Nationalism, in general, is pretty unhealthy, especially in this day and age where everyone is interconnected. You can't have a healthy global society when people are clinging to the notion that they and their neighbors are somehow inherently better than everyone else. It's okay to have some pride in your country, if there are, indeed, things to be proud of, but nationalism is taking it too far.
Tell that to the SNP
Or the Catalan separatists groups.
Or even the Bloc Quebecois or the political parties in Belgium that are almost all divided into linguistic camps that act very similarly.
Explicit ethno-nationalism is Not Okay in the United States. But Czechoslovakia is no longer a thing because of ethnic nationalism. Yugoslavia fragmented along ethnic lines. Russia's invasion of Crimea was predicated on the idea that the people living there were ethnically or at least linguistically Russian and therefore the area should be controlled by Russia.
Its one of the things, even with our still pretty terrible race issues, that the US is substantially more liberal than Europe or the developed Far East.
Until now, anyway.
0
Options
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
It's pretty crazy that only one president since the wall's conception in 1992 has confronted Israel with potential economic penalties over the construction of the West Bank Barrier.
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
It's pretty crazy that only one president since the wall's conception in 1992 has confronted Israel with potential economic penalties over the construction of the West Bank Barrier.
Why does the US government support all the losers in that part of the world anyway (this is not a moral question, more of a strategic one).
Like, the IDF command (of the last fifteen years or so) is terrified of casualties, got beaten up by Hezbollah, and spends all its time launching air strikes on barely armed Palestinian militias and civilians because they fire the occasional shitty little rocket. The US spent billions on supporting an Iraqi army which caved into it's constituent militias within a few days (and subsequently asked Iran for assistance), and are the main backers of the Saudis, whose military forces might as well be called internal security and left at that (I once read it called that the most powerful weapon in the Saudi armoury is their smartphone which they use to call the USAF and beg for help). The only US allies in the region worth a shit are Turkey and they're becoming more and more of an embarrassment these days as well, the way Erdogan is going.
Solar on
+1
Options
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
Ehhhh the Kurds might be underdogs but I wouldn't call them losers.
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
It's pretty crazy that only one president since the wall's conception in 1992 has confronted Israel with potential economic penalties over the construction of the West Bank Barrier.
Why does the US government support all the losers in that part of the world anyway (this is not a moral question, more of a strategic one).
Like, the IDF command (of the last fifteen years or so) is terrified of casualties, got beaten up by Hezbollah, and spends all its time launching air strikes on barely armed Palestinian militias and civilians because they fire the occasional shitty little rocket. The US spent billions on supporting an Iraqi army which caved into it's constituent militias within a few days (and subsequently asked Iran for assistance), and are the main backers of the Saudis, whose military forces might as well be called internal security and left at that (I once read it called that the most powerful weapon in the Saudi armoury is their smartphone which they use to call the USAF and beg for help). The only US allies in the region worth a shit are Turkey and they're becoming more and more of an embarrassment these days as well, the way Erdogan is going.
Everyone in the Middle East who tries to influence another country ends up a loser - the best move is not to play. So countries like Jordan and Kuwait still have good relations with the US. They generally are not actively meddling in Syria or Egypt or Yemen or Iraq.
I mean forget if they are shitty, because Lord knows the Sauds are horrible to their own people, some properly vile acts committed by that government, Turkey has a very nasty history when it comes to minorities within it's borders etc etc etc.
But even just states which are actually effective on an international level. Israel isn't, everyone around it hates them. It has an incredibly advanced military which it uses to mostly just bottle up an increasingly large population of very angry Palestinians and lose to Lebanese militias. Saudi Arabia isn't, everyone around it hates them too and their military is incredibly shit. Failing to do anything in Yemen except kill plenty of randoms. Iraq aren't even friends with the US any more, really, and it's basically fallen apart into three states at this stage.
Come on, surely someone in the White House actually has a plan other than "intervene in places, kind of watch them fall apart, prop up useless local allies." Look all I am saying is (to tie this into the topic at hand) that it surprises me that there's no Presidential Candidate willing to say "hey come on guys, our policies here clearly are not working at all and we need to make some new allies in the region." Hilary Clinton is pretty weirdly hawkish and it's on mostly the same lines of supporting those same allies as before, but I don't really see how the US benefits from propping up places which are, weirdly enough, closest to the hardcore Sunni Wahhabist/Deobandi/Salafist Jihadists that the "War on Terror" is focused on!
The US has supported and sometimes propped up some seriously shitty regimes and organizations in our history of interventionist foreign policy.
