Another thing, "a Second Cold War"? Are you actually serious about this? Most people aren't up for WW3 over what, Facebook ads? Ridiculous.
We've been in a Cold War since the moment Russia and China decided that they weren't going to become democratic participants in a US led world.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Another thing, "a Second Cold War"? Are you actually serious about this? Most people aren't up for WW3 over what, Facebook ads? Ridiculous.
Active political espionage involving the theft of the millions of documents of one political party, the hacking of state voter registration systems, and I'm betting we will eventually learn the actual alteration of votes and/or voter registration. It wasn't just Facebook ads.
So this is what this is really about? Sending soldiers to die on a proxy war because people are still mad about 2016? Really?
And people said that Trump would wage wars to satisfy his ego.
I'm not saying we should commit troops to it. It's not that kind of war. Just that we should recognize that we are in an undeclared but active conflict with Russia, they started it, and so far, they are winning.
Another thing, "a Second Cold War"? Are you actually serious about this? Most people aren't up for WW3 over what, Facebook ads? Ridiculous.
Active political espionage involving the theft of the millions of documents of one political party, the hacking of state voter registration systems, and I'm betting we will eventually learn the actual alteration of votes and/or voter registration. It wasn't just Facebook ads.
So this is what this is really about? Sending soldiers to die on a proxy war because people are still mad about 2016? Really?
And people said that Trump would wage wars to satisfy his ego.
The world Russia and China want is one where pesky little things like humanitarian rights don't matter anymore, and every inch we budge on that brings us closer to that world. Protecting the Kurds and other minorities in Syria would be a just mission.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The US doesnt give a shit about the status of human rights in the middle east come on.
The US intervened in Syria because a lot of US government officials and military leaders actually do care. If they didn't they would have just let ISIS and Syria fight it out, casualties be damned, that would have been the realpolitik decision to make.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The US doesnt give a shit about the status of human rights in the middle east come on.
The US intervened in Syria because a lot of US government officials and military leaders actually do care. If they didn't they would have just let ISIS and Syria fight it out, casualties be damned, that would have been the realpolitik decision to make.
Of they were also eager for a proxy fight with russian interests just like this board.
The US doesnt give a shit about the status of human rights in the middle east come on.
The US intervened in Syria because a lot of US government officials and military leaders actually do care. If they didn't they would have just let ISIS and Syria fight it out, casualties be damned, that would have been the realpolitik decision to make.
Of they were also eager for a proxy fight with russian interests just like this board.
That is a complete contradiction of the record of the conflict. The US primarily targeted ISIS and had extensive deconfliction channels with Syria and Russia.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Would it be trite to point out our biggest allies in the region are Saudi Arabia and Israel?
Yeah I don't agree with US policy in regards to our allies in the region. I would put way more emphasis on democratic transition and human rights as a prerequisite to support and market access.
But the position I'm taking is way more hardline than what US political consensus is. I would sanction China for the Uighur camps, economic consequences be damned.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I think you should try to recognize that people actually do have ideals. Not everyone in the government and military is a cynical sociopath out only for money and power.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I think you should try to recognize that people actually do have ideals. Not everyone in the government and military is a cynical sociopath out only for money and power.
I think very few with power arent and the very nature of the system bends them into line with the dead eyed ghouls.
I think you should try to recognize that people actually do have ideals. Not everyone in the government and military is a cynical sociopath out only for money and power.
I think very few with power arent and the very nature of the system bends them into line with the dead eyed ghouls.
Then humanity is damned for all time, because the nature of power will never change.
Men of good character and high ideals have existed in the past, do exist now, and will exist in the future.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
+6
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Weve changed the nature of power many times. No one talks about the divine right of kings anymore.
This is all too esoteric at this point though. We're in Syria because we're an empire and view ISIS and Russia activity in the region as a threat to what we think is our business. We're friendly with the kurds there right now because our interests align, thats all.
Weve changed the nature of power many times. No one talks about the divine right of kings anymore.
This is all too esoteric at this point though. We're in Syria because we're an empire and view ISIS and Russia activity in the region as a threat to what we think is our business. We're friendly with the kurds there right now because our interests align, thats all.
That is the philosophical justification of power, not the nature of power. The USSR and PRC justify their power with the guardianship of the revolution, but the nature of their power is still the same as it ever was - men leading men, bound of trust and respect, or fear and threat.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Congress more told him they didn't want to take a choice because Paul Ryan is a fucking coward.
Also, for the record, there were like 500 US special forces in Syria before Trump's inauguration. Plenty of air strikes under Obama, but not many troops and no conventional ground troops.
Are you sure about the numbers?
