|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 21 2018 02:46 m4ini wrote:
I'll play devils advocate.
Should be known what i think of trump or US foreign policies, but here i actually would agree with republicans. Yeah, they murdered a dude. So what. While it obviously sucks for family and friends of that person, the outrage by americans is ridiculous. The US kills innocents by the dozens. Daily. Remember, you guys are still flying drone strikes, and the reason the "number of innocents killed" is so low because you simply label everyone that gets killed a terrorist until proven otherwise. In some strikes, like a wedding in Yemen, that doesn't work - but apart from that, once a terrorist is targeted, everyone who dies around him who's "able military age" is considered a terrorist.
I mean, while of course i absolutely and categorically condemn this murder, i find it far fetched to ask for sanctions, all kinds of retaliation, hurting your own economy massively (especially considering it keeps your industrialised military complex afloat) etc while continuing to accept that your own government does the same - and in fact literally asked for it (kill kids and wives of terrorists, and he apparently had the audacity to ask CIA officials "why did you wait" when they were holding back on a strike for a few minutes to have the target walk away from civilians).
Hell, i'd find it far fetched even if the US wasn't as bad in that regard.
Here's reality: the USA (amongst other countries like Switzerland and Sweden) traded with Nazi Germany even after the war started. And we're not talking some penny-level shit, we're talking IBM, GM and Ford. Hell, GM and Ford produced stuff in germany using "forced labour" (jewish slaves). To the point where the chief executive of GM was awarded a Order of the German Eagle first class by Adolf Hitler himself. Alcoa is another one, probably even worse: they were selling Aluminium ("aluminum") to germany, while holding it back for US fighter production.
Money makes the world go 'round, that's how it always was and always will be. If you have the decision to make between "revenging" a murder by making thousands of innocents losing their jobs, or just swallow it (if it doesn't happen on an industrial scale, obviously), the answer is kinda clear.
Is it moral or ethical? Hell no, it's the polar opposite. But ask yourself this. Are you okay forcing your companies to lay off people, some of which rely on the income to pay medical bills etc (and i know how much money the higher ups make and how that could be somewhat fixed by distributing money differently, but that's never gonna happen so lets not argue with that pipedream in mind - it's always the little guy who pays the bill)? I'm not sure that i find that more ethical.
edit: and that's not even taking into account how problematic retaliation by SA could be, since the US is such an energy/oil hog.
You have several good points. However I think it's important to stress that innocents who die from drone strikes are generally unavoidable casualties of war. No one targets civilians on purpose because "Fuck them".. The US generally tries to keep itself within the Geneva Convention (If you ignore Guantanamo Bay, which is borderline at best and should have been closed a long fucking time ago. Democratic and Republican senators both equally share their blame on this, as Obama wanted it closed immediately but was blocked by both parties).
This meanwhile is a civilian assassination bundled with inhumane and completely pointless torture against a journalist (Who historically have and should be safe figures) who's only transgression lied in criticising a government head. That is the definition of shooting the messenger and needs to be condemned at all cost to prevent setting precedent!
|
|
|
The New York Times has an article on Saudi state sponsored « troll farms » designed to attack, discredite and intimidate critics online. Only knew of the well documented russian program (« internet research agency »), but it looks like every authoritarian regime will soon have its own pet troll army.
I wonder if the West has any way to efficiently fight this kond of online propagande, but it seems that the Kremlin efforts are just the beginning.
www.nytimes.com
|
The efficient way is to designate media like Facebook and Twitter as entities that are at least partially responsible for what gets transmitted through them a la the fairness doctrine that was gotten rid of a few decades ago. The idea that platform providers can totally disclaim any liability for who and what they provide a platform for needs to change.
|
i think saudis own a good portion of twitter shares, no? so it won't be over anytime soon.
On October 21 2018 02:46 m4ini wrote:
I'll play devils advocate.
Should be known what i think of trump or US foreign policies, but here i actually would agree with republicans. Yeah, they murdered a dude. So what. While it obviously sucks for family and friends of that person, the outrage by americans is ridiculous. The US kills innocents by the dozens. Daily. Remember, you guys are still flying drone strikes, and the reason the "number of innocents killed" is so low because you simply label everyone that gets killed a terrorist until proven otherwise. In some strikes, like a wedding in Yemen, that doesn't work - but apart from that, once a terrorist is targeted, everyone who dies around him who's "able military age" is considered a terrorist.
