|
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 December 21 2018 09:00 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 08:38 Wegandi wrote:
Ah, Democrats are back spouting their hard-line Wilsonian Internationalism it seems. I have trouble decoding when to be outraged about military conflicts and when to run on humanitarian wars all over the planet and being world police. Then again, this is par for schizophrenic diagnosis. On the other hand, this is just petty partisanry. It is OK to recognize that Trump is capable of making one right decision (and I'm no Trump fan....believe me). You guys talk about Trump and the GOP initiating "senseless conflicts" but rush to defend absolute B.S. like being in Syria, the Libya interventions, etc. Pick a side and be consistent....
People with Mattis' view on Foreign Policy have run this country into the ground since Wilson. We need less of that interventionist drivel. Then the Democrats proclaim to be for "peace" lol. I mean this decision was not corroborated with any of the necessary departments. Not with any of the allies. Not with any diplomats. His motivation was either because his gut felt like it, or a call from Erdogan/Putin, or a desperate distraction for his wall plan failing. You can't be positive about this way of decision making on very very serious issues no matter your stance on the issue itself. It's just shoddy workmanship.
You realize you're talking about Government...right? I've long given up caring about politicians decision-making morality as it is quite defunct. I'll take any positive in the sea of negative. The fact that so-called "anti-war" "pro-peace" "insert objectionable stance to Neo-Conservatism" people will so adamantly defend the undefendable in intervention in Syria is pretty damn laughable, especially in the light of hoopla about the Bush's FP after H.W. bit the dust. If there is any consensus on the Potomac or in most American's minds, it is that it is our obligation and duty to spill treasure and blood in senseless conflicts around the world. Then many of these same people on both left/right will decry shit like TSA and say stupid slogans like "they hate us for our freedoms" while the Bill of Rights gets shredded. Not only does conflicts like Syria erode our standard of living it erodes our civil liberties here at home (I am using Syria as a proxy for FP consensus since Wilson).
Now, I have to hear in addition to "they hate us for our freedoms", it's the Ruskies like these people are reincarnations of McCarthy where they see Red in every action or inaction. Getting out of Syria is absolutely 100% the right action to take regardless of how it is done.
I am also enamored by all the pro-Hillary folks crowing about the possibility of senseless foreign engagements while defending Syria intervention...lol. Critical self-reflection seems to be a skill lost to modernity.
|
Pretty sure we got involved because ISIS invaded Iraq, the nation we agreed to defend after we invaded them. But don’t let facts get in the way of criticizing “pro Hilary people” for defending Syria, aka, supporting the allies that helped us kick ISIS out of Iraq.
|
On December 21 2018 08:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 08:38 Wegandi wrote:
Ah, Democrats are back spouting their hard-line Wilsonian Internationalism it seems. I have trouble decoding when to be outraged about military conflicts and when to run on humanitarian wars all over the planet and being world police. Then again, this is par for schizophrenic diagnosis. On the other hand, this is just petty partisanry. It is OK to recognize that Trump is capable of making one right decision (and I'm no Trump fan....believe me). You guys talk about Trump and the GOP initiating "senseless conflicts" but rush to defend absolute B.S. like being in Syria, the Libya interventions, etc. Pick a side and be consistent....
People with Mattis' view on Foreign Policy have run this country into the ground since Wilson. We need less of that interventionist drivel. Then the Democrats proclaim to be for "peace" lol. I'm unsure how the people who say that they are happy that Trump supports their greatest ally in Israel can be happy about this move, and that they love Trump's support of the military can be happy about this move when the Military and Israel are strongly against it. Also odd that Trump apparently thinks Iran is one of the American's greatest threats hence the tearing up of the nuclear agreement and then does exactly what Iran wants.
I am well aware of the hypocrisy of both Houses. To us sane observers we can only gawk at the hyper-tribalism which induces some serious cognitive defects.
