|
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 December 17 2016 10:00 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 09:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 09:23 a_flayer wrote:On December 17 2016 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 09:07 a_flayer wrote:On December 17 2016 09:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:56 a_flayer wrote:On December 17 2016 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:29 a_flayer wrote:On December 17 2016 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
That's the spirit. Get hacked by Russia and get robbed by China, then show power by pouting. Liberal foreign policy strategies are some the dumbest in the world I swear to god. How do you feel about Russia stealing Crimea as a response to the US working to overthrow their puppet-president in Ukraine? Or China working to secure their country by claiming the South China Sea as a response to military build-up around that region by the US? I find it extremely weird how people can say stuff like what you're saying but at the same time condemn other nations for taking action in their own regions of the world in order to protect/secure themselves. It is attitudes like that which make me sympathetic to Putin when he says that he thinks people hold the US and Russia to different standards. I don't think the world truly cared about Russia until they took Crimea. I detest what they did on a personal level; but I fully understand why they did what they did and it has made me wary and watchful of Russia as an active player in the world. And as a Filipino; the build up in the South China Sea has definitely made me think of and imagine china as much more than just a trade deal monster and have been worried of military escalation there since the build up began. Once again, I detested it, but it also made me respect China's willingness to stretch their power. The drone strikes, the build up, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bin Laden, the Iran Deal, etc... all are things Obama has been able to do that shows me he's willing to get a bloody lip to show other countries he's not a pushover. My issue? My issue are people like Bernie Sanders promising isolationism and cowardice to ensure that the US will never be respected. My issue is with people like Trump showing so much amatuerishness that Russia and China are willing to push boundaries to see how easily they can get Trump to tongue twist himself into the global bad guy. It does not have to be a military escalation; but peace has always been maintained by sufficient presentation of firepower. When you show weakness, then there's no need for them to be peaceful. You are literally thinking along the exact same lines that Putin is thinking. You could replace Putin as president and Russia would be doing exactly the same things on the world stage as it is now. There are many ways to present power. There's a reason that when we talk about the EU, what we really mean is Germany. You've already replaced "firepower" with "power", so I'm going to assume you mean economic strength? Or are you genuinely suggesting that Germany is the biggest military force in the EU despite not having nuclear weapons? Peace being maintained by firepower is a popular saying. If you have never heard of it, then I apologize for your ignorance. I am sorry you are too daft to understand that I heard Putin saying that very thing. I don't really know why you're bringing that up, though, as it seems irrelevant to the post you're responding to. Hell, I don't know why you brought up Germany to begin with. The thing that makes my brain scream "hypocrisy" is the chain of responses I quoted in my original post, along with what I said in that post. You've shown you don't have that level of hypocrisy in you, which is good on you. Perhaps I should have used "people" instead of "you" in my original post. Let me be specific then and use a different term. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick" -Theodore Roosevelt There is an amount of strength required if you're plan is to shame and judge nations into submission. You need to show a level of strength so that your opponents are only willing to engage with you on that level, as to attempt to engage on a more full basis would lead you to becoming overpowered. Germany is pretty synonymous with the EU primarily because its economy is not a total shit show. Hence it can more easily dictate and determine how the EU runs and behaves much better than say Greece. With what Russia and China has been doing the past year or more--there needs to be a lot more showcasing of strength from the US than what its doing now. The US did do that early in Obama's career; but the left has done everything they can to strip Obama of his teeth in an attempt to seem the helpless pacifists. That is what my issues have been. Alright, I take it back. Your thinking is nothing like Putins. You want to shame and judge nations into submission? Holy. Shit. No wonder American policy is so destructive for the rest of the world.
The shaming is not my plan, its what Obama's plan has been for the past few months or so. Literal phone calls asking them to stop doing what they were doing thinking that's enough to scare China and Russia.
|
Do you really think Obama is going to publicly announce if he will or what he has done or will do in retaliation?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 17 2016 09:32 Mohdoo wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/obama-putin-232754can't make this shit up. First Clinton telling wall st to cut it out and now this. Show nested quote +
President Barack Obama said Friday that he told Russian President Vladimir Putin in September to “cut it out” in regard to allegations that his nation engaged in cyberattacks against the U.S. electoral process.
Incidentally, the hacks themselves seem to have taken place before September, so maybe Obama should have spoken out against leaking instead.
|
On December 17 2016 10:16 Slaughter wrote:
Do you really think Obama is going to publicly announce if he will or what he has done or will do in retaliation?