I mean going all the way back to the Spanish American war at least.
Truman doctrine didn't help.
You would think someone would realize most places we do this kinda thing in turn to shit after a century of doing it. But eh.
The leaders of shitty regimes are more willing to sign shitty trade/resource extraction deals in return for vast personal wealth (i.e. peanuts on the international politics scale).
One of the main things that ties together our string of government overthrows in the 20th century is that the targeted nations were talking about rewriting some really bad trade deal. That's how we ge\ot in the awkward position of overthrowing democratically elected governments then having to rationalize it by screaming that they were Soviet puppets - see Iran and Guatemala.
I mean forget if they are shitty, because Lord knows the Sauds are horrible to their own people, some properly vile acts committed by that government, Turkey has a very nasty history when it comes to minorities within it's borders etc etc etc.
But even just states which are actually effective on an international level. Israel isn't, everyone around it hates them. It has an incredibly advanced military which it uses to mostly just bottle up an increasingly large population of very angry Palestinians and lose to Lebanese militias. Saudi Arabia isn't, everyone around it hates them too and their military is incredibly shit. Failing to do anything in Yemen except kill plenty of randoms. Iraq aren't even friends with the US any more, really, and it's basically fallen apart into three states at this stage.
Come on, surely someone in the White House actually has a plan other than "intervene in places, kind of watch them fall apart, prop up useless local allies." Look all I am saying is (to tie this into the topic at hand) that it surprises me that there's no Presidential Candidate willing to say "hey come on guys, our policies here clearly are not working at all and we need to make some new allies in the region." Hilary Clinton is pretty weirdly hawkish and it's on mostly the same lines of supporting those same allies as before, but I don't really see how the US benefits from propping up places which are, weirdly enough, closest to the hardcore Sunni Wahhabist/Deobandi/Salafist Jihadists that the "War on Terror" is focused on!
I have some suspicion that Obama might try to cut the Saudi knot before he leaves. There have been moves in that direction, and there definitely seems to be something in the 9/11 Commission Report that's freaking the Saudis out.
I mean usually the US choose to prop up allies that will support our foreign policy actions and our business interests overseas.
With as many people as we've alienated by now it isn't surprising that the people who are desperate or dependant enough to ask for US support despite the strings we like to attach aren't exactly the cream of the crop when it comes to effectiveness.
As far as the domestic political side of this strategy you got me beat. It really is mostly feat mongering and othering that solidifies public opinion on the hawk side despite the fact that we don't have a very good track record.
when we talk about nationalism we're generally talking about over-emphasis on patriotism, place-of-birth and so on that we see in rightwing (and occasionally leftist) movements, not just like, general support for the concept of the nation state
ed: oh this has been covered I guess
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
saudi arabia is terrible but also stable, which is more than can be said for the various places the U.S. has tried to intervene in the last couple decades
which is basically what the U.S. wants out of the region: just like, have stable governments, don't export terrorists/militants (or in the saudi's case at least don't do it openly), let us do business there
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Yeah what's up with the 9/11 report and the Saudis?
0
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
If I were president, I would push for a Kurdish state made up of parts of Syria, Turkey and Iraq. They've been the only group in that area to consistently help us, and seem half way decent. And they got screwed when Britain divided up its territories after WW2.
Yeah what's up with the 9/11 report and the Saudis?
it's generally agreed that the redacted portions of the 9/11 report go into detail on the funding and support that the Saudi royal family gave to Osama bin Laden/Al-Qaeda and the degree to which the Saudis bear responsibility for 9/11 and other related acts of terrorism
but the Saudis are ostensibly our allies (and we have the lion's share of our middle-eastern military apparatus headquartered in Saudi Arabia), so we won't ever do anything to threaten that relationship, at least not while any Saudis who could be held legally culpable for 9/11 in civil court are still alive
If I were president, I would push for a Kurdish state made up of parts of Syria, Turkey and Iraq. They've been the only group in that area to consistently help us, and seem half way decent. And they got screwed when Britain divided up its territories after WW2.
It'll never happen. The Kurds are, very generally speaking, very left of American politics. Democratic Socialists, Anarchists of varying flavors and varieties, Communists, etc.
As much as the Kurds deserve a land of their own, and as much as we owe them for the sacrifices they've made supporting American causes and fighting the good fight, we will NEVER actually repay them for it.
If I were president, I would push for a Kurdish state made up of parts of Syria, Turkey and Iraq. They've been the only group in that area to consistently help us, and seem half way decent. And they got screwed when Britain divided up its territories after WW2.
