American Politics

[M3J]

http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/syrian-refugees-really-security-risk/

Basically, Trump is full of shit and fearmongering with his anti-refugee stance. wonder if Hillary really does support letting them in, and what made her change her mind if she really did.

 

[Doughboy]

2020 seems like a long way from now. RIP America for 4 years. Two habitual liars running for president lol.

 

[Temperance]

Even if i'm not american , I wish sincerely that USA won't get Trump as a president.
Even if Hillary is not better , she's not worse than Donald.
I wish Obama could have been President 3 times , but it's impossible...He was one the the best

 

[shionoro]

2020 seems like a long way from now. RIP America for 4 years. Two habitual liars running for president lol.

Well, having a habit of lying is not necessarily bad in that position.
It depends on what things you lie about,

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 24, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 24, 2016 ---

Even if i'm not american , I wish sincerely that USA won't get Trump as a president.
Even if Hillary is not better , she's not worse than Donald.
I wish Obama could have been President 3 times , but it's impossible...He was one the the best

Well, clinton's stances and way to handle policies are very similar to obama's.
So you will get very close to a third obama term with a less charming but potentially also more detail oriented president.

 

[M3J]

What Trump lies about are pretty bad, from refugees to illegal immigrants. It's bad because people believe it, and it influences their dangerous behavior.

 

[xi0]

After reading a few things in regards to the Clinton's wikileaks fiasco, I'm a bit more negative on her foreign-policy wise. I'm not really sure what the point of her apparent policy in MENA really is. Of course, we can say Trump's isn't really comprehensive at all, and I think his domestic policy is garbage. But all indications seem to point to her wanting war with Russia. There doesn't seem to be an endgame to this Syria mess either.

So, as someone who is a novice in the realm of foreign policy, what is actually keeping the US from working with Russia to eliminate threats in the area? I'm not foolish enough to take anything Putin says at face value, but I mean... Clinton wants to get rid of Assad. That's not happening if Russia is involved....so wtf is the point?

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 25, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 25, 2016 ---

To the laymen, it just seems like Clinton wants to perpetuate war and proxy-conflict with Russia, if not all-out war with them.

 

[Doughboy]

I'm not sure how I feel about that fam. I kinda wanna commend her for taking action in warfare tactics instead of a passive route but it just seems destined to backfire on America. This is just a take from someone who isn't that aware of the war threats besides N. Korea wanting to nuke us. So I could sound dumb.

 

[shionoro]

To the laymen, it just seems like Clinton wants to perpetuate war and proxy-conflict with Russia, if not all-out war with them.

What makes you think so?

 

[xi0]

I'm not sure how I feel about that fam. I kinda wanna commend her for taking action in warfare tactics instead of a passive route but it just seems destined to backfire on America. This is just a take from someone who isn't that aware of the war threats besides N. Korea wanting to nuke us. So I could sound dumb.

Politicians like to paint everyone we have conflict with as "enemies", but they're not all created equal. The reality is, there are a variety of things the US and Russia could accomplish together, yet it never happens. Make no mistake, Russia isn't innocent in this at all. But they're hardly of the caliber of North Korea as far as truly rogue nations go. Mutually-assured destruction is what causes this cold war between Russia and us, but idk...politicians like Clinton would rather play on old anti-Soviet sentiments that still exist among a lot of the voting population. All it really does is perpetuate conflict though, it's rather neo-con in nature.

I'm just really confused regarding where Clinton really is on this. There are a lot of things, especially in regards to Libya, that she or her campaign has just blatantly lied about.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 25, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 25, 2016 ---

What makes you think so?

I mean, what makes me think this isn't the case? Most conservatives have supported a no-fly zone in Syria, Clinton does as well. A no-fly zone over Syria isn't going to happen with Russia backing Assad. There's no way to enforce it, especially where we need it. She's even acknowledged that such a thing will result in the loss of substantial Syrian lives when compared to what was done in Libya, because Syria is much more densely populated than it. Those are her own words from one of her Goldman Sachs speeches.

