If political science does not deal with foreign policy, what does?
Gender Studies
Actually, I am seeing more and more that any degree in political science doesn't mean much without qualifiers... At my school you can get a Poli-sci degree, and having talked to one of the professors about doing a minor in it... there are a few "focuses" for undergrad work. Yes, you can focus on foreign policy which would focus more globally, but there's also Public Policy which deals almost exclusively with domestic issues, and then there's actually a focus for even more academic stuff, which would better suit someone who does it to enter a classroom and teach political science basics (which would've been where I'd gone, because I'm tryin' to be a HS teacher)
So, depending on the person's actual CV, their school and their degree, it is actually entirely possible that a person with a political science degree learned very little about foreign policy.
skyth wrote: That's fine. However, sourcing something from just Fox is akin to sourcing something from The Onion...
Right... when you wish to have credibility in your postings, it helps to not post things that are blatantly outlandish, such as this.
Considering Fox has the credibility of a dead hedgehog, how is that "blatantly outlandish"?
Right... it has the same level of credibility as just about every link that Cpt. posted just up. Every journalism organization "lies", and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. To compare them to a website whose sole role is satirical postings that have no relevance on reality, is outlandish.
If political science does not deal with foreign policy, what does?
Gender Studies
Actually, I am seeing more and more that any degree in political science doesn't mean much without qualifiers... At my school you can get a Poli-sci degree, and having talked to one of the professors about doing a minor in it... there are a few "focuses" for undergrad work. Yes, you can focus on foreign policy which would focus more globally, but there's also Public Policy which deals almost exclusively with domestic issues, and then there's actually a focus for even more academic stuff, which would better suit someone who does it to enter a classroom and teach political science basics (which would've been where I'd gone, because I'm tryin' to be a HS teacher)
So, depending on the person's actual CV, their school and their degree, it is actually entirely possible that a person with a political science degree learned very little about foreign policy.
But I thought a 100 level core requirement made you an expert on said topics?
skyth wrote: That's fine. However, sourcing something from just Fox is akin to sourcing something from The Onion...
Right... when you wish to have credibility in your postings, it helps to not post things that are blatantly outlandish, such as this.
Considering Fox has the credibility of a dead hedgehog, how is that "blatantly outlandish"?
Right... it has the same level of credibility as just about every link that Cpt. posted just up. Every journalism organization "lies", and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. To compare them to a website whose sole role is satirical postings that have no relevance on reality, is outlandish.
Not as outlandish as claiming that every bias is equally bad. That's a rubbish argument, and you should feel bad for making it.
skyth wrote: That's fine. However, sourcing something from just Fox is akin to sourcing something from The Onion...
Right... when you wish to have credibility in your postings, it helps to not post things that are blatantly outlandish, such as this.
Considering Fox has the credibility of a dead hedgehog, how is that "blatantly outlandish"?
Right... it has the same level of credibility as just about every link that Cpt. posted just up. Every journalism organization "lies", and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. To compare them to a website whose sole role is satirical postings that have no relevance on reality, is outlandish.
Not as outlandish as claiming that every bias is equally bad. That's a rubbish argument, and you should feel bad for making it.
I'll try not to lose any sleep over it. *rolls eyes*
Don't ya know djones? Political Science majors are experts in Foreign Policy!
It is usually part of the curriculum, especially at places like Rice.
Ah... that Ivory Tower defense.
:shakes head:
Point being all of this makes sense.
What we have, in this case, are targeted lies - schemes to deceive - AND willing stooges in the media willing to transmit those lies crafted in a PR policy in an attempt to build Obama's legacy (which allows Iran Nukes).
Any dissent is simply struck down because... why? I'll leave that up to you to fill in the blanks.
If only the Bushes, B. Clinton, Reagan, Carter and even NIXON had that relationship to the press.
Don't ya know djones? Political Science majors are experts in Foreign Policy!
It is usually part of the curriculum, especially at places like Rice.
Ah... that Ivory Tower defense.
:shakes head:
Point being all of this makes sense.
What we have, in this case, are targeted lies - schemes to deceive - AND willing stooges in the media willing to transmit those lies crafted in a PR policy in an attempt to build Obama's legacy (which allows Iran Nukes).
Any dissent is simply struck down because... why? I'll leave that up to you to fill in the blanks.
If only the Bushes, B. Clinton, Reagan, Carter and even NIXON had that relationship to the press.
skyth wrote: If you seriously believe something like this from Fox 'news' (ie the company that fought in court to be able to lie), I have a bridge to sell you...
