|
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 10:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 10:21 Wegandi wrote: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.
I'm saying bad shit will always happen, and that it is none of our business, and when we do try and make it our business, things get worse, not better, especially for us. 9/11 would have never happened if we didn't let the CIA and the Pentagon play king-maker since the 1940s in the ME. We're not safer, or richer, with this policy. In fact, we're less free, and poorer. The tens of trillions of dollars of waste, lives, and liberty has not made us the better for it. For me, that's what matters. It's not our obligation to intercede in other nations internal affairs. Do you go around your neighborhood kicking down the door of the wife-beater, or bad mother/father, or ex-felon trying to "rehab" them by force? You think that would make your neighborhood safer? We preach on the macro-scale world stage what we would never do in our own micro lives. There's a huge cognitive dissonance in this regard. Part hubris, do-gooder, puritanical fanaticism coupled with the extension of American Exceptionalism.
If you ever want to see the wrath brought down upon someone - just watch them go against US FP dogma. The real hate is then unleashed by all sides.
|
On December 21 2018 09:53 Sermokala wrote:
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.
Are you idiot or ignorant?
Or maybe it's me, enlighten me on the better things the Fruit Company brought to Guatemala or how Pinochet deserved your full support to get in power. Maybe you prefer speaking about Vietnam? Or Brazil, Iran, Afghanistan, Congo, please explain me.
|
On December 21 2018 10:35 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +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 has someone who holds a principled position. 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.
You are doing exactly what I said you would do. You are sidestepping any merits concerns and relying on a strawman that asserts Dems have a principle that they don't have. EDIT: be specific, who holds the principle you are trying to strawmen all Dems with? WHO? Name names.
For emphasis, Dems have few Deontological principles when it comes to foreign policy (the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action). Most of the principles they do have are really just consequential stuff wrapped up to sound like principles, like human rights. Human rights boil down to "state murder is wrong", "stop murdering civilians", and "please stop all that rape". These are not real principles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics
Dems are roughly consequentialists on foreign policy that analyze each action on its own basic on its probable consequences as measured by expected carnage, death, and destruction.
"the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
The Dem objections to Iraq War 2 were overwhelmingly of a consequentialist character. Very few Democrats mounted principle based objections to Iraq War 2. The objections were along the lines of: (1) this will cause terrible destruction for Iraqs, (2) this will cost too many American lives, (3) this will cost too much money, (4) Bush2's occupation team in the beginning of the war were terrible leaders on the merits and mismanaged the crucial first few months of the occupation. Do you note how there are no principles there?
There were some Deontological objections to Iraq War 2, but you weren't going to hear there unless you were talking to just war theorists or law students. An argument of this character would go like: we shouldn't invade Iraq in Iraq War 2 because it would be an illegal war of aggression. Iraq had not attacked us and had nothing to do with 9/11. Or an argument along the lines of: "the Bush2 theory of preventative war is bogus and is just a fig leaf for launching an aggressive war, and aggressive wars are wrong as a matter of principle". Of note, the deontological argument against Iraq War 2 is super strong and I to this day think Bush2 should be put on trial for committing the war crime of Aggression. [By contrast], Bush2 had a credible national self defense claim against the Taliban because they harbored Al Queda prior to 9/11.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_aggression
And before you say it, the war crime of Aggression only applies to States. ISIS is not a State and almost all Jihadist groups are sub-national.
|
On December 21 2018 10:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote: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.
So what is it? Did the US defeat ISIS or are Russia, Iran and Syria still fighting them?
And why does he warn ISIS not to hit America when they have been defeated?
As for the countries not wanting us there.
Remember how Republicans cried when Obama withdraw from Iraq as per the agreement made by Bush because the country didn't want you there?
Guess that one didn't count.
|
On December 21 2018 10:42 Plansix wrote:
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.
The alternative being remove the leader of a country you invaded.Didn’t Obama do that in Libya? Now the slave trade is flourishing there.A lawless hell hole.
https://www.newsweek.com/humans-sale-libyan-slave-trade-continues-while-militants-kill-and-torture-855118?amp=1
I’m literally arguing with liberals that think US intervention in foreign nations is good.Holy shit.How many more examples do you need of the damage it has caused? There are many.
|
Most Democrats remain staunch Wilsonians, but only feign being against war and intervention when a GOP is in office for political partisan gains. If a war is going poorly - we're against it. If not, and if it is under a (D) leader, Hoo-Rah boys. When the shoe is on the other foot, same riggamarole. People like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Thomas Massie, etc. are the real outliers.
|
On December 21 2018 10:57 Wegandi wrote:Most Democrats remain staunch Wilsonians, but only feign being against war and intervention when a GOP is in office for political partisan gains. If a war is going poorly - we're against it. If not, and if it is under a (D) leader, Hoo-Rah boys. When the shoe is on the other foot, same riggamarole. People like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Thomas Massie, etc. are the real outliers. I don't suppose it could be that the problem is not so much with 'leaving Syria' and more with not telling the military we are leaving Syria, not seeking advise from the military and intelligence on leaving Syria and not consulting with US allies in the region and abandoning them?
