|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Not sure if you'd rank it the same since we didn't send actual troops in, but the US telling Britain, France, and Israel to knock it the gently caress off during the Suez Crisis wasn't the worst thing we've ever done. Yeah, the US during the Suez Crisis was one of our better foreign policy moments, and it consisted of telling others not to intervene. Gravel Gravy posted:Assuming he'd be able to retake power in the first place. Don't suppose there is any precedent for ISIS/al-Qaeda using a civil-war to further there own faction in other states is there? Ok, so even assuming he wasn't on the brink of taking Benghazi and mostly ending the civil war before the NATO intervention, the success of our intervention was to remove one faction from the future civil war, a faction that was less lovely than ISIS. computer parts posted:Every and no action anywhere is a success or failure depending on your definition of "longterm". You should run for political office.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Gaddafi was a terrible rear end in a top hat tyrant but him retaking power was probably preferable to ISIS and Al Qaeda controlling large swaths of the country and the rest divided between anarchic militias fighting a seemingly endless civil war. You're assuming that he would retake full control, an argument Assad's defenders have used frequently - that he is the only way toward Stability, so the brutality is a lesser-of-two-evils situation. And again, Syria is an example of why that argument is not necessarily the case, a solid example of how Libya could possibly have ended up even worse than it is today. And you still sidestepped the Kobane intervention, asking "well did it work in the long-term?" is a complete cop-out because you really have to answer the question of whether it was preferable to let Kobane be overrun first. All this and you're still not referring back to Presidential politics, which asks whether any candidates are taking your position on intervention and if they are whether they'd play well. Give us at least a sentence on Bernie Sanders, the perceived most progressive candidate - has he said anything about these interventions? Has he promised what his foreign policy would be, or contrasted it with Hillary? Could we expect him to continue Obama's policies, or even scale them back like calling off airstrikes and canning talk of training and weapons for either Syrian rebels or Ukrainian soldiers? And lastly, how do you argue that this is the more popular position likely to play well in either the primary or the general when public pressure has mostly been toward at least some kind of response (even if the Republicans want to ride that all the way to Full Ground Invasion Now)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:
A faction that actually had the history and wherewithal to perform major terrorist attacks outside of its borders, was actively warring with its populace, and just kept a lid on its mass executions and mass torture? What is your definition of "less lovely"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:It was not proven. It was proven. Your entire thesis is bogus. Of course America was "in the region", we've had bases in southern Italy since WWII. Europeans started the actual support. Also again, I point out you still have 0 evidence of a permanent military presence inside Libya, since all you can come up with is "guhhh well they're in the region" which is bull because we haven't not been in the region since 1942.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/iay0mr88pc/econTabReport.pdf poll poll poll poll
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Question: Is NBC scheduled to broadcast any Republican Primary or straight any of the general election debates? Just wondering because surely Trump is gonna have a pouty feud with them after being booted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
LOU BEGAS MUSTACHE posted:https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/iay0mr88pc/econTabReport.pdf Ooo that looks like something fun to go through. Thanks for posting it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:What American military intervention in the Middle East has been, in the long term, a success. Only one I can think of is the Barbary Wars, and even then we had to fight two of em. Gulf War 1 went alright, assuming we don't blame it for Bush II hating Saddam. While the Emir of Kuwait is a jerk, Saddam was probably worse. Can we count the UN peacekeeping in Lebanon?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