 

[shionoro]

Politicians like to paint everyone we have conflict with as "enemies", but they're not all created equal. The reality is, there are a variety of things the US and Russia could accomplish together, yet it never happens. Make no mistake, Russia isn't innocent in this at all. But they're hardly of the caliber of North Korea as far as truly rogue nations go. Mutually-assured destruction is what causes this cold war between Russia and us, but idk...politicians like Clinton would rather play on old anti-Soviet sentiments that still exist among a lot of the voting population. All it really does is perpetuate conflict though, it's rather neo-con in nature.

I'm just really confused regarding where Clinton really is on this. There are a lot of things, especially in regards to Libya, that she or her campaign has just blatantly lied about.

I disagree heavily with that. Russia is not only 'not innocent', russia is the cause of the newly arisen conflict between the west and russia.
Even traditionally russia friendly nations got put off like that, like germany.
Both Merkel and Schröder formally had very good relations to putin (schröder even getting a job at gazprom...), that is all blown up right now.
And for good reason.
You cannot work with someone who decides to annex parts of a country because it likes you better than themselves.
The US tried to work with the russians in syria, we know how that went. They broke any agreement the first minute (same as with minsk 2).

I am noone who thinks the west should play the game of escalation, which is why it is good that the US was convinced by the EU to not deploy nato troops in ukraine, but it should be made very clear who the aggressor is here and that there needs to be answers, for example by embargos.

We cannot accept that a partner of us (lets dont forget russia was in G8) just annexes parts of countries and even seeks to destabilize western countries (and the list is long. supporting trump in the US and firing up the BLM movement, inventing fake refugee rape cases in germany, using anti government propaganda in countries with significant russian minorities like the baltic states and finland and ongoing small aggressions or thinly veiled threats towards eastern european nations).
Such a country is not a partner and should not be treated as one.

 

[xi0]

I said they could accomplish things together. I didn't say that they weren't aggressors in such cases either. But can we say Clinton's policy regarding escalation will be the same as Obama's, when all signs point to it not being the case? I think that's wishful thinking. And the notion of deliberately setting out to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria is either aggressive posturing, or outright warmongering.

The Neocon and Clinton policy in MENA is destabilization. We have secular dictators that we like and then dislike. They remove them, install "democracy", and what happens? Islamists take over and these countries become failed states. These sort of things reverberate throughout Eurasia, this is why Russia has a stake in it.

 

[shionoro]

I mean, what makes me think this isn't the case? Most conservatives have supported a no-fly zone in Syria, Clinton does as well. A no-fly zone over Syria isn't going to happen with Russia backing Assad. There's no way to enforce it, especially where we need it. She's even acknowledged that such a thing will result in the loss of substantial Syrian lives when compared to what was done in Libya, because Syria is much more densely populated than it. Those are her own words from one of her Goldman Sachs speeches.

Here is what she said in context:

How do intervene [here she means in syria] -- my view was you intervene as covertly as is possible for Americans to intervene. We used to be much better at this than we are now. Now, you know, everybody can't help themselves. They have to go out and tell their friendly reporters and somebody else: Look what we're doing and I want credit for it, and all the rest of it. So we're not as good as we used to be, but we still -- we can still deliver, and we should
have in my view been trying to do that so we would have better insight. But the idea that we would have like a no fly zone -- Syria, of course, did have when it started the fourth biggest Army in the world. It had very sophisticated air defense systems. They're getting more sophisticated thanks
to Russian imports.
To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk -- you're going to kill a lot of Syrians. So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.
In Libya we didn't have that problem. It's a huge place. The air defenses were not that sophisticated and there wasn't very -- in fact, there were very few civilian casualties.
That wouldn't be the case. And then you add on to it a lot of the air defenses are not only in civilian population centers but near some of their chemical
stockpiles. You do not want a missile hitting a chemical stockpile. We have a big set of issues about what is going to happen with those storehouses of
chemicals since a lot want their hands on them. The Al-Qaeda affiliates want their hands on them, and we're trying to work with the Turks and the
Jordanians and NATO to try to figure out how we're
going to prevent that.