Even now I'm not sure about the numbers. I've literally heard 2000 and 4000 as two separate estimates just today alone.
Another thing, "a Second Cold War"? Are you actually serious about this? Most people aren't up for WW3 over what, Facebook ads? Ridiculous.
Active political espionage involving the theft of the millions of documents of one political party, the hacking of state voter registration systems, and I'm betting we will eventually learn the actual alteration of votes and/or voter registration. It wasn't just Facebook ads.
So this is what this is really about? Sending soldiers to die on a proxy war because people are still mad about 2016? Really?
And people said that Trump would wage wars to satisfy his ego.
I'll also add that, as far as we know, there have been very few US casualties in Syria. Granted, we aren't going to get an exact count of casualties, given that we don't even have an exact count of the troop numbers, but there has been no evidence at all, not even a whiff of a rumour, that the US has suffered significant casualties in Syria. All the reporting we've heard so far has been that whenever anybody sees an American flag, they back the hell off, or if they don't, they get blown the fuck up.
Another thing, "a Second Cold War"? Are you actually serious about this? Most people aren't up for WW3 over what, Facebook ads? Ridiculous.
WW 3 isn't an option, therefore Cold War 2.0. Putin's been pushing for a Cold War with the West since at least Obama. The Cold War involved proxy wars (Vietnam, Korea etc) in the past and what Russia did to America in 2016 merits a response on that scale. We're already at war with Russia, it's just in the shadows. Yes, I am deadly serious. And the charges are a lot more than Facebook ads, check the Mueller threads - which includes one compromised National Security Advisor (Michael Flynn) and a captured Russian spy (Maria Butina). That's the tip of the iceberg in that investigation.
And it's not just America which has been fucked with by Russia. They've been antagonising the UK the last few months.
WW 3 isn't an option, therefore Cold War 2.0. Putin's been pushing for a Cold War with the West since at least Obama. The Cold War involved proxy wars (Vietnam, Korea etc) in the past and what Russia did to America in 2016 merits a response on that scale.
"stealing some emails and maybe getting into registration data justifies actual proxy war" is insane warmongering.
Look, if anything, recent events show that this new war is not going to be fought by the old rules. It will not be fought by soldiers in other countries. It will be fought (and is being fought) on the net, in the media - cable, print, and social - and quite possibly in voting machines. A war of propaganda, (dis)information, and opinion. It will be fought everywhere and nowhere, including "at home" in the US and UK.
I dunno, maybe you don't consider that stuff to be "real" war. There hasn't been much shooting involved, yet; and per above, there may not be. The idea (and mechanism) is no longer to invade your enemy, or to engage them in proxy fights, but to manipulate and encourage them to tear themselves apart. The sort of war that arises naturally when everything is connected and the threat of nuclear response takes conventional warfare off the table.
As much as it is to suggest people here want a proxy war with Russia.
Its pretty clear
It's not about what we want, we don't - it's an observation. Observing that we're in a Cold War is not the same thing as supporting it because all wars, cold and hot, are terrible. We're going to get it regardless, because America is in another Cold war with Russia, which means we're going to get this regardless. 1) Ignoring Russia on this sends a signal to ramp up hostilities since they'd sense a weakness of America not protecting itself or their interests IE blood in the water. 2) Any war engagement we get into will become a proxy war by default because Russia will support the opposition for the lolz of it all to stick to America. The last Cold War ended when the last Russian government fell, and that's not going to occur any time soon.
WW 3 isn't an option, therefore Cold War 2.0. Putin's been pushing for a Cold War with the West since at least Obama. The Cold War involved proxy wars (Vietnam, Korea etc) in the past and what Russia did to America in 2016 merits a response on that scale.
"stealing some emails and maybe getting into registration data justifies actual proxy war" is insane warmongering.
They did a lot more than that, they successfully hacked both parties for instance and a lot more (Wikileaks etc). Wars have been fought over for far less, Russia is just an opponent who has the soft and hard power to compete in/directly with the US. Wars are fought on more than a battlefield, psychological warfare has been around since the Persian Empire and the original Cold War itself. This is a reason why the USSR funded various anti-US government protest groups to take the fight out of the US government at home. America in turn has supported and installed various figures in governments favourable to its against the USSR and other hostile nations, for decades. The US may be a master at this (aside from Russia today) but don't underestimate that all nations do this to some extent. Because it works.
Cold Wars are complex scenarios on various fronts (like the Cuban Missile Crisis), while it boils in the background shaping things from both powerful nations who refuse to directly attack other for fear of destroying the world from the aftermath. We're simply in another one, with a slightly different enemy housed within the remnants of the old one.