I think Obama was much more willing to get dudes out there to solve problems before the Bernie tide showed up constantly yelling about warhawks and intervention. Not even literal genocide is enough to get them to want to help people. Suddenly Obama got very very passive.
|
On December 17 2016 10:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 10:00 a_flayer wrote:On December 17 2016 09:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 09:23 a_flayer wrote:On December 17 2016 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 09:07 a_flayer wrote:On December 17 2016 09:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:56 a_flayer wrote:On December 17 2016 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:29 a_flayer wrote:
[quote]
How do you feel about Russia stealing Crimea as a response to the US working to overthrow their puppet-president in Ukraine? Or China working to secure their country by claiming the South China Sea as a response to military build-up around that region by the US? I find it extremely weird how people can say stuff like what you're saying but at the same time condemn other nations for taking action in their own regions of the world in order to protect/secure themselves.
It is attitudes like that which make me sympathetic to Putin when he says that he thinks people hold the US and Russia to different standards. I don't think the world truly cared about Russia until they took Crimea. I detest what they did on a personal level; but I fully understand why they did what they did and it has made me wary and watchful of Russia as an active player in the world. And as a Filipino; the build up in the South China Sea has definitely made me think of and imagine china as much more than just a trade deal monster and have been worried of military escalation there since the build up began. Once again, I detested it, but it also made me respect China's willingness to stretch their power. The drone strikes, the build up, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bin Laden, the Iran Deal, etc... all are things Obama has been able to do that shows me he's willing to get a bloody lip to show other countries he's not a pushover. My issue? My issue are people like Bernie Sanders promising isolationism and cowardice to ensure that the US will never be respected. My issue is with people like Trump showing so much amatuerishness that Russia and China are willing to push boundaries to see how easily they can get Trump to tongue twist himself into the global bad guy. It does not have to be a military escalation; but peace has always been maintained by sufficient presentation of firepower. When you show weakness, then there's no need for them to be peaceful. You are literally thinking along the exact same lines that Putin is thinking. You could replace Putin as president and Russia would be doing exactly the same things on the world stage as it is now. There are many ways to present power. There's a reason that when we talk about the EU, what we really mean is Germany. You've already replaced "firepower" with "power", so I'm going to assume you mean economic strength? Or are you genuinely suggesting that Germany is the biggest military force in the EU despite not having nuclear weapons? Peace being maintained by firepower is a popular saying. If you have never heard of it, then I apologize for your ignorance. I am sorry you are too daft to understand that I heard Putin saying that very thing. I don't really know why you're bringing that up, though, as it seems irrelevant to the post you're responding to. Hell, I don't know why you brought up Germany to begin with. The thing that makes my brain scream "hypocrisy" is the chain of responses I quoted in my original post, along with what I said in that post. You've shown you don't have that level of hypocrisy in you, which is good on you. Perhaps I should have used "people" instead of "you" in my original post. Let me be specific then and use a different term. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick" -Theodore Roosevelt There is an amount of strength required if you're plan is to shame and judge nations into submission. You need to show a level of strength so that your opponents are only willing to engage with you on that level, as to attempt to engage on a more full basis would lead you to becoming overpowered. Germany is pretty synonymous with the EU primarily because its economy is not a total shit show. Hence it can more easily dictate and determine how the EU runs and behaves much better than say Greece. With what Russia and China has been doing the past year or more--there needs to be a lot more showcasing of strength from the US than what its doing now. The US did do that early in Obama's career; but the left has done everything they can to strip Obama of his teeth in an attempt to seem the helpless pacifists. That is what my issues have been. Alright, I take it back. Your thinking is nothing like Putins. You want to shame and judge nations into submission? Holy. Shit. No wonder American policy is so destructive for the rest of the world. The shaming is not my plan, its what Obama's plan has been for the past few months or so. Literal phone calls asking them to stop doing what they were doing thinking that's enough to scare China and Russia.
My objection is to the submission part. What kind of an attitude is that towards international relations? No wonder the US gets so much pushback. Balance of power is very different from forced submission. Wilful submission between two equal partners can be incredibly fun, while forced submission is basically rape.
|
magpie -> I just realized you said you're filipino on the last page, but your location lists the US.
So is that filipino ancestry/US citizen? or something else?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
All the modern problems, in a manner of speaking, are rooted in Iraq. The US is confronted with the reality that widespread and direct foreign involvement is brutally expensive, but the desire to intervene abroad simply never faded among the government folk. We end up in an awkward push for further involvement abroad mixed with push back from the unwilling citizenry.
|
On December 17 2016 10:39 zlefin wrote:
magpie -> I just realized you said you're filipino on the last page, but your location lists the US.
