|
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 April 12 2017 04:27 LightSpectra wrote:
Suez: If you think Nasser was a great guy, sure. By intentionally sabotaging the British from deposing him, every bad thing Nasser ever did is now partially America's fault.
Israel: Depends on what you mean here, I would argue that our nigh-unconditional support for Israel has not really done them any favors in the long run.
Military coup in Egypt: Presuming you mean 2013 here. Remains to be seen how good the results will be.
Camp David Accords: I could grant this one.
Desert storm was passable too. Not great, but it worked out. There are no good options. But waiting for the war to end on its own has the same pitfalls as waiting for NK to implode.
|
Desert Storm was an intervention against a dictator that America had funded and armed. It ended with us leaving the dictator that we funded and armed. A decade later we decided to invade in order to depose the dictator that we had funded and armed.
Really not a good example unless you have tunnel vision on GHWB's term.
|
On April 12 2017 02:42 LegalLord wrote:
Well, we're well on our way to having two wars. On a credit card, I presume.
I am still waiting for his other tweet "Nucular! It's pronounced nucular! Nu-cu-lar!" So, any chance your boss might have invested in concrete? "By the way, check out the site of nucular-shelter.com! I am a huge fan. Their bunkers are just terrific. The best."
Guess Europe and Japan prepare for some new refugees soon.
|
On April 12 2017 04:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 04:27 LightSpectra wrote:
Suez: If you think Nasser was a great guy, sure. By intentionally sabotaging the British from deposing him, every bad thing Nasser ever did is now partially America's fault.
Israel: Depends on what you mean here, I would argue that our nigh-unconditional support for Israel has not really done them any favors in the long run.
Military coup in Egypt: Presuming you mean 2013 here. Remains to be seen how good the results will be.
Camp David Accords: I could grant this one. Desert storm was passable too. Not great, but it worked out. There are no good options. But waiting for the war to end on its own has the same pitfalls as waiting for NK to implode.
quibble: the two sets of pitfalls have significant differences; though each has considerable pitfalls of course.
so, what's your plan for how to address syria? what course of action do you favor?
|
On April 12 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:
All our hopes for preventing war rest with Bannon.
Bannon literally wants all governmental institutions to come crumbling down and has more or less called for a Christian holy war. I'm pretty sure he wants Syria glassed.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 12 2017 05:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:
All our hopes for preventing war rest with Bannon. Bannon literally wants all governmental institutions to come crumbling down and has more or less called for a Christian holy war. I'm pretty sure he wants Syria glassed.
None of those objectives have anything to do with intervening in the Middle East though.
|
On April 12 2017 04:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 04:46 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2017 04:27 LightSpectra wrote:
Suez: If you think Nasser was a great guy, sure. By intentionally sabotaging the British from deposing him, every bad thing Nasser ever did is now partially America's fault.
Israel: Depends on what you mean here, I would argue that our nigh-unconditional support for Israel has not really done them any favors in the long run.
Military coup in Egypt: Presuming you mean 2013 here. Remains to be seen how good the results will be.
Camp David Accords: I could grant this one. Desert storm was passable too. Not great, but it worked out. There are no good options. But waiting for the war to end on its own has the same pitfalls as waiting for NK to implode. quibble: the two sets of pitfalls have significant differences; though each has considerable pitfalls of course. so, what's your plan for how to address syria? what course of action do you favor?
In the current political climate, nothing. The US and NATO allies have no will to invest the money and risk needed to solve the problem. It would be a protracted attempt at rebuilding the nation that would required billions in investments over 15 years. And some of the best leadership we could possible muster who fully understood the gravity of the task before them and the complex problems in the region. We don’t have the talent, will or culture understanding for such a task. Obama said pretty much this and then congress voted that they lacked the political will to get involved.
That is what I would like, I don’t trust anyone to accomplish it. We got lucky with Japan and SK post war and we had far more responsible politicians now. People are right to fear war in the Middle East because our representatives are jokes.