LOU BEGAS MUSTACHE posted:https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/iay0mr88pc/econTabReport.pdf Only 7% of self identified Republicans deny climate change, which is interesting (Granted, "only" 40% think it's manmade but that's still a sight larger than what the narrative tells us).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Well, we do have a bumbling villain calling his opponents "weak" and "foolish,' so... I really should've said Skeletor instead of Genghis Khan. But Skeletor is considerably more creative than Trump in his use of insults, making liberal use of alliteration, and also he has much better definition in his chest and arms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I really should've said Skeletor instead of Genghis Khan. But Skeletor is considerably more creative than Trump in his use of insults, making liberal use of alliteration, and also he has much better definition in his chest and arms. And he isn't ashamed of being bald.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:I think we should just let California burn. Every year there's a new forest fire and no effort really seems to have any long term effect. So, according to this analogy, we should pre-start smaller conflicts in the Middle East to sop up the ability to engage in a larger one! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Nixon was secretly backing McGovern? I've never heard of that. Yeah, he had his wetworkers sabotage all the candidates but McGovern because McGovern was unelectable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So, according to this analogy, we should pre-start smaller conflicts in the Middle East to sop up the ability to engage in a larger one! Well according to the zionist conspiracy poster we already are 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:A faction that actually had the history and wherewithal to perform major terrorist attacks outside of its borders, was actively warring with its populace, and just kept a lid on its mass executions and mass torture? What is your definition of "less lovely"? Qaddafi had completely abandoned terrorism outside Libya since the 80s, and had mostly worked with the west against islamist terrorist movements. Qaddafi was a shithead but he stopped being a threat to the United States with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Dolash posted:You're assuming that he would retake full control, an argument Assad's defenders have used frequently - that he is the only way toward Stability, so the brutality is a lesser-of-two-evils situation. And again, Syria is an example of why that argument is not necessarily the case, a solid example of how Libya could possibly have ended up even worse than it is today. And you still sidestepped the Kobane intervention, asking "well did it work in the long-term?" is a complete cop-out because you really have to answer the question of whether it was preferable to let Kobane be overrun first. If Qaddafi had won there would have been a subsequent blood bath and the death of thousands of dissidents and rebels and it would have been terrible. In the end though, the country would have been relatively stable. Now we have ISIS, who are supervillians compared to Qaddafi's comic book villainy, in control of large parts of the country and the entire nation is torn apart by various militias in a civil war. And my argument is not that Qaddafi winning was a preferable outcome, just that America's intervention was not a success at all unless our mission was just to kill Qaddafi. We have created a less stable Libya that harbors worse enemies to us than Qaddafi ever was. And yes, Sanders was largely opposed to the intervention in 2011, calling it another wasteful war and has since condemned it as a failure that created a breeding ground for jihadist. Meanwhile Clinton was one of its primary architects. Sheng-Ji Yang fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
I want to point out that voting Santorum out of office by 20 points is the greatest thing the state of Pennsylvania has ever done Then we voted in that fucker Toomey 4 years later 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
This mid east derail is cool and good Oh wait...
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Qaddafi had completely abandoned terrorism outside Libya since the 80s, and had mostly worked with the west against islamist terrorist movements. Qaddafi was a shithead but he stopped being a threat to the United States with the fall of the Berlin Wall. So he saw the writing on the wall and owned up to it in exchange for a release of sanctions and a place on the UN Human Rights council? Doesn't seem the choice was 100% altruism. Sheng-ji Yang posted:If Qaddafi had won there would have been a subsequent blood bath and the death of thousands of dissidents and rebels and it would have been terrible. In the end though, the country would have been relatively stable. Now we have ISIS, who are supervillians compared to Qaddafi's comic book villainy, in control of large parts of the country. You don't murder off large portions of your populace and expect stability. Normally others come in to fill that vacuum. ISIS wouldn't fit that bill, would it? Sheng-ji Yang posted:And my argument is not that Qaddafi winning was a preferable outcome, just that America's intervention was not a success at all unless our mission was just to kill Qaddafi. We have created a less stable Libya that harbors worse enemies to us than Qaddafi ever was. By what metric? You offer a lot of hypotheticals and base them as facts. Sheng-ji Yang posted:And yes, Sanders was largely opposed to the intervention in 2011, calling it another wasteful war and has since condemned it as a failure that created a breeding ground for jihadist. Meanwhile Clinton was one of its primary architects. In that case it's probably a good thing he wasn't calling any of the shots. site posted:This mid east derail is cool and good
