Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Middle East - US drops bombs in Syria, Afghanistan

17810121399

Posts

  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    I'm about halfway through this really interesting piece. It's a little... skimpy about specific quotes and events, I think to preserve anonymity, but I do feel some sense of mistrust as to how some of this information was gleaned and its provenance. That being said, a lot of the stuff within does align with what I've read elsewhere about Obama and his Middle East foreign policies.

    I thought, in particular, this quote was interesting, and seems like something that people might generally know about or comment on, re. its veracity:
    A widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. I’ve heard one administration official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as “Arab-occupied territory.”

    Who are the big foreign-policy think tanks in Washington? Where do they get their funding from?
    Here is a good article on that subject. The quote is pretty much on the ball. It's sometimes transparent when reading pieces published by the Brookings Institution, for instance, who frequently masquerade self-interested calls for hawkish policies (like regime change/partition in Syria) as objective analysis.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    ph blake wrote: »
    So The Atlantic just dropped a huge interview style piece on the evolution of Obama's foreign policy doctrine. This thing is really, really long and really meaty; among other things it goes in depth on Obama's thoughts during the Assad "red line" incident in 2013, as well as his general reluctance to engage in direct action in the middle east.

    Still working through this but it's really interesting. Definitely some interesting hints at what Clinton believes re: foreign policy too and how the US would shift somewhat under her leadership compared to Obama's.

    For now though I find the analysis on his reaction to Syria followed by talking about Libya invites interesting comparisons. What strikes me most is the way Syria can be seen as alternate-dimension-where-no-one-intervened Libya. And the result seems to be the dictator still in power and the whole country a complete shit show.

    I'm pretty much 100% behind his pessimism on the Middle East. More then anything I'm struck by him basically being frustrated and ultimately simply resigned to the fact that there's little the US can actually DO down there, everyone involved is a complete asshole and the US's "allies" there are no different and the tribalism that tears the region apart is unsolvable by a US president. It's kinda fascinating to see how being the most powerful man in the world leads straight to fatalism when confronted with trying to get anything done.

    FencingsaxArbitraryDescriptorTicaldfjamCommander ZoomjmcdonaldKamarYallCasual
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    shryke wrote: »
    ph blake wrote: »
    So The Atlantic just dropped a huge interview style piece on the evolution of Obama's foreign policy doctrine. This thing is really, really long and really meaty; among other things it goes in depth on Obama's thoughts during the Assad "red line" incident in 2013, as well as his general reluctance to engage in direct action in the middle east.

    Still working through this but it's really interesting. Definitely some interesting hints at what Clinton believes re: foreign policy too and how the US would shift somewhat under her leadership compared to Obama's.

    For now though I find the analysis on his reaction to Syria followed by talking about Libya invites interesting comparisons. What strikes me most is the way Syria can be seen as alternate-dimension-where-no-one-intervened Libya. And the result seems to be the dictator still in power and the whole country a complete shit show.

    I'm pretty much 100% behind his pessimism on the Middle East. More then anything I'm struck by him basically being frustrated and ultimately simply resigned to the fact that there's little the US can actually DO down there, everyone involved is a complete asshole and the US's "allies" there are no different and the tribalism that tears the region apart is unsolvable by a US president. It's kinda fascinating to see how being the most powerful man in the world leads straight to fatalism when confronted with trying to get anything done.

    Well... people have intervened. Just not US/Europe/NATO etc.

    hippofant on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ph blake wrote: »
    So The Atlantic just dropped a huge interview style piece on the evolution of Obama's foreign policy doctrine. This thing is really, really long and really meaty; among other things it goes in depth on Obama's thoughts during the Assad "red line" incident in 2013, as well as his general reluctance to engage in direct action in the middle east.

    Still working through this but it's really interesting. Definitely some interesting hints at what Clinton believes re: foreign policy too and how the US would shift somewhat under her leadership compared to Obama's.

    For now though I find the analysis on his reaction to Syria followed by talking about Libya invites interesting comparisons. What strikes me most is the way Syria can be seen as alternate-dimension-where-no-one-intervened Libya. And the result seems to be the dictator still in power and the whole country a complete shit show.

    I'm pretty much 100% behind his pessimism on the Middle East. More then anything I'm struck by him basically being frustrated and ultimately simply resigned to the fact that there's little the US can actually DO down there, everyone involved is a complete asshole and the US's "allies" there are no different and the tribalism that tears the region apart is unsolvable by a US president. It's kinda fascinating to see how being the most powerful man in the world leads straight to fatalism when confronted with trying to get anything done.

    Well... people have intervened. Just not US/Europe/NATO etc.

    Even that's not necessarily true. Though it varies by country naturally, some NATO states (and states closely aligned with that bloc) have intervened in some substantial way--and here I'm thinking of flooding opposition forces with nonlethal equipment and in some cases, many kinds of weapons and, across the board, liquid currency, quite early on in the civil war. Those nations have since moved on to very open air campaigns (thanks to the uselessness of Damascus' objection to interventions into its airspace without its approval, regardless of the reasoning). While the United States has attempted to at least appear discreet, some of its allies have been more open about it.

    Of course, on the "other" side, Iran committed fighting troops on behalf of the government quite early on, to be followed later by Russia when it reversed its policy of evacuating its military presence from Syria.

    If you wanted to find a major nation engaged in very limited or practically no intervention, you'd have to go with the likes of India--modestly supporting the Syrian government as a political stance, but very, very careful about anything that might be considered support (beyond honoring previously-negotiated monetary deals).

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    KaputaCptKemzik
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    shryke wrote: »
    For now though I find the analysis on his reaction to Syria followed by talking about Libya invites interesting comparisons. What strikes me most is the way Syria can be seen as alternate-dimension-where-no-one-intervened Libya. And the result seems to be the dictator still in power and the whole country a complete shit show.
    While I think Libya would probably still be a crappy place to live if the US hadn't gotten involved, I think it would have been more likely to go down like Egypt (another Arab Spring-affected country that the West didn't intervene in) than Syria. Mainly because:

    -Libya's neighbors don't seem like they'd have been as likely to commit to sending massive amounts of arms and foreign fighters across their borders as Syria's neighbors (particularly Turkey) were. The military rulers of Egypt, the post-civil war Algerian government, Tunisia, and Niger all seem like they'd have preferred Gaddafi's Libya over the status quo. Dunno enough about contemporary Chad-Libyan relations to comment on that. Sudan might be an exception here, though their border is pretty short. And obviously Libya's extensive coastline is another way for the Gulf monarchies to ship weapons into the country. But I think Syria's position, where rebels are trained, armed, and funded from across the Jordanian and Turkish borders, and where Israel occasionally flies across the southwest border to bomb the government/Hezbollah, was much worse geographically than Libya's was.

    -Unlike Syria, the element of regional sectarian and geopolitical polarization characterizing current Middle East conflicts (at least in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq) is absent from Libya. A large part of the reason Syria is such a disaster (I'd say the largest reason) is that foreign powers (chiefly the KSA/Turkey and Iran, but also the US and Russia) are using the country as a battlefield. This might still have happened in Libya - right now we see a UAE/Egyptian backed faction in conflict with a Qatar/Turkey backed faction - but the unique situation in Syria, where many thousands of Shiite and Sunni jihadists and paramilitary units have streamed into the country from across the Muslim world to fight on both sides - doesn't seem like it would have been a given in Libya. Other important divisions - including tribal and ethnic ones, and ideological divisions between Islamists and secularists - exist, but I don't think these are quite as destabilizing as the principal divisions in the ME.

    It would have been bloody. Possibly bloodier than Egypt. But it takes a perfect storm of aggravating factors to take an Arab Spring revolt and turn it into the Syrian War, and I just don't think enough of those factors were present in Libya.

