|
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 March 17 2017 07:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 07:46 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:43 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2017 07:40 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:35 m4ini wrote:On March 17 2017 07:29 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:24 m4ini wrote:On March 17 2017 07:21 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:20 m4ini wrote: I just would like someone to spell it out. Which three wars: afghanistan, the "war on terror", and..? What third war did happen as a direct response/reaction to 9/11?
Iraq............ Thank you. It's an idiotic thing to say considering that you bombed Iraq under clinton three years prior to the war already under the same bullshit justification, but hey. Who am i to judge someone who says "the terrorist attack three years after we bombed shit is responsible for, well, us bombing shit afterwards". Are from the UK? I seem to remember that you are from the UK for some reason. What exactly would that have to do with anything i just said? I live in the UK. I just find it amusing when anyone who is from the UK talks shit about the US fucking up the Middle East. Every time I want to respond "WE LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU!" Bitch please. We wanted the Hashemite dynasty to run shit. But nooooooooo, apparently those Sauds have some oil so why don't you just give them infinity billion dollars and see what happens. Fucking Yanks. Some of us learned that things from Winston Churchill beyond some choice quotes. And then you all started to feel bad about that whole imperialism thing and we never really slowed down. Britain was perfectly happy to keep empiring on until they ran out of empire. Then and only then did they start to feel bad about empiring. You couldn't teach other people how to not fuck it up super badly? Decided to just let the Yanks fuck around with the new toy and hope they got it right? Nice job.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:50 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2017 07:34 m4ini wrote:On March 17 2017 07:27 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2017 07:24 m4ini wrote:On March 17 2017 07:21 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:20 m4ini wrote: I just would like someone to spell it out. Which three wars: afghanistan, the "war on terror", and..? What third war did happen as a direct response/reaction to 9/11?
Iraq............ Thank you. It's an idiotic thing to say considering that you bombed Iraq under clinton three years prior to the war already under the same bullshit justification, but hey. Who am i to judge someone who says "the terrorist attack three years after we bombed shit is responsible for, well, us bombing shit afterwards". Mind you, if you think it was a stupid justification for bombing Iraq, there are few who would disagree. The Iraq matter, however, was clearly a derivative project that was inspired in a large part by the first war and by 9/11. Yes, the arguments came well after the actual decision was made. But would it have worked without 9/11? Arguable. Arguably it would have, yes. Again, the US bombed Iraq already in 1998 for "WoMD", which is two years after the PNAC called for a forceful removal of Hussein "to spread democracy". The same "organisation" in which people like Cheney, Rumsfeld etc were members. If you want to argue that the Iraq war would never have happened without 9/11, be my guest. You're wrong on that front, but feel free to. The "war on terror" and most likely the afghanistan invasion wouldn't have happened without 9/11. So if you say that 9/11 started two (or three, if you count war against a doctrine), no, that's not entirely correct. One would've happened either way. sidenote: even without Iraq, i'm not actually arguing your original point. 9/11 was more expensive by magnitudes than anything trump could do to you now. I should perhaps qualify what I said in that previous point. Would there have been a bombing of Iraq at some point in the Bush administration? Probably. Iraq was a problem they wanted to break wide open. Would the scope and size of the Iraq project be what it was without 9/11 and Afghanistan? Probably not. It came off the back of an initially successful Afghanistan campaign and an explosion in popular support. The wave of euphoria for "war, war, war!" was a direct product of 9/11. But the grand "nation building" and "war on terror" project? That was very closely tied to 9/11. The war on terror project, clearly. That doesn't change the fact that it was only an excuse for something that was thought of/planned anyway along the timeline. If it wouldn't have been 9/11, they would've found a different excuse. How about a city erased by poison gas, which the US obviously can't look away from. Preventive strike against a perceived nuclear threat, maybe? So many opportunities. Justifying the war to most of the country - to give it the veil of unanimity that kept it going until people finally figured out that we all but unanimously fucked up - takes some doing. The grand project that it was, and the utterly stupid money sink of fighting terrorism, that part would have probably been blocked without 9/11 and Afghanistan.