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:What American military intervention in the Middle East has been, in the long term, a success. Only one I can think of is the Barbary Wars, and even then we had to fight two of em. In this post we find a solution. Just send the Constitution back to the Mediterranean once it's out of dry dock and get it to play gunboat diplomat again. Worked the last two times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
LOU BEGAS MUSTACHE posted:https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/iay0mr88pc/econTabReport.pdf Haha, Kasich's and Pataki's favorability can be summed up in one word - "who?". e: Also true of Chafee and O'Malley.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
LOU BEGAS MUSTACHE posted:https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/iay0mr88pc/econTabReport.pdf Nice, even among identified conservatives only 10% trust Republican politicians to tell the truth "completely" or "a lot" about climate change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:If Qaddafi had won there would have been a subsequent blood bath and the death of thousands of dissidents and rebels and it would have been terrible. In the end though, the country would have been relatively stable. Now we have ISIS, who are supervillians compared to Qaddafi's comic book villainy, in control of large parts of the country and the entire nation is torn apart by various militias in a civil war. "If Qaddafi had won" is another sidestep, because we could just as easily have a long-raging civil war or insurgency as we see with Syria. ISIS would not be getting a foothold in Libya if Syria were not left to rot long enough for ISIS to come into existence anyway, especially since it's been characterized as much closer to the core organization than other ISIS rebrands, and your argument that America's intervention was not a success depends both on Libya being more stable today if Qaddafi were still fighting and that the answer is not "we didn't do enough after Qaddafi was ousted". Certainly the loudest critics of Obama's foreign policy in the media are mostly ones who think he let Libya fall apart. Still not answering Kobane, I see. Sanders opposed the Libyan intervention, so let's presume he stands by that today. Do you see him campaigning on this, or taking Hillary's foreign policy to task? Is there a lot of untapped support for leaving ISIS alone, disengaging from Ukraine and so on in the Democratic primary that you think he could capture by criticizing Hillary on this issue? Does this carry into the general at all or would a commitment to not expanding Obama's existing foreign involvement be something a Republican could hammer them on? And let's recall that there's a lot of space between Obama's current stance and a Bush-led region-wide invasion, so Hillary promising something between those extremes could garner her support from an American public that seems to at least want action on ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
So can you actually articulate why you believe our intervention was a success and Libya is better off now than it would have been without it? Also your av is pretty drat ironic atm.quote:So he saw the writing on the wall and owned up to it in exchange for a release of sanctions and a place on the UN Human Rights council? Doesn't seem the choice was 100% altruism. What world do you live in that foreign policy is ever done by any nation out of altruism? quote:You don't murder off large portions of your populace and expect stability. Normally others come in to fill that vacuum. ISIS wouldn't fit that bill, would it? I said relatively stable, compared to the current four way civil war Libya is currently enduring. I have no doubt there would have been some sort of insurgency and terrorism in Libya following a Qaddafi victory. ISIS's strategy does not fit into insurgency, they want territory. site posted:This mid east derail is cool and good I'd say Clinton's failures as Secretary of State are relevant to the democratic primary, unless this thread is just supposed to be a place to make fun of Republicans. Maybe there should be separate Republican Primary and Dem Primary threads, so we can just mock the Republicans in one and actually debate and discuss in the other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