    Kaputa on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    ph blake wrote: »
    So The Atlantic just dropped a huge interview style piece on the evolution of Obama's foreign policy doctrine. This thing is really, really long and really meaty; among other things it goes in depth on Obama's thoughts during the Assad "red line" incident in 2013, as well as his general reluctance to engage in direct action in the middle east.

    Still working through this but it's really interesting. Definitely some interesting hints at what Clinton believes re: foreign policy too and how the US would shift somewhat under her leadership compared to Obama's.

    For now though I find the analysis on his reaction to Syria followed by talking about Libya invites interesting comparisons. What strikes me most is the way Syria can be seen as alternate-dimension-where-no-one-intervened Libya. And the result seems to be the dictator still in power and the whole country a complete shit show.

    I'm pretty much 100% behind his pessimism on the Middle East. More then anything I'm struck by him basically being frustrated and ultimately simply resigned to the fact that there's little the US can actually DO down there, everyone involved is a complete asshole and the US's "allies" there are no different and the tribalism that tears the region apart is unsolvable by a US president. It's kinda fascinating to see how being the most powerful man in the world leads straight to fatalism when confronted with trying to get anything done.

    What's really frustrating is that the various pan-Arab movements were actually solving those problems by creating greater identities...and then the US strangled them in the crib because they were impeding Western corporations from extracting wealth from the region.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    CorehealerKaputaCommander ZoomTicaldfjamCptKemzikkaorti
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ph blake wrote: »
    So The Atlantic just dropped a huge interview style piece on the evolution of Obama's foreign policy doctrine. This thing is really, really long and really meaty; among other things it goes in depth on Obama's thoughts during the Assad "red line" incident in 2013, as well as his general reluctance to engage in direct action in the middle east.

    Still working through this but it's really interesting. Definitely some interesting hints at what Clinton believes re: foreign policy too and how the US would shift somewhat under her leadership compared to Obama's.

    For now though I find the analysis on his reaction to Syria followed by talking about Libya invites interesting comparisons. What strikes me most is the way Syria can be seen as alternate-dimension-where-no-one-intervened Libya. And the result seems to be the dictator still in power and the whole country a complete shit show.

    I'm pretty much 100% behind his pessimism on the Middle East. More then anything I'm struck by him basically being frustrated and ultimately simply resigned to the fact that there's little the US can actually DO down there, everyone involved is a complete asshole and the US's "allies" there are no different and the tribalism that tears the region apart is unsolvable by a US president. It's kinda fascinating to see how being the most powerful man in the world leads straight to fatalism when confronted with trying to get anything done.

    Well... people have intervened. Just not US/Europe/NATO etc.

    That's one of the interesting things out of the article though:
    But he also has come to learn, he told me, that very little is accomplished in international affairs without U.S. leadership.

    Obama talked me through this apparent contradiction. “I want a president who has the sense that you can’t fix everything,” he said. But on the other hand, “if we don’t set the agenda, it doesn’t happen.” He explained what he meant. “The fact is, there is not a summit I’ve attended since I’ve been president where we are not setting the agenda, where we are not responsible for the key results,” he said. “That’s true whether you’re talking about nuclear security, whether you’re talking about saving the world financial system, whether you’re talking about climate.”

    As much as I agree with his reasons for not enforcing the red line, I think Syria also demonstrates what happens when the US doesn't try to set the tone and just goes hands off.

    I think you can see even the aftermath of Libya in the same kind of light. At a later point when discussing Libya this comes up:
    Libya proved to him that the Middle East was best avoided. “There is no way we should commit to governing the Middle East and North Africa,” he recently told a former colleague from the Senate. “That would be a basic, fundamental mistake.”

    And I think he's at once right and yet both Libya and Syria demonstrate the cost of that kind of thinking.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    ph blake wrote: »
    So The Atlantic just dropped a huge interview style piece on the evolution of Obama's foreign policy doctrine. This thing is really, really long and really meaty; among other things it goes in depth on Obama's thoughts during the Assad "red line" incident in 2013, as well as his general reluctance to engage in direct action in the middle east.

    Still working through this but it's really interesting. Definitely some interesting hints at what Clinton believes re: foreign policy too and how the US would shift somewhat under her leadership compared to Obama's.

    For now though I find the analysis on his reaction to Syria followed by talking about Libya invites interesting comparisons. What strikes me most is the way Syria can be seen as alternate-dimension-where-no-one-intervened Libya. And the result seems to be the dictator still in power and the whole country a complete shit show.

    I'm pretty much 100% behind his pessimism on the Middle East. More then anything I'm struck by him basically being frustrated and ultimately simply resigned to the fact that there's little the US can actually DO down there, everyone involved is a complete asshole and the US's "allies" there are no different and the tribalism that tears the region apart is unsolvable by a US president. It's kinda fascinating to see how being the most powerful man in the world leads straight to fatalism when confronted with trying to get anything done.

    What's really frustrating is that the various pan-Arab movements were actually solving those problems by creating greater identities...and then the US strangled them in the crib because they were impeding Western corporations from extracting wealth from the region.

    Good point. That's how you get from tribalism to "actual" nation-states, self-formed and not imposed from above, that look more or less like ours and can be dealt with on that basis.
    But the vested interests didn't want to negotiate with equals, they wanted to keep exploiting and... aaagh.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
  • CorehealerCorehealer The Apothecary The softer edge of the universe.Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    ph blake wrote: »
    So The Atlantic just dropped a huge interview style piece on the evolution of Obama's foreign policy doctrine. This thing is really, really long and really meaty; among other things it goes in depth on Obama's thoughts during the Assad "red line" incident in 2013, as well as his general reluctance to engage in direct action in the middle east.

    Still working through this but it's really interesting. Definitely some interesting hints at what Clinton believes re: foreign policy too and how the US would shift somewhat under her leadership compared to Obama's.

    For now though I find the analysis on his reaction to Syria followed by talking about Libya invites interesting comparisons. What strikes me most is the way Syria can be seen as alternate-dimension-where-no-one-intervened Libya. And the result seems to be the dictator still in power and the whole country a complete shit show.

    I'm pretty much 100% behind his pessimism on the Middle East. More then anything I'm struck by him basically being frustrated and ultimately simply resigned to the fact that there's little the US can actually DO down there, everyone involved is a complete asshole and the US's "allies" there are no different and the tribalism that tears the region apart is unsolvable by a US president. It's kinda fascinating to see how being the most powerful man in the world leads straight to fatalism when confronted with trying to get anything done.

    What's really frustrating is that the various pan-Arab movements were actually solving those problems by creating greater identities...and then the US strangled them in the crib because they were impeding Western corporations from extracting wealth from the region.

    Good point. That's how you get from tribalism to "actual" nation-states, self-formed and not imposed from above, that look more or less like ours and can be dealt with on that basis.
    But the vested interests didn't want to negotiate with equals, they wanted to keep exploiting and... aaagh.

    Yes, because the alternative of trying to deal with terrorists, religious fundamentalists and radical militias that hate your guts is such an appealing way to make more money.

    With Gaddafi and others like him you can exploit. Hell, even with a democracy replacing him in a theoretical ideal situation, exploiting/strong-arming can happen to get your way by manipulating the country's economic prospects and media from outside. But the mess they have right now, or the governments they'd like to replace that mess with potentially? Not really conducive to exploitation, or even military intervention.

    488W936.png
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Corehealer wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ph blake wrote: »
    So The Atlantic just dropped a huge interview style piece on the evolution of Obama's foreign policy doctrine. This thing is really, really long and really meaty; among other things it goes in depth on Obama's thoughts during the Assad "red line" incident in 2013, as well as his general reluctance to engage in direct action in the middle east.

    Still working through this but it's really interesting. Definitely some interesting hints at what Clinton believes re: foreign policy too and how the US would shift somewhat under her leadership compared to Obama's.