The US was high on winning back then. It wasn't something that could be so easily manufactured.
On March 17 2017 07:50 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +Britain was perfectly happy to keep empiring on until they ran out of empire. Then and only then did they start to feel bad about empiring.
When did that happen? Mostly i hear people moan about how the UK used to be a grand empire. Feeling bad about not being one anymore, but not for empiring. Probably never really happened. Certainly never happened while the UK still had an empire.
|
The abuse happening with the free meals programme can, under no circumstance, be compared with tax fraud. And yet nobody's chasing that horse.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2017 07:46 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:43 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2017 07:40 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:35 m4ini wrote:On March 17 2017 07:29 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:24 m4ini wrote:On March 17 2017 07:21 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:20 m4ini wrote: I just would like someone to spell it out. Which three wars: afghanistan, the "war on terror", and..? What third war did happen as a direct response/reaction to 9/11?
Iraq............ Thank you. It's an idiotic thing to say considering that you bombed Iraq under clinton three years prior to the war already under the same bullshit justification, but hey. Who am i to judge someone who says "the terrorist attack three years after we bombed shit is responsible for, well, us bombing shit afterwards". Are from the UK? I seem to remember that you are from the UK for some reason. What exactly would that have to do with anything i just said? I live in the UK. I just find it amusing when anyone who is from the UK talks shit about the US fucking up the Middle East. Every time I want to respond "WE LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU!" Bitch please. We wanted the Hashemite dynasty to run shit. But nooooooooo, apparently those Sauds have some oil so why don't you just give them infinity billion dollars and see what happens. Fucking Yanks. Some of us learned that things from Winston Churchill beyond some choice quotes. And then you all started to feel bad about that whole imperialism thing and we never really slowed down. Britain was perfectly happy to keep empiring on until they ran out of empire. Then and only then did they start to feel bad about empiring. You couldn't teach other people how to not fuck it up super badly? Decided to just let the Yanks fuck around with the new toy and hope they got it right? Nice job. Maybe they take a, "if I can't have it, no one can!" approach to empiring.
|
On March 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2017 07:46 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:43 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2017 07:40 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:35 m4ini wrote:On March 17 2017 07:29 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:24 m4ini wrote:On March 17 2017 07:21 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:20 m4ini wrote: I just would like someone to spell it out. Which three wars: afghanistan, the "war on terror", and..? What third war did happen as a direct response/reaction to 9/11?
Iraq............ Thank you. It's an idiotic thing to say considering that you bombed Iraq under clinton three years prior to the war already under the same bullshit justification, but hey. Who am i to judge someone who says "the terrorist attack three years after we bombed shit is responsible for, well, us bombing shit afterwards". Are from the UK? I seem to remember that you are from the UK for some reason. What exactly would that have to do with anything i just said? I live in the UK. I just find it amusing when anyone who is from the UK talks shit about the US fucking up the Middle East. Every time I want to respond "WE LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU!" Bitch please. We wanted the Hashemite dynasty to run shit. But nooooooooo, apparently those Sauds have some oil so why don't you just give them infinity billion dollars and see what happens. Fucking Yanks. Some of us learned that things from Winston Churchill beyond some choice quotes. And then you all started to feel bad about that whole imperialism thing and we never really slowed down. Britain was perfectly happy to keep empiring on until they ran out of empire. Then and only then did they start to feel bad about empiring. You couldn't teach other people how to not fuck it up super badly? Decided to just let the Yanks fuck around with the new toy and hope they got it right? Nice job.
To be fair, that's what i would do too. If i burn myself on something, i let the next person burn himself too, just so i feel less stupid, or at least not the only stupid person in the room.
Yes, i'm that despicable.
edit: that actually happened already, in my time in the army when we weren't told a small detail while disassembling an MG-3, which made the rear stock fly around 50m. Nobody warned his comrades, they all just watched the thing fly.
|
Glad to know the military is sticking together and that everyone knows they can rely on each other.
|
On March 17 2017 08:10 Artisreal wrote: Glad to know the military is sticking together and that everyone knows they can rely on each other.