The Secretary of Defense just resigned over this ffs.
|
On December 21 2018 11:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 10:57 Wegandi wrote:On December 21 2018 10:52 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 21 2018 10:42 Plansix wrote: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. https://twitter.com/richardengel/status/1075915214594428928 The alternative being remove the leader of a country you invaded.Didn’t Obama do that in Libya? Now the slave trade is flourishing there.A lawless hell hole. https://www.newsweek.com/humans-sale-libyan-slave-trade-continues-while-militants-kill-and-torture-855118?amp=1I’m literally arguing with liberals that think US intervention in foreign nations is good.Holy shit.How many more examples do you need of the damage it has caused? There are many. Most Democrats remain staunch Wilsonians, but only feign being against war and intervention when a GOP is in office for political partisan gains. If a war is going poorly - we're against it. If not, and if it is under a (D) leader, Hoo-Rah boys. When the shoe is on the other foot, same riggamarole. People like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Thomas Massie, etc. are the real outliers. I don't suppose it could be that the problem is not so much with 'leaving Syria' and more with not telling the military we are leaving Syria, not seeking advise from the military and intelligence on leaving Syria and not consulting with US allies in the region and abandoning them?
We all ready know what the military and the CIA is going to say. If you listen to them you'll be fighting endless war in all corners of the globe. Hence, the FP consensus. Why the fuck are we still in Afghanistan? We going to take the FP wisdom and intelligence of Dick Cheney and John McCain to heart? Yikes. Should have left yesterday.
|
One thing is for sure, Democrats will be responsible for the foreign policy disaster when it goes wrong, just like Iraq.
|
On December 21 2018 11:06 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 11:04 Gorsameth wrote:On December 21 2018 10:57 Wegandi wrote:On December 21 2018 10:52 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 21 2018 10:42 Plansix wrote: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. https://twitter.com/richardengel/status/1075915214594428928 The alternative being remove the leader of a country you invaded.Didn’t Obama do that in Libya? Now the slave trade is flourishing there.A lawless hell hole. https://www.newsweek.com/humans-sale-libyan-slave-trade-continues-while-militants-kill-and-torture-855118?amp=1I’m literally arguing with liberals that think US intervention in foreign nations is good.Holy shit.How many more examples do you need of the damage it has caused? There are many. Most Democrats remain staunch Wilsonians, but only feign being against war and intervention when a GOP is in office for political partisan gains. If a war is going poorly - we're against it. If not, and if it is under a (D) leader, Hoo-Rah boys. When the shoe is on the other foot, same riggamarole. People like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Thomas Massie, etc. are the real outliers. I don't suppose it could be that the problem is not so much with 'leaving Syria' and more with not telling the military we are leaving Syria, not seeking advise from the military and intelligence on leaving Syria and not consulting with US allies in the region and abandoning them? We all ready know what the military and the CIA is going to say. If you listen to them you'll be fighting endless war in all corners of the globe. Hence, the FP consensus. Why the fuck are we still in Afghanistan? We going to take the FP wisdom and intelligence of Dick Cheney and John McCain to heart? Yikes. Should have left yesterday. Really? You saw what happened in Iraq and your wondering why your still in Afghanistan?