That doesn’t mean its good. Its just the only option we have.
|
United States42688 Posts
Give Syria to a Hashemite educated at a British prep school, college educated at an Ivy League, and a graduate of Sandhurst. This has been done before plenty of times.
|
On April 12 2017 05:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 04:57 zlefin wrote:On April 12 2017 04:46 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2017 04:27 LightSpectra wrote:
Suez: If you think Nasser was a great guy, sure. By intentionally sabotaging the British from deposing him, every bad thing Nasser ever did is now partially America's fault.
Israel: Depends on what you mean here, I would argue that our nigh-unconditional support for Israel has not really done them any favors in the long run.
Military coup in Egypt: Presuming you mean 2013 here. Remains to be seen how good the results will be.
Camp David Accords: I could grant this one. Desert storm was passable too. Not great, but it worked out. There are no good options. But waiting for the war to end on its own has the same pitfalls as waiting for NK to implode. quibble: the two sets of pitfalls have significant differences; though each has considerable pitfalls of course. so, what's your plan for how to address syria? what course of action do you favor? In the current political climate, nothing. The US and NATO allies have no will to invest the money and risk needed to solve the problem. It would be a protracted attempt at rebuilding the nation that would required billions in investments over 15 years. And some of the best leadership we could possible muster who fully understood the gravity of the task before them and the complex problems in the region. We don’t have the talent, will or culture understanding for such a task. Obama said pretty much this and then congress voted that they lacked the political will to get involved. That is what I would like, I don’t trust anyone to accomplish it. We got lucky with Japan and SK post war and we had far more responsible politicians now. People are right to fear war in the Middle East because our representatives are jokes. That doesn’t mean its good. Its just the only option we have.
well, i'm fin with taking the best option available. also japan/SK post war were WAY easier, because they had a long history of functional and capable government. that means there's plenty of institutional capability and knowledge to work wtih, you just need to aim there differently. it's far harder when there's a lack of functional civil society and governmental capability.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 12 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:
Give Syria to a Hashemite educated at a British prep school, college educated at an Ivy League, and a graduate of Sandhurst. This has been done before plenty of times.
Cool. Let's just quietly squeeze such a leader into the presidency. No one will even notice.
|
On April 12 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 05:06 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2017 04:57 zlefin wrote:On April 12 2017 04:46 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2017 04:27 LightSpectra wrote:
Suez: If you think Nasser was a great guy, sure. By intentionally sabotaging the British from deposing him, every bad thing Nasser ever did is now partially America's fault.
Israel: Depends on what you mean here, I would argue that our nigh-unconditional support for Israel has not really done them any favors in the long run.
Military coup in Egypt: Presuming you mean 2013 here. Remains to be seen how good the results will be.
Camp David Accords: I could grant this one. Desert storm was passable too. Not great, but it worked out. There are no good options. But waiting for the war to end on its own has the same pitfalls as waiting for NK to implode. quibble: the two sets of pitfalls have significant differences; though each has considerable pitfalls of course. so, what's your plan for how to address syria? what course of action do you favor? In the current political climate, nothing. The US and NATO allies have no will to invest the money and risk needed to solve the problem. It would be a protracted attempt at rebuilding the nation that would required billions in investments over 15 years. And some of the best leadership we could possible muster who fully understood the gravity of the task before them and the complex problems in the region. We don’t have the talent, will or culture understanding for such a task. Obama said pretty much this and then congress voted that they lacked the political will to get involved. That is what I would like, I don’t trust anyone to accomplish it. We got lucky with Japan and SK post war and we had far more responsible politicians now. People are right to fear war in the Middle East because our representatives are jokes. That doesn’t mean its good. Its just the only option we have. well, i'm fin with taking the best option available. also japan/SK post war were WAY easier, because they had a long history of functional and capable government. that means there's plenty of institutional capability and knowledge to work wtih, you just need to aim there differently. it's far harder when there's a lack of functional civil society and governmental capability.