Also...please this line of "what X wants" is so retarded. Call me a Paulbot or whatever, but that line of reasoning was stupid then and it remains hilarious stupid now. (Re: the terrorists want us to leave, so anyone who wants to leave is just doing the terrorists bidding)
|
On December 21 2018 09:36 Plansix wrote:
Pretty sure we got involved because ISIS invaded Iraq, the nation we agreed to defend after we invaded them. But don’t let facts get in the way of criticizing “pro Hilary people” for defending Syria, aka, supporting the allies that helped us kick ISIS out of Iraq.
The Cause and Effect never stops. If you don't leave the cycle of endless conflict you only perpetuate it. Our interventions are the primary cause of future "reasons to intervene". I remember something Washington, Madison, and Jefferson mentioned about alliances and entanglements...something something always on the look out for foreign boogeyman. Democrats are by and large no different than the Bush's of the world on this issue. Obama was more of the same. By far this foreign policy consensus is one of the biggest problems of this country. God forbid someone step out of the echo chamber.
|
On December 21 2018 09:13 Sermokala wrote:
Like I could see the middle east calming down but I don't see anyone actually backing down. The Kurds won't simply take being slaughtered by the Turks and might cause them to settle their differences between the various Kurdish factions. God forbid they declare their statehood to include Anatolia. Everyone will freak out and invade. Backed into such a corner Isreal could spin up their military and declare their support. Syria and Lebanon are bled out allowing Merkava tanks to roll through the desert with nothing to stop them but significant Russian involvement.
Without US involvement in the middle east, there is only war.
Are you really saying the last sentence of your post with a straight face? Like there isn't endless war now? What reality do people live in? Even if what you said was true, what of any business is that of the US? Another argument built upon the assumption that the US is the world police, ought to be, and shall be, in toto, because "we're good so obviously good will come from our altruistic actions". I mean, the facts of reality certainly bear this out to be true......lol.
|
On December 21 2018 09:46 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 09:13 Sermokala wrote:
Like I could see the middle east calming down but I don't see anyone actually backing down. The Kurds won't simply take being slaughtered by the Turks and might cause them to settle their differences between the various Kurdish factions. God forbid they declare their statehood to include Anatolia. Everyone will freak out and invade. Backed into such a corner Isreal could spin up their military and declare their support. Syria and Lebanon are bled out allowing Merkava tanks to roll through the desert with nothing to stop them but significant Russian involvement.
Without US involvement in the middle east, there is only war. Are you really saying the last sentence of your post with a straight face? Like there isn't endless war now? What reality do people live in? Even if what you said was true, what of any business is that of the US? Another argument built upon the assumption that the US is the world police, ought to be, and shall be, in toto, because "we're good so obviously good will come from our altruistic actions". I mean, the facts of reality certainly bear this out to be true......lol.
There isn't endless war. After ISIS was generally defeated people drew up the borders to where they were at the moment and for the most part simply stayed there. We are a stabilizing presence in the region. We hold Isreals dog leash for the world and whenever we leave an area or decide to give up power in an area it flares up into war.
You can't defend a position of "gee if we stayed home nothing bad would happen" after literally the nazis and genocides that have to happen all the time. If you want to own up to supporting and encouraging groups to genocide each other with impunity thats your business but rational people don't want a nuclear war on the planet.
The facts of the matter is that the world is in a much more peaceful and safer state under US hegemony. That isn't to say we're literally the angels from heaven but we at least try to make things better which is a mile more then any isolationist wants.
|
On December 21 2018 09:41 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 09:36 Plansix wrote:
Pretty sure we got involved because ISIS invaded Iraq, the nation we agreed to defend after we invaded them. But don’t let facts get in the way of criticizing “pro Hilary people” for defending Syria, aka, supporting the allies that helped us kick ISIS out of Iraq. The Cause and Effect never stops. If you don't leave the cycle of endless conflict you only perpetuate it. Our interventions are the primary cause of future "reasons to intervene". I remember something Washington, Madison, and Jefferson mentioned about alliances and entanglements...something something always on the look out for foreign boogeyman. Democrats are by and large no different than the Bush's of the world on this issue. Obama was more of the same. By far this foreign policy consensus is one of the biggest problems of this country. God forbid someone step out of the echo chamber.
