|
Just read Game Change again for a little nostalgia and I'd be happy as poo poo with Clinton or Biden over, say, any of the also-rans from 2008, who all still come out ahead of Cuomo or Booker or getting excited over some Sanders pipe dream.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Someone who is aggressive on foreign policy, as opposed to a "dove". Specifically they desire military action more often as a solution than a "dove," a bird associated with peace. Of the two, Hillary is rightfully seen more of a hawk than Obama which opens up the question what American foreign policy is going to functionally be at this point. I see an aggressive foreign policy working even less successfully post-2016 than the Bush years. Seriously is backing Israel to the hilt the smart play at this point? How many countries are we going to play hardball with: Russia, China, most of South America, and big parts of the Middle East? You can't stop DC but there is pretty much no way it isn't going to be a train-wreck, the only question is will it be a Democratic or a Republican train-wreck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
Biden has been reminding people lately that he ran on a three part partition plan for Iraq in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Biden has been reminding people lately that he ran on a three part partition plan for Iraq in 2008. Considering that the suggestion was looked at by "serious people" as a punchline/failure/surrender in 2008--and that he got clubbed with it then and later--Biden has earned himself a serious "Toldja so, fuckers."
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
The thing with ethnically homogenous countries is that there's still no guarantee that they wouldn't invade their neighbors for Lebensraum (and indeed that seems to be what ISIS is doing now).
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
It's much easier to bomb an invasion force than an insurrection
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The thing with ethnically homogenous countries is that there's still no guarantee that they wouldn't invade their neighbors for Lebensraum (and indeed that seems to be what ISIS is doing now). True but by this point the Kurds have more than earned a state of their own.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:True but by this point the Kurds have more than earned a state of their own. So we're done having a decent relationship with Turkey, then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:So we're done having a decent relationship with Turkey, then. I could have sworn the Turks were coming around on the idea of a semi-autonomous Kurdish stateexclusively in Iraqas they rightly viewed it as an acceptable foil against foaming-at-the-mouth maniacs like ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
I'm under the impression Erdogan actually has a Kurdish support base of a sort and he's made some overtures in that direction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Erdogan is now willing to see an autonomous Kurdish state, provided they don't take any Turkish territory and allow Kurdish immigration from Turkey.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
I stand corrected by more knowledgeable people, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Biden has been reminding people lately that he ran on a three part partition plan for Iraq in 2008. Yea what the middle east needs is more border fuckery, there's no way that'd end poorly, just put all of those people in their own country and go 'done'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:I'm under the impression Erdogan actually has a Kurdish support base of a sort and he's made some overtures in that direction. Erdogan does not give a poo poo about Iraqi Kurds. If people start talking about adding Turkish Kurds, then he will flip his poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea what the middle east needs is more border fuckery, there's no way that'd end poorly, just put all of those people in their own country and go 'done'. Or, they could talk to them and decide on mutually agreed borders?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
HBNRW posted:Or, they could talk to them and decide on mutually agreed borders? It worked great with India and Pakistan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
HBNRW posted:Or, they could talk to them and decide on mutually agreed borders? Right, those negotiations always are fair, especially to minority groups, and never end in bitterness and generations long hate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
After very careful analysis of the middle east, I've decided my official opinion on the matter is "It's China Town, Jake"
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea what the middle east needs is more border fuckery, there's no way that'd end poorly, just put all of those people in their own country and go 'done'. To be entirely fair, border fuckery is what got this whole mess started in the first place. Balkanize erryday 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Right, those negotiations always are fair, especially to minority groups, and never end in bitterness and generations long hate. Why would borders negotiated by representatives of the population be worse than someone who regards everyone in the region as a homologous brown mass carving the land up pretty much at random?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
Strawman posted:Why would borders negotiated by representatives of the population be worse than someone who regards everyone in the region as a homologous brown mass carving the land up pretty much at random? Because it's a good way to force the minority groups the majority doesn't give a poo poo about out of the good parts of the country? Like, how fair a shake do you think the Kurds or Sunnis would get in a border negotiation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Because it's a good way to force the minority groups the majority doesn't give a poo poo about out of the good parts of the country? The Kurds would actually get a good deal due to oil, but the Sunnis are hosed: http://sites.tufts.edu/gis/files/2013/11/Lindau_Julial.pdf  Anything in the mixed areas, especially around the Baghdad region will be utterly contentious for any sort of partition plan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:I mean, in retrospect, a McCain/Palin administration could have been an extinction level event. No joke. We'd still be in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have certainly gotten involved in the Syrian clusterfuck, we'd probably have put some boots on the ground and also probably tried nation-building in Libya, we would have done some sort of poo poo in Ukraine, probably some poo poo in Nigeria, and there's always Israel and Iran. So, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Nigeria, Israel/Palestine, and Iran, plus who knows what else. That is terrifying to think about. 