So is that filipino ancestry/US citizen? or something else?
Born in the US, raised in the Philippines (Visayas region, lots of my grade school mates are super pro Duterte), live in the US the past 17ish years now. Yourself?
|
On December 17 2016 11:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 10:39 zlefin wrote:
magpie -> I just realized you said you're filipino on the last page, but your location lists the US.
So is that filipino ancestry/US citizen? or something else? Born in the US, raised in the Philippines (Visayas region, lots of my grade school mates are super pro Duterte), live in the US the past 17ish years now. Yourself?
US, new england the whole time.
|
On December 17 2016 11:19 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 11:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 10:39 zlefin wrote:
magpie -> I just realized you said you're filipino on the last page, but your location lists the US.
So is that filipino ancestry/US citizen? or something else? Born in the US, raised in the Philippines (Visayas region, lots of my grade school mates are super pro Duterte), live in the US the past 17ish years now. Yourself? US, new england the whole time.
Yeah, the China build up was a total shit show. That it was happening during the elections really riled up people.
|
On December 17 2016 10:49 LegalLord wrote:
All the modern problems, in a manner of speaking, are rooted in Iraq. The US is confronted with the reality that widespread and direct foreign involvement is brutally expensive, but the desire to intervene abroad simply never faded among the government folk. We end up in an awkward push for further involvement abroad mixed with push back from the unwilling citizenry.
Oh god that fucking ass war. That never ending weapons of mass destruction crap conjured from either lies or fucking incompetence. Talk about a taint in all future decisions American leaders will be making for the next few decades.
|
On December 17 2016 10:02 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 07:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:19 zlefin wrote:On December 17 2016 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Gonna be insanely disappointed in Obama if nothing comes of our fucking drone being stolen in international waters. what would you like him to do? I'm pretty sure he'll do something; but there's only so much that can be done. Sometimes the best plan is to use a situation to gain international support from 3rd parties by being outraged, rather than any more direct retaliation. That's the spirit. Get hacked by Russia and get robbed by China, then show power by pouting. Liberal foreign policy strategies are some the dumbest in the world I swear to god. I consider myself heavily liberal, but this idea that everything can be solved by letting people pound you in the ass is getting old. Pretty sure you're confusing liberal with dovish. If you recall, one of the main policy criticisms against Clinton was that she's too hawkish, so they don't necessarily go hand in hand.
Yes and all my Oregon hyper-liberal friends refused to call her anything but a republican because of it.
Edit: The amount of times I've seen the word "hawk" on my fucking facebook feed............................
|
On December 17 2016 11:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 10:02 Acrofales wrote:On December 17 2016 07:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:19 zlefin wrote:On December 17 2016 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Gonna be insanely disappointed in Obama if nothing comes of our fucking drone being stolen in international waters. what would you like him to do? I'm pretty sure he'll do something; but there's only so much that can be done. Sometimes the best plan is to use a situation to gain international support from 3rd parties by being outraged, rather than any more direct retaliation. That's the spirit. Get hacked by Russia and get robbed by China, then show power by pouting. Liberal foreign policy strategies are some the dumbest in the world I swear to god. I consider myself heavily liberal, but this idea that everything can be solved by letting people pound you in the ass is getting old. Pretty sure you're confusing liberal with dovish. If you recall, one of the main policy criticisms against Clinton was that she's too hawkish, so they don't necessarily go hand in hand. Yes and all my Oregon hyper-liberal friends refused to call her anything but a republican because of it. Edit: The amount of times I've seen the word "hawk" on my fucking facebook feed............................
why do they insist on being inaccurate?
Is it the usual tribalism? attempting to "other" someone who's views they consider not part of their own, and they insist Democrats must all be nice and good and peaceful?
|
On December 17 2016 12:41 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 11:57 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 10:02 Acrofales wrote:On December 17 2016 07:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:19 zlefin wrote:On December 17 2016 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Gonna be insanely disappointed in Obama if nothing comes of our fucking drone being stolen in international waters. what would you like him to do? I'm pretty sure he'll do something; but there's only so much that can be done. Sometimes the best plan is to use a situation to gain international support from 3rd parties by being outraged, rather than any more direct retaliation. That's the spirit. Get hacked by Russia and get robbed by China, then show power by pouting. Liberal foreign policy strategies are some the dumbest in the world I swear to god. I consider myself heavily liberal, but this idea that everything can be solved by letting people pound you in the ass is getting old. Pretty sure you're confusing liberal with dovish. If you recall, one of the main policy criticisms against Clinton was that she's too hawkish, so they don't necessarily go hand in hand. Yes and all my Oregon hyper-liberal friends refused to call her anything but a republican because of it. Edit: The amount of times I've seen the word "hawk" on my fucking facebook feed............................ why do they insist on being inaccurate? Is it the usual tribalism? attempting to "other" someone who's views they consider not part of their own, and they insist Democrats must all be nice and good and peaceful?