Jefferson also supported the French Revolution and allowed them to plan in his residence, so he was all about getting involved with foreign conflicts if he liked the country. But hey, let’s apply the theories a couple landed gentry who didn’t want a national army on foreign relations to this modern era with ICBMs and planes. Totally applicable.
And I’m sure the Kurds won’t hold a grudge or do anything in response to this betrayal in the next decade or two.
|
On December 21 2018 09:41 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 09:36 Plansix wrote:
Pretty sure we got involved because ISIS invaded Iraq, the nation we agreed to defend after we invaded them. But don’t let facts get in the way of criticizing “pro Hilary people” for defending Syria, aka, supporting the allies that helped us kick ISIS out of Iraq. The Cause and Effect never stops. If you don't leave the cycle of endless conflict you only perpetuate it. Our interventions are the primary cause of future "reasons to intervene". I remember something Washington, Madison, and Jefferson mentioned about alliances and entanglements...something something always on the look out for foreign boogeyman. Democrats are by and large no different than the Bush's of the world on this issue. Obama was more of the same. By far this foreign policy consensus is one of the biggest problems of this country. God forbid someone step out of the echo chamber.
I wish the United States would meddle in the Middle East less but that doesn't mean I think an immediate out-and-out withdrawal is the most reasonable course of action.
By analogy, if you start performing surgery on somebody and then discover halfway through it won't do any good, you should probably sow them back up again rather than leave them cut up on the operating table - and it's not hypocritical for somebody who opposed the surgery in the first place to support that course of action.
|
|
|
On December 21 2018 09:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 09:41 Wegandi wrote:On December 21 2018 09:36 Plansix wrote:
Pretty sure we got involved because ISIS invaded Iraq, the nation we agreed to defend after we invaded them. But don’t let facts get in the way of criticizing “pro Hilary people” for defending Syria, aka, supporting the allies that helped us kick ISIS out of Iraq. The Cause and Effect never stops. If you don't leave the cycle of endless conflict you only perpetuate it. Our interventions are the primary cause of future "reasons to intervene". I remember something Washington, Madison, and Jefferson mentioned about alliances and entanglements...something something always on the look out for foreign boogeyman. Democrats are by and large no different than the Bush's of the world on this issue. Obama was more of the same. By far this foreign policy consensus is one of the biggest problems of this country. God forbid someone step out of the echo chamber. And I’m sure the Kurds won’t hold a grudge or do anything in response to this betrayal in the next decade or two. One might draw parallels between a certain other group of people armed and then abandoned by the US in the middle east who later launched a terrorist attack upon American soil.
I'm sure history won't run in circles this one time /s.
|
Wegandi's basic argument is that:
(1) Libs are anti-war pacifists and claim to love all moves towards less global intervention (see, opposition to Iraq War 2)
(2) Libs are now hypocrites because they oppose Trump's less-war plans, thus must just be anti-Trump as opposed to anti-policy
This is a common argument from the Greenwald Left. The problem is that (1) is a strawman. Libs are a heterogenous group and there are groups of Libs who are pro limited-intervention (Obama, HRC, Bill Clinton) and ... I guess there are some anti-war pacifists out there somewhere but I can't think of any who are actually elected at the national level beyond a few hardcore backbenchers in congress (Barbara Lee? Tulsi Gabbard? But Tulsi is an out and out Assadist ...). There are some anti-war protesters in the streets sometimes, but their ranks ebb and flow as Democrats enter the protests when Republicans propose shit wars that are bad ideas on the merits. Sending special forces into eastern Syria to pursue and destroy Jihadists is entirely consistent with decades of Democratic Presidential policy.
The Greenwald twist is to somehow conflate widespread opposition to Iraq War 2 as some kind of universal principle of anti-interventionism. Then he ascribes this principle to his nameless opponents and uses this strawman as something to beat up without ever addressing if some foreign policy is a good idea or not. This discussion of course goes nowhere, like all debate fallacies.