fade5 fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
I don't think we'd get into a shooting war in Ukraine or Iran, but there would be a lot of covert fuckery and sabre rattling going on there, and not the milquetoast Obama kind. Also Benghazi would get bombed because the skull throne demands more skulls 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Back in 2009 when Iran's fraudulent election happened, McCain advocated immediate military action, so Iran's definitely on the list.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Back in 2009 when Iran's fraudulent election happened, McCain advocated immediate military action, so Iran's definitely on the list.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
McCain of course now has the benefit of not having to put his money where his mouth is on foreign policy, but aside from Dick Cheney he's virtually the only Republican still loudly advocating for foreign policy from the 1800's (because neither of them really have anything to lose). If he actually was placed in charge, he'd probably have died from stress within a couple of years and then we'd get Palin, who's not even psychologically all there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:McCain of course now has the benefit of not having to put his money where his mouth is on foreign policy, but aside from Dick Cheney he's virtually the only Republican still loudly advocating for foreign policy from the 1800's (because neither of them really have anything to lose). If he actually was placed in charge, he'd probably have died from stress within a couple of years and then we'd get Palin, who's not even psychologically all there. At least President Palin would have resulted in some great reaction photos as foreign dignitaries try and decipher her word salad as translated into another language.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Gyges posted:At least President Palin would have resulted in some great reaction photos as foreign dignitaries try and decipher her word salad as translated into another language. Yeah there was that pretty bizarre response she gave recently where she was very definitely "off." She wasn't drunk but maybe high.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Back in 2009 when Iran's fraudulent election happened, McCain advocated immediate military action, so Iran's definitely on the list. The difference between advocating immediate military action and actually doing it lies in a dozen senior officers staring at you in slack-jawed horror.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:The difference between advocating immediate military action and actually doing it lies in a dozen senior officers staring at you in slack-jawed horror. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pSaWuLiV4mw Or, as some call it, the Bush Presidency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
I kinda love the image of crusty old McCain being all "WE NEED TO BOMB TEHRAN RIGHT NOW" and just a bunch of generals and poo poo dead faced staring at him exhausted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah there was that pretty bizarre response she gave recently where she was very definitely "off." She wasn't drunk but maybe high. Oh honey mommy doesn't get drunk, she has fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
I've watched that clip and looked through the YouTube comments and I'm really wondering what happened to all the people who thought she would make a great president.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
baw posted:I've watched that clip and looked through the YouTube comments and I'm really wondering what happened to all the people who thought she would make a great president. She's a reasonably attractive female Republican. Go read the Freep thread to find out how many ultraconservatives masturbate to her.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
Does Biden have a real chance if he gets serious though? I'm one of those poor little fools who wants Warren to be the candidate but I know that won't happen, so Joe seems better than Hilary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
Is there anything actually GOOD about Hillary? I mean the recent SCOTUS stuff has really scared me into voting D probably no matter what considering Ginsberg possible short remaining time there but I'd at least like something other than that to make me feel better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
FOXDIE posted:Does Biden have a real chance if he gets serious though? I'm one of those poor little fools who wants Warren to be the candidate but I know that won't happen, so Joe seems better than Hilary. I was having a discussion with some friends the other day and the idea of a Hillary/Warren ticket struck me, which was... intriguing. On the one hand I wouldn't want to see Elizabeth Warren essentially forgotten about in the black hole that is the Vice-Presidency, but on the other I could see Hillary trying to broaden appeal by saying 'look, I believe the Presidency should be more about foreign policy than anything else, I'll concentrate on that while letting my Vice-President's emphasis be on domestic and economic issues,' or something along those lines. It's a total pipe dream, but it's not a horrible one. That said, part of me wants everyone to leave my drat Senator alone and let her stay my Senator for a bit because she's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
Radish posted:Is there anything actually GOOD about Hillary? I mean the recent SCOTUS stuff has really scared me into voting D probably no matter what considering Ginsberg possible short remaining time there but I'd at least like something other than that to make me feel better. She is to the left of most issues, especially compared with whatever nutball wins the R nomination. Like, the main complaints against her are from left wing people upset she's not left wing enough, when the issue is 'who's more left wing, her or basically any Republican with major support' the answer is her.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Radish posted:Is there anything actually GOOD about Hillary? I mean the recent SCOTUS stuff has really scared me into voting D probably no matter what considering Ginsberg possible short remaining time there but I'd at least like something other than that to make me feel better. Bill Clinton in the white house without any formal duties.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 14:07
|
|