What she basically said is that her best case option was to secretly intervene but that this is not possible.
Thus the next best thing is a no fly zone. Mind you, taht speech is from 2013. The involvedment of the russian military was not existant back then, they only gave assad weapons. The russian military involvement started almost 2 years later. It was a completely different situation and in that speech, she didnt even say that she wanted to establish a no fly zone. She wanted secret involvement by supporting syrian groups.

Now, that was 3 years ago and lately, she said she wants a no fly zone which she intends to handle out with the russians together (even in her speech she put emphasis on working with jordania and turkey).
She made it pretty clear that she is not just sending american bombs to nuke assads airdefenses down.

So, saying she intends to lead a cold war is really misleading in my opinion.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 25, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 25, 2016 ---

I said they could accomplish things together. I didn't say that they weren't aggressors in such cases either. But can we say Clinton's policy regarding escalation will be the same as Obama's, when all signs point to it not being the case? I think that's wishful thinking. And the notion of deliberately setting out to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria is either aggressive posturing, or outright warmongering.

The Neocon and Clinton policy in MENA is destabilization. We have secular dictators that we like and then dislike. They remove them, install "democracy", and what happens? Islamists take over and these countries become failed states. These sort of things reverberate throughout Eurasia, this is why Russia has a stake in it.

But clinton never said she wanted to set out and enforce a nofly zone without handling it out with the russians first.
That literally never happened and this allegation has no real basis.
Even in the last debate she clarified that.
We have no likes and dislikes. We have people that we work with. The US worked with Morsi in egypt, they also work with al sissi. Because you have to work with what you have. All other countries are the same in that regard.
Which dictator lately got removed by the US?
Not even gaddafi. He got removed by his own people. Same for Mubarak and Morsi. And it would be same for assad if russia would not back him.

It can be argued that the iraq war helped international terrorism. But no US american action since then did.
Not even the drone war, that took out lots of international islamists. And i say that as an opponent of the drone war.
It kills innocent people, but it was effective in what i accomplished. The argument that it 'creates more terrorists' simply did not happen, it brought al kaida to its knees.
Be we see international terrorists invading countries completely without US involvement too. We recently had the french throw them back in Mali, and we have nigeria and other bordering countries fight a bitter war against boko haram.
It's not the US destabilizing countries. It's countries being nonstabile and the US figuring out how to deal with that.
The Iraq was not a stabile country either under Saddam and it could equally well have become like syria completely without US involvement some years down the line.
The lybia intervention, however, was the completely correct thing to do. In lybia it was about how, not whether.

 

[xi0]

Now, that was 3 years ago and lately, she said she wants a no fly zone which she intends to handle out with the russians together (even in her speech she put emphasis on working with jordania and turkey).
She made it pretty clear that she is not just sending american bombs to nuke assads airdefenses down.

So, saying she intends to lead a cold war is really misleading in my opinion.

From most of the military sources I've seen, they've said it's not possible to have an effective no-fly zone with Russian involvement. So how does her attitude lead to us accomplishing that with the Russians? She supported a no-fly zone before Russian involvement, yes, and she still does now despite that. Both her and Trump want to support the Peshmerga more, despite that working directly against the interests of a NATO member-nation in Turkey. So what does this mean really? It tells me she either wants war (and further destabilization) or has no plan.

Intending to lead a cold war? I mean, hasn't one been going on in effect now for some time?

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 25, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 25, 2016 ---

The lybia intervention, however, was the completely correct thing to do. In lybia it was about how, not whether.

My criticism isn't necessarily about whether intervening in places like Iraq and Libya is noble or not. The problem is a power vacuum is either not accounted for, or not cared about, leading to failed states and further support for radicals. So I sort of struggle to even see the lasting benefit to any party involved honestly. Is it just about greed and the military-industrial complex? Is it about reducing Russia's influence with it's neighbors? I think it's clearly not about human rights...

 

[shionoro]

From most of the military sources I've seen, they've said it's not possible to have an effective no-fly zone with Russian involvement. So how does her attitude lead to us accomplishing that with the Russians? She supported a no-fly zone before Russian involvement, yes, and she still does now despite that. Both her and Trump want to support the Peshmerga more, despite that working directly against the interests of a NATO member-nation in Turkey. So what does this mean really? It tells me she either wants war (and further destabilization) or has no plan.

