|
https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/914863875979345922 https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/914996602649088000  I'm for stricter gun laws, but this guy's argument has some questionable parts to it.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
BadOptics posted:https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/914863875979345922 Which parts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's fine to suggest Democrats try to recapture the kind of popularity that LBJ and FDR enjoyed, but it's weird to assert their popularity was solely due to expanding social services and had nothing to do with their ideological defenses of free enterprise and capitalism and their interventionist foreign policy to defend the same across the world.  never change, d&d never change
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Mmm yes noted defensive war, the colonial occupation of Vietnam Is this pure pedantry or are you trying to argue the Vietnam war wasn't about resisting the expansion of communism?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Is this pure pedantry or are you trying to argue the Vietnam war wasn't about resisting the expansion of communism? It definitely wasn't We can be 100% certain that it wasn't about self-defense or self-determination because we were supporting the French colonial occupation of the Vietnamese people VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It definitely wasn't the pentagon papers have been linked upthread that was absolutely the thing that the johnson administration lied to the american public about that being said containing communism is also the american imperialism of the time, see also john foster dulles whereas in the earlier periods like with the philippines it was pure colonialism and old timey racism and more recently it's a neocon thing of spreading democracy but those are the reasons the underlying current and force is of course american imperialism but like, you're wrong please read the documents ty e: it was a big deal quote:The most surprising specific disclosure of the Times's papers include: stone cold fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's fine to suggest Democrats try to recapture the kind of popularity that LBJ and FDR enjoyed, but it's weird to assert their popularity was solely due to expanding social services and had nothing to do with their ideological defenses of free enterprise and capitalism and their interventionist foreign policy to defend the same across the world. Thank you for posting this in the thunderdome. Dickhead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
"Containing communism" is not a defensive aim by definition because it involves attacking other countries and imposing an economic system on them regardless of popular will, also see Cuba. Also lol at "well McNamara wrote that maybe he kinda sorta believed that conquering the Vietnamese would give them* freedom" obviously means it was true and the war was for freedom, even though we were supporting a murderous dictatorship (also see, Cuba). Also clearly George W Bush's aim in Iraq was freedom, look he even said it and wrote it down once an everything. *the ones who survived the napalming
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
happy to see my good friend jefferson "ratfucker" clay enter the thunderdome
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"Containing communism" is not a defensive aim by definition because it involves attacking other countries and imposing an economic system on them regardless of popular will, also see Cuba. i don't think you're reading what i said correctly you see let me put it more simply, your claim was that the Vietnam war was not the US attempting to contain communism when it was the fact that johnson had lied about that was a big loving deal at the time, as has been linked i am not defending the johnson administration, as i have posted extensively upthread against crowsbeak attempting to stan for johnson and as i do in the above post pointing out that the constant current is american imperialism but part of the reason why the pentagon papers were important was that they revealed not only the scale to which the government lied about their doings in Vietnam but also that they lied about their very motive for doing so which was as mentioned in the loving pentagon papers which you know, you can read they're in the loving national archives containing communism e: i am not claiming this as a "defensive aim," as you put it, i am claiming this because you denied that was what the johnson administration was freaked out about stone cold fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Vietnam can be both about containing Communism, a Wag the Dog, and about broader American imperialism at the same time. America can multitask in our wars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Vietnam can be both about containing Communism, a Wag the Dog, and about broader American imperialism at the same time. America can multitask in our wars. this does not run counter to anything i said, but thank you for acknowledging that yes that was what was in the leaked loving war documents
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
stone cold posted:e: i am not claiming this as a "defensive aim," as you put it, i am claiming this because you denied that was what the johnson administration was freaked out about Jefferson Clay claimed the war was a defensive one. I pointed out that it wasn't, if you agree with that then you and I have nothing to argue about. I think you misread my original post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Jefferson Clay claimed the war was a defensive one. I pointed out that it wasn't, if you agree with that then you and I have nothing to argue about. I think you misread my original post. Ah I see, it's more to do with you clarified it when originally you just had written "it wasn't" which obviously I interpreted to mean that it wasn't about containing communism 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
