclusions again and again and again at the speed of a machinegun (every other post is from you in the last ten pages, to a point where you literally monopolized the discussion). It's fucking annoying. Stop it, please. You made your point, I think everyone except Zeo thinks it makes 0 sense, please move on. says the guy with hundreds of posts on the same topics over and over again kek. Show nested quote +Listen, you post compulsively and repeat over and over and over and over again the same two dumb things with some variation on the theme of nuclear apocalypse and conspiracy theories. never said anything about dumb nuclear and apocalypse conspiracy theories, your straw man is so bad that i wonder if you are really French because you guys usually are smarter than that. Show nested quote +and it's really hard to see who is the rebel factions is to be supported and who is on the jihady spectrum. The situation is complex but the us knows damn well who the extremists are, they had several programs that vetted selected rebels that worked fairly well ex: TOW PROGRAM. Show nested quote +But to suppose that the US administration wants Al Qaeda to win and is actively trying to arm them is so uninformed that I don't even know what to say. That's so idiotic it's revolting. And no, the US is not "arming Al Qaeda" They want the rebels to win and mostly assad and russia to fail, in doing so they will use anything in their power even empowering extremist groups and that's where my argument lays because i'm pointing out the hypocrisy of doing so. ALQAEDA has proven to be the strongest faction in the Aleppo offensive for the rebels and in further providing them with assistance will only make them stronger and make the rebels more reliable on extremist groups. Show nested quote +tldr; you make a very, very, very complex and subtle situation in which you understand and know clearly nothing very simple, and you repeat your two simplistic conclusions again and again and again at the speed of a machinegun I have been following the conflict since its inception and i know every name for each rebel group that has appeared and disappeared in this long years of war, i have seen them come and go and how allegiances shifted and groups become less "moderate", so your attacks make me laugh as you accuse others of being simplistic when i know much more about the conflict that you will ever care to know. But nice try bro.
Duh, I give up.
|
On October 15 2016 23:07 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:50 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2016 22:34 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 21:40 bardtown wrote:On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread. Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands. Appeasement never, ever works. We are at least partially to blame for the state of Russia's economy. If the world had any true sense of justice and equality on a state level, we'd have imposed the same (or, really, much worse, considering all the death) sanctions on the US for invading Iraq. But no, only Russia has to suffer such consequences. The US just made a mistake in Iraq, it wasn't intentional, so they're off the hook, right? Russia annexed a country that asked to join with them! How dare they! We've gone over this, but I really don't see Russia as an expansionist power, and I'm not sure where you're getting that from. You can point at the Republic of Crimea all you like, but in UN conducted polls from 2008 to 2011 the results were consistently 70% in favour of a referendum suggesting joining with Russia (15% undecided, 15% no). Then rebels overthrew the elected government... We need to stop going in circles about this. And when it comes to maintaining balance, I hold the belief that you don't achieve stability by upending supposed fascist governments that are largely supported by its people, or supporting factions that violently overthrow elected governments. Does that mean I support fascism? No, I think the people should rise up against fascists. But it is up to the people there to bring about a revolution, because without the support of the vast majority of the people, there will be bloodshed. Giving people weapons just means more bloodshed. Peaceful transition towards democracy is a difficult slow process, it didn't happen in Europe or America, but it can be done. You don't need to invade every country that is still working towards it. And even if there are signs of genocide, there are better means than responding with more violence. We should find diplomatic ways to shelter people from violence, not bring more violence to them. Offer sanctuary and whatnot. So if Noord Brabant got a majority wanting to separate from NL and join Brabant instead, you'd be ok with Belgium invading and annexing it? Also if the Belgians had oppressed NL for most of the previous century, and the only reason that majority existed in the first place was because of Belgian resettlement programs? While I am fairly pragmatic in that regard, and would support Crimeans right to decide fort themselves, I am also a strong believer in using lawful means, and Russia very clearly did no such thing. Crimea was invaded and unlawfully annexed, after which there was a farce of a referendum to justify the invasion post hoc. There should be consequences for such advise of power, and that is what the sanctions are (in addition to being a pressure tool to incentivies Russia to stop their bellicose meddling in the Ukraine). PS. I used Brabant because of its economic importance. Crimea's importance is strategic rather than economic, but it is not an insignificant tract of land for either Ukraine or Russia. As far as I know, there are no really specific UN rules regarding annexation.
Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter is sufficient with regards to the case at hand.
|
On October 15 2016 23:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 23:52 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 23:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 22:55 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2016 22:41 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:37 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 22:35 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 22:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Wouldn't be too far-fetched taking into consideration that she receives money from those supporting islamic extremist groups.
