|
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 July 25 2017 00:24 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2017 19:36 Wegandi wrote:On July 24 2017 11:25 mozoku wrote:On July 24 2017 06:26 KwarK wrote: Is there anyone who argues that oil wasn't the reason for the US being involved in Iraq? That seems a very odd thing to call a conspiracy theory, to me it's like being told that the round earth theory is the conspiracy.
As far as I know, the conspiracy theory is that people wanted to get rich off of oil/war and so Bush blew up the WTC to get some kind of pretext. That's the theory, and one that I don't subscribe to obviously.
But regarding America's interests in Iraq, that's oil. And pretty much only oil. Not sand, not holiday properties, not historical relics for Hobby Lobby, oil. America is in Iraq for oil. There are plenty of great countries around the world with shitty regimes that the US would love to have better regimes. The reason the US doesn't regime change those countries, and does regime change Iraq, is because Iraq has oil and oil security is a critical geopolitical interest of the United States.
Whenever I hear someone going "open your eyes, we're in the Middle East for oil, the evidence is right there" etc I always get a little confused about what other explanation I'm meant to have subscribed to which they think they're disillusioning me of. This whole exchange reminds me somewhat of this. Only in this case you'd be on the other side, insisting that NASA isn't run by the government I think your confusion might be because you're assuming a more reasonable meaning to what the guy is saying than what he actually meant. The most prominent conspiracy theory I used to hear involving the Iraq War and oil was that the US was going to drill it themselves when they were done invading. You don't hear that one anymore because it didn't happen. But it was a popular one at the time. And I don't share your resoluteness in the belief that the US is only in Iraq for oil anyway. During the Cold War, I would have agreed and it made sense for national security purposes then. Nowadays, the US reasons for being in the Middle East (including Iraq) are primarily counterterrorism-related. Same with the MIC. The theory basically asks me to believe that there are a number of very rich people who make their money off of government defence contracts and therefore lobby the government to give them defence contracts and create a need for defence contracts by increasing military involvement or hardware aid packages aid. The inverse sounds far more unbelievable, that the people who make guns go to their shareholder meetings and say "unfortunately it looks like this latest tragedy will result in record dividends and growth this year, let's all join hands and pray for peace". Yeah, I think that's reasonable and I agree with you. Conspiracy theorists argue that the "MIC" (which as you've defined is the same old lobbying that every under industry does so idk why it gets own scary name) is bamboozling the US into starting wars by itself though. You have to be a pretty big buffoon to believe that imo. Lol? Really. Some of it is definitely intentional, but a lot is "unintentional" (we're talking about MIC here). Let's just take one example - the CIA armed and trained the Mujahadeen (basically the Taliban), to fight the Russians. This is a boon to the crony defense industry. Come few years later, we're now fighting them. This has been the MO in a number of regions of the world. The US arms and trains - then we fight the people we've armed and trained years later. The most notorious is probably Saddam Hussein. The fact that the defense industry benefits from foreign policy is not the same as the defense lobby (might as well call it what it is) determining foreign policy. I'm not sure what your point is. The Soviet-Afghan War was a major catalyst in the fall of the Soviet Union. The US only gave aid to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War after it was feared that Iran would overrun Iraq and cause more more problems than Saddam would. US involvement in these wars had legitimate rationale. The Soviets gave more aid to Iraq than the US did anyway, and France also supplied military aid to Iraq. Was it the MIC driving policy in both of those countries too? Show nested quote +As for historically. You should give consideration to reading Marine Corps General and one of the most highly decorated military officers in our nations history - Smedley Butler. His book War is a Racket demonstrates as fact that there are concerted efforts in various industries to use the military as a spearhead. Eisenhower knew this - hence his speech. If you won't listen to history or generals like Eisenhower or Butler, what will it take?
There is also the fact that large standing armies are almost always used for offensive aggression. History is crystal clear on this. When this happens, the people lose their liberties at home. We've seen how much power the CIA, NSA, security State, etc. has eroded our rights in the name of "safety" and "terrorism". Our wars and meddling abroad has only caused numerous harms to our own people. Madison wrote elegantly about how going in search of foreign boogeyman will be disaster for own peoples liberties at home. It's the reason they had citizen militia's and wrote passionately and at great length about the dangers of a standing army. We've ignored all of this.