Yes, we had people in charge who had a vague idea of what they were doing. They didn’t occupy the country until they received unconditional surrender. They occupied the county with troops that had not seen combat. Raised taxes during the war and when we rebuilt. They disarmed the army after accepting surrender. They didn’t allow free open elections shortly “winning” and understood that there might be no one to elect post war. The list of things we were so careful about in Japan was amazing when you compare them to the cowboy style plan that was hatched for Iraq.
Yes, Iraq was a nightmare and never should have happened. But the war’s failings were compounded by the fact that Bush administration did not understand what they were doing and refused to listen to people who did. The fact that the elections lead to poor leaders in Iraq was no shock, since the nation had no democratic tradition and Saddam had spent most of his life killing anyone with leadership potential.
There is no looking at congress and the oval office in the 2000s or now and saying “These folks have this. They understand what they are doing and the gravity of this decision”. We don’t elect people like that.
|
Tell me I am late and that Sean Spicer has resigned...
|
The Russia Syria combined effort behind the gas attacks is more believable, Putin probably wants to antagonize the us further, hitting us in our most vulnerable areas: democracy first, then feels
|
is the Holocaust center like a mall? Does he have secret Russian intel that refers to this Holocaust center? Is he really that foolish? The fact that I am asking these questions in relation to a WH spokesperson is mind boggling. All that anxiety I got when these folks were elected, just keeps getting worse.
|
United States42688 Posts
Even then it ignores the fact that the US did use mustard gas in WWII. There was a consensus that if the Germans used chemical weapons the Allies would have to respond in kind as a way to make sure that the Germans would not use chemical weapons. Therefore it was imperative to have adequate stocks of chemical weapons on the front line so that they could not be used. After an American ship carrying mustard gas was attacked in Bari the entire crew died in addition to many civilians. Hundreds more reported burns, blindness and breathing problems. The entire matter was made worse by the refusal of the military to tell doctors what it was that was killing people because they didn't want the Germans to find out that the United States had mustard gas stockpiles as a deterrent, which both directly led to civilian deaths and also just didn't even make any sense.
|
On April 12 2017 05:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:
Give Syria to a Hashemite educated at a British prep school, college educated at an Ivy League, and a graduate of Sandhurst. This has been done before plenty of times. Cool. Let's just quietly squeeze such a leader into the presidency. No one will even notice.
Maybe you remember this one from earlier this year. If I were a conspiracy theorist, this would seem like an ideal point to insert some CIA subterfuge and American funding directed into the elections of Somalia:
A surprise winner has been declared in Somalia's presidential election — Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo, a former prime minister and the popular favorite who was running against the incumbent president.
Somali lawmakers cast their votes in a heavily fortified airport in a country plagued by regular militant attacks. Twenty candidates were whittled down to three after the first round — including the incumbent, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, who had been accused of vote-buying.
According to the U.N. Assistance Mission in Somalia, Mohamud won the most votes in the first round, followed by Farmajo, a former prime minister and the eventual winner. "And even though the process was rife with corruption from all sides, a vote for Farmajo is seen as a vote against corruption," as NPR's Eyder Peralta reports from Nairobi, Kenya.
Source
Mohamed attended a boarding school in Somalia. Between 1989 and 1993, he completed a Bachelor's degree in History from the State University of New York at Buffalo in Buffalo, New York. He followed in 2009 with a Master's degree in Political Science (American Studies) from the University at Buffalo. His thesis was titled: "U.S. Strategic Interest in Somalia: From the Cold War Era to the War on Terror."