I still don't understand why anybody thinks this is an argument. "I could accept this money and use it for entirely good and charitable purposes... or I could throw it back in your face because you have a friend I don't like." She could make a statement for the women and oppressed people she claims to champion that she won't stand for corruption and won't side with those how profit from their suffering. Now that would be something to applaud. If she has not made such a statement, and I don't know whether she has or not, that's still a hell of a long way from your initial assertion that Clinton being pro-Al Qaeda is not "farfetched". The fact she supervised directly the hunt and killng of Bin Laden doesn't seem to bother our brilliants Trumpists. Anyway. We are not having a serious discussion here. The might of Imfromportugal and Zeo combined have reduced this discussion into a bizarre rant about Hillary wanting nuclear apocalypse and being a terrorist, and seriously it's not interesting. Can we move on? Yet you fail to counter the claim that she wants to arm Alqaeda and other extremist groups in Syria and accepts donations from countries that support isis. Assad is an enemy for historical reasons, not because of any moral judgement of him. His government is very anti-Israel, and is historically aligned with Russia, which has precluded alignment with the US. So, from a US pov, it'd be great to install someone with a more pro-US perspective, and they could then go back to ignoring the moral aspect of having brutal totalitarian governments in the M.E. You are correct, but the problem with this is that in doing so it created a great ambient for extremists to prosper and gain a foothold in a very volatile region of the globe. How do you see a post-assad Syria where the rebels were able to defeat the regime ? Listen, you post compulsively and repeat over and over and over and over again the same two dumb things with some variation on the theme of nuclear apocalypse and conspiracy theories. I have little illusion that you will ignore what I say and keep repeating this stuff, and it's annoying because the thread has turned into liquid shit, and I'm sorry to say that it started very precisely when you arrived and started posting 12 posts per page. But I'm a bit naive so I'll try. 1. Al-Qaeda. That makes 0 sense. Clinton as secretary of state has KILLED FUCKING BIN LADEN and has been droning the shit out of Al-Qaeda everywhere in the Middle East. Now, the situation in Syria is horrendously complex, and it's really hard to see who is the rebel factions is to be supported and who is on the jihady spectrum. The US administration has made a choice not to support Al Assad, because he is responsible in the first place for the civil war and has been butchering civilians for years. We are talking 250K people there. But to suppose that the US administration wants Al Qaeda to win and is actively trying to arm them is so uninformed that I don't even know what to say. That's so idiotic it's revolting. And no, the US is not "arming Al Qaeda". It's trying to support moderate groups, in a policy that has mostly be a fuck up, with some of its weapon ending up, that's true, in very bad hands. See the difference? Probably not but I tried. 2. Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia doesn't "support ISIS". Some influent people from Saudi Arabia probably do. The fact is that ISIS is doing suicide attacks against Saudi Arabia, that have made more casualties than the Paris attacks, and that Saudi Arabia is a horrendously complex country. It's also a country that holds the US by the balls, because it's a crucial ally against Iran, and because it has the power to fuck up anyone's economy with its mighty oil leverage. If you think it's gonna change if Trump gets in power you are really quite fucking wrong. tldr; you make a very, very, very complex and subtle situation in which you understand and know clearly nothing very simple, and you repeat your two simplistic conclusions again and again and again at the speed of a machinegun (every other post is from you in the last ten pages, to a point where you literally monopolized the discussion). It's fucking annoying. Stop it, please. You made your point, I think everyone except Zeo thinks it makes 0 sense, please move on. you post compulsively says the guy with hundreds of posts on the same topics over and over again kek. Listen, you post compulsively and repeat over and over and over and over again the same two dumb things with some variation on the theme of nuclear apocalypse and conspiracy theories. never said anything about dumb nuclear and apocalypse conspiracy theories, your straw man is so bad that i wonder if you are really French because you guys usually are smarter than that. and it's really hard to see who is the rebel factions is to be supported and who is on the jihady spectrum. The situation is complex but the us knows damn well who the extremists are, they had several programs that vetted selected rebels that worked fairly well ex: TOW PROGRAM. But to suppose that the US administration wants Al Qaeda to win and is actively trying to arm them is so uninformed that I don't even know what to say. That's so idiotic it's revolting. And no, the US is not "arming Al Qaeda" They want the rebels to win and mostly assad and russia to fail, in doing so they will use anything in their power even empowering extremist groups and that's where my argument lays because i'm pointing out the hypocrisy of doing so. ALQAEDA has proven to be the strongest faction in the Aleppo offensive for the rebels and in further providing them with assistance will only make them stronger and make the rebels more reliable on extremist groups. tldr; you make a very, very, very complex and subtle situation in which you understand and know clearly nothing very simple, and you repeat your two simplistic conclusions again and again and again at the speed of a machinegun I have been following the conflict since its inception and i know every name for each rebel group that has appeared and disappeared in this long years of war, i have seen them come and go and how allegiances shifted and groups become less "moderate", so your attacks make me laugh as you accuse others of being simplistic when i know much more about the conflict that you will ever care to know. But nice try bro. Duh, I give up.
As much as i like pointless one liners this is not the place for them.
You have been trying from the start to flame me and try to insult me on every remark you made.
The facts are that arming extremists including Alqaeda is not a good foreign policy and shouldn't be standard procedure for a superpower beacon of democracy like the US likes to present itself. You prove once again that you know nothing about the situation on the ground when you dismiss helping alqaeda with "some weapons will just go into the wrong hands".
You don't understand the people on the ground, the disillusioned rebels, the jihadists, the ones looking for martyrdom and the ones looking for democracy. It's not about weapons it's about ideology and perpetuating the need of the moderate rebels to rely on extremists to get anything done.
|
It's more that your claims seem unfounded by the evidence you've presented; and the notion that US would actively and directly support al-qaeda comes off as rather absurd, and more likely the result of people pushing biased narratives.
there are also some other very questionable claims you've made.
|
Canada8988 Posts
This prove Trump is the least racist person, he dosen't even see the color of skin!
Thats why he think he is in Congo!
|
On October 15 2016 23:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 22:08 Plansix wrote:
This discussion of FP is the most basic we have had in a while. A very valid observation about the bizarre trajectory of this current discussion.
This is why internet discussions of FP are terrible. People often have a limited knowledge of their own country's history, let alone the 25 other nations their country interacts with. And there is the churlish theme that nations can just ignore each other era of the internet and air travel. No nation can ignore Saudi Arabia and they are a complicated nation that few can speak about with authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