|
On December 21 2018 11:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2018 11:06 Wegandi wrote:On December 21 2018 11:04 Gorsameth wrote:On December 21 2018 10:57 Wegandi wrote:On December 21 2018 10:52 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 21 2018 10:42 Plansix wrote: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. https://twitter.com/richardengel/status/1075915214594428928 The alternative being remove the leader of a country you invaded.Didn’t Obama do that in Libya? Now the slave trade is flourishing there.A lawless hell hole. https://www.newsweek.com/humans-sale-libyan-slave-trade-continues-while-militants-kill-and-torture-855118?amp=1I’m literally arguing with liberals that think US intervention in foreign nations is good.Holy shit.How many more examples do you need of the damage it has caused? There are many. Most Democrats remain staunch Wilsonians, but only feign being against war and intervention when a GOP is in office for political partisan gains. If a war is going poorly - we're against it. If not, and if it is under a (D) leader, Hoo-Rah boys. When the shoe is on the other foot, same riggamarole. People like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Thomas Massie, etc. are the real outliers. I don't suppose it could be that the problem is not so much with 'leaving Syria' and more with not telling the military we are leaving Syria, not seeking advise from the military and intelligence on leaving Syria and not consulting with US allies in the region and abandoning them? We all ready know what the military and the CIA is going to say. If you listen to them you'll be fighting endless war in all corners of the globe. Hence, the FP consensus. Why the fuck are we still in Afghanistan? We going to take the FP wisdom and intelligence of Dick Cheney and John McCain to heart? Yikes. Should have left yesterday. Really? You saw what happened in Iraq and your wondering why your still in Afghanistan?
Yes, I did. US came marching in, replaced the Government which lead to the in fighting of various religious groups, which resulted in total chaos that Hussein had clamped down on, which led to formation of ISIS. Did you see any of that or was it my imagination? That wasnt your point you were trying to make though is it? Well might as well get it over with and make Afghanistan the 51st state since the only solution is to be there forever.
Edit: can you answer me this. Were you for or against the McCain surge in Iraq. Just curious.
|
United States41993 Posts
I believe in diplomacy, alliances, and standing up to authoritarian governments. You need a SecDef who is more aligned with your goals.
- Mattis
That's like a breakup letter that reads "I believe in honesty, integrity, and not fucking other people behind my back. You need a boyfriend who doesn't believe in those things".
|
|
|
5930 Posts
It is possible to simultaneously agree with removing the troops while disagree with the motivation and methods.
|
Hard to overstate how terrible this Syria withdrawal was handled and subsequent Mattis resignation. By far one of Trumps worst moves as president when it comes to military/foreign intervention, the Kurds are left out to dry, one of our best allies in one of the most troubled areas of the Middle East. No one seems to have even been consulted or notified, not even within the administration. Awful and no justification for it. Losing Mattis is really a big blow in general too not just with Syria but with military management in general.
|
These troop withdrawals and how Trump has handled them are inexcusable. Mattis' resignation is an undescribably red flag, not that one was needed. This is disgusting and Congress needs to step in immediately.
|
what a terrible decision. this is one of the many (and worst) ways Trump is not a normal republican.
edit: since this is Trump I'm hoping there is some backtrack before it takes effect, but given all his tweets he really seems set on this.
edit 2: Mike Lee supports this too? Not been a hot week for a great senator, between jailbreak and now this. irresponsible.
|
Oooh the wagons are circling. If there is one thing America can't stand, is someone who doesn't tow the indefinite war line. Gotta bomb someplace in the world at all times - because, they're awful people you see, and they need Democracy. Long live Woodrow Wilson.
|
I mean, it really isn't surprising though.
Here's the thing though: pulling out soldiers from Afghanistan (btw, an ISAF mission that the USA signed up for) is a stupid move for one specific reason: you can argue that leaving Kurds in the dust to die is okay, because they're brown people anyway - but "throwing allies under the bus" works two ways, something to keep in mind. Pulling out of Afghanistan directly puts US allies soldiers at risk. I don't think that's something these allies would forget anytime soon.
The "not surprising" part is that the USA since creation not once took responsibility for their actions. It was always, every single time, an (or numerous) ally that picked up the pieces.
The US is pretty comparable to a swarm of locusts, in that sense.
Funny though that Mozoku actually has a reasonable position, whereas Wegandi goes directly to "y'all are hillary cuntsuckers with no idea about anything". Here's what people actually want. People don't want the USA to start wars. People do want the USA to clean up their wars. It really isn't that complicated. Because if you don't, and i really hope i'm wrong here, the next 9/11 (or worse) is always around the next corner.
edit: coming to think of it, they actually did once take responsibility, sort of. Mainly to stick it to the russians, but still.
|
On December 21 2018 12:39 Wegandi wrote:
Oooh the wagons are circling. If there is one thing America can't stand, is someone who doesn't tow the indefinite war line. Gotta bomb someplace in the world at all times - because, they're awful people you see, and they need Democracy. Long live Woodrow Wilson.
The saddest thing about this is how you keep refencing Wilson like it horrible reference, like Nixon or something. That and you are cheering for us to abandon the Kurds to be murdered by Turkey.
But we get it, endless war is bad. So end the war in the stupidest way possible so you can get what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
