|
Venom Snake posted:I don't care right now because Trump is going to do a lot of horrible, horrible things and it's going to make it really hard to unfuck. He's going to piss on the worlds head and we are going to be stuck holding the bag. The point is that this is not new, it is the normal. American foreign policy of the past 100 or more years has been a variation of "Do what is in the US's interests *bombs the gently caress out of said country to achieve this*" or "Prop up a terrible regime in said country to enforce US interests". When the term "humanitarian intervention" gets thrown up, bad poo poo is about to go down.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
WINNINGHARD posted:Hillary Clinton is incompetent on a good day. She voted for the Iraq war, the biggest unforced error in foreign policy since the vietnam war. In her defense, her backers said, everyone else in congress was doing it too. Do you want someone like that as a chief executive? Someone who does what's expedient, instead of what's right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
she didnt even read the intelligence report. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/28/clinton.iraq/index.html?eref=onion. she was just too hyped to vote for a world changing imperialist war
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:True, but Trump will almost certainly let a few neocons slither back in and start a fun little war or two FOR FREEDOM AND THE CAPITALIST WAY. People forget that Obama intervened in more nations than GWB ever did, and Hillary was poised to not only continue that, but expand it. Obama is right now, as we speak, helping enforce a naval blockade of Yemen that is starving thousands to death. Bush was a shitheel but neoliberalism is no saint, either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Yep. On the other hand though Bush (or Hillary) would undoubtedly have bombed Syria and turned it into the new Libya (failed state run by ISIS and warlords) by now. Obama who is by nature somewhat reticent (see his Iraq war opposition) held back and now Trump is president so now we'll see
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Hey, so I typed up a letter to pressure the DNC committee members to elect Ellison. Before I send it I'd like to run it through you guys first.quote:Hello Senator Peterson,
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Havelock Ellis posted:The point is that this is not new, it is the normal. American foreign policy of the past 100 or more years has been a variation of "Do what is in the US's interests *bombs the gently caress out of said country to achieve this*" or "Prop up a terrible regime in said country to enforce US interests". When the term "humanitarian intervention" gets thrown up, bad poo poo is about to go down. What will be new is dropping any pretext that the people doing this know what they're doing or even care. Like it's literally gonna be Christie style bridgegate bumbling capos, except instead of traffic cones they'll have aircraft carriers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Fast Luck posted:Yep. On the other hand though Bush (or Hillary) would undoubtedly have bombed Syria and turned it into the new Libya (failed state run by ISIS and warlords). Obama who is by nature somewhat reticent (see his Iraq war opposition) held back and now Trump is president so now we'll see The only reason he held back was because he was dumb enough to draw a line in the sand over chemical weapons before he had a coalition of allies. He did that and our allies said "yeah, no, go gently caress yourself", and left him in the lurch. That left room for Russia to swoop in, broker the chemical weapons disarmament, and in exchange they intervened on Assad's behalf. It was the second greatest foreign policy blunder of the 21st century behind the invasion of Iraq and it has prolonged the war for years now. People need to hold Obama accountable for this more than they do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:I loving hate Saudi Arabia It was one of the things I hated the most about Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:Hey, so I typed up a letter to pressure the DNC committee members to elect Ellison. Before I send it I'd like to run it through you guys first. i don't know why progressive in second to last paragraph is capitalized. also include one or two sentences on why you support keith in the final paragraph beyond "bernie sanders says to do it" call her office during working hours if you can, they really pay attention to those
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:Hey, so I typed up a letter to pressure the DNC committee members to elect Ellison. Before I send it I'd like to run it through you guys first. this is a lil bit sanctimonious but i think the moment calls for it
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:more democrats in congress at the time voted against the iraq war instead of for it. hillary pushed for the iraq war against her own party. In all fairness, wasn't it an open secret that funds for rebuilding NY were traded for Hillary's cooperation RE: Iraq? I'm not misremembering that, am I?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Everyone expected Obama to jump in after the chemical weapons attack (even though whether it was done by the Syrian government is still unknown). A lot of officials were hyped up and ready to go and were completely blindsided when he didn't give the order. Obama sucks in a lot of ways on this stuff. Yes, Hillary convinced him to intervene in Libya which was absurd, but it was Obama that gave the go-ahead. I think he's bad. I'm just saying, I can so easily imagine so much worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BoingBoing/status/797151622438801408
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Fast Luck posted:Everyone expected Obama to jump in after the chemical weapons attack (even though whether it was done by Assad is still unknown). A lot of them were hyped up and ready to go and were completely blindsided when he didn't give the order. Obama sucks in a lot of ways on this stuff. Yes, Hillary convinced him to intervene in Libya which was absurd, but it was Obama that gave the go-ahead. I think he's bad. I'm just saying, I can so easily imagine so much worse. Oh certainly it could have been worse, he could have intervened unilaterally. Make no mistake, though, his desire was to topple Assad with a robust intervention.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