Even if you could show that Dems were just opposing this pullout because Trump, so what? Is it a good idea to leave the YPG to die? Should we give ISIS another chance to take Raqqa? Who thinks this policy is actually a good idea on the merits? I am a Dem. Here is my answer: this move by Trump is full up retarded. We don't spend that much in blood and treasure in Eastern Syria and in return we keep ISIS's logistical strength lower than it otherwise would be. Any time Jihadists have a base of logistical strength (especially these ones, see Iraq 2011-2013), they use that base to build up bombs and suicide attackers and invariably send them to wherever they can. Yes, this sometimes does mean attacks in the West but it mostly means terrible bombing sprees across the middle east that the USA should spend resources to keep down.
|
On December 21 2018 09:53 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 09:46 Wegandi wrote:On December 21 2018 09:13 Sermokala wrote:
Like I could see the middle east calming down but I don't see anyone actually backing down. The Kurds won't simply take being slaughtered by the Turks and might cause them to settle their differences between the various Kurdish factions. God forbid they declare their statehood to include Anatolia. Everyone will freak out and invade. Backed into such a corner Isreal could spin up their military and declare their support. Syria and Lebanon are bled out allowing Merkava tanks to roll through the desert with nothing to stop them but significant Russian involvement.
Without US involvement in the middle east, there is only war. Are you really saying the last sentence of your post with a straight face? Like there isn't endless war now? What reality do people live in? Even if what you said was true, what of any business is that of the US? Another argument built upon the assumption that the US is the world police, ought to be, and shall be, in toto, because "we're good so obviously good will come from our altruistic actions". I mean, the facts of reality certainly bear this out to be true......lol. There isn't endless war. After ISIS was generally defeated people drew up the borders to where they were at the moment and for the most part simply stayed there. We are a stabilizing presence in the region. We hold Isreals dog leash for the world and whenever we leave an area or decide to give up power in an area it flares up into war. You can't defend a position of "gee if we stayed home nothing bad would happen" after literally the nazis and genocides that have to happen all the time. If you want to own up to supporting and encouraging groups to genocide each other with impunity thats your business but rational people don't want a nuclear war on the planet. The facts of the matter is that the world is in a much more peaceful and safer state under US hegemony. That isn't to say we're literally the angels from heaven but we at least try to make things better which is a mile more then any isolationist wants.
You're deflecting. If you really truly believe that without US intervention = war, and with US intervention = no war (or since you moved the goal posts from the post I quoted - less war), I wonder how many facts of reality of the last fifty years of our interventions must I present before there is some critical self-reflection. The reason 9/11 happened is because of our decades long interventions once we "took over" the ME from the British which then precipitated Iraq/Afghanistan, which then gave rise to ISIS (a fragment of Iraqi Baathists), which then broiled over into Syria, which then inflamed Turkish/Syrian relations, which then precipitated US involvement in Syria/Kurds, etc. It's a never-ending cycle where we intervene - place gets more fucked up - we look and see place fucked up and say, shit, we need to do something about that and on and on it goes like the original intervention in the first place wasn't the catalyst.
Of course bad shit happens all the time - who argues otherwise? Your argument is that less bad shit will happen if we devote trillions and trillions of dollars in foreign wars and entanglements, but you keep parroting bad shit happening all over the world as reason for us to intervene to "fix it", but its never fixed. It's not me making the argument that bad shit won't happen, it's YOU that's making the argument that bad shit won't happen, or that it will be far less bad, if only the US would send bombs and boots to fix it. Because of course, that Bushian/Wilsonian argument has proven wildly successful. I wonder how many times Switzerland has gotten bombed by terrorists. How often they need to destroy their own civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism and safety. Seems to me, you go fucking with other people and places, that shit always blows back in your face. It also happens to neatly align with arguments for increasing State power at home...what a coincidence.
