Politics Thread

[paulxu]

We have met the enemy...and he is us.

Who knew our generation could mess it up so much, or were so gullible to buy into the grift.

http://fusion.net/the-long-lucrative...n-t-1793944216

[GoMuskies]

We have met the enemy...and he is us.

Who knew our generation could mess it up so much, or were so gullible to buy into the grift.

http://fusion.net/the-long-lucrative...n-t-1793944216

That seemed like a fair and unbiased piece. Lol

[boozehound]

Well, if you believe the Trump hating pundits we're BFF's with Russia. I beg to doubt that.

Fact of the matter is that Russia hated the Clintons. They wanted no part of a Clinton Presidency, although with Hilary's track record of failure as a Secretary of State, I doubt that anything other than appeasement would have occurred during her term. Hell, they were parties to a huge Uranium deal that benefitted the Ruskies. It can be argued that it is not healthy at all for the two biggest armed states in the world to be hating each other. Maybe a little more detente might be healthy, but that would only fuel the fires of the Left who'd be pointing fingers while saying, "You See, You See?" They LOVE each other"

The only part of this I agree with is the part about a likely appeasement strategy during a Clinton Presidency. Although I think there would be a greater chance of meaningful economic sanctions during a Clinton regime.

Trump himself has said enough bizarrely positive shit about Russia and Putin to give me pause, before you even get into the connections and contacts. There certainly seems to be enough evidence to investigate. If evidence of collusion with Russia is found that should be a big deal to us, regardless of Russia's motives (I don't doubt that Putin hates Clinton) for interfering in our elections. It shouldn't matter who's candidate won or lost. This is about America, and our free elections.

Regarding: détente with Russia: No thanks. They are a shitty country with a 40+ year history of massive human rights violations as well as opposing our ideology and interests. Also - THEY JUST F**KING TRIED TO INFLUENCE OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!!! LIKE 2 MONTHS AGO?!?!!? Finally, there also isn't much 'in it for the US that I can see. We aren't really in need of most of their exports and they aren't really a key player in the global economic picture. They are the 12th largest economy in the world, right below Canada and South Korea, so it's not like they are China.

[Caf]

While we're at war with Russia

Yup. When it comes to Syria, we will either be combating Russia or cooperating with them. Russia cannot and will not step away from Syria.

The Obama administration wanted to unseat Assad and end ISIS. Trump has seemed to prioritize ISIS and I can't blame him. If we start going after Assad and picking up all of the baggage that comes with it, we run the risk of creating an even greater vacuum for ISIS to exploit.

Our nation needs to decide once and for all if we want to stop being "world police". Letting humanitarian issues like this slide is an inherent part of that.

[boozehound]

Yup. When it comes to Syria, we will either be combating Russia or cooperating with them. Russia cannot and will not step away from Syria.

The Obama administration wanted to unseat Assad and end ISIS. Trump has seemed to prioritize ISIS and I can't blame him. If we start going after Assad and picking up all of the baggage that comes with it, we run the risk of creating an even greater vacuum for ISIS to exploit.

Our nation needs to decide once and for all if we want to stop being "world police". Letting humanitarian issues like this slide is an inherent part of that.

This is crux of the issue. I'm honestly not sure how I feel we should act going forward. We have long held a belief that as the leader of the free world, it was our duty to intervene to prevent humanitarian atrocities. It's a noble belief, but I'm not sure the extent to which our intervention has actually improved the lives of the people in the countries in which we intervene.

Iraq is probably a decent proxy for Syria, right down to Hussein gassing his own people. Are they significantly better off, on balance, than they were under Saddam Hussein? I'm don't actually know that answer to that question. If yes, maybe that's a case for intervention.

All the empirical evidence seems to suggest that there is little chance for a positive outcome if we intervene, but when you see innocent children dying it's hard to turn a blind eye.

[Masterofreality]

This is crux of the issue. I'm honestly not sure how I feel we should act going forward. We have long held a belief that as the leader of the free world, it was our duty to intervene to prevent humanitarian atrocities. It's a noble belief, but I'm not sure the extent to which our intervention has actually improved the lives of the people in the countries in which we intervene.

Iraq is probably a decent proxy for Syria, right down to Hussein gassing his own people. Are they significantly better off, on balance, than they were under Saddam Hussein? I'm don't actually know that answer to that question. If yes, maybe that's a case for intervention.

All the empirical evidence seems to suggest that there is little chance for a positive outcome if we intervene, but when you see innocent children dying it's hard to turn a blind eye.

And this is a very measured and profound statement. When should these places be expected to act as human beings and not barbarians?
The world is still dealing with hundreds of years of man's inhumanity to man with dictatorial philosophies that are rooted in the 6th century. What can you do about that?

[ChicagoX]

And this is a very measured and profound statement. When should these places be expected to act as human beings and not barbarians?
The world is still dealing with hundreds of years of man's inhumanity to man with dictatorial philosophies that are rooted in the 6th century. What can you do about that?

This is generally why I am opposed to intervening in the Middle East. It's simply an unwinnable battle and I don't think it's work sacrificing more American troops' lives over it. A permanent military occupation is not a viable solution. The Sunni and Shi'a have been slaughtering each other for nearly 1,400 years, and there is nothing we can do to stop that. Deposing a brutal dictator creates a power vacuum that seems to make the situation even worse than it was before. For as many people as Saddam killed, far more have died since we took him out.

I'll give George H.W. Bush credit. After we liberated Kuwait, he got the hell out of there instead of marching to Baghdad to take out Saddam. His son decided that it was in our country's best interest in remove Saddam from power, and that upheaval is something we'll be dealing with for years to come.

I don't think there is anything we can do that will actually make things better in the Middle East. There is always going to be a faction of Islam that wants to live in the 7th century versus the faction that wants to live in the 21st century, and nothing we do is going to change that.

[Masterofreality]

Well, there was also that little incident in New York on 9/11/01 that may have changed opinions from George HW Bush.

[X-man]

Well, there was also that little incident in New York on 9/11/01 that may have changed opinions from George HW Bush.

Then why didn't we just go after Bin Laden rather than letting him go and pivoting into Iraq? That pivot not only let Bin Laden escape (temporarily, thank God), but also stirred up the hornets' nest called the Middle East. Who knows whether ISIL would have gotten any traction had we not gone into Iraq after the Sunnis.

[boozehound]

Well, there was also that little incident in New York on 9/11/01 that may have changed opinions from George HW Bush.

I agree with this.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, W's decision to invade Iraq was very much the wrong one. When viewed through the lens of the information we had available at the time, I think it becomes much more understandable. I continue to believe that George W Bush is a good person who was doing what he thought was right. I think he was a compassionate man who cared for others. I don't necessarily feel the same way about Rumsfeld, Rove, and Cheney - which I think was part of Bush's problem.

Hussein was a brutal dictator who we believed had weapons of mass destruction. He had a decades-long history of atrocities against his own people. We had intelligence that said that the people of Iraq were yearning for democracy. The young people were supposed to lead the way to a functioning democratic system. The first war was easy, this time we were simply going to get rid of Hussein and help them set up a functioning democracy. It didn't go as planned.