I mean, while of course i absolutely and categorically condemn this murder, i find it far fetched to ask for sanctions, all kinds of retaliation, hurting your own economy massively (especially considering it keeps your industrialised military complex afloat) etc while continuing to accept that your own government does the same - and in fact literally asked for it (kill kids and wives of terrorists, and he apparently had the audacity to ask CIA officials "why did you wait" when they were holding back on a strike for a few minutes to have the target walk away from civilians).
Hell, i'd find it far fetched even if the US wasn't as bad in that regard.
Here's reality: the USA (amongst other countries like Switzerland and Sweden) traded with Nazi Germany even after the war started. And we're not talking some penny-level shit, we're talking IBM, GM and Ford. Hell, GM and Ford produced stuff in germany using "forced labour" (jewish slaves). To the point where the chief executive of GM was awarded a Order of the German Eagle first class by Adolf Hitler himself. Alcoa is another one, probably even worse: they were selling Aluminium ("aluminum") to germany, while holding it back for US fighter production.
Money makes the world go 'round, that's how it always was and always will be. If you have the decision to make between "revenging" a murder by making thousands of innocents losing their jobs, or just swallow it (if it doesn't happen on an industrial scale, obviously), the answer is kinda clear.
Is it moral or ethical? Hell no, it's the polar opposite. But ask yourself this. Are you okay forcing your companies to lay off people, some of which rely on the income to pay medical bills etc (and i know how much money the higher ups make and how that could be somewhat fixed by distributing money differently, but that's never gonna happen so lets not argue with that pipedream in mind - it's always the little guy who pays the bill)? I'm not sure that i find that more ethical.
edit: and that's not even taking into account how problematic retaliation by SA could be, since the US is such an energy/oil hog.
so you're okay with any assassination if x country does billion worth trade with y country? imagine a world running on that terms. it's pretty hard for current admin even though they're okay with it, they were sanctioning turkey a month ago just because turkey jailed pastor brunson. completely threatening a nation for a release of your citizen for the sake of "democracy" and then completely ignoring a murder of a journalist for money would not make you look good globally.
|
I also want to say that maybe those 600k people making weapons could do something that actually benefits society. Yeah, it sucks to lose your job, and it sucks to lose a large contract of stuff. But can't you use that infrastructure and workforce to produce something that is a net positive for the world?
I personally can't imagine working at a weapons producer. You know that your lifes work is making sure that people who can afford it can kill other people slightly more efficiently. This is not even a gray area like stuff like coal or whatever. It is just simply an industry which would not exist in an ideal world.
I guess i can even buy the "i produce weapons to make our country safer". But in this case, we are talking about jobs that would be lost because you can no longer sell weapons to Saudi Arabia for their genocide in Yemen. So if those jobs are lost, they are jobs that produce guns for genocide. Maybe these jobs deserve to go?
Just find something else for the people and equipment to manufacture. Boats. High-quality pens. Rubber ducks. Basically anything but weapons for genocide. I hate to go Godwin on this, but the logical conclusion of this argument, and not even that far of a step, is "Yeah, of course we could stop selling poison gas to nazis, but we would lose thousands of jobs!"
Not all jobs are equal.
|
On October 21 2018 06:20 Simberto wrote:
I also want to say that maybe those 600k people making weapons could do something that actually benefits society. Yeah, it sucks to lose your job, and it sucks to lose a large contract of stuff. But can't you use that infrastructure and workforce to produce something that is a net positive for the world?
I personally can't imagine working at a weapons producer. You know that your lifes work is making sure that people who can afford it can kill other people slightly more efficiently. This is not even a gray area like stuff like coal or whatever. It is just simply an industry which would not exist in an ideal world.
I guess i can even buy the "i produce weapons to make our country safer". But in this case, we are talking about jobs that would be lost because you can no longer sell weapons to Saudi Arabia for their genocide in Yemen. So if those jobs are lost, they are jobs that produce guns for genocide. Maybe these jobs deserve to go?