    For now though I find the analysis on his reaction to Syria followed by talking about Libya invites interesting comparisons. What strikes me most is the way Syria can be seen as alternate-dimension-where-no-one-intervened Libya. And the result seems to be the dictator still in power and the whole country a complete shit show.

    I'm pretty much 100% behind his pessimism on the Middle East. More then anything I'm struck by him basically being frustrated and ultimately simply resigned to the fact that there's little the US can actually DO down there, everyone involved is a complete asshole and the US's "allies" there are no different and the tribalism that tears the region apart is unsolvable by a US president. It's kinda fascinating to see how being the most powerful man in the world leads straight to fatalism when confronted with trying to get anything done.

    What's really frustrating is that the various pan-Arab movements were actually solving those problems by creating greater identities...and then the US strangled them in the crib because they were impeding Western corporations from extracting wealth from the region.

    Good point. That's how you get from tribalism to "actual" nation-states, self-formed and not imposed from above, that look more or less like ours and can be dealt with on that basis.
    But the vested interests didn't want to negotiate with equals, they wanted to keep exploiting and... aaagh.

    Yes, because the alternative of trying to deal with terrorists, religious fundamentalists and radical militias that hate your guts is such an appealing way to make more money.

    With Gaddafi and others like him you can exploit. Hell, even with a democracy replacing him in a theoretical ideal situation, exploiting/strong-arming can happen to get your way by manipulating the country's economic prospects and media from outside. But the mess they have right now, or the governments they'd like to replace that mess with potentially? Not really conducive to exploitation, or even military intervention.

    The big thing we have learned in this mess is that the kind of professionals you need to rebuild a society usually cluster around the evil strongman. The reason for this, as we have also learned, is that the types of people who make up the ranks of the rebel groups tend to target the educated professionals.

  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    ph blake wrote: »
    So The Atlantic just dropped a huge interview style piece on the evolution of Obama's foreign policy doctrine. This thing is really, really long and really meaty; among other things it goes in depth on Obama's thoughts during the Assad "red line" incident in 2013, as well as his general reluctance to engage in direct action in the middle east. Also lots of money quotes on other foreign leaders and various Washington types that could make for some good drama (he considers the president of Turkey a failure, calls Putin "not completely stupid" and regularly expresses his frustration with Netanyahu). Seriously, there is a ton of stuff to unpack in here, a lot of it dealing with his views of ISIL as a symptom of tribal frustrations that the US can't necessarily fight.
    One of the most destructive forces in the Middle East, Obama believes, is tribalism—a force no president can neutralize. Tribalism, made manifest in the reversion to sect, creed, clan, and village by the desperate citizens of failing states, is the source of much of the Muslim Middle East’s problems, and it is another source of his fatalism. Obama has deep respect for the destructive resilience of tribalism—part of his memoir, Dreams From My Father, concerns the way in which tribalism in post-colonial Kenya helped ruin his father’s life—which goes some distance in explaining why he is so fastidious about avoiding entanglements in tribal conflicts.

    “It is literally in my DNA to be suspicious of tribalism,” he told me. “I understand the tribal impulse, and acknowledge the power of tribal division. I’ve been navigating tribal divisions my whole life. In the end, it’s the source of a lot of destructive acts.”

    ...he continued, “Right now, across the globe, you’re seeing places that are undergoing severe stress because of globalization, because of the collision of cultures brought about by the Internet and social media, because of scarcities—some of which will be attributable to climate change over the next several decades—because of population growth. And in those places, the Middle East being Exhibit A, the default position for a lot of folks is to organize tightly in the tribe and to push back or strike out against those who are different.

    “A group like ISIL is the distillation of every worst impulse along these lines. The notion that we are a small group that defines ourselves primarily by the degree to which we can kill others who are not like us, and attempting to impose a rigid orthodoxy that produces nothing, that celebrates nothing, that really is contrary to every bit of human progress—it indicates the degree to which that kind of mentality can still take root and gain adherents in the 21st century.”

    So your appreciation for tribalism’s power makes you want to stay away?, I asked. “In other words, when people say ‘Why don’t you just go get the bastards?,’ you step back?”

    “We have to determine the best tools to roll back those kinds of attitudes,” he said. “There are going to be times where either because it’s not a direct threat to us or because we just don’t have the tools in our toolkit to have a huge impact that, tragically, we have to refrain from jumping in with both feet.”

    It's a pretty interesting read, though the cynical view of the policy Obama lays out is that he is using drone strikes and proxy rebels armies as a halfway measure, a band-aid to avoid addressing the issue while he focuses his attention on global warming and Asia (the article notes that Obama is much more concerned with relations in China and Latin America and has become disillusioned with the idea of progress in the ME).

    @Synthesis @Kaputa @dammit [Tycho?] you had to pick the most difficult damn name.... :P

    I wanted to ask your opinion on the article.

    I thought it was pretty great. And does match the observed actions of this administration.

    Pity the next administration is unlikely to be so clear-headed.

    spool32 wrote:
    he pops this cobalt blue tetrahedron like he's thought of something. I'm like son, you know that's just a reskinned fireball, right?
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Rchanen wrote: »
    ph blake wrote: »
    So The Atlantic just dropped a huge interview style piece on the evolution of Obama's foreign policy doctrine. This thing is really, really long and really meaty; among other things it goes in depth on Obama's thoughts during the Assad "red line" incident in 2013, as well as his general reluctance to engage in direct action in the middle east. Also lots of money quotes on other foreign leaders and various Washington types that could make for some good drama (he considers the president of Turkey a failure, calls Putin "not completely stupid" and regularly expresses his frustration with Netanyahu). Seriously, there is a ton of stuff to unpack in here, a lot of it dealing with his views of ISIL as a symptom of tribal frustrations that the US can't necessarily fight.
    One of the most destructive forces in the Middle East, Obama believes, is tribalism—a force no president can neutralize. Tribalism, made manifest in the reversion to sect, creed, clan, and village by the desperate citizens of failing states, is the source of much of the Muslim Middle East’s problems, and it is another source of his fatalism. Obama has deep respect for the destructive resilience of tribalism—part of his memoir, Dreams From My Father, concerns the way in which tribalism in post-colonial Kenya helped ruin his father’s life—which goes some distance in explaining why he is so fastidious about avoiding entanglements in tribal conflicts.

    “It is literally in my DNA to be suspicious of tribalism,” he told me. “I understand the tribal impulse, and acknowledge the power of tribal division. I’ve been navigating tribal divisions my whole life. In the end, it’s the source of a lot of destructive acts.”

    ...he continued, “Right now, across the globe, you’re seeing places that are undergoing severe stress because of globalization, because of the collision of cultures brought about by the Internet and social media, because of scarcities—some of which will be attributable to climate change over the next several decades—because of population growth. And in those places, the Middle East being Exhibit A, the default position for a lot of folks is to organize tightly in the tribe and to push back or strike out against those who are different.

    “A group like ISIL is the distillation of every worst impulse along these lines. The notion that we are a small group that defines ourselves primarily by the degree to which we can kill others who are not like us, and attempting to impose a rigid orthodoxy that produces nothing, that celebrates nothing, that really is contrary to every bit of human progress—it indicates the degree to which that kind of mentality can still take root and gain adherents in the 21st century.”

    So your appreciation for tribalism’s power makes you want to stay away?, I asked. “In other words, when people say ‘Why don’t you just go get the bastards?,’ you step back?”

    “We have to determine the best tools to roll back those kinds of attitudes,” he said. “There are going to be times where either because it’s not a direct threat to us or because we just don’t have the tools in our toolkit to have a huge impact that, tragically, we have to refrain from jumping in with both feet.”

    It's a pretty interesting read, though the cynical view of the policy Obama lays out is that he is using drone strikes and proxy rebels armies as a halfway measure, a band-aid to avoid addressing the issue while he focuses his attention on global warming and Asia (the article notes that Obama is much more concerned with relations in China and Latin America and has become disillusioned with the idea of progress in the ME).