I suggest researching more on the circumstances based on Russia's involvement with the 2016 election in the appropriate threads to learn the full scope of what we're up against.
I'm not saying this because I want war, far from it. I loathe war, and would gladly live in a world where peace reigns. However, it would be foolish of me to bury my head in the sand about the realities of the war we're living in right now and we've been in with Russia for the last few years.
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about. I mean like Jesus, no one is going to invade the US, you could always just choose not to fight in every war the comes up.
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more. A power vacuum is the womb of empire.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
WW 3 isn't an option, therefore Cold War 2.0. Putin's been pushing for a Cold War with the West since at least Obama. The Cold War involved proxy wars (Vietnam, Korea etc) in the past and what Russia did to America in 2016 merits a response on that scale.
"stealing some emails and maybe getting into registration data justifies actual proxy war" is insane warmongering.
That’s a gross oversimplification that is completely ignoring the consequences.
They didn’t just “steal some emails,” they directly and purposely influenced our election. And before anyone gets on a high horse pointing out how the US does it all the time, yes, I know. It still doesn’t make it right.
There are real consequences to this. The US State Department has been gutted, our economy is being severely weakened, and the management of the armed forces is being ran on a fucking whim backed up by who bought the last hotel.
The erosion of both US soft power (State Department diplomacy and the economy) and neutering of the military through the Commander and Chief can be seen; Saudi’s Arabia can gruesomely murder US residents, Russia can fuck with Ukrain again, Erdogan can dictate where the US operates, and the pullout of the Paris Climate Accourds (which is a big deal, the Pentagon has already released a report that climate change is real and expected to increase both violence and refugees).
Things are about to get a lot worse for the world. Thanks Putin.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I genuinely think we're seeing the end of the post WWII order here. In the last decade, decade before, one before that, you knew how things were broadly going to go.
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
WW 3 isn't an option, therefore Cold War 2.0. Putin's been pushing for a Cold War with the West since at least Obama. The Cold War involved proxy wars (Vietnam, Korea etc) in the past and what Russia did to America in 2016 merits a response on that scale.
"stealing some emails and maybe getting into registration data justifies actual proxy war" is insane warmongering.
That’s a gross oversimplification that is completely ignoring the consequences.
They didn’t just “steal some emails,” they directly and purposely influenced our election. And before anyone gets on a high horse pointing out how the US does it all the time, yes, I know. It still doesn’t make it right.
There are real consequences to this. The US State Department has been gutted, our economy is being severely weakened, and the management of the armed forces is being ran on a fucking whim backed up by who bought the last hotel.
The erosion of both US soft power (State Department diplomacy and the economy) and neutering of the military through the Commander and Chief can be seen; Saudi’s Arabia can gruesomely murder US residents, Russia can fuck with Ukrain again, Erdogan can dictate where the US operates, and the pullout of the Paris Climate Accourds (which is a big deal, the Pentagon has already released a report that climate change is real and expected to increase both violence and refugees).
.
Do you think this justifies war? Proxy or otherwise?
Things are about to get a lot worse for the world. Thanks Putin
Putin, as far as I'm aware, did not cast a single vote let along elect Trump. We're the sickness.
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
If you don't see any difference in the foreign policy of Bush and Obama then this conversation is clearly never going to go anywhere and I'm going to call it now.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
If you don't see any difference in the foreign policy of Bush and Obama then this conversation is clearly never going to go anywhere and I'm going to call it now.
You confuse differences in the competency of execution with differences in fundamental values. So yeah, no wild eyed rush into Iraq full of piss and bravado. Instead, we support the KSA in their war against Yemeni children, fuck around in Afghanistan for a bit, make sure some new slave markets open up in Libya and then do whatever that was supposed to be in Syria.
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
If you don't see any difference in the foreign policy of Bush and Obama then this conversation is clearly never going to go anywhere and I'm going to call it now.
You confuse differences in the competency of execution with differences in fundamental values.
Bush and Obama had incredibly different values. Is it just one big blob of capitalist imperialism to you, you can't see that there is in fact nuance and difference and contrast?
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
If you don't see any difference in the foreign policy of Bush and Obama then this conversation is clearly never going to go anywhere and I'm going to call it now.
You confuse differences in the competency of execution with differences in fundamental values.
Bush and Obama had incredibly different values. Is it just one big blob of capitalist imperialism to you, you can't see that there is in fact nuance and difference and contrast?
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
If you don't see any difference in the foreign policy of Bush and Obama then this conversation is clearly never going to go anywhere and I'm going to call it now.
You confuse differences in the competency of execution with differences in fundamental values.