|
On December 21 2018 10:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 09:56 Plansix wrote:On December 21 2018 09:41 Wegandi wrote:On December 21 2018 09:36 Plansix wrote:
Pretty sure we got involved because ISIS invaded Iraq, the nation we agreed to defend after we invaded them. But don’t let facts get in the way of criticizing “pro Hilary people” for defending Syria, aka, supporting the allies that helped us kick ISIS out of Iraq. The Cause and Effect never stops. If you don't leave the cycle of endless conflict you only perpetuate it. Our interventions are the primary cause of future "reasons to intervene". I remember something Washington, Madison, and Jefferson mentioned about alliances and entanglements...something something always on the look out for foreign boogeyman. Democrats are by and large no different than the Bush's of the world on this issue. Obama was more of the same. By far this foreign policy consensus is one of the biggest problems of this country. God forbid someone step out of the echo chamber. And I’m sure the Kurds won’t hold a grudge or do anything in response to this betrayal in the next decade or two. One might draw parallels between a certain other group of people armed and then abandoned by the US in the middle east who later launched a terrorist attack upon American soil. I'm sure history won't run in circles this one time /s.
Yep, Bin Laden said that the reason he attacked the US was because the CIA stopped arming them after they defeated the Russians....whoops...that's not what he said at all, in fact, it is the complete opposite of those facts. It's not like he didn't write down the reasons why he attacked the US.
PS: The Taliban didn't do 9/11. Sure they let Bin Laden train his guys in Afghanistan, but 9/11 had nothing to do with the Taliban (the guys the CIA armed and who ruled Afghanistan).
|
On December 21 2018 10:24 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 10:17 Gorsameth wrote:On December 21 2018 09:56 Plansix wrote:On December 21 2018 09:41 Wegandi wrote:On December 21 2018 09:36 Plansix wrote:
Pretty sure we got involved because ISIS invaded Iraq, the nation we agreed to defend after we invaded them. But don’t let facts get in the way of criticizing “pro Hilary people” for defending Syria, aka, supporting the allies that helped us kick ISIS out of Iraq. The Cause and Effect never stops. If you don't leave the cycle of endless conflict you only perpetuate it. Our interventions are the primary cause of future "reasons to intervene". I remember something Washington, Madison, and Jefferson mentioned about alliances and entanglements...something something always on the look out for foreign boogeyman. Democrats are by and large no different than the Bush's of the world on this issue. Obama was more of the same. By far this foreign policy consensus is one of the biggest problems of this country. God forbid someone step out of the echo chamber. And I’m sure the Kurds won’t hold a grudge or do anything in response to this betrayal in the next decade or two. One might draw parallels between a certain other group of people armed and then abandoned by the US in the middle east who later launched a terrorist attack upon American soil. I'm sure history won't run in circles this one time /s. Yep, Bin Laden said that the reason he attacked the US was because the CIA stopped arming them after they defeated the Russians....whoops...that's not what he said at all, in fact, it is the complete opposite of those facts. It's not like he didn't write down the reasons why he attacked the US. PS: The Taliban didn't do 9/11. Sure they let Bin Laden train his guys in Afghanistan, but 9/11 had nothing to do with the Taliban (the guys the CIA armed and who ruled Afghanistan).
How did you type so much and say nothing to constrict his point?
|
On December 21 2018 10:17 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Wegandi's basic argument is that:
(1) Libs are anti-war pacifists and claim to love all moves towards less global intervention (see, opposition to Iraq War 2)
(2) Libs are now hypocrites because they oppose Trump's less-war plans, thus must just be anti-Trump as opposed to anti-policy
This is a common argument from the Greenwald Left. The problem is that (1) is a strawman. Libs are a heterogenous group and there are groups of Libs who are pro limited-intervention (Obama, HRC, Bill Clinton) and ... I guess there are some anti-war pacifists out there somewhere but I can't think of any who are actually elected at the national level beyond a few hardcore backbenchers in congress (Barbara Lee? Tulsi Gabbard? But Tulsi is an out and out Assadist ...). There are some anti-war protesters in the streets sometimes, but their ranks ebb and flow as Democrats enter the protests when Republicans propose shit wars that are bad ideas on the merits. Sending special forces into eastern Syria to pursue and destroy Jihadists is entirely consistent with decades of Democratic Presidential policy.