I don't really see how "relying on comrades" and "Schadenfreude in training" correlates, doesn't belong here either.
|
United States42778 Posts
On March 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2017 07:46 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:43 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2017 07:40 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:35 m4ini wrote:On March 17 2017 07:29 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:24 m4ini wrote:On March 17 2017 07:21 Plansix wrote:On March 17 2017 07:20 m4ini wrote: I just would like someone to spell it out. Which three wars: afghanistan, the "war on terror", and..? What third war did happen as a direct response/reaction to 9/11?
Iraq............ Thank you. It's an idiotic thing to say considering that you bombed Iraq under clinton three years prior to the war already under the same bullshit justification, but hey. Who am i to judge someone who says "the terrorist attack three years after we bombed shit is responsible for, well, us bombing shit afterwards". Are from the UK? I seem to remember that you are from the UK for some reason. What exactly would that have to do with anything i just said? I live in the UK. I just find it amusing when anyone who is from the UK talks shit about the US fucking up the Middle East. Every time I want to respond "WE LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU!" Bitch please. We wanted the Hashemite dynasty to run shit. But nooooooooo, apparently those Sauds have some oil so why don't you just give them infinity billion dollars and see what happens. Fucking Yanks. Some of us learned that things from Winston Churchill beyond some choice quotes. And then you all started to feel bad about that whole imperialism thing and we never really slowed down. Britain was perfectly happy to keep empiring on until they ran out of empire. Then and only then did they start to feel bad about empiring. You couldn't teach other people how to not fuck it up super badly? Decided to just let the Yanks fuck around with the new toy and hope they got it right? Nice job. You literally stole it out from underneath us.
Elliot Roosevelt relayed the following exchange between Churchill and FDR. + Show Spoiler +"Of course," he remarked, with a sly sort of assurance, "of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade."
He paused. The P.M.'s [Churchill's] head was lowered; he was watching Father steadily, from under one eyebrow.
"No artificial barriers," Father pursued. "As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition." His eye wandered innocently around the room.
Churchill shifted in his armchair. "The British Empire trade agreements," he began heavily, "are--"
Father broke in. "Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It's because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are."
Churchill's neck reddened and he crouched forward. "Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Do-minions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England's ministers."
"You see," said Father slowly, "it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.
"I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can't be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century methods. Now-"
"Who's talking eighteenth-century methods?"
"Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation-by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community."
Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. [Harry] Hopkins [a major FDR adviser] was grinning. Commander [C. R.] Thompson, Churchill's aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.
"You mentioned India," he growled.
"Yes. I can't believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy"
"What about the Philippines?"
"I'm glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they've gotten modern sanitation, modern education; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down
"There can be no tampering with the Empire's economic agreements."
"They're artificial ..."
"They're the foundation of our greatness."
"The peace," said Father firmly, "cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade. . ."
It was after two in the morning when finally the British party said their good nights. I helped Father into his cabin, and sat down to smoke a last cigarette with him.
Father grunted. "A real old Tory, isn't he? A real old Tory, of the old school."
"I thought for a minute he was going to bust, Pop."
"Oh," he smiled, "I'll be able to work with him. Don't worry about that. We'll get along famously."
"So long as you keep off the subject of India."
"Mmm, I don't know. I think we'll even talk some more about India, before we're through. And Burma. And Java. And Indo-China. And Indonesia. And all the African colonies. And Egypt and Palestine. We'll talk about 'em all."
The British Empire was a system whereby Britain placed itself at the hub of an enormously profitable global trade network, an exclusively club with its central offices in London. The United States arrived too late on the scene to contest the creation of the club or to create its own rival organization, the ascendancy of the United States depended upon the breakup of the British system of trade agreements.
Y'all stabbed us in the back, stole our empire and then mismanaged the fuck out of it. You don't get to complain that we didn't help you learn to run it more smoothly. Not after shit like Suez.