    @Synthesis @Kaputa @dammit [Tycho?] you had to pick the most difficult damn name.... :P

    I wanted to ask your opinion on the article.

    I thought it was pretty great. And does match the observed actions of this administration.

    Pity the next administration is unlikely to be so clear-headed.

    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Rchanen wrote: »
    ph blake wrote: »
    So The Atlantic just dropped a huge interview style piece on the evolution of Obama's foreign policy doctrine. This thing is really, really long and really meaty; among other things it goes in depth on Obama's thoughts during the Assad "red line" incident in 2013, as well as his general reluctance to engage in direct action in the middle east. Also lots of money quotes on other foreign leaders and various Washington types that could make for some good drama (he considers the president of Turkey a failure, calls Putin "not completely stupid" and regularly expresses his frustration with Netanyahu). Seriously, there is a ton of stuff to unpack in here, a lot of it dealing with his views of ISIL as a symptom of tribal frustrations that the US can't necessarily fight.
    One of the most destructive forces in the Middle East, Obama believes, is tribalism—a force no president can neutralize. Tribalism, made manifest in the reversion to sect, creed, clan, and village by the desperate citizens of failing states, is the source of much of the Muslim Middle East’s problems, and it is another source of his fatalism. Obama has deep respect for the destructive resilience of tribalism—part of his memoir, Dreams From My Father, concerns the way in which tribalism in post-colonial Kenya helped ruin his father’s life—which goes some distance in explaining why he is so fastidious about avoiding entanglements in tribal conflicts.

    “It is literally in my DNA to be suspicious of tribalism,” he told me. “I understand the tribal impulse, and acknowledge the power of tribal division. I’ve been navigating tribal divisions my whole life. In the end, it’s the source of a lot of destructive acts.”

    ...he continued, “Right now, across the globe, you’re seeing places that are undergoing severe stress because of globalization, because of the collision of cultures brought about by the Internet and social media, because of scarcities—some of which will be attributable to climate change over the next several decades—because of population growth. And in those places, the Middle East being Exhibit A, the default position for a lot of folks is to organize tightly in the tribe and to push back or strike out against those who are different.

    “A group like ISIL is the distillation of every worst impulse along these lines. The notion that we are a small group that defines ourselves primarily by the degree to which we can kill others who are not like us, and attempting to impose a rigid orthodoxy that produces nothing, that celebrates nothing, that really is contrary to every bit of human progress—it indicates the degree to which that kind of mentality can still take root and gain adherents in the 21st century.”

    So your appreciation for tribalism’s power makes you want to stay away?, I asked. “In other words, when people say ‘Why don’t you just go get the bastards?,’ you step back?”

    “We have to determine the best tools to roll back those kinds of attitudes,” he said. “There are going to be times where either because it’s not a direct threat to us or because we just don’t have the tools in our toolkit to have a huge impact that, tragically, we have to refrain from jumping in with both feet.”

    It's a pretty interesting read, though the cynical view of the policy Obama lays out is that he is using drone strikes and proxy rebels armies as a halfway measure, a band-aid to avoid addressing the issue while he focuses his attention on global warming and Asia (the article notes that Obama is much more concerned with relations in China and Latin America and has become disillusioned with the idea of progress in the ME).

    @Synthesis @Kaputa @dammit [Tycho?] you had to pick the most difficult damn name.... :P

    I wanted to ask your opinion on the article.

    I thought it was pretty great. And does match the observed actions of this administration.

    Pity the next administration is unlikely to be so clear-headed.

    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Wait does this mean that if he is defeated in the primaries he will become more powerful than we can possibly imagine?

    spool32 wrote:
    he pops this cobalt blue tetrahedron like he's thought of something. I'm like son, you know that's just a reskinned fireball, right?
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote:
    he pops this cobalt blue tetrahedron like he's thought of something. I'm like son, you know that's just a reskinned fireball, right?
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Saudi's pushing hard to have Hezbollah declared a terrorist organization.

    Pushing real damn hard.

    Hezbollah might be facing a fight from the Gulf states next.

    spool32 wrote:
    he pops this cobalt blue tetrahedron like he's thought of something. I'm like son, you know that's just a reskinned fireball, right?
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Rchanen wrote: »
    ph blake wrote: »
    So The Atlantic just dropped a huge interview style piece on the evolution of Obama's foreign policy doctrine. This thing is really, really long and really meaty; among other things it goes in depth on Obama's thoughts during the Assad "red line" incident in 2013, as well as his general reluctance to engage in direct action in the middle east. Also lots of money quotes on other foreign leaders and various Washington types that could make for some good drama (he considers the president of Turkey a failure, calls Putin "not completely stupid" and regularly expresses his frustration with Netanyahu). Seriously, there is a ton of stuff to unpack in here, a lot of it dealing with his views of ISIL as a symptom of tribal frustrations that the US can't necessarily fight.
    One of the most destructive forces in the Middle East, Obama believes, is tribalism—a force no president can neutralize. Tribalism, made manifest in the reversion to sect, creed, clan, and village by the desperate citizens of failing states, is the source of much of the Muslim Middle East’s problems, and it is another source of his fatalism. Obama has deep respect for the destructive resilience of tribalism—part of his memoir, Dreams From My Father, concerns the way in which tribalism in post-colonial Kenya helped ruin his father’s life—which goes some distance in explaining why he is so fastidious about avoiding entanglements in tribal conflicts.

    “It is literally in my DNA to be suspicious of tribalism,” he told me. “I understand the tribal impulse, and acknowledge the power of tribal division. I’ve been navigating tribal divisions my whole life. In the end, it’s the source of a lot of destructive acts.”

    ...he continued, “Right now, across the globe, you’re seeing places that are undergoing severe stress because of globalization, because of the collision of cultures brought about by the Internet and social media, because of scarcities—some of which will be attributable to climate change over the next several decades—because of population growth. And in those places, the Middle East being Exhibit A, the default position for a lot of folks is to organize tightly in the tribe and to push back or strike out against those who are different.

    “A group like ISIL is the distillation of every worst impulse along these lines. The notion that we are a small group that defines ourselves primarily by the degree to which we can kill others who are not like us, and attempting to impose a rigid orthodoxy that produces nothing, that celebrates nothing, that really is contrary to every bit of human progress—it indicates the degree to which that kind of mentality can still take root and gain adherents in the 21st century.”

    So your appreciation for tribalism’s power makes you want to stay away?, I asked. “In other words, when people say ‘Why don’t you just go get the bastards?,’ you step back?”

    “We have to determine the best tools to roll back those kinds of attitudes,” he said. “There are going to be times where either because it’s not a direct threat to us or because we just don’t have the tools in our toolkit to have a huge impact that, tragically, we have to refrain from jumping in with both feet.”

    It's a pretty interesting read, though the cynical view of the policy Obama lays out is that he is using drone strikes and proxy rebels armies as a halfway measure, a band-aid to avoid addressing the issue while he focuses his attention on global warming and Asia (the article notes that Obama is much more concerned with relations in China and Latin America and has become disillusioned with the idea of progress in the ME).

    @Synthesis @Kaputa @dammit [Tycho?] you had to pick the most difficult damn name.... :P

    I wanted to ask your opinion on the article.

    I thought it was pretty great. And does match the observed actions of this administration.

    Pity the next administration is unlikely to be so clear-headed.

    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    Captain MarcusPanda4You
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    shryke on
    Kana
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    hippofant on
    Panda4YouRchanenSynthesis
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Total Goober Registered User regular
    Arab League brands Hezbollah a terrorist organisation - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35789303

    Whelp....

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    Kana
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    From the article, and stated positions, she is blatantly more interventionist than Obama.

    If you want I can provide the citations.

