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.
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
What the US wants out of the region is for oil to continue to be priced in US dollars, and for Saudi Arabia to not divest its massive holdings of US Treasury bills. Saudi Arabia has been under the protection of the United States since the 70s because they agreed to price their oil exclusively in dollars post Bretton Woods, and reinvest the profits in Treasury bills, starting with the Technical Cooperation Agreement and then the Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation. Read up on the petrodollar system if you want to understand US foreign policy in the Middle East. Uninformed people like to say "it's about oil", and the facile nature of the statement evokes a reactionary "no it's not" from slightly more informed people, but really, oil is involved.
there's a (likely untrue imo) but coincidentally fun theory that the Bush-era axis of evil involved the countries it did because all three in a relatively short time decided to stop pricing their oil sales in dollars in favor of euros
at this point it seems kinda unlikely that the euro will replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency anyway
Yeah, I doubt a group of black-robed bonesmen sat down in a room and were like, "Enter Syria unto The Book", but I do think that when considering the various regimes who'd committed heinous crimes, maybe it was in the back of some people's minds, who then advocated in one way or another.
yeah it seems pretty naïve to pretend like "directly challenging US economic hegemony in the region" isn't something that would have at the very least factored into the decision to invade and such
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
why would you put that image in my head
this is hateful
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
PwnanObrienHe's right, life sucks.Registered Userregular
At the very least the superdelegates vocalizing their intent to support Hillary Clinton influenced voters with the bandwaggon effect. Maybe make it a policy that they can't speak about who they're voting for before the state primaries because man that California thing alone was a shitshow that hurt everybody but Trump.
And you're going to square that policy with the Constitution...how, exactly?
The bandwagon effect has been horribly overrated.
Are you seriously making the freedom of speech argument? You know that NDAs, non-disparity clauses and gag orders all exist. We already have ways of regulating professions and elected officials on what they can and can't disclose.
edit: Yes! I want this to be one of the last posts before the thread gets locked. Give me that sweet sweet visual irony.
I think the primaries should drop delegates completely.
It's 2016, we've got calculators, and we count the votes anyways.
The primaries don't have to be tied to the traditional electoral college.
1 person 1 vote, with Early Mail in Ballots.
Get it done democrats.
+7
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
At the very least the superdelegates vocalizing their intent to support Hillary Clinton influenced voters with the bandwaggon effect. Maybe make it a policy that they can't speak about who they're voting for before the state primaries because man that California thing alone was a shitshow that hurt everybody but Trump.
And you're going to square that policy with the Constitution...how, exactly?
The bandwagon effect has been horribly overrated.
Are you seriously making the freedom of speech argument? You know that NDAs, non-disparity clauses and gag orders all exist. We already have ways of regulating professions and elected officials on what they can and can't disclose.
edit: Yes! I want this to be one of the last posts before the thread gets locked. Give me that sweet sweet visual irony.
The bigger problem is the super delegates that have to win their own primaries and therefore probably signal how they may or may not vote.
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
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
I think the primaries should drop delegates completely.
It's 2016, we've got calculators, and we count the votes anyways.
The primaries don't have to be tied to the traditional electoral college.
1 person 1 vote, with Early Mail in Ballots.
Get it done democrats.
as far as the nominee goes, sure
but the convention would still have to happen since they do a bunch of other shit there
At the very least the superdelegates vocalizing their intent to support Hillary Clinton influenced voters with the bandwaggon effect. Maybe make it a policy that they can't speak about who they're voting for before the state primaries because man that California thing alone was a shitshow that hurt everybody but Trump.
And you're going to square that policy with the Constitution...how, exactly?
The bandwagon effect has been horribly overrated.
Are you seriously making the freedom of speech argument? You know that NDAs, non-disparity clauses and gag orders all exist. We already have ways of regulating professions and elected officials on what they can and can't disclose.
edit: Yes! I want this to be one of the last posts before the thread gets locked. Give me that sweet sweet visual irony.
Yes, because limitations on political speech should be highly regulated and scrutinized. And frankly, your argument is a bad one from the get go. The point of these delegates announcing their support is to convince people to support the candidate they back. Why should they not be allowed to do that?
So yeah, give me a good reason to limit political speech, because you haven't yet.
I think the primaries should drop delegates completely.
It's 2016, we've got calculators, and we count the votes anyways.
The primaries don't have to be tied to the traditional electoral college.
1 person 1 vote, with Early Mail in Ballots.
Get it done democrats.
I think the primaries should drop delegates completely.
It's 2016, we've got calculators, and we count the votes anyways.
The primaries don't have to be tied to the traditional electoral college.
1 person 1 vote, with Early Mail in Ballots.
Get it done democrats.
Yes, because hey, screw rural constituencies.
you know that somebody is going to ask you what you mean by this
so why didn't you just say that instead of doing this
I can see why the constitution split the difference because the idea that places should get a voice proportional to their population makes sense but the idea that all member states of a federation should get an equal say on federal issues also makes sense
Posts
yeah it seems pretty naïve to pretend like "directly challenging US economic hegemony in the region" isn't something that would have at the very least factored into the decision to invade and such
this is hateful
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
Are you seriously making the freedom of speech argument? You know that NDAs, non-disparity clauses and gag orders all exist. We already have ways of regulating professions and elected officials on what they can and can't disclose.
edit: Yes! I want this to be one of the last posts before the thread gets locked. Give me that sweet sweet visual irony.
It's 2016, we've got calculators, and we count the votes anyways.
The primaries don't have to be tied to the traditional electoral college.
1 person 1 vote, with Early Mail in Ballots.
Get it done democrats.
The bigger problem is the super delegates that have to win their own primaries and therefore probably signal how they may or may not vote.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
as far as the nominee goes, sure
but the convention would still have to happen since they do a bunch of other shit there
Yes, because limitations on political speech should be highly regulated and scrutinized. And frankly, your argument is a bad one from the get go. The point of these delegates announcing their support is to convince people to support the candidate they back. Why should they not be allowed to do that?
So yeah, give me a good reason to limit political speech, because you haven't yet.
Yes, because hey, screw rural constituencies.
you know that somebody is going to ask you what you mean by this
so why didn't you just say that instead of doing this
yeah especially since homura would be the NRA supp hey wait a second