Also regarding how Empire is viewed in Britain, speaking for myself of course. I don't recall Empire coming up much when I was at school, although different schools had different syllabuses. We did the Agrarian and Industrial Revolutions, the Civil War, Tudors, WWI, WWII, postwar geopolitics (Cuba etc) and then some private projects (I did Italian Unification but you could do whatever).
These days we're not very keen on racism and the like which means that there is an implicit unspoken understanding that perhaps the genocide of the indigenous populations of places didn't deserve to die and that slavery wasn't great. But no real Imperial apologism, nobody is especially sorry that it happened. And honestly I probably subscribe to that view anyway. The British ushered in a better world in their brief period of hegemony. Yes, there were great crimes, but the nature of the crimes wasn't especially different and the scale was simply a reflection of the greater power of the nation doing it. But the opposite is also true. The same arrogance that led the British to burn down the Summer Palace in 1860 also led the British to outlaw the slave trade in 1807 on the sea, as in nobody was allowed to trade slaves, British or otherwise.
It is not my intention to suggest that the British were uniquely abolitionist or moral, endless people throughout history have independently come to the philosophical conclusion that people shouldn't own people, that's not special. What was special was that conclusion being reached and then them saying "this is wrong, nobody anywhere can do this anymore" and then actually making a serious attempt to enforce that on the entire globe. I find it difficult to fault a nation that has the desire to do some fairly shitty things and the power to do them over one that has the desire to do some really shitty things but no ability to do them. Overall Empire was a mixed bag but while it certainly doesn't stand up to contemporary moral standards I think the British were probably the best the world could have hoped for as an imperial power.
There's no desire to rebuild an empire, nor much in the way at sadness at having lost it. It existed, it had its day and now that day is passed. Nobody thinks that our small island is ever again going to rule the world, nor should it. There is pride that so much of the modern world was created by the Anglosphere but not regret that it has gone.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
That conversation reads like it's the first chapter in a revenge novel.
|
On March 17 2017 08:39 LegalLord wrote: That conversation reads like it's the first chapter in a revenge novel. Trump is the first chapter of a revenge novel written by his voters. Maybe the chaos and coup-atmosphere of the executive diminishes the effect, but revenge will still be in the air of his electorate.
|
The ranking member of the House intelligence committee says it appears President Trump revealed classified information during a Fox News interview on Wednesday while refusing to disclose evidence that former President Barack Obama wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower.
In the interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, Trump said that the Central Intelligence Agency had been hacked during Obama’s tenure.
“I just want people to know, the CIA was hacked,” Trump said. “That was during the Obama years. That was not during us.”
Yahoo
|
United States42778 Posts
On March 17 2017 08:39 LegalLord wrote: That conversation reads like it's the first chapter in a revenge novel. only one of the two survived the war...
But on a serious note, the US would have taken what she wanted either way. If the 20th C has taught us anything its that when the sun rises on new great powers the existing powers must either make room, and see their own light dimmed, or destroy themselves trying to deny the inevitable. Had the British Empire not been stabbed in the back by the United States they'd have been stabbed in the front eventually.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 17 2017 08:51 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +The ranking member of the House intelligence committee says it appears President Trump revealed classified information during a Fox News interview on Wednesday while refusing to disclose evidence that former President Barack Obama wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower.
In the interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, Trump said that the Central Intelligence Agency had been hacked during Obama’s tenure.
“I just want people to know, the CIA was hacked,” Trump said. “That was during the Obama years. That was not during us.” Yahoo He probably was referring to the Wikileaks matter. Which is public knowledge.
The problem with Trump is we don't know if he's leaking classified information or his media viewing habits.
|
On March 17 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 08:51 Doodsmack wrote:The ranking member of the House intelligence committee says it appears President Trump revealed classified information during a Fox News interview on Wednesday while refusing to disclose evidence that former President Barack Obama wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower.
In the interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, Trump said that the Central Intelligence Agency had been hacked during Obama’s tenure.
“I just want people to know, the CIA was hacked,” Trump said. “That was during the Obama years. That was not during us.” Yahoo He probably was referring to the Wikileaks matter. Which is public knowledge. The problem with Trump is we don't know if he's leaking classified information or his media viewing habits.