I'm sure that won't have any repercussions and work beautifully, exactly like creating Israel did.
Yeah what's up with the 9/11 report and the Saudis?
it's generally agreed that the redacted portions of the 9/11 report go into detail on the funding and support that the Saudi royal family gave to Osama bin Laden/Al-Qaeda and the degree to which the Saudis bear responsibility for 9/11 and other related acts of terrorism
but the Saudis are ostensibly our allies (and we have the lion's share of our middle-eastern military apparatus headquartered in Saudi Arabia), so we won't ever do anything to threaten that relationship, at least not while any Saudis who could be held legally culpable for 9/11 in civil court are still alive
Obama has made noises that he might consider releasing those papers, and the Saudis have been freaking out. That's what I meant earlier when I said Obama might cut that Gordian Knot before he leaves. Release the papers, make a speech about how the U.S. needs to find better allies, and mic drop his way out of there.
That would be a good "Eisenhower military industrial complex speech" style sign-off for his presidency.
0
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
Yeah what's up with the 9/11 report and the Saudis?
it's generally agreed that the redacted portions of the 9/11 report go into detail on the funding and support that the Saudi royal family gave to Osama bin Laden/Al-Qaeda and the degree to which the Saudis bear responsibility for 9/11 and other related acts of terrorism
but the Saudis are ostensibly our allies (and we have the lion's share of our middle-eastern military apparatus headquartered in Saudi Arabia), so we won't ever do anything to threaten that relationship, at least not while any Saudis who could be held legally culpable for 9/11 in civil court are still alive
Obama has made noises that he might consider releasing those papers, and the Saudis have been freaking out. That's what I meant earlier when I said Obama might cut that Gordian Knot before he leaves. Release the papers, make a speech about how the U.S. needs to find better allies, and mic drop his way out of there.
That would be a good "Eisenhower military industrial complex speech" style sign-off for his presidency.
That'd be incredible?
But I sincerely doubt it
Obama's been in the "IDGAF" stage of his presidency for a while, but that seems like a step further than I'd ever expect
Ehhhh the Kurds might be underdogs but I wouldn't call them losers.
I mean you're right, the Kurds are pretty tough and have always produced effective fighters in Syria and Iraq
But I wouldn't say that the US really supports them, either, and certainly not in the same way it does the Saudis and the Israelis.
We ran a no-fly zone to protect them from air attacks for ten years. I'd say we definitely supported them.
e: In terms of getting a state, I'd never say never.
Zoel on
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
The ironic thing is, that Trump supporters are basically betting on someone, anybody, that at least has the possibility to tell the Saudis and Bibi to fuck off. If that's your single issue vote, going for the hardest anti-establishment option no matter what makes sense.
0
Options
masterofmetroidHave you ever looked at a worldand seen it as a kind of challenge?Registered Userregular
What makes you think Trump has any fucking idea in his head about foreign policy
No one really has any idea what that crazy bastard will do if he gets in.
+53
Options
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
A sizable chunk of Trump supports refuse to believe that his daughter married into Judaism because it would shatter their hopes for the future.
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
What makes you think Trump has any fucking idea in his head about foreign policy
He got a disk drive from rubio
e: 5.25
Zoel on
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
If I were president, I would push for a Kurdish state made up of parts of Syria, Turkey and Iraq. They've been the only group in that area to consistently help us, and seem half way decent. And they got screwed when Britain divided up its territories after WW2.
It'll never happen. The Kurds are, very generally speaking, very left of American politics. Democratic Socialists, Anarchists of varying flavors and varieties, Communists, etc.
As much as the Kurds deserve a land of their own, and as much as we owe them for the sacrifices they've made supporting American causes and fighting the good fight, we will NEVER actually repay them for it.
Plus them not at all being one united group, unlike the impression that's easy to get from various news reporting about 'kurds'.
+2
Options
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
A sizable chunk of Trump supports refuse to believe that his daughter married into Judaism because it would shatter their hopes for the future.
What?
I don't really want to embed it or link it but if you follow any Jewish columnist on twitter you can see a lot of the neo-nazis saying that the claim that Trumps daughter is Jewish is some sort of zionist lie designed to make trump lose the election and etc. etc.
It's the sort of stuff that made ((())) popular on twitter recently, where prominent Jewish Columnists would add that to their name to make it easier for anti-Semitics to find them; it was a sort of open mockery of the practice of neo-nazi's using (((@ user))) to identify that the specific user was a Jewish individual.
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
No one really has any idea what that crazy bastard will do if he gets in.