Fact: Clinton supports 12 instead of 15 min wage
Fact: Clinton thinks the military has a purpose
Conclusion: Hilary Clinton is a Republican war criminal.
Welcome to the pacific northwest. Enjoy your fucking stay.
|
On December 17 2016 12:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 12:41 zlefin wrote:On December 17 2016 11:57 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 10:02 Acrofales wrote:On December 17 2016 07:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:19 zlefin wrote:On December 17 2016 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Gonna be insanely disappointed in Obama if nothing comes of our fucking drone being stolen in international waters. what would you like him to do? I'm pretty sure he'll do something; but there's only so much that can be done. Sometimes the best plan is to use a situation to gain international support from 3rd parties by being outraged, rather than any more direct retaliation. That's the spirit. Get hacked by Russia and get robbed by China, then show power by pouting. Liberal foreign policy strategies are some the dumbest in the world I swear to god. I consider myself heavily liberal, but this idea that everything can be solved by letting people pound you in the ass is getting old. Pretty sure you're confusing liberal with dovish. If you recall, one of the main policy criticisms against Clinton was that she's too hawkish, so they don't necessarily go hand in hand. Yes and all my Oregon hyper-liberal friends refused to call her anything but a republican because of it. Edit: The amount of times I've seen the word "hawk" on my fucking facebook feed............................ why do they insist on being inaccurate? Is it the usual tribalism? attempting to "other" someone who's views they consider not part of their own, and they insist Democrats must all be nice and good and peaceful? Fact: Clinton supports 12 instead of 15 min wage Fact: Clinton thinks the military has a purpose Conclusion: Hilary Clinton is a Republican war criminal. Welcome to the pacific northwest. Enjoy your fucking stay.
I'll take that to mean you don't have much insight into their thought process and are too fed up wtih them to care to try.
|
I'm just glad Hillary's increased military support of Saudi Arabia (assuming Assange's statement that the US weapon sales to them increased by 200% under her tenure as Secretary of State is correct) is being put to a bit of a halt. Maybe now civilians in Yemen will stop dying by the droves as they are in Syria at the hands of various factions of rebels and Russian bombs intended to stop the rebels.
I know it's a long standing policy of the US to support the murderous Saudi King, but it's not like she did anything to lessen this thing that I disagree with out of principle. I'd have criticized other people too regarding this if they would have run for president.
On December 17 2016 13:06 LegalLord wrote:
I don't think "the military has a purpose" is a good descriptor of the hawkish aspects of Clinton that people don't like.
I think its purpose ought to be deterrence and peacekeeping as agreed upon by the UN Security Council or something to that effect. Same way that the CIA should be for intelligence purposes and not training rebels to fight. But I'm a crazy person when it comes to these kinds of things.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I don't think "the military has a purpose" is a good descriptor of the hawkish aspects of Clinton that people don't like.
On December 17 2016 13:04 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 13:06 LegalLord wrote:
I don't think "the military has a purpose" is a good descriptor of the hawkish aspects of Clinton that people don't like. I think its purpose ought to be deterrence and peacekeeping as agreed upon by the UN Security Council or something to that effect. Same way that the CIA should be for intelligence purposes and not training rebels to fight. But I'm a crazy person when it comes to these kinds of things.
"Acting according to the whims of the UNSC" simply isn't happening. Not for nations that can act independently.
"CIA-trained rebels" has almost become a running gag though. When was the last time you heard "CIA-trained rebels" in a context that ended in a positive outcome?