    She is not of course as bad as any of the Republican nominees. Who range from George W style interventionism to Ted "lets start the apocalypse" Cruz to Donald "Lets loot and pillage" Trump.

    But she is definitely more happy to use force than Obama.

    Rchanen on
    spool32 wrote:
    he pops this cobalt blue tetrahedron like he's thought of something. I'm like son, you know that's just a reskinned fireball, right?
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Rchanen wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    From the article, and stated positions, she is blatantly more interventionist than Obama.

    If you want I can provide the citations.

    She is not of course as bad as any of the Republican nominees. Who range from George W style interventionism to Ted "lets start the apocalypse" Cruz to Donald "Lets loot and pillage" Trump.

    But she is definitely more happy to use force than Obama.

    Y..... yes. I literally said that in this quote tree already, so I don't know what you are on about here.

    But that doesn't Clinton is near as bad as any of the other major non-Sanders candidates, which is what the original statement was saying. It's a ridiculously silly false equivalency.

    Sanders is more isolationist and, based on his statements imo, mostly because he doesn't give a shit about foreign policy and doesn't know much about the issue.

    Clinton is alot like Obama but more interventionist. Much more willing to be proactive in using force to protect people and advance the US's interests.

    The rest of the potential presidents are absolutely balls to the wall fucking insane. Ranging from "Glass the entire region" to "Just bomb the entire region into the stone age" to "Basically the US's version of Erdogan, but with a thinner skin and very fond of war crimes".

    RchanenKana
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    Considering Pres. Obama has expanded the multinational drone air strike program substantially beyond his predecessor, I don't think that really loses that much meaning. He has bombed the shit out of countries in an unprecedented fashion via comparatively new programs under his command like the SKYNET program (I swear that is its actual name). If you'd like to weigh that as "Well, at least he's not invading Pakistan," as I've seen many people whom support Washington have done in the past, you're welcome to do so, but I don't consider that a satisfactory outcome anymore than the excuse, "Well, perhaps Pres. Putin is bombing the shit out of Syria, but at least he hasn't invaded it with dozens of army divisions." Is it really a binary choice of one or the other?

    On the subject of Sen. Sanders personally, I recall he has articulated positions on Syria, though not necessarily ones I'd rally behind. He's previously disagreed with a unilateral no-fly zone (as suggested by some Republicans and supported for a time by Sen. Clinton)--on the other hand, he generally agrees with Pres. Obama's overall mission profile, which is something I personally don't agree with (now that I've had three years to see it in action). In my own view, the current arena seems to be heavily hawkish (without ignoring Sen. Clinton's own time as foreign minister), just as it has been in the past--of course, given America's almost comic-book-like military power, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Whoever replaces Pres. Obama is almost certainly going to be bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    I think we may be starting from the wrong place. Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic, but with the upcoming American election, I don't see it so much as a choice between "Not bombing" and "Bombing," however.

    I still need to read Rchanen's recommended article...cough cough...

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    KaputaCptKemzikOneAngryPossum
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    Considering Pres. Obama has expanded the multinational drone air strike program substantially beyond his predecessor, I don't think that really loses that much meaning. He has bombed the shit out of countries in an unprecedented fashion via comparatively new programs under his command like the SKYNET program (I swear that is its actual name). If you'd like to weigh that as "Well, at least he's not invading Pakistan," as I've seen many people whom support Washington have done in the past, you're welcome to do so, but I don't consider that a satisfactory outcome anymore than the excuse, "Well, perhaps Pres. Putin is bombing the shit out of Syria, but at least he hasn't invaded it with dozens of army divisions." Is it really a binary choice of one or the other?

    On the subject of Sen. Sanders personally, I recall he has articulated positions on Syria, though not necessarily ones I'd rally behind. He's previously disagreed with a unilateral no-fly zone (as suggested by some Republicans and supported for a time by Sen. Clinton)--on the other hand, he generally agrees with Pres. Obama's overall mission profile, which is something I personally don't agree with (now that I've had three years to see it in action). In my own view, the current arena seems to be heavily hawkish (without ignoring Sen. Clinton's own time as foreign minister), just as it has been in the past--of course, given America's almost comic-book-like military power, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Whoever replaces Pres. Obama is almost certainly going to be bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    I think we may be starting from the wrong place. Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic, but with the upcoming American election, I don't see it so much as a choice between "Not bombing" and "Bombing," however.

    I still need to read Rchanen's recommended article...cough cough...

    I do hope they are using SKYNET like AFIS. And not you know, like SKYNET.

    spool32 wrote:
    he pops this cobalt blue tetrahedron like he's thought of something. I'm like son, you know that's just a reskinned fireball, right?
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    Synthesis wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    Considering Pres. Obama has expanded the multinational drone air strike program substantially beyond his predecessor, I don't think that really loses that much meaning. He has bombed the shit out of countries in an unprecedented fashion via comparatively new programs under his command like the SKYNET program (I swear that is its actual name). If you'd like to weigh that as "Well, at least he's not invading Pakistan," as I've seen many people whom support Washington have done in the past, you're welcome to do so, but I don't consider that a satisfactory outcome anymore than the excuse, "Well, perhaps Pres. Putin is bombing the shit out of Syria, but at least he hasn't invaded it with dozens of army divisions." Is it really a binary choice of one or the other?

    On the subject of Sen. Sanders personally, I recall he has articulated positions on Syria, though not necessarily ones I'd rally behind. He's previously disagreed with a unilateral no-fly zone (as suggested by some Republicans and supported for a time by Sen. Clinton)--on the other hand, he generally agrees with Pres. Obama's overall mission profile, which is something I personally don't agree with (now that I've had three years to see it in action). In my own view, the current arena seems to be heavily hawkish (without ignoring Sen. Clinton's own time as foreign minister), just as it has been in the past--of course, given America's almost comic-book-like military power, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Whoever replaces Pres. Obama is almost certainly going to be bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    I think we may be starting from the wrong place. Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic, but with the upcoming American election, I don't see it so much as a choice between "Not bombing" and "Bombing," however.

    I still need to read Rchanen's recommended article...cough cough...

    Um, well, actually, Obama did "invade" Pakistan, with Seal Team Six and all, depending on your definition of invasion.

    hippofant on
    Panda4You
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    Considering Pres. Obama has expanded the multinational drone air strike program substantially beyond his predecessor, I don't think that really loses that much meaning. He has bombed the shit out of countries in an unprecedented fashion via comparatively new programs under his command like the SKYNET program (I swear that is its actual name). If you'd like to weigh that as "Well, at least he's not invading Pakistan," as I've seen many people whom support Washington have done in the past, you're welcome to do so, but I don't consider that a satisfactory outcome anymore than the excuse, "Well, perhaps Pres. Putin is bombing the shit out of Syria, but at least he hasn't invaded it with dozens of army divisions." Is it really a binary choice of one or the other?

    On the subject of Sen. Sanders personally, I recall he has articulated positions on Syria, though not necessarily ones I'd rally behind. He's previously disagreed with a unilateral no-fly zone (as suggested by some Republicans and supported for a time by Sen. Clinton)--on the other hand, he generally agrees with Pres. Obama's overall mission profile, which is something I personally don't agree with (now that I've had three years to see it in action). In my own view, the current arena seems to be heavily hawkish (without ignoring Sen. Clinton's own time as foreign minister), just as it has been in the past--of course, given America's almost comic-book-like military power, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Whoever replaces Pres. Obama is almost certainly going to be bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    I think we may be starting from the wrong place. Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic, but with the upcoming American election, I don't see it so much as a choice between "Not bombing" and "Bombing," however.

    I still need to read Rchanen's recommended article...cough cough...

    Um, well, actually, Obama did "invade" Pakistan, with Seal Team Six and all, depending on your definition of invasion.