Intending to lead a cold war? I mean, hasn't one been going on in effect now for some time?

Which attitude do you mean tho? She is always rather constructive and can talk even to difficult partners, she did that throughout her career.
She supported a no fly zone before because it, in her opinion, leads to LESS civil victims , not more.
She simply said that she thinks it leads to more civil victims than a covert operation, which she initially favoured, because syria is not lybia.

A no fly zone by taking out syrian military positions is out of question with the russian involvement tho.
How she wants to negotioate that with the russians? I don't know, that is her job not mine.
But fact is: She said that she wants a no fly zone only with getting the russians to agree to it before, she does not want to have a military confrontation. If it does not work out, there is no no-fly zone and she might embarass herself, but there won't be any wore. The no-fly zone not working out is the worst case scenario here, and that is...basically status quo.

And the sad fact is: Turkey, as a nato member, is the one in the wrong here. They supported ISIS before indirectly by letting his fighters travel through and via illegal oil deals and even lifted no finger (vice versa even) when the IS stood before peshmerga, even tho the peshmerga troops are the most effective fighters on the ground against ISIS and allied to the US.
Not supporting the kurdish anymore is completely out of question if we want ISIS to be gone anytime soon, because the turkish sure didnt help there, nor do the russians. And there are no viable other options to that right now.

So what is your option here? Letting ISIS grow again because noone except the kurdish army fights them on the ground in syria?
Not at least trying together with the russians to diminish the number of civillian victims with a no fly zone?
And how are both of these things 'wanting war'?

My criticism isn't necessarily about whether intervening in places like Iraq and Libya is noble or not. The problem is a power vacuum is either not accounted for, or not cared about, leading to failed states and further support for radicals. So I sort of struggle to even see the lasting benefit to any party involved honestly. Is it just about greed and the military-industrial complex? Is it about reducing Russia's influence with it's neighbors? I think it's clearly not about human rights...

It was accounted for in Lybia. The US thought the europeans would handle it because at least the french kinda signaled that. The US was asked by the europeans to do it, and they helped there. It was never part of the deal that the US built up lybia.
Also: Lybia was not stabile at that time anymore. Half of the country was rebel, half was assad.
Whatever would have happened without the intervention would have been a worse option and LESS stabile than what we have now.
Gaddafi lost his power, that is why there was war. A war in which he used airplanes and even boats to shell on cities.
We would have had a syria right in front of europe and right besides boko haram. NOONE can want that.
And noone did. The US was urged by the EU AND by the arab league to do it.

Lybia had nothing to do with russia too. It was one of the many arab rulers losing power and having his country go to hell.
The Nato just made it faster and thus less bloody. And that is a good thing, even if the rebuild job was neglected.

 

[xi0]

I'll reply to the current topic later, but I just wanted to share this video -

It's actually sort of shocking to hear it come from Moore's mouth of all people, but I think he sort of perfectly sums up why Trump has been as successful as he has (along with the ineptitude of the GOP). Pretty powerful stuff IMO, regardless of what side you fall on.

 

[shionoro]

I'll reply to the current topic later, but I just wanted to share this video -

It's actually sort of shocking to hear it come from Moore's mouth of all people, but I think he sort of perfectly sums up why Trump has been as successful as he has (along with the ineptitude of the GOP). Pretty powerful stuff IMO, regardless of what side you fall on.

The videos was removed by the user <:

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 25, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 25, 2016 ---

what was it about?

 

[M3J]

Trump preying and praying on people's fear and anger?

 

[kkck]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-these-5-articles-the-day-after-the-election/

this was a fun read.

 

[M3J]

Clinton landslide will never happen. Her reputation is nowhere near that good for her to win decisively.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Well, thank god for early voting. Now I do hope that Amendment 2 (legalize Medical Marijuana), 3 (Tax Exemption for the disabled first responders), and 5 (Tax Exemptions for certain Seniors, mainly the long-term resident with low-income) gets passed.

Now I just need to wait for the results once this is over...