The Republicrats are basically the Zentrum of our time lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Deki posted:In all fairness, wasn't it an open secret that funds for rebuilding NY were traded for Hillary's cooperation RE: Iraq? bush promised NY money to rebuild after republicans in the house initially said "gently caress you blue state" and he delivered on that then he "apparently" said that the iraq vote was just a show of force to get the inspectors back in and she believed him on it after he built up trust with her over giving money to NY
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The only reason he held back was because he was dumb enough to draw a line in the sand over chemical weapons before he had a coalition of allies. He did that and our allies said "yeah, no, go gently caress yourself", and left him in the lurch. The left absolutely did push back on that war and won, even if it meant making our own guy look like a gently caress up and giving the Republicans a nice hammer to bludgeon him with at home. There's no scenario where us joining a brutal civil war in Syria ended well for America or the world, especially after we got a taste for it in Lybia and certain Democrats started to think "Hmmm this isn't so hard after all. Arab Spring and American air power will finally fix the middle east!!!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:What will be new is dropping any pretext that the people doing this know what they're doing or even care. Yeah, when it seems like there is possibly about to be a gradual shift in global power, it's loving terrifying. Not that I would have assumed that US dominance would ever go quietly but gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The only reason he held back was because he was dumb enough to draw a line in the sand over chemical weapons before he had a coalition of allies. He did that and our allies said "yeah, no, go gently caress yourself", and left him in the lurch. 3rd greatest, behind Iraq & Libya. And then there's the surge in Afghanistan. The failure to close Guantanamo. Drone bombings in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, which we're doing at the behest of reactionary regimes based on intel we're getting almost exclusively from them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:The left absolutely did push back on that war and won, even if it meant making our own guy look like a gently caress up and giving the Republicans a nice hammer to bludgeon him with at home. There's no scenario where us joining a brutal civil war in Syria ended well for America or the world, especially after we got a taste for it in Lybia and certain Democrats started to think "Hmmm this isn't so hard after all. Arab Spring and American air power will finally fix the middle east!!!" I don't want to make it seem like things were rosy here, either, because certainly elements of his party and a majority of the American people objected to intervention in Syria, but the driving force that prevented it was the lack of will among the allies who we assisted in Libya. Bush was comfortable being a pariah like that, Obama not so much. Had we not got involved at all, it would have been a terrible humanitarian crisis but the war would likely be over by now. As it is, Assad still isn't going to lose, but far more people died and millions are displaced. Pener Kropoopkin posted:3rd greatest, behind Iraq & Libya. Certainly behind Iraq, but I think Syria is worse than Libya simply because it empowered Russia and gave them a concrete political win in solving the chemical weapons problem instead of the US. That had far reaching consequences whereas Libya, so far, hasn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Our $1,000,000,000/year dirty war in Syria actually rivals our destroying for the long-term a functioning nation in Libya in terms of foreign policy gently caress-up. I mean, look at the Syrian death toll and the migration crisis for proof of that. Otoh the Libya poo poo bled into Mali, helped flood Syria with weapons, and killed Goon Mod? vilerat so it's a tight race in terms of measuring Obama's biggest blunders
Fast Luck has issued a correction as of 05:33 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Fiction posted:this is a lil bit sanctimonious but i think the moment calls for it When I get angry I channel my inner firebrand 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Certainly behind Iraq, but I think Syria is worse than Libya simply because it empowered Russia and gave them a concrete political win in solving the chemical weapons problem instead of the US. That had far reaching consequences whereas Libya, so far, hasn't. I'm going to be frank here, the Russians backed the right horse. There wasn't any kind of unified opposition in Syria that could have achieved a stable transition from the Assad regime. There wasn't one in Libya, and there sure as Heck weren't one in Syria. Getting involved at all was the mistake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I'm going to be frank here, the Russians backed the right horse. There wasn't any kind of unified opposition in Syria that could have achieved a stable transition from the Assad regime. There wasn't one in Libya, and there sure as Heck weren't one in Syria. Getting involved at all was the mistake. I 100% agree. The pro move would have been to shore up Iraq and get ISIS out of there, and work out a deal with Iraq to set up refugee camps in their territory. It's not perfect but it would have saved lives in the long run, but lol neoliberalism strikes again
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I'm going to be frank here, the Russians backed the right horse. There wasn't any kind of unified opposition in Syria that could have achieved a stable transition from the Assad regime. There wasn't one in Libya, and there sure as Heck weren't one in Syria. Getting involved at all was the mistake. Agreed on the getting involved at all part, but god drat I don't know how anyone could stomach actively backing Assad. Like if you're gonna touch the poop, at least save what little humanity you have left and don't reach for the mass murder gassing children turd. Not that that's ever stopped us re: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Assad pre-children gassing, etc...