    True--and I think United States insertions or whatever you'd call them into Pakistani territory about as uncommon as rat interventions into a Waffle House, but that's whole other area we might not really understand the scope of for years.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    Panda4YouCptKemzikAndy Joe
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    Considering Pres. Obama has expanded the multinational drone air strike program substantially beyond his predecessor, I don't think that really loses that much meaning. He has bombed the shit out of countries in an unprecedented fashion via comparatively new programs under his command like the SKYNET program (I swear that is its actual name). If you'd like to weigh that as "Well, at least he's not invading Pakistan," as I've seen many people whom support Washington have done in the past, you're welcome to do so, but I don't consider that a satisfactory outcome anymore than the excuse, "Well, perhaps Pres. Putin is bombing the shit out of Syria, but at least he hasn't invaded it with dozens of army divisions." Is it really a binary choice of one or the other?

    On the subject of Sen. Sanders personally, I recall he has articulated positions on Syria, though not necessarily ones I'd rally behind. He's previously disagreed with a unilateral no-fly zone (as suggested by some Republicans and supported for a time by Sen. Clinton)--on the other hand, he generally agrees with Pres. Obama's overall mission profile, which is something I personally don't agree with (now that I've had three years to see it in action). In my own view, the current arena seems to be heavily hawkish (without ignoring Sen. Clinton's own time as foreign minister), just as it has been in the past--of course, given America's almost comic-book-like military power, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Whoever replaces Pres. Obama is almost certainly going to be bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    I think we may be starting from the wrong place. Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic, but with the upcoming American election, I don't see it so much as a choice between "Not bombing" and "Bombing," however.

    I still need to read Rchanen's recommended article...cough cough...

    Have you seen what the GOP has been suggesting for 8 years now? What they got up to while controlling the government?

    Yeah, it does lose all meaning. Because at that point you are basically lumping all US foreign policy for the past 80 years or something under "bomb the shit out of it" which becomes a category so broad as to be useless.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    Considering Pres. Obama has expanded the multinational drone air strike program substantially beyond his predecessor, I don't think that really loses that much meaning. He has bombed the shit out of countries in an unprecedented fashion via comparatively new programs under his command like the SKYNET program (I swear that is its actual name). If you'd like to weigh that as "Well, at least he's not invading Pakistan," as I've seen many people whom support Washington have done in the past, you're welcome to do so, but I don't consider that a satisfactory outcome anymore than the excuse, "Well, perhaps Pres. Putin is bombing the shit out of Syria, but at least he hasn't invaded it with dozens of army divisions." Is it really a binary choice of one or the other?

    On the subject of Sen. Sanders personally, I recall he has articulated positions on Syria, though not necessarily ones I'd rally behind. He's previously disagreed with a unilateral no-fly zone (as suggested by some Republicans and supported for a time by Sen. Clinton)--on the other hand, he generally agrees with Pres. Obama's overall mission profile, which is something I personally don't agree with (now that I've had three years to see it in action). In my own view, the current arena seems to be heavily hawkish (without ignoring Sen. Clinton's own time as foreign minister), just as it has been in the past--of course, given America's almost comic-book-like military power, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Whoever replaces Pres. Obama is almost certainly going to be bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    I think we may be starting from the wrong place. Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic, but with the upcoming American election, I don't see it so much as a choice between "Not bombing" and "Bombing," however.

    I still need to read Rchanen's recommended article...cough cough...

    Have you seen what the GOP has been suggesting for 8 years now? What they got up to while controlling the government?

    Yeah, it does lose all meaning. Because at that point you are basically lumping all US foreign policy for the past 80 years or something under "bomb the shit out of it" which becomes a category so broad as to be useless.

    I was initially wondering if there was a candidate who wouldn't fuck up the Middle East, not generally describing the proposed foreign policies of the candidates. If you'd like, I'll say that Hillary wants to bomb the shit out of the Middle East whereas Trump and Cruz want to bomb TWO shits out of it, but this is the sort of absurd radicalization of American politics that outsiders often comment on, that because the Republicans are just so fucking crazy, we now have to all lie to ourselves about the Democrats being a buncha left-wing socialist hippies when they'd be, at best, centre-right in pretty much any other First World country.

    ElkiPhillishere
  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    Synthesis wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    Considering Pres. Obama has expanded the multinational drone air strike program substantially beyond his predecessor, I don't think that really loses that much meaning. He has bombed the shit out of countries in an unprecedented fashion via comparatively new programs under his command like the SKYNET program (I swear that is its actual name). If you'd like to weigh that as "Well, at least he's not invading Pakistan," as I've seen many people whom support Washington have done in the past, you're welcome to do so, but I don't consider that a satisfactory outcome anymore than the excuse, "Well, perhaps Pres. Putin is bombing the shit out of Syria, but at least he hasn't invaded it with dozens of army divisions." Is it really a binary choice of one or the other?

    On the subject of Sen. Sanders personally, I recall he has articulated positions on Syria, though not necessarily ones I'd rally behind. He's previously disagreed with a unilateral no-fly zone (as suggested by some Republicans and supported for a time by Sen. Clinton)--on the other hand, he generally agrees with Pres. Obama's overall mission profile, which is something I personally don't agree with (now that I've had three years to see it in action). In my own view, the current arena seems to be heavily hawkish (without ignoring Sen. Clinton's own time as foreign minister), just as it has been in the past--of course, given America's almost comic-book-like military power, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Whoever replaces Pres. Obama is almost certainly going to be bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    I think we may be starting from the wrong place. Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic, but with the upcoming American election, I don't see it so much as a choice between "Not bombing" and "Bombing," however.

    I still need to read Rchanen's recommended article...cough cough...

    I was talking about SKYNET with a guy at work (without mentioning its name), and his was response was "Wow, that's fucked up, that's almost like skynet"

    Also, there's a good companion piece to that Atlantic article on Obama. It's by (the very good) Julia Ioffe on the Russian perspective on the whole "red line" thing

    KetBra on
    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
    Panda4You
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    Considering Pres. Obama has expanded the multinational drone air strike program substantially beyond his predecessor, I don't think that really loses that much meaning. He has bombed the shit out of countries in an unprecedented fashion via comparatively new programs under his command like the SKYNET program (I swear that is its actual name). If you'd like to weigh that as "Well, at least he's not invading Pakistan," as I've seen many people whom support Washington have done in the past, you're welcome to do so, but I don't consider that a satisfactory outcome anymore than the excuse, "Well, perhaps Pres. Putin is bombing the shit out of Syria, but at least he hasn't invaded it with dozens of army divisions." Is it really a binary choice of one or the other?

    On the subject of Sen. Sanders personally, I recall he has articulated positions on Syria, though not necessarily ones I'd rally behind. He's previously disagreed with a unilateral no-fly zone (as suggested by some Republicans and supported for a time by Sen. Clinton)--on the other hand, he generally agrees with Pres. Obama's overall mission profile, which is something I personally don't agree with (now that I've had three years to see it in action). In my own view, the current arena seems to be heavily hawkish (without ignoring Sen. Clinton's own time as foreign minister), just as it has been in the past--of course, given America's almost comic-book-like military power, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Whoever replaces Pres. Obama is almost certainly going to be bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    I think we may be starting from the wrong place. Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic, but with the upcoming American election, I don't see it so much as a choice between "Not bombing" and "Bombing," however.

    I still need to read Rchanen's recommended article...cough cough...

    Have you seen what the GOP has been suggesting for 8 years now? What they got up to while controlling the government?

    Yeah, it does lose all meaning. Because at that point you are basically lumping all US foreign policy for the past 80 years or something under "bomb the shit out of it" which becomes a category so broad as to be useless.

    I was initially wondering if there was a candidate who wouldn't fuck up the Middle East, not generally describing the proposed foreign policies of the candidates. If you'd like, I'll say that Hillary wants to bomb the shit out of the Middle East whereas Trump and Cruz want to bomb TWO shits out of it, but this is the sort of absurd radicalization of American politics that outsiders often comment on, that because the Republicans are just so fucking crazy, we now have to all lie to ourselves about the Democrats being a buncha left-wing socialist hippies when they'd be, at best, centre-right in pretty much any other First World country.

