EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6446
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
On December 19 2016 12:56 TheFish7 wrote: Another big blunder was disbanding the Iraqi military, so all these fighting age men suddenly had no jobs and a good reason to be even more pissed at the U.S. It wasn't even just the solders themselves but the officers and generals that were also all kicked out beacuse of their connections with the Baathist party. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4405 Posts
On December 18 2016 10:13 LegalLord wrote: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran, to answer your question. They are the ME powers of strength close enough to the area of interest. US chose three of four, in a manner of speaking. I would rate SA as the worst of the four though. The alliance with Turkey is looking pretty shaky right now though.The US needs to be allied with Saudi to maintain the petrodollar standard, If the Saudis traded oil in Euros instead of dollars the demand for dollars would drop sharply and could set off a dollar panic.Of course it works out well for the military industrial complex too since Saudi and Israel buy hundreds of billions in weapons and bombs from the US.Same as everything - follow the money. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4405 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 19 2016 10:43 IgnE wrote: it would be better if you just abandoned this silly line of argument and said iraq was an unequivocal mistake with no chance of victory I do not disagree that Iraq was a shit show. I'm saying that if the plan was to show up and pick up WMD's then it was a massive success. If Bush had gone to the UN and congress asking to occupy Iraq for a decade with no target goals or exit strategy then it would never have happened at all. But the initial plan, fabricated as it was, was fairly successful. We got into Iraq and ensured that it had no WMDs. Did we have to stay after that? No. We didn't have to fucking occupy. But we did. And sitting in sand year after year getting shot at does nothing but burn money; which is why it was a fucking failure. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 19 2016 14:36 LegalLord wrote: And do you think getting rid of Saddam and then leaving an uncontrolled power vacuum would end well? Somehow I doubt that. Being that the initial mission was to get rid of WMD's and NOT dictating a regime change, I don't really know how that's relevant? The narrative we were sold was that WMDs are there, right now, being used, actively, and it will be used on us. The narrative was not "lets get rid of Saddam and control what the political landscape of iraq will be for the next 10 years." The short answer is that it is impossible to simply be a part of a regime change. Either you replace the regime or you let the regime commit genocide. There is no middle ground. If there was already a power in play strong enough to maintain the region--invaders would not be needed to get rid of the current regime. The only power strong enough to replace the regime is the invaders. Period. End of story. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Furikawari
France2522 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 19 2016 15:40 LegalLord wrote: Ok, we go in, we find out they don't actually have WMDs... and then we leave? Or we stay? I'm not sure how you expect it to go after overthrowing Saddam to check for WMDs. That is very relevant to the question at hand. The argument made was that WMDs were present and a threat. Once they are not a threat then we leave according to their initial premise. That shit got complicated because they didn't think things through is just a shit how on top of a shit show. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
What would have worked is suspend democracy for a few years while we collect the oil money and rebuild the state in completel control of the situation. Not acknowledging that he only reason why we and the rest of the world gives a shit about the region is the oil in the first place is what gets us in trouble. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 19 2016 17:16 Furikawari wrote: We find out they dont have WMD??? Funny. You already knew before going in the first place. You wouldn't be the first to make that contention, but it's still a very questionable assertion. Far more likely is that people like Tenet ("slam dunk" Iraq had WMDs) in the intelligence communities advised Congress and the president, as the 9/11 commission concluded, poorly and they acted in good faith based on expert opinion. What you're doing now would be no different than later discovering the Russian connection didn't exist, then claim everybody already knew it wasn't the Russians that hacked the DNC. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Whether or not they have improved is a question that is hard to answer - they do a lot of work and do better than Europe did in the terror attacks a little while ago, but still have many stupid blunders all the time - but incompetent intelligence rather than lying is certainly a real factor. Wikileaks for example showed that people really thought WMDs were there. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On December 19 2016 23:52 Danglars wrote: What you're doing now would be no different than later discovering the Russian connection didn't exist, then claim everybody already knew it wasn't the Russians that hacked the DNC. I have read some genuine concerns from veterans of intelligence that making such assertive and aggressive conclusions within the span of about a month is possibly the sign of hasty work being done. A previous Russian hack on the financial markets took over a year to properly assess for example (they were studying the structure of the stock exchange itself to better understand it). While I personally see that it probably is Russia, the haste with which the conclusion was reached is suspicious. You have to at least admit that a lot of people aren't really concerned about Russia, they just want to either undermine Trump or overturn his victory. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 20 2016 00:21 LegalLord wrote: I have read some genuine concerns from veterans of intelligence that making such assertive and aggressive conclusions within the span of about a month is possibly the sign of hasty work being done. A previous Russian hack on the financial markets took over a year to properly assess for example (they were studying the structure of the stock exchange itself to better understand it). While I personally see that it probably is Russia, the haste with which the conclusion was reached is suspicious. You have to at least admit that a lot of people aren't really concerned about Russia, they just want to either undermine Trump or overturn his victory. I agree on the second paragraph. especially once you factor in bias effects (i.e. people who would be saying the other way if the situation were reversed) good points in general as well. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On December 19 2016 23:52 Danglars wrote: You wouldn't be the first to make that contention, but it's still a very questionable assertion. Far more likely is that people like Tenet ("slam dunk" Iraq had WMDs) in the intelligence communities advised Congress and the president, as the 9/11 commission concluded, poorly and they acted in good faith based on expert opinion. What you're doing now would be no different than later discovering the Russian connection didn't exist, then claim everybody already knew it wasn't the Russians that hacked the DNC. The Iraq intelligence was made to fit the agenda. The neocons wanted to go to Iraq regardless of 9/11. This was not merely acting on expert opinion regarding WMD - they had a whole host of rationales for invading. And who in the hell would buy the notion that if he had WMD, Saddam wouldn't use them in the case of a US invasion? The war was a catastrophe from its inception. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Congratulations to the Florida Panthers, as firing their coach a quarter into the regular season after he captured a division title is no longer the most surreal thing to happen to the franchise in 2016. President-elect Donald J. Trump has announced on Monday that he nominates Vincent “Vinnie” Viola, owner of the Florida Panthers, as Secretary of the Army. Viola is a former U.S. Army infantry officer and the founder and chairman of Virtu Financial. He still must be approved by the Senate. Viola is a West Point graduate and U.S. Army veteran. He was trained as an Airborne Ranger infantry officer and served in the 101st Airborne Division. And he brought that Army background to the Panthers, changing their logo to mimic that Airborne Division and bringing a military sense to the managerial structure of the team. Yahoo | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22191 Posts
On December 20 2016 00:45 Doodsmack wrote: Qualified? I hope that some of these Trump picks (and Trump himself) are merely figureheads. Yahoo The rich are buying politicians, so lets cut out the middle man and directly appoint the rich people instead. All hail the 1%. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 20 2016 00:52 Gorsameth wrote: The rich are buying politicians, so lets cut out the middle man and directly appoint the rich people instead. All hail the 1%. I vaguely recall hearing that, for reasons that never made sense to me, some of the types of people who support trump have a better view of the ultrarich than of the upper-middle class (or maybe it's lower upper-class) that form much of middle management levels. | ||
| ||