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:The Clinton would start a Nuclear War talking point isn't true just because Trump won. I'm not familiar with a talking point about clinton going to nuclear war... i was exaggerating and it looks like it didn't appear that way. My poorly delivered point was that clinton would have done nothing for the kurds. comedyblissoption posted:more democrats in congress at the time voted against the iraq war instead of for it. hillary pushed for the iraq war against her own party. Correct, and clinton was aiming for the presidency, and instead of making the right decision, she wanted to appeal to national voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Neoliberal is a code word for neoconservative
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
so i just had a terrifying thought with the paris accords pretty much every country came together and said "climate change is real and we are all going to do something about" which was a legit good thing even if it was a half measure given that the entire world actually pledged to work towards reducing the effects trump has been about anti-environment as he has been racist so kiss the US doing gently caress all about sticking to those accords and while if that gives other counties incentive to ignore them it's bad but not nearly ad bad as my next thought my fear is that the world bands together against the US breaking them and trump reacts militarily since we have an absurd budget even before he kicks it into overdrive compared to the rest of the world (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:so i just had a terrifying thought You're a loving idiot
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:so i just had a terrifying thought get off the internet and talk a walk
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Agreed on the getting involved at all part, but god drat I don't know how anyone could stomach actively backing Assad. Like if you're gonna touch the poop, at least save what little humanity you have left and don't reach for the mass murder gassing children turd. It's easy to stomach when you have vital strategic interests in the region like the Russians do. A swift government victory against the rebels would have been a revolting atrocity, but it's hard to think it could have been worse than the protracted years long slug match between all and sundry which actually happened. E: and the YPG is cool & good, of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
When people start talking about bringing back jobs with government funded green energy, you know what a lot of people are going to immediately think of? Solyndra.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Jaminjami posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0IwIOUg_Cs To anyone thinking that the results of this election are purely social issues and that hate beat love, watch the beginning section of this discussion until he starts talking about Iceland's pay gap and you will very clearly see how Clinton and Obama's policies (aside from Bush and impending Trump) have failed people's economic security. And yes, watch / read a lot of Wolff. You will like him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:so i just had a terrifying thought What climate treaty enforcement mechanisms are you imagining that aren't "complain very loudly, and then wait for certain death via sea level rise and hurricanes?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:so i just had a terrifying thought Goddamn this is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:so i just had a terrifying thought
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Sun Wu Kampf posted:When people start talking about bringing back jobs with government funded green energy, you know what a lot of people are going to immediately think of? Solyndra. So? You fight back by campaigning on the fact that the program in whole was a success, despite that one case of corruption. That was the problem with the Obama administration. They never fought back on anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Neoliberal is a code word for neoconservative I feel like people are using the word 'neoliberal' kinda wrong in the thread. I mean the US practiced Keynesian economics till the early 80s and neoliberal just basically means the (gently caress you got mine) economic policies that started with Reagan that we (dems and reps) haven't stopped doing since.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 05:54
|
|