    Who's lying to themselves about that?

    The Democrats aren't crazy but they are still, you know, running the US and it's foreign policy. Which is in the "you don't have a global hegemony without bombing a few eggs" wheelhouse.

    Rchanen[Tycho?]Nyysjan
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    The Democrats aren't crazy but they are still, you know, running the US and it's foreign policy. Which is in the "you don't have a global hegemony without bombing a few eggs" wheelhouse.

    Sigged

    spool32 wrote:
    he pops this cobalt blue tetrahedron like he's thought of something. I'm like son, you know that's just a reskinned fireball, right?
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    Considering Pres. Obama has expanded the multinational drone air strike program substantially beyond his predecessor, I don't think that really loses that much meaning. He has bombed the shit out of countries in an unprecedented fashion via comparatively new programs under his command like the SKYNET program (I swear that is its actual name). If you'd like to weigh that as "Well, at least he's not invading Pakistan," as I've seen many people whom support Washington have done in the past, you're welcome to do so, but I don't consider that a satisfactory outcome anymore than the excuse, "Well, perhaps Pres. Putin is bombing the shit out of Syria, but at least he hasn't invaded it with dozens of army divisions." Is it really a binary choice of one or the other?

    On the subject of Sen. Sanders personally, I recall he has articulated positions on Syria, though not necessarily ones I'd rally behind. He's previously disagreed with a unilateral no-fly zone (as suggested by some Republicans and supported for a time by Sen. Clinton)--on the other hand, he generally agrees with Pres. Obama's overall mission profile, which is something I personally don't agree with (now that I've had three years to see it in action). In my own view, the current arena seems to be heavily hawkish (without ignoring Sen. Clinton's own time as foreign minister), just as it has been in the past--of course, given America's almost comic-book-like military power, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Whoever replaces Pres. Obama is almost certainly going to be bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    I think we may be starting from the wrong place. Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic, but with the upcoming American election, I don't see it so much as a choice between "Not bombing" and "Bombing," however.

    I still need to read Rchanen's recommended article...cough cough...

    Have you seen what the GOP has been suggesting for 8 years now? What they got up to while controlling the government?

    Yeah, it does lose all meaning. Because at that point you are basically lumping all US foreign policy for the past 80 years or something under "bomb the shit out of it" which becomes a category so broad as to be useless.

    Than what do we call it? Because "not bombing," is substantially more meaningless, the last decade of the drone strike program's publicity campaign aside.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • Grey PaladinGrey Paladin Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    Synthesis wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    Considering Pres. Obama has expanded the multinational drone air strike program substantially beyond his predecessor, I don't think that really loses that much meaning. He has bombed the shit out of countries in an unprecedented fashion via comparatively new programs under his command like the SKYNET program (I swear that is its actual name). If you'd like to weigh that as "Well, at least he's not invading Pakistan," as I've seen many people whom support Washington have done in the past, you're welcome to do so, but I don't consider that a satisfactory outcome anymore than the excuse, "Well, perhaps Pres. Putin is bombing the shit out of Syria, but at least he hasn't invaded it with dozens of army divisions." Is it really a binary choice of one or the other?

    On the subject of Sen. Sanders personally, I recall he has articulated positions on Syria, though not necessarily ones I'd rally behind. He's previously disagreed with a unilateral no-fly zone (as suggested by some Republicans and supported for a time by Sen. Clinton)--on the other hand, he generally agrees with Pres. Obama's overall mission profile, which is something I personally don't agree with (now that I've had three years to see it in action). In my own view, the current arena seems to be heavily hawkish (without ignoring Sen. Clinton's own time as foreign minister), just as it has been in the past--of course, given America's almost comic-book-like military power, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Whoever replaces Pres. Obama is almost certainly going to be bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    I think we may be starting from the wrong place. Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic, but with the upcoming American election, I don't see it so much as a choice between "Not bombing" and "Bombing," however.

    I still need to read Rchanen's recommended article...cough cough...

    Have you seen what the GOP has been suggesting for 8 years now? What they got up to while controlling the government?

    Yeah, it does lose all meaning. Because at that point you are basically lumping all US foreign policy for the past 80 years or something under "bomb the shit out of it" which becomes a category so broad as to be useless.

    Than what do we call it?
    American exceptionalism.

    Grey Paladin on
    "All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    Considering Pres. Obama has expanded the multinational drone air strike program substantially beyond his predecessor, I don't think that really loses that much meaning. He has bombed the shit out of countries in an unprecedented fashion via comparatively new programs under his command like the SKYNET program (I swear that is its actual name). If you'd like to weigh that as "Well, at least he's not invading Pakistan," as I've seen many people whom support Washington have done in the past, you're welcome to do so, but I don't consider that a satisfactory outcome anymore than the excuse, "Well, perhaps Pres. Putin is bombing the shit out of Syria, but at least he hasn't invaded it with dozens of army divisions." Is it really a binary choice of one or the other?

    On the subject of Sen. Sanders personally, I recall he has articulated positions on Syria, though not necessarily ones I'd rally behind. He's previously disagreed with a unilateral no-fly zone (as suggested by some Republicans and supported for a time by Sen. Clinton)--on the other hand, he generally agrees with Pres. Obama's overall mission profile, which is something I personally don't agree with (now that I've had three years to see it in action). In my own view, the current arena seems to be heavily hawkish (without ignoring Sen. Clinton's own time as foreign minister), just as it has been in the past--of course, given America's almost comic-book-like military power, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Whoever replaces Pres. Obama is almost certainly going to be bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    I think we may be starting from the wrong place. Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic, but with the upcoming American election, I don't see it so much as a choice between "Not bombing" and "Bombing," however.

    I still need to read Rchanen's recommended article...cough cough...

    Have you seen what the GOP has been suggesting for 8 years now? What they got up to while controlling the government?

    Yeah, it does lose all meaning. Because at that point you are basically lumping all US foreign policy for the past 80 years or something under "bomb the shit out of it" which becomes a category so broad as to be useless.

    I was initially wondering if there was a candidate who wouldn't fuck up the Middle East, not generally describing the proposed foreign policies of the candidates. If you'd like, I'll say that Hillary wants to bomb the shit out of the Middle East whereas Trump and Cruz want to bomb TWO shits out of it, but this is the sort of absurd radicalization of American politics that outsiders often comment on, that because the Republicans are just so fucking crazy, we now have to all lie to ourselves about the Democrats being a buncha left-wing socialist hippies when they'd be, at best, centre-right in pretty much any other First World country.

    I think the major difference is that Hillary will wait until they do something to bomb them (or drone strike, which might be more likely). Trump/Cruz sound like they just want to start glassing the place day 1 preemptively.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    shryke
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    Considering Pres. Obama has expanded the multinational drone air strike program substantially beyond his predecessor, I don't think that really loses that much meaning. He has bombed the shit out of countries in an unprecedented fashion via comparatively new programs under his command like the SKYNET program (I swear that is its actual name). If you'd like to weigh that as "Well, at least he's not invading Pakistan," as I've seen many people whom support Washington have done in the past, you're welcome to do so, but I don't consider that a satisfactory outcome anymore than the excuse, "Well, perhaps Pres. Putin is bombing the shit out of Syria, but at least he hasn't invaded it with dozens of army divisions." Is it really a binary choice of one or the other?