Just find something else for the people and equipment to manufacture. Boats. High-quality pens. Rubber ducks. Basically anything but weapons for genocide. I hate to go Godwin on this, but the logical conclusion of this argument, and not even that far of a step, is "Yeah, of course we could stop selling poison gas to nazis, but we would lose thousands of jobs!"
Not all jobs are equal.
The major defense contractors in the US make a lot more than weapons. You're standing on your moral high ground acting like everyone is making a simple decision to mass murder.
|
Then they can keep doing those things. Not selling weapons to SA won't stop the US defense contractors from doing stuff, except for producing weapons to sell to SA.
|
United States24803 Posts
I also take some issue with selling weapons to other countries to be used in ways that often we don't end up liking, or shouldn't like (such as when they get used against Americans). Many weapons that are made and stay within the country can make sense from a perspective of preventing violence, but that's obviously a complex topic. The fact that the US and many of its allies have various naval assets capable of going anywhere in the world to help enforce international law and agreements is very stabilizing. The same isn't as true for many other assets.
|
as far as i can understand trump's take on that was if it wasn't us it would be russians or chinese. you can assume it's also a national security issue with that mindset and it is understandable. that's why i believe sa should be heavily sanctioned in every other way. or un should ban arms sale to this country for many years to come, but idk if its possible.
|
On October 21 2018 06:42 Simberto wrote:
Then they can keep doing those things. Not selling weapons to SA won't stop the US defense contractors from doing stuff, except for producing weapons to sell to SA.
Except that isn't true. We stop selling weapons to SA and they say fuck you and the petrodollar. Those 600k jobs you decided to repurpose no longer exist because the dollar isn't as strong. Plus they buy those weapons from Russia and the genocide continues. Geopolitics isn't simple.
Then Russia sells the arms instead. You have to produce what people are willing to buy.
|
The idea that SA can simply say "fuck you" to the US in response to us stopping arms sales is incredibly oversimple in itself, so you're gonna have to flesh that out more if you don't wanna commit the same foul you're decrying.
|
On October 21 2018 07:12 farvacola wrote:
The idea that SA can simply say "fuck you" to the US in response to us stopping arms sales is incredibly oversimple in itself, so you're gonna have to flesh that out more if you don't wanna commit the same foul you're decrying.
You're not wrong, but SA doesn't have to make any form of retaliation so I'll just remove that. Is the arms manufacturing moving from the US to Russia a win?
|
Again, though, I'm not sure it's that simple. While I'm sure Russia would be ready and willing to pick up some of the slack left behind by the US ending sales, I don't think they have this massive untapped production capacity that can come anywhere close to matching the US in terms of volume or, maybe more importantly, quality or innovation. There's also the issue of political upheaval in Russia and while Putin will definitely be around for a number of years still, whatever shakes out from that transition will surely impact the country's ability (and/or willingness) to play global arms dealer. Further, the focus on Russia taking the reigns also discounts or ignores the extent to which the US could realize domestic benefits from a shift in innovation and production focus that could mitigate the harms that would result. High horse or not, the idea that the US should take a long and hard look at its role in all this seems to have a lot of merit, though given the current leadership, it might be something to revisit down the line.
|
On October 21 2018 07:29 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2018 07:12 farvacola wrote:
The idea that SA can simply say "fuck you" to the US in response to us stopping arms sales is incredibly oversimple in itself, so you're gonna have to flesh that out more if you don't wanna commit the same foul you're decrying. You're not wrong, but SA doesn't have to make any form of retaliation so I'll just remove that. Is the arms manufacturing moving from the US to Russia a win?
Two points:
a) Presumably there is a reason that they are currently buying from the US and not russia. So they will lose something in the swap.
b) This realpolitik argument can be used to justify basically anything. "Sure, selling meth to preschoolers is bad, but if i weren't doing it, somebody else would. So might as well be me". If you sell weapons to someone in full knowledge of what they are going to do with them, you are complicit in that. If you sell a gun to someone who says "Yeah, i want a gun to shoot up a church", you are complicit in that affair. Simply saying, "Well, he would have bought a gun elsewhere" does not solve that.
