Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[eriados]

aight, i will not reply until the evidence emerges that shows how negotiating with russia as both trump and hillary have stated aims of doing, will start ww3.

is it cause women cant negotiate?

all the evidence you need is in this post: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/us-election-thread-read-post-2014.3546409/page-100#post-7087229

by the way I pulled those policy points directly from clinton's campaign website: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...truth-about-hillary-clintons-record-in-syria/

but by all means continue living in your echo chamber if that's what you want

 

[Myzozoa]

your entire theory that concludes in ww3 is premised on misrepresenting hillary clinton's proposal but i live in an echo chamber, k.

i like how you cite yourself

 

[eriados]

 

[TheValkyries]

On a scale of 1-10 how American is it to assume that negotiating joint strategy is interfering with Russian affairs?

Moreover how telling is it that the idea of two countries squabbling over imperialist interests in Syria causes ww3? It's not like Russia and the U.S. have been doing that dance for 70 years. Well in fairness the Soviet interests were explicitly anti-imperialist but you get the point.

Man this whole election reeked of zombified Cold War rhetoric and now this discussion is infected too.

 

[Soul Fly]

are we talking about the same country that actively interfered in US politics, and the president who called Trump "colorful"?

And are we talking about the same president-elect candidate that proposed walking out of the NATO? You know, the only thing that is literally counteracting Russian hegemony in East Europe, and maintaining any semblance of mediated intervention in the Middle East.... (in case people are really as uneducated as they sound)....

I'm no expert, but as far as anyone with half a brain can tell that's a much more conducive scenario for an armed conflict than any fortune cookie conspiracy people are assuming with Hillary.

sure, Russia is totally not gonna screw with the US and fuck it over in 15 different ways luring and deluding, and toying with this sycophant clown over the next 4 years.

 

[SteelEdges]

It's good that we're friends with Putin and World War 3 was prevented. Now when all those Syrians are gassed we don't have to worry about it.

 

[Cresselia~~]

It's good that we're friends with Putin and World War 3 was prevented. Now when all those Syrians are gassed we don't have to worry about it.

If the same amount of people would die from either one of a war, would you, as an America, prefer to have Americans die or Syrians to die?
Or does it really not matter which nationality dies? Not even when one of them is your nationality?

Are people justifying Clinton's war in Yugloslavia? (Or maybe everyone forgot?)

Since when does having a war less damaging than gassing people?
Having a war has way more damage to the society than gassing people. You could easily have famines after a war, causing a lot more people to die.

 

[brightobject]

https://twitter.com/bad_takes/status/799079032499343360

Trump fellows giving Japanese internment camps as a precedent for Muslim registries...it just couldn't get any better than this

 

[Codraroll]

it just couldn't get any better than this

Sad thing is... it absolutely could get "better". And probably will.

 

[Soul Fly]

http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/11/17/trump-just-caught-video-promising-rich-buddies-tax-cuts/

"The video itself shows Trump being welcomed with a thundering applause granted to a conquering hero. While he was shaking hands with unknown individuals he said, “We’ll get your taxes down. Don’t worry about it.” In response, individuals were shouting, “God bless you!”"

so you lie to the press to sneak out and to do exactly what you have blamed your opponent does throughout the campaign.

this guy is like a stereotype idiot-plutocrat out of the 70s.... hahahahahahahahahahahaha

who was in bed with the wall street and the big banks again?

disgusting.

 

[Mazinger]

There's many good reasons but I like to point out Hitler was actually a reasonable candidate for starters and I don't blame anyone who voted him because he really didn't come off as bad.

just checking in to see if everyone's ok

 

[atomicllamas]

maybe you missed the part where russia would never in a million years agree to a no-fly zone because it's flat out against their interests. nevermind that her whole policy seems to be centered around provoking russia's position in syria: increased intervention, removing Assad, more airstrikes? none of which would go over well in moscow.

this brings up an entertaining sidenote for me. most clinton supporters i had interacted with could not name one of her policies which they were in favor of.

I don't think Donald Trump can name a Donald Trump policy he is in favor of.

Also yeah, fuck trying to negotiate with other countries lets just assume what they will and won't do.