Bush and Obama had incredibly different values. Is it just one big blob of capitalist imperialism to you, you can't see that there is in fact nuance and difference and contrast?
Values and policy aren't interchangeable terms.
Make your case then. Exactly what values did they share such that they are indistinguishable to you?
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
If you don't see any difference in the foreign policy of Bush and Obama then this conversation is clearly never going to go anywhere and I'm going to call it now.
You confuse differences in the competency of execution with differences in fundamental values.
Bush and Obama had incredibly different values. Is it just one big blob of capitalist imperialism to you, you can't see that there is in fact nuance and difference and contrast?
Values and policy aren't interchangeable terms.
Make your case then. Exactly what values did they share such that they are indistinguishable to you?
I thought I was being rather clear. Every president, across parties, and with more or less the full backing of their parties, has had a foreign policy centered around "The rest of the world is our business to the exact extent we so decide and we will liberally use military force to conduct that business". This has gone on for decades. Longer than you and I have been alive. A global blanket of US military force to be applied where and when we see fit is the core value of the United States of America in so far as foreign policy is concerned.
There is no party or major politician who, for instance, backs a foreign policy centered around nonviolent economic and health development. Sure, we do some of that, but you'd be insane to say our foreign policy is defined by building Liberian hospitals.
Posts
We've been in a Cold War since the moment Russia and China decided that they weren't going to become democratic participants in a US led world.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Why doesnt matter. Obama asked for permission but didnt get it and that should have been the end of it.
So this is what this is really about? Sending soldiers to die on a proxy war because people are still mad about 2016? Really?
And people said that Trump would wage wars to satisfy his ego.
The world Russia and China want is one where pesky little things like humanitarian rights don't matter anymore, and every inch we budge on that brings us closer to that world. Protecting the Kurds and other minorities in Syria would be a just mission.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The US intervened in Syria because a lot of US government officials and military leaders actually do care. If they didn't they would have just let ISIS and Syria fight it out, casualties be damned, that would have been the realpolitik decision to make.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Of they were also eager for a proxy fight with russian interests just like this board.
That is a complete contradiction of the record of the conflict. The US primarily targeted ISIS and had extensive deconfliction channels with Syria and Russia.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Yeah I don't agree with US policy in regards to our allies in the region. I would put way more emphasis on democratic transition and human rights as a prerequisite to support and market access.
But the position I'm taking is way more hardline than what US political consensus is. I would sanction China for the Uighur camps, economic consequences be damned.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Its pretty clear
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I think very few with power arent and the very nature of the system bends them into line with the dead eyed ghouls.
Then humanity is damned for all time, because the nature of power will never change.
Men of good character and high ideals have existed in the past, do exist now, and will exist in the future.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Israel isn’t an ally, it’s a country we prop up for domestic reasons.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
This is all too esoteric at this point though. We're in Syria because we're an empire and view ISIS and Russia activity in the region as a threat to what we think is our business. We're friendly with the kurds there right now because our interests align, thats all.
That is the philosophical justification of power, not the nature of power. The USSR and PRC justify their power with the guardianship of the revolution, but the nature of their power is still the same as it ever was - men leading men, bound of trust and respect, or fear and threat.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Are you sure about the numbers?
Even now I'm not sure about the numbers. I've literally heard 2000 and 4000 as two separate estimates just today alone.
I'll also add that, as far as we know, there have been very few US casualties in Syria. Granted, we aren't going to get an exact count of casualties, given that we don't even have an exact count of the troop numbers, but there has been no evidence at all, not even a whiff of a rumour, that the US has suffered significant casualties in Syria. All the reporting we've heard so far has been that whenever anybody sees an American flag, they back the hell off, or if they don't, they get blown the fuck up.
WW 3 isn't an option, therefore Cold War 2.0. Putin's been pushing for a Cold War with the West since at least Obama. The Cold War involved proxy wars (Vietnam, Korea etc) in the past and what Russia did to America in 2016 merits a response on that scale. We're already at war with Russia, it's just in the shadows. Yes, I am deadly serious. And the charges are a lot more than Facebook ads, check the Mueller threads - which includes one compromised National Security Advisor (Michael Flynn) and a captured Russian spy (Maria Butina). That's the tip of the iceberg in that investigation.
And it's not just America which has been fucked with by Russia. They've been antagonising the UK the last few months.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-investigation/uk-investigates-brexit-campaign-funding-amid-speculation-of-russian-meddling-idUSKBN1D157I
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43315636
Then there's their escalating relationship with the EU.
"stealing some emails and maybe getting into registration data justifies actual proxy war" is insane warmongering.