Source
But luckily the US is a beacon of democracy and doesn't interfere in foreign elections to get candidates they prefer into power.
|
On April 12 2017 07:05 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 05:16 LegalLord wrote:On April 12 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:
Give Syria to a Hashemite educated at a British prep school, college educated at an Ivy League, and a graduate of Sandhurst. This has been done before plenty of times. Cool. Let's just quietly squeeze such a leader into the presidency. No one will even notice. Maybe you remember this one from earlier this year. If I were a conspiracy theorist, this would seem like an ideal point to insert some CIA subterfuge and American funding directed into the elections of Somalia: Show nested quote +A surprise winner has been declared in Somalia's presidential election — Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo, a former prime minister and the popular favorite who was running against the incumbent president.
Somali lawmakers cast their votes in a heavily fortified airport in a country plagued by regular militant attacks. Twenty candidates were whittled down to three after the first round — including the incumbent, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, who had been accused of vote-buying.
According to the U.N. Assistance Mission in Somalia, Mohamud won the most votes in the first round, followed by Farmajo, a former prime minister and the eventual winner. "And even though the process was rife with corruption from all sides, a vote for Farmajo is seen as a vote against corruption," as NPR's Eyder Peralta reports from Nairobi, Kenya. SourceShow nested quote +Mohamed attended a boarding school in Somalia. Between 1989 and 1993, he completed a Bachelor's degree in History from the State University of New York at Buffalo in Buffalo, New York. He followed in 2009 with a Master's degree in Political Science (American Studies) from the University at Buffalo. His thesis was titled: "U.S. Strategic Interest in Somalia: From the Cold War Era to the War on Terror." SourceBut luckily the US is a beacon of democracy and doesn't interfere in foreign elections to get candidates they prefer into power.
Who said that? It is a cornerstone of our foreign policy to manage lesser country leadership for the sake of American dominance stability and continuity.
|
On April 12 2017 07:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 07:05 a_flayer wrote:On April 12 2017 05:16 LegalLord wrote:On April 12 2017 05:08 KwarK wrote:
Give Syria to a Hashemite educated at a British prep school, college educated at an Ivy League, and a graduate of Sandhurst. This has been done before plenty of times. Cool. Let's just quietly squeeze such a leader into the presidency. No one will even notice. Maybe you remember this one from earlier this year. If I were a conspiracy theorist, this would seem like an ideal point to insert some CIA subterfuge and American funding directed into the elections of Somalia: A surprise winner has been declared in Somalia's presidential election — Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo, a former prime minister and the popular favorite who was running against the incumbent president.
Somali lawmakers cast their votes in a heavily fortified airport in a country plagued by regular militant attacks. Twenty candidates were whittled down to three after the first round — including the incumbent, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, who had been accused of vote-buying.
According to the U.N. Assistance Mission in Somalia, Mohamud won the most votes in the first round, followed by Farmajo, a former prime minister and the eventual winner. "And even though the process was rife with corruption from all sides, a vote for Farmajo is seen as a vote against corruption," as NPR's Eyder Peralta reports from Nairobi, Kenya. SourceMohamed attended a boarding school in Somalia. Between 1989 and 1993, he completed a Bachelor's degree in History from the State University of New York at Buffalo in Buffalo, New York. He followed in 2009 with a Master's degree in Political Science (American Studies) from the University at Buffalo. His thesis was titled: "U.S. Strategic Interest in Somalia: From the Cold War Era to the War on Terror." SourceBut luckily the US is a beacon of democracy and doesn't interfere in foreign elections to get candidates they prefer into power.
Who said that? It is a cornerstone of our foreign policy to manage lesser country leadership for the sake of American dominance stability and continuity.
We inherited this amazing skill from the UK and decided to put our own spin on it. And we were also worse at it. Of course, the best part about the US being a super power is that the EU didn't need to fight about which one of them would be any more.
|
I would have loved nothing more than to ask Spicer yesterday "Can you give me a brief rundown of what exactly the holocaust was?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9JzINGUIAA7E0Z.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9J1O-pVoAEe281.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9J4ECzVoAA52ky.jpg)