Furthermore, i am of the opinion that my government should try to be a positive force in the world. And that means not selling weapons for genocide (and i am not talking only US here, Germany is also selling weapons to SA, and should stop doing that.) If the russians step in, so be it. At least than it is on their conscience, and you are not saying "Yeah, i am willing to do basically anything as long as there are enough $ involved."
So yes, it would be a victory if SA had to buy their guns from russia. If not materially, so at least a victory for your conscience. At some point you need to stop courting medieval murderous theocracies just because they have some oil.
|
On October 21 2018 07:42 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2018 07:29 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On October 21 2018 07:12 farvacola wrote:
The idea that SA can simply say "fuck you" to the US in response to us stopping arms sales is incredibly oversimple in itself, so you're gonna have to flesh that out more if you don't wanna commit the same foul you're decrying. You're not wrong, but SA doesn't have to make any form of retaliation so I'll just remove that. Is the arms manufacturing moving from the US to Russia a win? Two points: a) Presumably there is a reason that they are currently buying from the US and not russia. So they will lose something in the swap. b) This realpolitik argument can be used to justify basically anything. "Sure, selling meth to preschoolers is bad, but if i weren't doing it, somebody else would. So might as well be me". If you sell weapons to someone in full knowledge of what they are going to do with them, you are complicit in that. If you sell a gun to someone who says "Yeah, i want a gun to shoot up a church", you are complicit in that affair. Simply saying, "Well, he would have bought a gun elsewhere" does not solve that. Furthermore, i am of the opinion that my government should try to be a positive force in the world. And that means not selling weapons for genocide (and i am not talking only US here, Germany is also selling weapons to SA, and should stop doing that.) If the russians step in, so be it. At least than it is on their conscience, and you are not saying "Yeah, i am willing to do basically anything as long as there are enough $ involved." So yes, it would be a victory if SA had to buy their guns from russia. If not materially, so at least a victory for your conscience. At some point you need to stop courting medieval murderous theocracies just because they have some oil.
SA buys arms from the US and not Russia because the US has aligned interests with SA for a long time. SA was happy with the gulf war. They're happy with our policies with Iran since Trump has basically torn up the agreement that Obama made. I don't think that SA is a great ally and we should be rethinking our interests with SA, but tearing up the arms deal is destroying the nose to spite the face. Trump is correct that it would hurt us a lot more than it would hurt them.
Letting Russia sell them arms instead doesn't solve the problem either. As long as capitalism is the dominant power in the world, reality is that people will do anything as long as enough money is involved. There isn't political will to stop the genocide. Watching some one else sell a gun to someone who says it is to shoot up a church doesn't feel any better on my conscience than selling the gun myself. If I wanted the people to not die I would intervene right?
On October 21 2018 07:38 farvacola wrote:
High horse or not, the idea that the US should take a long and hard look at its role in all this seems to have a lot of merit, though given the current leadership, it might be something to revisit down the line.
I have no problem evaluating if our relationship is still beneficial now and down the line. I just suspect that the answer will continue to be yes. I'm not sure what could tear us away from SA since 9/11 drew us closer together.
|
There's also the issue of training and of interoperability. The Saudi military is heavily invested into the Western military infrastructure. You can't just suddenly switch to Russian weaponry and expect everything to continue working. It'll take decades, and billions, to change the infrastructure for everything to work together properly.
|
What’s amazing to me, and what shows the power of trump’s lies is that no one in this thread has challenged his 600k number.
|
It’s not just selling weapons, Western military is there operationally.
“If we don’t genocide these people then Russia will” has to be one of the most cynical invocations of realpolitik I’ve witnessed.
Fact of the matter is that if the entire weapons industry was converted into green energy reseach etc., the US wouldn’t need the Saudis anymore. And the US, by having such a strong military, makes the world less safe because it forces all of its geopolitical enemies to keep up with some sort of arms race (probably). World military spending is at an all-time high (source).
|
On October 21 2018 17:45 georgehabadasher wrote:
What’s amazing to me, and what shows the power of trump’s lies is that no one in this thread has challenged his 600k number.
Because that is hard to do. Attacking a number that requires a lot of research, even if that number is completely made up (Which is my basic assumption with regards to basically anything that comes out of Trumps mouth). So i chose the easier route of attack: "Even if the totally made up Trump number were true, that argument would still not stand."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