The Greenwald twist is to somehow conflate widespread opposition to Iraq War 2 as some kind of universal principle of anti-interventionism. Then he ascribes this principle to his nameless opponents and uses this strawman as something to beat up without ever addressing if some foreign policy is a good idea or not. This discussion of course goes nowhere, like all debate fallacies.
Even if you could show that Dems were just opposing this pullout because Trump, so what? Is it a good idea to leave the YPG to die? Should we give ISIS another chance to take Raqqa? Who thinks this policy is actually a good idea on the merits? I am a Dem. Here is my answer: this move by Trump is full up retarded. We don't spend that much in blood and treasure in Eastern Syria and in return we keep ISIS's logistical strength lower than it otherwise would be. Any time Jihadists have a base of logistical strength (especially these ones, see Iraq 2011-2013), they use that base to build up bombs and suicide attackers and invariably send them to wherever they can. Yes, this sometimes does mean attacks in the West but it mostly means terrible bombing sprees across the middle east that the USA should spend resources to keep down.
I am confused...please tell me why the Dems so hated Bush's FP when they're 98% in lockstep then? If a Dem. starts a war, it's noble, altruistic, and good, but when a GOP starts a war, they're evil, doing it for resources or capitalism, etc. Can you name me many GOP started and pushed wars / conflicts that the rank and file Dems were gung-ho for? If you can name a few (there's a laundry list to choose from) then you might be able to combat the notion that most opposition to foreign conflict is entirely partisan in nature (see: Hannity scolding Clinton for Bosnia-Kosovo). The same goes for the GOP side. They find their inner Taftian non-interventionist self whenever it's a Dem. doing the wars (see: Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, etc.) and vice versa. How often do you see the rank and file of the party initiating or escalating a foreign intervention come out strongly against it. It's hilariously rare, which leads me to my observation that most if not all opposition to foreign policy consensus is fleeting partisanry.
I'm not a leftist by any stretch, and while I do like Greenwald, I'm sure he feels the same frustration as someone who holds a principled position (on this issue). It was brilliant when Obama got out of Iraq (even if it was the agreement under Bush), but it's complete idiocy or worse yet, a plot of the Ruskies, when Trump leaves Syria? Please.
I am sure Cheney is giddy with glee that the Democrats are attacking Trump for leaving a foreign conflict. Gotta keep those wars chugging along.
|
United States42656 Posts
In this the Democratic Party are just a reflection of the American people who have never heard of a war they don't want to be involved in.
|
On December 21 2018 10:21 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 09:53 Sermokala wrote:On December 21 2018 09:46 Wegandi wrote:On December 21 2018 09:13 Sermokala wrote:
Like I could see the middle east calming down but I don't see anyone actually backing down. The Kurds won't simply take being slaughtered by the Turks and might cause them to settle their differences between the various Kurdish factions. God forbid they declare their statehood to include Anatolia. Everyone will freak out and invade. Backed into such a corner Isreal could spin up their military and declare their support. Syria and Lebanon are bled out allowing Merkava tanks to roll through the desert with nothing to stop them but significant Russian involvement.