|
On December 17 2016 12:59 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 12:56 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 12:41 zlefin wrote:On December 17 2016 11:57 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 10:02 Acrofales wrote:On December 17 2016 07:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:19 zlefin wrote:On December 17 2016 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Gonna be insanely disappointed in Obama if nothing comes of our fucking drone being stolen in international waters. what would you like him to do? I'm pretty sure he'll do something; but there's only so much that can be done. Sometimes the best plan is to use a situation to gain international support from 3rd parties by being outraged, rather than any more direct retaliation. That's the spirit. Get hacked by Russia and get robbed by China, then show power by pouting. Liberal foreign policy strategies are some the dumbest in the world I swear to god. I consider myself heavily liberal, but this idea that everything can be solved by letting people pound you in the ass is getting old. Pretty sure you're confusing liberal with dovish. If you recall, one of the main policy criticisms against Clinton was that she's too hawkish, so they don't necessarily go hand in hand. Yes and all my Oregon hyper-liberal friends refused to call her anything but a republican because of it. Edit: The amount of times I've seen the word "hawk" on my fucking facebook feed............................ why do they insist on being inaccurate? Is it the usual tribalism? attempting to "other" someone who's views they consider not part of their own, and they insist Democrats must all be nice and good and peaceful? Fact: Clinton supports 12 instead of 15 min wage Fact: Clinton thinks the military has a purpose Conclusion: Hilary Clinton is a Republican war criminal. Welcome to the pacific northwest. Enjoy your fucking stay. I'll take that to mean you don't have much insight into their thought process and are too fed up wtih them to care to try.
No, its that I am focusing on specific people on my facebook and not all PNW Democrats. I guarantee you that I have friends who see candidates who don't support basic income as old fart republicans. There are people on my Facebook who would never vote for someone who supports the use of drones in the middle east. The PNW is a very, very liberal place and I happen to run with a particularly liberal crowd.
People on my FB have specifically called out Clinton as using an increase to the minimum wage as lip service and showed that she isn't actually committed to working class people because even $15/hour is not nearly enough to raise a family while living in Portland, Oregon. And that's probably a big part of it. A significant amount of people on my Facebook believe that anyone and everyone should have the ability to live in Seattle/Portland while working as a chef or some other unskilled labor. They see rent inflation as a civil rights issue and that people who work in a given city should not be forced to take a 15 minute bus ride to work because they can't afford to live in that city.
I dunno where you are from (do you mind if I ask?), but the PNW is a unique place because of the not only particularly left leaning climate, but also the prevalence of gentrification. Gentrification ends up making people EXTREMELY mad about the comparison of minimum wage to rent cost in major cities.
I am not exaggerating. There is a reason Bernie swept the PNW despite Clinton already mathematically winning the primary.
|
On December 17 2016 13:04 a_flayer wrote:I'm just glad Hillary's increased military support of Saudi Arabia (assuming Assange's statement that the US weapon sales to them increased by 200% under her tenure as Secretary of State is correct) is being put to a bit of a halt. Maybe now civilians in Yemen will stop dying by the droves as they are in Syria at the hands of various factions of rebels and Russian bombs intended to stop the rebels. I know it's a long standing policy of the US to support the murderous Saudi King, but it's not like she did anything to lessen this thing that I disagree with out of principle. I'd have criticized other people too regarding this if they would have run for president. Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 13:06 LegalLord wrote:
I don't think "the military has a purpose" is a good descriptor of the hawkish aspects of Clinton that people don't like. I think its purpose ought to be deterrence and peacekeeping as agreed upon by the UN Security Council or something to that effect. Same way that the CIA should be for intelligence purposes and not training rebels to fight. But I'm a crazy person when it comes to these kinds of things.
I hate to break it to you but Saudi Arabia is very much looking forward to work with the new US administration.
long term dems will be fine. they just need to start focusing more on groups that their not already winning. emphasize their religion etc.
|
On December 17 2016 13:39 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 13:04 a_flayer wrote:I'm just glad Hillary's increased military support of Saudi Arabia (assuming Assange's statement that the US weapon sales to them increased by 200% under her tenure as Secretary of State is correct) is being put to a bit of a halt. Maybe now civilians in Yemen will stop dying by the droves as they are in Syria at the hands of various factions of rebels and Russian bombs intended to stop the rebels. I know it's a long standing policy of the US to support the murderous Saudi King, but it's not like she did anything to lessen this thing that I disagree with out of principle. I'd have criticized other people too regarding this if they would have run for president. On December 17 2016 13:06 LegalLord wrote:
I don't think "the military has a purpose" is a good descriptor of the hawkish aspects of Clinton that people don't like. I think its purpose ought to be deterrence and peacekeeping as agreed upon by the UN Security Council or something to that effect. Same way that the CIA should be for intelligence purposes and not training rebels to fight. But I'm a crazy person when it comes to these kinds of things. I hate to break it to you but Saudi Arabia is very much looking forward to work with the new US administration.
I am under no illusions regarding this, doesn't change that Clinton worked to make it worse. Nonetheless, there's still a vague hope that the deep state issue which helps promote this kind of behaviour by the US government will be somewhat resolved through those term limits Trump campaigned on (not that my hopes are high regarding any aspect of that).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