Agreed. I don't know why people try to predict what a President Trump would do when their time could be better spent on dehumanising themselves and facing to bloodshed.
I imagine Trump will be similar to a Bush administration in which his presidency is largely run by the cabinet and advisors. This will likely be conservative as fuck people to keep the base pleased, and the Establishment will approve because the election is over so Fuck the Center.
Trump doesn't even have to DO anything since the right wing excels at propaganda and can spent 4-8 years convincing the public his lies are golden truths. You can bet your ass the failure to build The Wall will be blamed squarely on democrats despite Trump having all three branches under his party (presumably the SCOTUS absentee will be filled by the next president).
+5
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I imagine Trump will be similar to a Bush administration in which his presidency is largely run by the cabinet and advisors. This will likely be conservative as fuck people to keep the base pleased, and the Establishment will approve because the election is over so Fuck the Center.
Trump doesn't even have to DO anything since the right wing excels at propaganda and can spent 4-8 years convincing the public his lies are golden truths. You can bet your ass the failure to build The Wall will be blamed squarely on democrats despite Trump having all three branches under his party (presumably the SCOTUS absentee will be filled by the next president).
This scenario is giving way more credit to the GOP than they deserve. So far since winning the nomination all Trump has managed to do is squander a one month campaign lead by attacking his own party and a judge overseeing a lawsuit against him. There's no reason to believe the establishment well take over his administration and much more reason to believe Trump will stuff his cabinet with his people and Republican outcasts that have jumped on his bandwagon.
I imagine Trump will be similar to a Bush administration in which his presidency is largely run by the cabinet and advisors. This will likely be conservative as fuck people to keep the base pleased, and the Establishment will approve because the election is over so Fuck the Center.
Trump doesn't even have to DO anything since the right wing excels at propaganda and can spent 4-8 years convincing the public his lies are golden truths. You can bet your ass the failure to build The Wall will be blamed squarely on democrats despite Trump having all three branches under his party (presumably the SCOTUS absentee will be filled by the next president).
This scenario is giving way more credit to the GOP than they deserve. So far since winning the nomination all Trump has managed to do is squander a one month campaign lead by attacking his own party and a judge overseeing a lawsuit against him. There's no reason to believe the establishment well take over his administration and much more reason to believe Trump will stuff his cabinet with his people and Republican outcasts that have jumped on his bandwagon.
If Trump wins, better clench your butts for Press Secretary Ann Coulter.
Trump will attempt to sell a large chunk of America back to the French. "Great news, we don't have to worry about the Mexican border now. Its the French's problem"
Posts
Until now, anyway.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
Why does the US government support all the losers in that part of the world anyway (this is not a moral question, more of a strategic one).
Like, the IDF command (of the last fifteen years or so) is terrified of casualties, got beaten up by Hezbollah, and spends all its time launching air strikes on barely armed Palestinian militias and civilians because they fire the occasional shitty little rocket. The US spent billions on supporting an Iraqi army which caved into it's constituent militias within a few days (and subsequently asked Iran for assistance), and are the main backers of the Saudis, whose military forces might as well be called internal security and left at that (I once read it called that the most powerful weapon in the Saudi armoury is their smartphone which they use to call the USAF and beg for help). The only US allies in the region worth a shit are Turkey and they're becoming more and more of an embarrassment these days as well, the way Erdogan is going.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
Everyone in the Middle East who tries to influence another country ends up a loser - the best move is not to play. So countries like Jordan and Kuwait still have good relations with the US. They generally are not actively meddling in Syria or Egypt or Yemen or Iraq.
I mean you're right, the Kurds are pretty tough and have always produced effective fighters in Syria and Iraq
But I wouldn't say that the US really supports them, either, and certainly not in the same way it does the Saudis and the Israelis.
I mean going all the way back to the Spanish American war at least.
Truman doctrine didn't help.
You would think someone would realize most places we do this kinda thing in turn to shit after a century of doing it. But eh.
But even just states which are actually effective on an international level. Israel isn't, everyone around it hates them. It has an incredibly advanced military which it uses to mostly just bottle up an increasingly large population of very angry Palestinians and lose to Lebanese militias. Saudi Arabia isn't, everyone around it hates them too and their military is incredibly shit. Failing to do anything in Yemen except kill plenty of randoms. Iraq aren't even friends with the US any more, really, and it's basically fallen apart into three states at this stage.