 

[Divine Retribution]

It's good that we're friends with Putin and World War 3 was prevented. Now when all those Syrians are gassed we don't have to worry about it.

I will not defend Assad. His regime is disgusting, its indiscriminate bombing of civilians and aid workers is indefensible, and his stance on Israel and support for and from North Korea is, to understate it, disturbing. However, rashly removing him from power is going to open up the same can of worms we've opened twice before, first when we killed Saddam Hussein, and again when Gaddafi was overthrown. Both of these people were deplorable, violent, even genocidal dictators, but the political vacuum they left behind killed far, far more people than they ever possibly could have.

The situation in Syria is much worse, because they have the direct backing of Russia, and an attack on the Assad regime would very likely lead to conflict with Russia. Russia knows they cannot defeat America in a conventional war. They've proven they know this during the Cold War, which was narrowly defused by the Kennedy administration. I don't know about you, but I get the feeling Trump's administration is going to lack the political and strategic experience to defuse such a situation if it were to arise again. The argument can be put forth that in the instance of a conflict between America and Russia, Russia's only hope of preserving itself as a world power would be to go nuclear immediately. Would you risk nuclear war with Russia to dethrone Assad? Would you sentence millions of people to death to do what you believe is the right thing?

I'm not suggesting we sit back and do nothing, however. Even from a purely self-centered point of view, it isn't in our own best interests either. However, direct conflict with Assad should be out of the question. At best, it creates yet another political vacuum in the Middle East, thousands of people get killed, and an opportunity arises for another ISIS-like group to emerge dominant. At worst, nuclear war between two superpowers with enough weapons between them to destroy every square mile of habitable land on the planet.

I don't like Assad either and I agree Syria needs to be liberated, but I'm not so eager to overthrow him that I'd see it reduced to a smouldering radioactive crater to that end.

 

[verbatim]

I will not defend Assad. His regime is disgusting, its indiscriminate bombing of civilians and aid workers is indefensible, and his stance on Israel and support for and from North Korea is, to understate it, disturbing. However, rashly removing him from power is going to open up the same can of worms we've opened twice before, first when we killed Saddam Hussein, and again when Gaddafi was overthrown. Both of these people were deplorable, violent, even genocidal dictators, but the political vacuum they left behind killed far, far more people than they ever possibly could have.

There are a lot of situations where military force is used, you cited two where the claim is that it ultimately took more lives, but there are also many situations where it saved significantly more lives.

To make a point, Operation Desert Shield (Gulf War 1) is one of the US's most successful military campaign in the past 50 years. They pushed Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and didn't pursue them/invade Iraq for some of the reasons you mentioned in your post.

Consequently, the proposed Clinton and Obama policies regarding Syria haven't been about removing Assad militarily but about saving civilians and refugee's (re the "no-fly zones").

 

[Divine Retribution]

There are a lot of situations where military force is used, you cited two where the claim is that it ultimately took more lives, but there are also many situations where it saved significantly more lives.

To make a point, Operation Desert Shield (Gulf War 1) is one of the US's most successful military campaign in the past 50 years. They pushed Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and didn't pursue them/invade Iraq for some of the reasons you mentioned in your post.

Consequently, the proposed Clinton and Obama policies regarding Syria haven't been about removing Assad militarily but about saving civilians and refugee's (re the "no-fly zones").

I wasn't arguing against military force in general, only in this particular instance.

A no-fly zone is impossible to enforce without military force (or at least the threat thereof), so you've failed to remedy the problem. Furthermore it doesn't address the problem of who or what is going to replace the Assad regime.

 

[Myzozoa]

http://bostonreview.net/forum/after-trump/robin-d-g-kelley-trump-says-go-back-we-say-fight-back#

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/japanese-internment-camps-muslims-231538

"
My uncle, separated by just one generation from me, was born in a Japanese American internment camp. The court case that approved the internment, Korematsu v. US, was never overturned by the Supreme Court. You can probably guess how a Trump-appointed justice (that was never his to appoint in the first place) will swing the court in relation to this decision.

There is absolutely no part of our system of checks and balances that can stop a Trump administration from detaining whoever they want based on their race or religion, because the precedent has been set, and over 70 years later, has not been reversed.