vietnam was a defensive action to protect US from chinahese aggression in the South asian region. now rhat we lost, the Gulf of tonkin has been renamed to South china Sea. giving them a globe of a mandate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Ah I see, it's more to do with you clarified it when originally you just had written "it wasn't" which obviously I interpreted to mean that it wasn't about containing communism Yeah sorry. Of course anticommunism was a major war aim, because anticommunism is a broad net that encompasses a ton of aggressive actions such as Operation Ajax. Or invading Vietnam after the war and reinstalling the same guy Japan used as their puppet emperor to rule over the people as colonial subjects of an expansionist foreign regime. I was objecting to Jefferson Clay claiming anything done under the banner of anticommunism is defensive by definition because invading, colonizing, occupying countries, overthrowing democracies etc is "defending free enterprise" according to him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Jefferson Clay claimed the war was a defensive one. I pointed out that it wasn't, if you agree with that then you and I have nothing to argue about. I think you misread my original post. No I didn't, I said LBJ's interventionist foreign policy was about defending capitalism. Not that every intervention was purely defensive in nature. I think you misread my original post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Well, we lost in Vietnam and capitalism is doing a-okay, so if the Vietnam war was about defending capitalism, it seems like it was needless even for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well, we lost in Vietnam and capitalism is doing a-okay, so if the Vietnam war was about defending capitalism, it seems like it was needless even for that. nobody claimed imperialists and capitalists were clever
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No I didn't, I said LBJ's interventionist foreign policy was about defending capitalism. Not that every intervention was purely defensive in nature. I think you misread my original post. Invading and occupying other people's countries in order to impose a government and economic system on them is not "defending" anything, capitalism or otherwise. It is aggressive expansionism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
I agree with you the United States was the aggressor in Vietnam. Why was the United States the aggressor in Vietnam? To maintain Vietnam as a capitalist bulwark against the expansion of communism in Asia. The US saw communists winning, didn't like it, and attacked Vietnam to defend capitalist institutions. If you think there's some important reason to call that attacking anti-capitalism instead of defending capitalism, I bow before the might of your pedantry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Playing the angle of defending a nation's right to choose their destiny rolls off the tongue better when an instigated coup isn't involved
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
the idea, that a distinction between defense and aggression is mere pedantry, is absolutely peak liberal
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:the idea, that a distinction between defense and aggression is mere pedantry, is absolutely peak liberal Not particularly. Any committed idealogues or just plain opportunist say what they are doing is defensive. Bush admin claimed it in a Iraq. Alt right claims it. Antifa claims the same for that matter regardless of whether you see them as good or bad. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
that you think that is, uh, revealing? lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
When the soviets rolled their tanks into Hungary in '56, were they defending communism, or attacking anti-communism? It doesn't loving matter they mean exactly the same thing. Neither implies the military action itself is defensive or offensive in nature. Saying Kruschev did it to defend communism instead of attacking anti-communism doesn't make you a tankie. Saying FDR made an alliance of convenience with Stalin to attack fascism instead of defend liberal democracy doesn't make you a nazi. You're confusing an ideological motivation with a casus belli, and it's real dumb.
JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:that you think that is, uh, revealing? lol "It's still self defense because it stops something bad in the future" -what everyone argues when it suits them
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Not particularly. Any committed idealogues or just plain opportunist say what they are doing is defensive. Bush admin claimed it in a Iraq. Alt right claims it. Antifa claims the same for that matter regardless of whether you see them as good or bad. this is p easy yronic. Iraq was not a threat, so there was no defensive action on the us's part The people nazis target are not a threat, so nazis are not defending themselves Nazis are actually a threat, as they wish for genocide and mass murder, so antifa are defending others
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Granted, there was a real disparity in the Cold War how both sides viewed the other. The US in all honesty probably saw things from a comparatively broader ideological perspective, they saw all forms of "communism" as equally dangerous and that they should be crushed....errr "contained." It didn't matter that Vietnamese or Cuban forms of socialism often had their own national characteristics or motivations...they had to be crushed one in the same. If anything one could argue that the US may have helped the Soviets by being so hard-lined and rigid and thereby forcing governments that may have taken a more moderate direction to directly align themselves with the Soviets to survive. Also, "crushing capitalism" really wasn't a Soviet motivation since about 1919-1920 or so when it was clear that the October revolution would be mostly contained inside the former Russian Empire. Since that point, it is very clear that Soviet geopolitical strategy was much more on a nation by nation basis, and the Soviets (even under Stalin) were willing to work