If you think that's some conspiracy, you fit in with the Perl's and Zbignew's of the world. I've already acknowledged there's a defense lobby (just as there's a lobby for every industry). The conspiracy theorists argue that the MIC/defense lobby has been the primary driver of US foreign policy since WW2, or other crazy nonsense like that. Your second paragraph is a bunch of personal opinions that most people would disagree with. I'm not in the mood to debate the relative merits of isolationism.
Except they do. If you look at the biggest war-mongers on Capitol Hill, folks like Northrupp Gruman, Lockhead, Raytheon, and all the various gun/ordnance manufacturers are their biggest donors. Now, if you want to deflect and say that they don't outright come and say what they want like say AIPAC or the NRA, sure, do so, but the fact is that the defense industry and the utopian Wilsonians on the left and right push for this non-sensical foreign policy prescriptions.
I hear you keep saying legitimate. All you're doing is stating facts. You have a base assumption that underpins everything you're saying - that US involvement is necessary all over the world because XYZ was positive or that XYZ would be negative disastrous. None of this has to do with the safety and security of the citizens liberties. In fact, since US involvement in overseas affairs has skyrocketed, the inverse proportion of our liberties being destroyed has increased. I mean, this is nothing new. History is replete with this over and over, and our Anti-Federalists wrote volumes on the subject. No, our overseas involvement is very detrimental to our citizenry, both in cost to liberty and treasure (war is expensive). Look no further to the major expansions of US Government power with every war that its engaged in. WWI gave us all sorts of terrible shit. WWII gave us income withholding tax and price controls and subsidies out the wazoo (many are still around). I could keep going, but it's a bit redundant.
As for the driving policy...in part. It's a symbiosis. We'd certainly be less inclined to go trapsing around the world if we didn't have a MIC.
Haha, the "most would disagree" with jib. Best way to deflect is to presume the right or wrong of an argument based on the numbers of people that agree with it. (I don't want to argue whether it is popular or not, that's tangential)
You do realize that you're a parrot for Wilsonian progressive foreign policy right? How the "right" ever went from Robert Taft, Howard Buffet, Garret Garrett, the Anti-Imperialist League, et. al, to this non-sense is hilarious. This is why we have a disastrous "foreign policy consensus" that never changes because the Democrats are still the Wilsonian Party of utopianism, and the GOP has bought heart and soul into the Neo-conservative Wilsonian view as well. Meanwhile Madison, Jefferson, Washington and the gang are palming their forehead in their graves. For all the talk about the Founders the "right" loves to do, they sure do love to ignore their foreign policy prescriptions.
|
On July 25 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote: Statement from Charlie Gard's parents. Another good statement and microcosm of everything that was wrong with that case. For the more cynical around here, either accept responsibility to pay for your own healthcare or accept that a corrupt bureaucrat will one day decide if you live or die. C'mon Danglars, you can be a lot more cynical than that.
One day you too can be diagnosed with a rare, incurable disease, and then have a exploitative private American hospital offer you a low likelihood non-cure for an exorbitant amount of money. And then your 11 month old life can be granted martyrdom for the American health care debate, get a 7 figure donation sum because your story is newsworthy enough.
And then millions of Americans can pat themselves on the back, and feel comforted knowing that only in their country can these miracle treatments be offered, and only because they fought back against the meddling government can they use the fake news media to fund the hospitals offering them fake hope. And then they will go back to their ordinary lives blessing their health care system until they get in a car accident or something.
|
On July 24 2017 19:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +Jared Kushner, President Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, plans to detail four meetings he had with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign and transition period — including one with a Russian lawyer set up by Donald Trump Jr. — but deny any improper contacts or collusion in testimony to Congress on Monday.
Kushner defends his interactions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and other Russian officials as typical contacts in his role as the Trump campaign’s liaison to foreign governments, according to an 11-page prepared statement he plans to submit for the record, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post.
Kushner is scheduled to testify in closed-door sessions, first before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Monday and then before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, as part of the congressional probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election and contacts between Russia and Trump campaign officials and associates.
U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government orchestrated a far-reaching campaign to meddle with last year’s presidential campaign and influence the outcome in Trump’s favor.
In his testimony, which will be submitted to the congressional committees before he answers questions from lawmakers, Kushner says he has had only “limited contacts” with Russian representatives and denies any wrongdoing.
“I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government,” Kushner writes. “I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector.”