The rhetoric isn't targeting Japanese Americans in 2016, but I still understand how an entire generation of a group of Americans had to put their lives and dreams on hold, how they lost everything, and how they spent years in unsafe and inhumane conditions. I fear that our generation, perhaps sooner rather than later, is going to witness the same happen to our friends and coworkers, and perhaps some of us.

Are we done pretending everything's going to be okay? Do all the people preaching understanding and love for the plight of Trump supporters have any empathy left to give to the numerous groups of Americans that are scared for their lives and futures right now?

I'm at a loss for what action to take right now, except that the Supreme Court badly needs, at the very least, a moderate justice who is interested in making sure this never happens again. As far as I'm concerned, every person standing in the way of Obama appointing a moderate justice is enabling and encouraging Trump to authorize racially motivated mass detainment.
"

 

[verbatim]

I wasn't arguing against military force in general, only in this particular instance.

A no-fly zone is impossible to enforce without military force (or at least the threat thereof), so you've failed to remedy the problem. Furthermore it doesn't address the problem of who or what is going to replace the Assad regime.

A no-fly zone is a show of military force, it's a hedged bet, one aimed primarily at saving innocent lives (which is very important), rather than removing Assad (who specifically sparked the rebellion against him by killing innocent people) from power. It isn't worthless just because it doesn't solve everything.


Realistically speaking all of the involved countries should be cooperating to distinguish between the different groups involved (and there are a LOT). Russia and the Assad regime are complicating things because Assad doesn't want to step down and Russia doesn't want to lose its naval bases.

 

[Divine Retribution]

A no-fly zone is a show of military force, it's a hedged bet, one aimed primarily at saving innocent lives (which is very important), rather than removing Assad (who specifically sparked the rebellion against him by killing innocent people) from power. It isn't worthless just because it doesn't solve everything.

Don't you think that something like this could provoke Russia? Is that risk you think is worth taking?

 

[verbatim]

Yes, yes.

 

[JES]

If the same amount of people would die from either one of a war, would you, as an America, prefer to have Americans die or Syrians to die?
Or does it really not matter which nationality dies? Not even when one of them is your nationality?

Are people justifying Clinton's war in Yugloslavia? (Or maybe everyone forgot?)

Since when does having a war less damaging than gassing people?
Having a war has way more damage to the society than gassing people. You could easily have famines after a war, causing a lot more people to die.

Do we really have to choose? This isn't the fault of Syrians not being able to take out their tyrant leader and take one Star Wars style, but boy, are they suffering for it, and it breaks my heart!

I mean, it is them who has been bombing civilians and children's hospitals, right? Couldn't we just make clear that it has to stop from a moral standpoint? Would they really give us an offer we couldn't refuse? Though to be honest, I would have stepped in when Assad called the bluff, said "oh why did you have to do that, now you give me no choice", and armed the moderate Syrian rebels, maybe including with deliveries older tanks and fighter jets if necessary to put them on an even footing. Or would that have been too aggressive? Maybe it is a good thing I have no interests of in being in a position to make such decisions!

Now all that is left are people who have been radicalized, and so much of the country's infrastructure is gone. I think the last children's hospital was taken out in Allepo, right? Or was that by ISIS? Seems it was done by Assad and supported by Russia and Iran.

At this point, I don't think Russia deserves a presence in Syria unless they are willing to prevent civilian casualties. Would they really declare war on the U.S. if they were forced out of Syria or their warplanes were no longer allowed to make bombing runs that kill civilians? If they wanted to start WW-III because they didn't get their way, then if that isn't a dick move, I don't know what is.

 

[Divine Retribution]

At this point, I don't think Russia deserves a presence in Syria unless they are willing to prevent civilian casualties. If they wanted to start WW-III because they didn't get their way, then if that isn't a dick move, I don't know what is.

You seem to think that "dick moves" are uncharacteristic of Russia's government. You know, the one responsible for Stalinism, Leninism, and a body count that to this day hasn't been accurately measured.

I would not rest the fate of the world as we know it on the hope that Russia acts sensibly and doesn't initiate a nuclear first strike. That is simply not a safe gamble, given Russia's policies and history.

 

[JES]

You seem to think that "dick moves" are uncharacteristic of Russia's government. You know, the one responsible for Stalinism, Leninism, and a body count that to this day hasn't been accurately measured.