LOU BEGAS MUSTACHE posted:https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/iay0mr88pc/econTabReport.pdf So the "favorability" numbers for Dem candidates are interesting. Only 3% of Democrats "don't know" whether they view Hillary as favorable/unfavorable, but 37% "don't know" for Sanders. Also, for the voting population that actually votes (older people), Hillary has much higher "unfavorable" ratings. I wonder how much of that is sexism and how much is that they view her as being untrustworthy/having lovely policy positions. WTF Biden is in there. Why. He hasn't declared, and since its obvious god hates his family it seems unlikely he will. Also, Chaffee, Webb, and MOM are in the "who?" bucket, it seems (~60% "don't know" for each). Feather fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Rick Perry explains Texas like you're five. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvyoFSFB94s I don't know what's happening in this election, but I don't want it to stop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:If Qaddafi had won there would have been a subsequent blood bath and the death of thousands of dissidents and rebels and it would have been terrible. In the end though, the country would have been relatively stable. Now we have ISIS, who are supervillians compared to Qaddafi's comic book villainy, in control of large parts of the country and the entire nation is torn apart by various militias in a civil war. IF. But it's much more likely that he would've lost or ended up in perennial civil war a la Syria. Libyan intervention ensured a swift resolution to the war, a resolution that likely would've been met after much more bloodshed a year or two later. Only in the latter scenario, Libyans never wave American flags on the streets and our approval rating in Libya never becomes higher than it was in Canada. And no, ISIS is not in control of a large part of the country. They aren't even the strongest Islamist faction. In my opinion phase 1 of the intervention was a success, but phase 2 was a failure, largely due to a weakening of will back home following the attacks on Benghazi. The security situation was serious, but resolvable, following elections in Libya. After America threw away every piece of business that mentioned Libya, things degraded quickly. You had militants running into the Parliament and MP's saying "Hey, we might not have complete control of this situation, earth," but no one did anything to prevent the decay from spreading. There was just no will to do anything in Libya after the attack on the consulate. So in that regard, the terrorists beat us, and that's what led to the larger failure. As far as Sanders, the idea that the intervention "created" a breeding ground for jihadists is hilarious given what's happening in Syria. Instability is what creates breeding grounds for jihadists, and civil war is instability. The breeding ground existed before the US did anything. We at least gave Libyans a chance at real stability, and not that brittle, authoritarian kind that tends to blow up like a pipe bomb on short notice. And until the world left them to their fates as the country degraded, Libyans appreciated it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Jeb Bush is seen as inevitable by Republicans, but he isn't their favored candidate, and his unfavorables with Conservatives are very high. This strikes me as a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Sanders has said that he's in favor of fighting ISIS. He wants Muslim countries in the area (notably Saudi Arabia) to take the lead, though he has approved of the US providing support up to and including airstrikes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Jeb Bush is seen as inevitable by Republicans, but he isn't their favored candidate, and his unfavorables with Conservatives are very high. This strikes me as a problem. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Rick Perry explains Texas like you're five. Wooowwwwwwwwswwwwwww Artistically it's actually kind of neat but everything else just.... What the gently caress is happening with this primary  I especially enjoyed the part where he ran to texas inexplicably. I guess everyone thinks everyone runs into Texas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:Sanders has said that he's in favor of fighting ISIS. He wants Muslim countries in the area (notably Saudi Arabia) to take the lead, though he has approved of the US providing support up to and including airstrikes. Thread title checks out again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Feather posted:WTF Biden is in there. Why. He hasn't declared, and since its obvious god hates his family it seems unlikely he will. He made quite a bit of noise about getting into the race last year, I wanna saw well before Bernie had made any real moves at all, and certainly prior to the universe deciding it needed to gutpunch Biden at least one more time. Joementum posted:Rick Perry explains Texas like you're five. Well I guess we can credit him for not talking over the heads of his intended audience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It was proven. Show where it was. Nintendo Kid posted:Your entire thesis is bogus. Of course America was "in the region", we've had bases in southern Italy since WWII. Europeans started the actual support. It's great and all that you keep putting words into my mouth, but the US has been doing routine surveillance flights of the region, training Libyan forces and doing advising for the Libyan government, providing equipment, running secret prisons (which Patreaus was blamed for), and running air strikes. That counts as military presence, and the Libyan government that we installed would crumble without it. And no, that's not true, nor is that consistent with your previous statement that the Europeans "acted on their own" and "started it first".