whomever they could. The crushing of the 1956 uprising was very much geopolitical, the Soviets were honestly fearful that Hungary leaving would leave to a broader fracturing of the Warsaw Pact that would put the Soviets in a deeply weakened position versus the West. (This is very clear from the Soviet archival material. I have seen most of these stuff with my own eyes) Basically, the US was fighting an all-encompassing ideological war. The Soviets, in reality, were fighting a comparatively less ambitious geopolitical struggle. The war in Vietnam "made sense" due to this. Also, contemporary US politics more or less continue to use much of this logic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Condiv posted:this is p easy yronic. People who supported the Iraq war said it was a direct threat though and/or said they were defending others from Saddam. And they were sure to point to Nazi-like traits of the Baathists. So the core claim is made in the same way regardless of whether the merits are adequate for the particular argument. It's not just LINERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS who make the claim. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
You, idiot: we must contain communism Me, wisely: why contain it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, there was a real disparity in the Cold War how both sides viewed the other. The US in all honesty probably saw things from a comparatively broader ideological perspective, they saw all forms of "communism" as equally dangerous and that they should be crushed....errr "contained." It didn't matter that Vietnamese or Cuban forms of socialism often had their own national characteristics or motivations...they had to be crushed one in the same. If anything one could argue that the US may have helped the Soviets by being so hard-lined and rigid and thereby forcing governments that may have taken a more moderate direction to directly align themselves with the Soviets to survive. Yup, the U.S. leadership was operating under very serious misunderstandings about how states balance and bandwagon, particularly states that claim to have ideological kinship, but in reality have very little in common. The "loss" of China to "Communism" really broke the brains of the foreign/defense policy apparatus. The possibility that China wouldn't simply become a client state of Moscow, but instead would pursue a very different set of foreign policy objectives, apparently didn't occur to any of them. Powerful states that have competing interests don't tend to bandwagon, unless they are facing an existential threat from another adversary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yup, the U.S. leadership was operating under very serious misunderstandings about how states balance and bandwagon, particularly states that claim to have ideological kinship, but in reality have very little in common. The "loss" of China to "Communism" really broke the brains of the foreign/defense policy apparatus. The possibility that China wouldn't simply become a client state of Moscow, but instead would pursue a very different set of foreign policy objectives, apparently didn't occur to any of them. Powerful states that have competing interests don't tend to bandwagon, unless they are facing an existential threat from another adversary. Granted, it does bring us to present day, and now you have US foreign policy arranged about "containing" a growing number of states with different motivations that nevertheless seem to be increasingly willing to work together. Cuba, China, Russia, Iran and hell even Zimbabwe seem to be more closely working together especially in economic terms. It is also why you have countries and groups working across the ideological spectrum (although most of these states are authoritarian even then it probably isn't confidential). It is why I am not really convinced about any real ideological war happening today, rather it is just a more easily understandable geopolitical knife fight. I guess the question of who will "win" is another matter. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, it does bring us to present day, and now you have US foreign policy arranged about "containing" a growing number of states with different motivations that nevertheless seem to be increasingly willing to work together. Yeah, one good lesson from all of this for superpowers going forward is, if you don't want other countries balancing against you, maybe don't do poo poo that makes them want to balance against you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, one good lesson from all of this for superpowers going forward is, if you don't want other countries balancing against you, maybe don't do poo poo that makes them want to balance against you. Granted, it is arguable that no one power had as much power over the world as the US did especially from 1991 to 2008, and with that much power comes a comparable amount of hubris. That said, future history textbooks are going to have plenty to talk about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mcbyrne/status/914635835412291584 Loving the eternal failure upwards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
i'm not sure if moving from a possibly winnable race to a definitely not winnable one is failing upwards
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:i'm not sure if moving from a possibly winnable race to a definitely not winnable one is failing upwards I think they're more upset that a firm that did digital for a losing campaign can still win contracts
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/mcbyrne/status/914635835412291584 Now let me tell you about my Panera Bread strategy, and how it's not racist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:People who supported the Iraq war said it was a direct threat though and/or said they were defending others from Saddam. And they were sure to point to Nazi-like traits of the Baathists. and they were lying. and anyone with half a brain knew they were lying do you think antifa are lying about nazis being a threat?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 20:35
|
|