    On the subject of Sen. Sanders personally, I recall he has articulated positions on Syria, though not necessarily ones I'd rally behind. He's previously disagreed with a unilateral no-fly zone (as suggested by some Republicans and supported for a time by Sen. Clinton)--on the other hand, he generally agrees with Pres. Obama's overall mission profile, which is something I personally don't agree with (now that I've had three years to see it in action). In my own view, the current arena seems to be heavily hawkish (without ignoring Sen. Clinton's own time as foreign minister), just as it has been in the past--of course, given America's almost comic-book-like military power, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Whoever replaces Pres. Obama is almost certainly going to be bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    I think we may be starting from the wrong place. Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic, but with the upcoming American election, I don't see it so much as a choice between "Not bombing" and "Bombing," however.

    I still need to read Rchanen's recommended article...cough cough...

    Have you seen what the GOP has been suggesting for 8 years now? What they got up to while controlling the government?

    Yeah, it does lose all meaning. Because at that point you are basically lumping all US foreign policy for the past 80 years or something under "bomb the shit out of it" which becomes a category so broad as to be useless.

    Than what do we call it? Because "not bombing," is substantially more meaningless, the last decade of the drone strike program's publicity campaign aside.

    Another option. "Not bombing" is not the only other one available. Terms like "bomb the shit out" are generally used in the context of discussions of US foreign policy to imply a disregard for alternative approaches and sanity. "He just wants to bomb the shit out of Syria" is the sort of thing that conjures images of, like, Cruz's proposals.

  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    I'll read that article today, been fairly busy the past few days.
    Polaritie wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    Considering Pres. Obama has expanded the multinational drone air strike program substantially beyond his predecessor, I don't think that really loses that much meaning. He has bombed the shit out of countries in an unprecedented fashion via comparatively new programs under his command like the SKYNET program (I swear that is its actual name). If you'd like to weigh that as "Well, at least he's not invading Pakistan," as I've seen many people whom support Washington have done in the past, you're welcome to do so, but I don't consider that a satisfactory outcome anymore than the excuse, "Well, perhaps Pres. Putin is bombing the shit out of Syria, but at least he hasn't invaded it with dozens of army divisions." Is it really a binary choice of one or the other?

    On the subject of Sen. Sanders personally, I recall he has articulated positions on Syria, though not necessarily ones I'd rally behind. He's previously disagreed with a unilateral no-fly zone (as suggested by some Republicans and supported for a time by Sen. Clinton)--on the other hand, he generally agrees with Pres. Obama's overall mission profile, which is something I personally don't agree with (now that I've had three years to see it in action). In my own view, the current arena seems to be heavily hawkish (without ignoring Sen. Clinton's own time as foreign minister), just as it has been in the past--of course, given America's almost comic-book-like military power, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Whoever replaces Pres. Obama is almost certainly going to be bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    I think we may be starting from the wrong place. Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic, but with the upcoming American election, I don't see it so much as a choice between "Not bombing" and "Bombing," however.

    I still need to read Rchanen's recommended article...cough cough...

    Have you seen what the GOP has been suggesting for 8 years now? What they got up to while controlling the government?

    Yeah, it does lose all meaning. Because at that point you are basically lumping all US foreign policy for the past 80 years or something under "bomb the shit out of it" which becomes a category so broad as to be useless.

    I was initially wondering if there was a candidate who wouldn't fuck up the Middle East, not generally describing the proposed foreign policies of the candidates. If you'd like, I'll say that Hillary wants to bomb the shit out of the Middle East whereas Trump and Cruz want to bomb TWO shits out of it, but this is the sort of absurd radicalization of American politics that outsiders often comment on, that because the Republicans are just so fucking crazy, we now have to all lie to ourselves about the Democrats being a buncha left-wing socialist hippies when they'd be, at best, centre-right in pretty much any other First World country.

    I think the major difference is that Hillary will wait until they do something to bomb them (or drone strike, which might be more likely). Trump/Cruz sound like they just want to start glassing the place day 1 preemptively.
    "Do something" is pretty vague.

    Kaputa on
    Panda4YouSynthesis
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    I have no idea what Sanders thinks of the Middle East. But he's pretty much the only hope, right?

    Not really imo. His statements always make me think he has little interest in foreign policy at all and doesn't seem to get the issue terribly well.

    I'd expect him generally to lean isolationist. Which I don't think is a good thing.

    Welll... aren't the three other front-runners all, "Bomb the shit out of it"?

    No?

    Well, I mean, Clinton isn't. The GOP has long advocated bombing anything that moves and isn't american. And the second part is negotiable.

    From the article, Clinton advocated dropping bombs on Libya and Syria.

    Yes, but that's a far different position from "bomb the shit out of it".

    Unless Obama is also all "bomb the shit out of it" in which case the phrase is losing all meaning, especially in this conversation that began with a comparison to Obama's foreign policy.

    Considering Pres. Obama has expanded the multinational drone air strike program substantially beyond his predecessor, I don't think that really loses that much meaning. He has bombed the shit out of countries in an unprecedented fashion via comparatively new programs under his command like the SKYNET program (I swear that is its actual name). If you'd like to weigh that as "Well, at least he's not invading Pakistan," as I've seen many people whom support Washington have done in the past, you're welcome to do so, but I don't consider that a satisfactory outcome anymore than the excuse, "Well, perhaps Pres. Putin is bombing the shit out of Syria, but at least he hasn't invaded it with dozens of army divisions." Is it really a binary choice of one or the other?

    On the subject of Sen. Sanders personally, I recall he has articulated positions on Syria, though not necessarily ones I'd rally behind. He's previously disagreed with a unilateral no-fly zone (as suggested by some Republicans and supported for a time by Sen. Clinton)--on the other hand, he generally agrees with Pres. Obama's overall mission profile, which is something I personally don't agree with (now that I've had three years to see it in action). In my own view, the current arena seems to be heavily hawkish (without ignoring Sen. Clinton's own time as foreign minister), just as it has been in the past--of course, given America's almost comic-book-like military power, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Whoever replaces Pres. Obama is almost certainly going to be bombing the shit out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    I think we may be starting from the wrong place. Maybe I'm being unduly pessimistic, but with the upcoming American election, I don't see it so much as a choice between "Not bombing" and "Bombing," however.

    I still need to read Rchanen's recommended article...cough cough...

    Have you seen what the GOP has been suggesting for 8 years now? What they got up to while controlling the government?

    Yeah, it does lose all meaning. Because at that point you are basically lumping all US foreign policy for the past 80 years or something under "bomb the shit out of it" which becomes a category so broad as to be useless.

    I was initially wondering if there was a candidate who wouldn't fuck up the Middle East, not generally describing the proposed foreign policies of the candidates. If you'd like, I'll say that Hillary wants to bomb the shit out of the Middle East whereas Trump and Cruz want to bomb TWO shits out of it, but this is the sort of absurd radicalization of American politics that outsiders often comment on, that because the Republicans are just so fucking crazy, we now have to all lie to ourselves about the Democrats being a buncha left-wing socialist hippies when they'd be, at best, centre-right in pretty much any other First World country.

    I think the major difference is that Hillary will wait until they do something to bomb them (or drone strike, which might be more likely). Trump/Cruz sound like they just want to start glassing the place day 1 preemptively.
    "Do something" is pretty vague.

    In Clinton's case I think "Do Something" likely involves either things related to US power or R2P doctrine but that all depends on your read on her foreign policy really.

  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    I'm halfway through that article, I'll post my thoughts of it soon.

    In news, there's been another bombing in Ankara. 25 dead at least. PKK being blamed.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35798517

    I was breathlessly posting several weeks ago, fretting over Saudi and Turkey's threats to enter Syria in a formal way. That didn't happen, and their threats were (yet again) shown to be empty. Guess I got carried away. However, I still I don't discount such an action, and any bombing like this (in a sensitive area of the capital city) provides a possible flash-point that will drive Turkey to do something stupid.

    mvaYcgc.jpg
    SynthesisRchanenCorehealer
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    32 dead and 75 injured in Ankara, after a car bomb went off.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    Panda4You
This discussion has been closed.