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:So can you actually articulate why you believe our intervention was a success and Libya is better off now than it would have been without it? Also your av is pretty drat ironic atm. "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2014%E2%80%93present)#Opposing_forces posted:
While you compare that figure to the figures that were coming out of Syria during the period of non-involvement how about you turn that question around and finally offer evidence or some sort of reasoning as to why non-intervention was the way to go? So far all I've heard is "wasteful/conflict anyway". I hate to break it to you but all ME FP is is a series of mitigating disasters. Sheng-ji Yang posted:What world do you live in that foreign policy is ever done by any nation out of altruism? What world do you live in where you think Gadaffi was reformed and terrorism was now beneath him? He took a calculated move because the benefits outweighed the cost of losing a political tool. Not seeing it as beneath his station to return to it after the West reimposed sanctions and again labeled him as a pariah. Sheng-ji Yang posted:I said relatively stable, compared to the current four way civil war Libya is currently enduring. I have no doubt there would have been some sort of insurgency and terrorism in Libya following a Qaddafi victory. ISIS's strategy does not fit into insurgency, they want territory. I'd say making sure that there are people left to fight a civil war against ISIS is probably preferable to a country where nobody is left but a regime that would have to resort to using outside mercenaries in its death throes. So when you ask if it was a success? Look to Syria and then Libya, compare the costs and casualties of both since. In part that is partially what being a Secretary of State is, how well you can mitigate disaster. The greatest success any SoS can have is usually maintaining the status quo and I'd like to hear you defend Kissinger, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Rick Perry explains Texas like you're five. "Welcome to Rick Perry's America, where a reckless agenda of mindless tax cutting, deregulation and paranoia can help YOU live the dream of eating a hot pocket alone in your living room!" Bonus: It features a sample of the transphobic, cat-torturing fever dream that is the "Theme From Cheers". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7U3lo80YrQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:By being dishonest? How many people have to point out how disingenuous you are before you start to even loving think about the idea? Add me to the list I guess, I'm tired of your stupid analysis. Job Truniht posted:She holds a bunch of unpopular views. Just read that whole list. I guarantee you that a full blown Syrian intervention would happen within her first term, no matter how bad of a loving idea that is. I'll Oh god, please just shut up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:45
|
|
if it means I'm not loving around with this claim.
|
Veskit posted:I especially enjoyed the part where he ran to texas inexplicably. I guess everyone thinks everyone runs into Texas. To be fair, the traffic is so bad here that running is probably the most efficient method of transit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Rick Perry explains Texas like you're five. Dare I hope that this is now where we are, that every presidential election will be more of a fuckshow than the last? Interesting times, indeed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
New campaign logo for Carson:
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Supraluminal posted:Sanders has said that he's in favor of fighting ISIS. He wants Muslim countries in the area (notably Saudi Arabia) to take the lead, though he has approved of the US providing support up to and including airstrikes. That's pretty much in line with what Obama's done so far. His opinion on Ukraine would also be useful to help situate his foreign policy stance, but since Obama's pretty much doing the bare minimum at the moment I suppose at worst Sanders would roll back the sanctions and stop providing what little aid is being offered, I suppose that might signal to Putin that it's safe to just annex Eastern Ukraine the way he did Crimea but basically pretty in line with Obama's current policies. He might also change policies concerning Yemen or the drone program and while those are important issues in their own right they're somewhat smaller parts of the overall "reduced/non-intervention" stance. So if Sanders could be seen as a continuation of Obama's foreign policy or further disengagement, while Hillary's continuing/expanding, how much space is there between her and the Republicans on foreign policy? If it's Bush or some other host body for the Neocon policy shop, they could ride the desire for action on ISIS all the way to full military re-engagement with large deployments of ground troops in the Middle East (in Iraq, sure, but maybe even in Syria), but is there space for Hillary to campaign on more involvement and action on these crises without getting pulled into another quagmire? The Iran deal merits attention as well. I guess that depends on whether a deal can be worked out in time before Barack's term is up, but so far what's Hillary's stance been on it? Is she really part of the "throw it out, double the sanctions" camp?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:52
|
|