I would not rest the fate of the world as we know it on the hope that Russia acts sensibly and doesn't initiate a nuclear first strike. That is simply not a safe gamble, given Russia's policies and history.

The leadership does know that we probably know where their bunkers are, right? They might be the first to die. Our nukes are still aimed at targets throughout the Russian Federation in case they decided they just wanted to off us!

Besides, using that excuse, they, if they were crazy enough, could one day also threaten us with nuclear annihilation if we don't let them annex us into the Russian Federation, for reasons. Or declare that the world is theirs, and if they can't have it, nobody should!

"You Yankees want to join the Russian Federation, eh? It'd be a shame if you said no. For everybody!".

Sorry, I'm probably getting too passionate for my own good, but the Russians shouldn't be able to do whatever the hell they want, because if we don't, they'll just ruin it for everybody!

 

[Divine Retribution]

The leadership does know that we probably know where their bunkers are, right? They might be the first to die. Our nukes are still aimed at targets throughout the Russian Federation in case they decided they just wanted to off us!

Besides, using that excuse, they, if they were crazy enough, could one day also threaten us with nuclear annihilation if we don't let them annex us into the Russian Federation, for reasons. Or declare that the world is theirs, and if they can't have it, nobody should!

These two scenarios are not even remotely comparable. In one situation, we have other options, such as giving aid to the rebels by means of a proxy while simultaneously putting economic sanctions on the Assad regime. In the other situation, we have no other option but military action.

Sorry, I'm probably getting too passionate for my own good, but the Russians shouldn't be able to do whatever the hell they want, because if we don't, they'll just ruin it for everybody!

Sadly, having nuclear weapons does give you a hell of a lot more power than it should, because any action made against you must be done so in consideration of the fact that you could press the big red button and kill millions of people just because you feel like it.

Ultimately the genie is out of the bottle, Pandora's box has been opened, and nuclear weapons exist. Murphy's law states that anything that can happen will happen if given enough of an opportunity, so I suppose it's only a matter of time before we experience a nuclear conflict, seeing as that seems a hell of a lot more likely than us smartening up as a species, and agreeing to and honoring a universal nuclear disarmament pact. I'd just like to avoid it for as long as we possibly can.

 

[JES]

These two scenarios are not even remotely comparable. In one situation, we have other options, such as giving aid to the rebels by means of a proxy while simultaneously putting economic sanctions on the Assad regime. In the other situation, we have no other option but military action.


Sadly, having nuclear weapons does give you a hell of a lot more power than it should, because any action made against you must be done so in consideration of the fact that you could press the big red button and kill millions of people just because you feel like it.

Ultimately the genie is out of the bottle, Pandora's box has been opened, and nuclear weapons exist. Murphy's law states that anything that can happen will happen if given enough of an opportunity, so I suppose it's only a matter of time before we experience a nuclear conflict, seeing as that seems a hell of a lot more likely than us smartening up as a species, and agreeing to and honoring a universal nuclear disarmament pact. I'd just like to avoid it for as long as we possibly can.

Because the Russians feel they have a right to be in Syria, and we should keep our noses out of said country. That is the only reason why they would even think about escalating to a nuclear strike where nobody would win, and they wouldn't get to keep Syria anyways, because their country would be a radioactive wasteland. They'd be too busy trying to survive.

And I totally agree we should just get rid of the MAD doctrine. Or at least reduce it to enough weapons that only the offending parties would be wiped out. Boxing or destroying the damned things would be for the best though I think.
Frankly, given the threat, I'm surprised that the non-nuclear powers didn't threaten to make a alliance pact an try to destroy our nukes if we didn't cut it out, since if a nuclear war started, they could and would likely be wiped out too, regardless of whether they wanted to be involved at all.

Actually, that might make for an interesting fictional story. A world at the end of a second WW-II similar to ours gripped by the threat of yet another world war if two opposing nuclear powers don't reduce their weapons to the point of only wiping out each other. That could end in many different ways.

 

[brightobject]

so are we gonna keep throwing around hypotheticals regarding an immensely complex geopolitical situation abroad or focus on the the Trump campaign's (by their own admission) Japanese internment camps v 2.0?