Without US involvement in the middle east, there is only war. Are you really saying the last sentence of your post with a straight face? Like there isn't endless war now? What reality do people live in? Even if what you said was true, what of any business is that of the US? Another argument built upon the assumption that the US is the world police, ought to be, and shall be, in toto, because "we're good so obviously good will come from our altruistic actions". I mean, the facts of reality certainly bear this out to be true......lol. There isn't endless war. After ISIS was generally defeated people drew up the borders to where they were at the moment and for the most part simply stayed there. We are a stabilizing presence in the region. We hold Isreals dog leash for the world and whenever we leave an area or decide to give up power in an area it flares up into war. You can't defend a position of "gee if we stayed home nothing bad would happen" after literally the nazis and genocides that have to happen all the time. If you want to own up to supporting and encouraging groups to genocide each other with impunity thats your business but rational people don't want a nuclear war on the planet. The facts of the matter is that the world is in a much more peaceful and safer state under US hegemony. That isn't to say we're literally the angels from heaven but we at least try to make things better which is a mile more then any isolationist wants. You're deflecting. If you really truly believe that without US intervention = war, and with US intervention = no war (or since you moved the goal posts from the post I quoted - less war), I wonder how many facts of reality of the last fifty years of our interventions must I present before there is some critical self-reflection. The reason 9/11 happened is because of our decades long interventions once we "took over" the ME from the British which then precipitated Iraq/Afghanistan, which then gave rise to ISIS (a fragment of Iraqi Baathists), which then broiled over into Syria, which then inflamed Turkish/Syrian relations, which then precipitated US involvement in Syria/Kurds, etc. It's a never-ending cycle where we intervene - place gets more fucked up - we look and see place fucked up and say, shit, we need to do something about that and on and on it goes like the original intervention in the first place wasn't the catalyst. Of course bad shit happens all the time - who argues otherwise? Your argument is that less bad shit will happen if we devote trillions and trillions of dollars in foreign wars and entanglements, but you keep parroting bad shit happening all over the world as reason for us to intervene to "fix it", but its never fixed. It's not me making the argument that bad shit won't happen, it's YOU that's making the argument that bad shit won't happen, or that it will be far less bad, if only the US would send bombs and boots to fix it. Because of course, that Bushian/Wilsonian argument has proven wildly successful. I wonder how many times Switzerland has gotten bombed by terrorists. How often they need to destroy their own civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism and safety. Seems to me, you go fucking with other people and places, that shit always blows back in your face. It also happens to neatly align with arguments for increasing State power at home...what a coincidence.
I'm not deflecting. I'm arguing that your stance will bring more war and more death while my stance will bring less war and less death. Yes 9/11 and the current wars since when we took over the region from the british has been our fault. But do you delude yourself into believing that everything would be roses if we left the whole area on its own with the globes most critical resource just sitting there?
I'm not saying bad shit will get happen or these issues will ever be fixed. They will never be fixed because they can't be fixed. The only thing that we could do to solve it would be to colonize the whole area and change their way of live root and branch in a horrific mass genocide the world would never forgive or tolerate.
You're not interested in less war you're just interested in saying how people haven't figured out the impossible. eating popcorn while the world burns isn't a valid position.
|
On December 21 2018 10:38 KwarK wrote:
In this the Democratic Party are just a reflection of the American people who have never heard of a war they don't want to be involved in.
Just imagine the chaos if we didn't send boots and bombs wherever XYZ bad guy pops up? The world is so much safer with us trotting to and fro in every corner of the world. Democracy uber alles.
|
People acting like this is some sort of sensible decision need to get with reality. This is Trump making decisions he doesn’t understand and isn’t interested in the consequences. If people want to leave Syria, they should want to leave with enough time so it doesn’t screw over our allies.
|
On December 21 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 06:00 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 20 2018 14:22 Sermokala wrote:
Assad is never going to invite the rebels back to syria. Those refugees are never going back to syria. At best Trump has made the syrian civil war an low-intensity (insert african failed state here). 50,000 already returned from Lebanon this year and the rate is accelerating.As conditions improve in Syria more will return.The Syrian government ordered foreign troops to leave.So unless you want to remove Assad and turn Syria into another Libya you have no choice.People who are saying it’s a win for Russia, did you support keeping the Vietnam war going too?... You do know that no one in this thread was alive during the Vietnam war, right?
So they don’t have the ability to look back and say Yes, i supported the decision to withdraw US troops from Vietnam.That the idea we needed to keep troops there to stop Russia wasn’t worth the money spent and lives lost?
Not to mention the war in Syria is OVER.ISIS is defeated.There is even less reason to be in Syria than there was to be in Vietnam although the overriding similarity in both cases is the people of those nations did not want US troops there.Which is sadly overlooked by many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