It is public knowledge that Wikileaks released info that it SAID was from the CIA. If it is or isnt, is/ WAS classified until trump blurted it out.
Look up every single time Spicer is asked if the leaks are from the CIA. "It is policy not to confirm or deny leaks" (Or something like that)
While he didn't leak it, because the act of a president saying something declassifies information. He still did confirm that it is information from the CIA.
|
|
On March 17 2017 08:00 Artisreal wrote: The abuse happening with the free meals programme can, under no circumstance, be compared with tax fraud. And yet nobody's chasing that horse.
tax fraud - rich people
meals on wheels - poor people
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 17 2017 09:20 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2017 08:51 Doodsmack wrote:The ranking member of the House intelligence committee says it appears President Trump revealed classified information during a Fox News interview on Wednesday while refusing to disclose evidence that former President Barack Obama wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower.
In the interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, Trump said that the Central Intelligence Agency had been hacked during Obama’s tenure.
“I just want people to know, the CIA was hacked,” Trump said. “That was during the Obama years. That was not during us.” Yahoo He probably was referring to the Wikileaks matter. Which is public knowledge. The problem with Trump is we don't know if he's leaking classified information or his media viewing habits. It is public knowledge that Wikileaks released info that it SAID was from the CIA. If it is or isnt, is/ WAS classified until trump blurted it out. Look up every single time Spicer is asked if the leaks are from the CIA. "It is policy not to confirm or deny leaks" (Or something like that) While he didn't leak it, because the act of a president saying something declassifies information. He still did confirm that it is information from the CIA. It was already all but confirmed. And Trump more likely than not only found out from the media.
|
On March 17 2017 07:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 07:51 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: can we all agree that cutting meals on wheels is a terrible terrible decision? i'm not completely certain I cna agree with that. but I can agree they made the decision in a terrible and unsound manner which didn't reflect actual results well. I haven't seen data closely examine the cost/benefit for the program compared to various other public support programs.
It helps millions of Americans- especially the elderly- who can't afford to spend money on more expensive programs or options (like stay-at-home nurses or nursing homes). Here's a nice breakdown:
"Meals on Wheels is a nonprofit group that receives funding from the federal government, state and local governments and private donors. “We serve more than 2.4 million seniors from 60 to 100+ years old each year,” the organization writes. “They are primarily older than 60 and because of physical limitations or financial reasons, have difficulty shopping for or preparing meals for themselves.”
If that doesn’t clear the bar for “results,” as Mulvaney put it, there’s also been a fair amount of peer-reviewed research on the efficacy of the program.
A 2013 review of studies, for instance, found that home-delivered meal programs for seniors “significantly improve diet quality, increase nutrient intakes, and reduce food insecurity and nutritional risk among participants. Other beneficial outcomes include increased socialization opportunities, improvement in dietary adherence, and higher quality of life.”
Not only that, the programs offer good bang-for-your-buck: “These programs are also aligned with the federal cost-containment policy to rebalance long-term care away from nursing homes to home- and community-based services by helping older adults maintain independence and remain in their homes and communities as their health and functioning decline.”
In other words, the programs help seniors stay at home and out of costly nursing facilities. If you’re interested in keeping a lid on health-care costs, the importance of this finding can’t be overstated.
“The average cost of a one-month nursing home stay is equivalent to providing home-delivered meals five days a week for approximately seven years,” one of the studies in the analysis found. How’s that for “results”?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/16/trump-budget-chief-says-meals-on-wheels-is-not-showing-any-results-hes-wrong/?utm_term=.0c9eacadc7ec
Also, Meals on Wheels only costs $3M per year. To put that in perspective, if Trump actually decides to not go on vacation for a single weekend, the money saved from that trip will more than pay for Meals on Wheels. It's such a good and highly effective program for the tiniest drop in the bucket.
|
Thanks for sharing this!
Putting money into "school choice" after removing money from education is adding insult to injury.
|
Meals on wheels is obviously a job killer. As you said, it keeps the elderly from nursing homes ))
|
|
|
|