Kushner portrays himself as a goal-oriented task master new to presidential politics who assumed increasingly important responsibilities on a fast-paced campaign in which decisions were made “on the fly,” including serving as the main point of contact for foreign government officials... Kushner to detail four meetings with Russian officials in congressional testimony, but say ‘I did not collude’
Kushner says his secretary mistakenly submitted his SF-86 before he had a chance to add his foreign contacts. And he and Flynn were merely asking Kislyak for a secure line for the transition to discuss Syria policy with Russia. God I hope Mueller gets to the bottom of this.
|
On July 25 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:
Statement from Charlie Gard's parents. Another good statement and microcosm of everything that was wrong with that case. For the more cynical around here, either accept responsibility to pay for your own healthcare or accept that a corrupt bureaucrat will one day decide if you live or die. still not relevant to american politics; and you're still ignoring all the sound points that were made against the nonsense narrative you've been pushing. don't repeat your assertions over and over while ignoring the counterpoints.
|
|
Time for progressives to show conservatives what a real Reagan-esque figure looks like
|
Interestingly, I kind of think Bernie running would have a Clinton'esque effect where no one is dumb enough to run against Bernie right now. The left is so poised and ready to burn down DNC buildings if Bernie doesn't get it.
|
On July 25 2017 01:53 Mohdoo wrote:Interestingly, I kind of think Bernie running would have a Clinton'esque effect where no one is dumb enough to run against Bernie right now. The left is so poised and ready to burn down DNC buildings if Bernie doesn't get it. not really, the effect would be very different; in particular cuz bernie doesn't have muhc insider power (and hence ability to get someone in trouble with the party). he has a lot of outsider power; and would be a strong contender, but someone running a much more centrist platform might do fine, and they wouldn't feel intimidated; also bernie just isn't the intimidating type.
|
On July 25 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/889506321850085376Statement from Charlie Gard's parents. Another good statement and microcosm of everything that was wrong with that case. For the more cynical around here, either accept responsibility to pay for your own healthcare or accept that a corrupt bureaucrat will one day decide if you live or die. There are 2 doctors (well more but lets simplify) in this story with different opinions.
One of them stands to earn his hospital over a million dollars. The other holds a position that sacrifices money for his patients best interest.
And that is before we ignore the fact that this 'cure' is for a different condition and has never been tested on someone with Charlies condition. With no idea how his condition would react to the treatment and the chance of any improvement by the admission of the doctor who wants to perform it being near 0.
Plus he cannot go to the US anyway because his Resident amendment is attached to a controversial Trump border wall funding bill that the committee wanted to shame people into voting for with a dying baby. The 'corrupt bureaucrats' here are the US politicians who tried to use him as a PR tool.
|
No. I predict another outcome. Bernie doesn't get enough support to cobble together even a 15% run in the Democratic Primary. I haven't seen the polling yet, but I predict he is going to find out his support is far less this time around.
|
|
I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+
Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement".
Every fucking day. The reason is still that a) It is not their job, and b) She is not president.
|
Ageism is alive and well in US politics, though a lot of it relates more to the fucked up two party structure than attitudes towards age specifically.
|
there are other people; the issue is less competence (though there are some issues with that) and more fame, most of the people with enough name recognition right now are on the old side. personally, I'd like it if a committee went over a full swath of people with the basic political requirements and covered each one's strengths/weaknesses. I dislike that the process is so much run by a person themself, rather than who others want.
|
The democratic bench has been gutted in the last 7 years. There's very little new blood, and even less viable new blood. Kamila Harris is not a realistic contender, regardless of what she thinks. Any real challenge to Bernie will probably come from a governor or mayor, senators are rightfully tainted by the stigma of being from DC.
|
Limiting the amount of money involved in elections would have the side-benefit of evening the playing field age-wise.
|
On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote: I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+
Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement".
Agreed. Trump shows signs of age related mental problems (according to some professionals) and any person at that age will have a much higher chance for illnesses and accidents that impact a term.
I like Bernie's platform but would likely not vote for him due to his age and the likely problems it would cause.
|
I'd vote for him for a single term but not two
|
On July 25 2017 02:06 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote: I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+
Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement".
Agreed. Trump shows signs of age related mental problems (according to some professionals) and any person at that age will have a much higher chance for illnesses and accidents that impact a term. I like Bernie's platform but would likely not vote for him due to his age and the likely problems it would cause.
Would a strong VP runningmate change your mind about voting for a Sanders/ X ticket?
|
Oh Donald... Everyone *is* looking into Russian relations... Except they're with your crew, not hers
|
|
|
|