Come on, surely someone in the White House actually has a plan other than "intervene in places, kind of watch them fall apart, prop up useless local allies." Look all I am saying is (to tie this into the topic at hand) that it surprises me that there's no Presidential Candidate willing to say "hey come on guys, our policies here clearly are not working at all and we need to make some new allies in the region." Hilary Clinton is pretty weirdly hawkish and it's on mostly the same lines of supporting those same allies as before, but I don't really see how the US benefits from propping up places which are, weirdly enough, closest to the hardcore Sunni Wahhabist/Deobandi/Salafist Jihadists that the "War on Terror" is focused on!
The leaders of shitty regimes are more willing to sign shitty trade/resource extraction deals in return for vast personal wealth (i.e. peanuts on the international politics scale).
One of the main things that ties together our string of government overthrows in the 20th century is that the targeted nations were talking about rewriting some really bad trade deal. That's how we ge\ot in the awkward position of overthrowing democratically elected governments then having to rationalize it by screaming that they were Soviet puppets - see Iran and Guatemala.
I have some suspicion that Obama might try to cut the Saudi knot before he leaves. There have been moves in that direction, and there definitely seems to be something in the 9/11 Commission Report that's freaking the Saudis out.
With as many people as we've alienated by now it isn't surprising that the people who are desperate or dependant enough to ask for US support despite the strings we like to attach aren't exactly the cream of the crop when it comes to effectiveness.
As far as the domestic political side of this strategy you got me beat. It really is mostly feat mongering and othering that solidifies public opinion on the hawk side despite the fact that we don't have a very good track record.
ed: oh this has been covered I guess
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
which is basically what the U.S. wants out of the region: just like, have stable governments, don't export terrorists/militants (or in the saudi's case at least don't do it openly), let us do business there
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
it's generally agreed that the redacted portions of the 9/11 report go into detail on the funding and support that the Saudi royal family gave to Osama bin Laden/Al-Qaeda and the degree to which the Saudis bear responsibility for 9/11 and other related acts of terrorism
but the Saudis are ostensibly our allies (and we have the lion's share of our middle-eastern military apparatus headquartered in Saudi Arabia), so we won't ever do anything to threaten that relationship, at least not while any Saudis who could be held legally culpable for 9/11 in civil court are still alive
It'll never happen. The Kurds are, very generally speaking, very left of American politics. Democratic Socialists, Anarchists of varying flavors and varieties, Communists, etc.
As much as the Kurds deserve a land of their own, and as much as we owe them for the sacrifices they've made supporting American causes and fighting the good fight, we will NEVER actually repay them for it.
I'm sure that won't have any repercussions and work beautifully, exactly like creating Israel did.
Obama has made noises that he might consider releasing those papers, and the Saudis have been freaking out. That's what I meant earlier when I said Obama might cut that Gordian Knot before he leaves. Release the papers, make a speech about how the U.S. needs to find better allies, and mic drop his way out of there.
That would be a good "Eisenhower military industrial complex speech" style sign-off for his presidency.
That'd be incredible?
But I sincerely doubt it
Obama's been in the "IDGAF" stage of his presidency for a while, but that seems like a step further than I'd ever expect
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
We ran a no-fly zone to protect them from air attacks for ten years. I'd say we definitely supported them.
e: In terms of getting a state, I'd never say never.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
The miss universe pag*vomits*
He got a disk drive from rubio
e: 5.25
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
What?
A lot of Trump supporters are Nazis.
*Unironic argument presented by Trump supporters.
I don't really want to embed it or link it but if you follow any Jewish columnist on twitter you can see a lot of the neo-nazis saying that the claim that Trumps daughter is Jewish is some sort of zionist lie designed to make trump lose the election and etc. etc.
It's the sort of stuff that made ((())) popular on twitter recently, where prominent Jewish Columnists would add that to their name to make it easier for anti-Semitics to find them; it was a sort of open mockery of the practice of neo-nazi's using (((@ user))) to identify that the specific user was a Jewish individual.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
Agreed. I don't know why people try to predict what a President Trump would do when their time could be better spent on dehumanising themselves and facing to bloodshed.
my guess is a stress test of the executive branch
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Trump doesn't even have to DO anything since the right wing excels at propaganda and can spent 4-8 years convincing the public his lies are golden truths. You can bet your ass the failure to build The Wall will be blamed squarely on democrats despite Trump having all three branches under his party (presumably the SCOTUS absentee will be filled by the next president).
This scenario is giving way more credit to the GOP than they deserve. So far since winning the nomination all Trump has managed to do is squander a one month campaign lead by attacking his own party and a judge overseeing a lawsuit against him. There's no reason to believe the establishment well take over his administration and much more reason to believe Trump will stuff his cabinet with his people and Republican outcasts that have jumped on his bandwagon.