I dunno, maybe you don't consider that stuff to be "real" war. There hasn't been much shooting involved, yet; and per above, there may not be. The idea (and mechanism) is no longer to invade your enemy, or to engage them in proxy fights, but to manipulate and encourage them to tear themselves apart. The sort of war that arises naturally when everything is connected and the threat of nuclear response takes conventional warfare off the table.
It's not about what we want, we don't - it's an observation. Observing that we're in a Cold War is not the same thing as supporting it because all wars, cold and hot, are terrible. We're going to get it regardless, because America is in another Cold war with Russia, which means we're going to get this regardless. 1) Ignoring Russia on this sends a signal to ramp up hostilities since they'd sense a weakness of America not protecting itself or their interests IE blood in the water. 2) Any war engagement we get into will become a proxy war by default because Russia will support the opposition for the lolz of it all to stick to America. The last Cold War ended when the last Russian government fell, and that's not going to occur any time soon.
They did a lot more than that, they successfully hacked both parties for instance and a lot more (Wikileaks etc). Wars have been fought over for far less, Russia is just an opponent who has the soft and hard power to compete in/directly with the US. Wars are fought on more than a battlefield, psychological warfare has been around since the Persian Empire and the original Cold War itself. This is a reason why the USSR funded various anti-US government protest groups to take the fight out of the US government at home. America in turn has supported and installed various figures in governments favourable to its against the USSR and other hostile nations, for decades. The US may be a master at this (aside from Russia today) but don't underestimate that all nations do this to some extent. Because it works.
Cold Wars are complex scenarios on various fronts (like the Cuban Missile Crisis), while it boils in the background shaping things from both powerful nations who refuse to directly attack other for fear of destroying the world from the aftermath. We're simply in another one, with a slightly different enemy housed within the remnants of the old one.
I suggest researching more on the circumstances based on Russia's involvement with the 2016 election in the appropriate threads to learn the full scope of what we're up against.
I'm not saying this because I want war, far from it. I loathe war, and would gladly live in a world where peace reigns. However, it would be foolish of me to bury my head in the sand about the realities of the war we're living in right now and we've been in with Russia for the last few years.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about. I mean like Jesus, no one is going to invade the US, you could always just choose not to fight in every war the comes up.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more. A power vacuum is the womb of empire.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
That’s a gross oversimplification that is completely ignoring the consequences.
They didn’t just “steal some emails,” they directly and purposely influenced our election. And before anyone gets on a high horse pointing out how the US does it all the time, yes, I know. It still doesn’t make it right.
There are real consequences to this. The US State Department has been gutted, our economy is being severely weakened, and the management of the armed forces is being ran on a fucking whim backed up by who bought the last hotel.
The erosion of both US soft power (State Department diplomacy and the economy) and neutering of the military through the Commander and Chief can be seen; Saudi’s Arabia can gruesomely murder US residents, Russia can fuck with Ukrain again, Erdogan can dictate where the US operates, and the pullout of the Paris Climate Accourds (which is a big deal, the Pentagon has already released a report that climate change is real and expected to increase both violence and refugees).
Things are about to get a lot worse for the world. Thanks Putin.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
In five years, what will happen? I have no idea.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
Do you think this justifies war? Proxy or otherwise?
Putin, as far as I'm aware, did not cast a single vote let along elect Trump. We're the sickness.
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
If you don't see any difference in the foreign policy of Bush and Obama then this conversation is clearly never going to go anywhere and I'm going to call it now.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
You confuse differences in the competency of execution with differences in fundamental values. So yeah, no wild eyed rush into Iraq full of piss and bravado. Instead, we support the KSA in their war against Yemeni children, fuck around in Afghanistan for a bit, make sure some new slave markets open up in Libya and then do whatever that was supposed to be in Syria.
Different, but not really.
Bush and Obama had incredibly different values. Is it just one big blob of capitalist imperialism to you, you can't see that there is in fact nuance and difference and contrast?
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Values and policy aren't interchangeable terms.
Make your case then. Exactly what values did they share such that they are indistinguishable to you?
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I thought I was being rather clear. Every president, across parties, and with more or less the full backing of their parties, has had a foreign policy centered around "The rest of the world is our business to the exact extent we so decide and we will liberally use military force to conduct that business". This has gone on for decades. Longer than you and I have been alive. A global blanket of US military force to be applied where and when we see fit is the core value of the United States of America in so far as foreign policy is concerned.
There is no party or major politician who, for instance, backs a foreign policy centered around nonviolent economic and health development. Sure, we do some of that, but you'd be insane to say our foreign policy is defined by building Liberian hospitals.