Did I claim to believe it?
No, I did not.
What I did do was point out Fox and the hacker are in no position to provide proof. Do you disagree with that statement?
If there's no proof why should anyone believe anything?
Don't ya know djones? Political Science majors are experts in Foreign Policy!
It is usually part of the curriculum, especially at places like Rice.
Ah... that Ivory Tower defense.
:shakes head:
Point being all of this makes sense.
What we have, in this case, are targeted lies - schemes to deceive - AND willing stooges in the media willing to transmit those lies crafted in a PR policy in an attempt to build Obama's legacy (which allows Iran Nukes).
Any dissent is simply struck down because... why? I'll leave that up to you to fill in the blanks.
If only the Bushes, B. Clinton, Reagan, Carter and even NIXON had that relationship to the press.
Don't ya know djones? Political Science majors are experts in Foreign Policy!
It is usually part of the curriculum, especially at places like Rice.
Ah... that Ivory Tower defense.
:shakes head:
Point being all of this makes sense.
What we have, in this case, are targeted lies - schemes to deceive - AND willing stooges in the media willing to transmit those lies crafted in a PR policy in an attempt to build Obama's legacy (which allows Iran Nukes).
Any dissent is simply struck down because... why? I'll leave that up to you to fill in the blanks.
If only the Bushes, B. Clinton, Reagan, Carter and even NIXON had that relationship to the press.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Did... did you just call out Whataboutism and then endorse it in the same post because one of the quotes was your side and the other wasn't? Really?
That's been par for the course since the start of this thread.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Outraged? That politicians lie, or at least spin the truth, to get gullible voters to believe what they want to them to believe?
Spoiler:
Isn't that the basis for the steady shrieking from the left about Iraq we've all had to endure for the past ~decade?
It's slightly more nuanced than that.
The problem with the Iraq War was that Bush decided to invade and get rid of Saddam, then made up a load of crap, aided and abetted by Bliar, in order to create a pretext.
Huge numbers of people never believed the ridiculous statements made to support war, and predicted exactly the kind of scenario that actually did unfold. Not unnaturally we have been complaining about it ever since and we have a perfect right to.
Invading Iraq unnecessarily without a follow-up plan created the circumstances led to the completely gakky situation in the Middle East today, which keeps expanding to places like the Yemen, Sudan and Nigeria and we've got no good idea how to solve. When you look at these consequences which actually are worse than anyone imagined, the decision to invade Iraq was possibly the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of the western world.
If this is "shrieking" then I hope the next time a hot-headed president wants to plunge the country into a foreign military adventure he might listen a bit more to the "shrieking" in advance.
No Whembly, it isn't any more perverse. The tactics are the exact same. Just because you agreed with one side's use of them (or at least seem to dismiss them) and disagree with the other doesn't mean they don't both do (and have done) it for many years. It doesn't excuse it at all, but at least be intellectually honest about it. They all have "that relationship with the press" because the press wants access to get the scoop to be able to sell ads and administrations have agendas and narratives they want to promote. That is the way it works.
Gordon Shumway wrote: No Whembly, it isn't any more perverse. The tactics are the exact same. Just because you agreed with one side's use of them (or at least seem to dismiss them) and disagree with the other doesn't mean they don't both do (and have done) it for many years. It doesn't excuse it at all, but at least be intellectually honest about it. They all have "that relationship with the press" because the press wants access to get the scoop to be able to sell ads and administrations have agendas and narratives they want to promote. That is the way it works.
That's how it works today.
But it shouldn't.
So can we know agree that this Iran "deal" was nothing more than a means to build Obama's legacy... and not for altruistic reasons?
whembly wrote: So can we know agree that this Iran "deal" was nothing more than a means to build Obama's legacy... and not for altruistic reasons?
No we can't all agree to that.
The president could have cured cancer, personally lead a colonization expedition to Mars, and invented an fething perpetual motion machine and you would still sit there and claim he's just doing it to "build a legacy" instead of trying to do the right thing. Look, I couldn't stand George W. Bush as a president, but I never once doubted that he didn't do anything for any reason other than it's what he felt was the right thing to do, even if I vehemently disagreed with it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Did... did you just call out Whataboutism and then endorse it in the same post because one of the quotes was your side and the other wasn't? Really?
That's been par for the course since the start of this thread.
So, depending on the person's actual CV, their school and their degree, it is actually entirely possible that a person with a political science degree learned very little about foreign policy.
But not with a political science major from a place like Rice, also known as "Texas Harvard".
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Look, I couldn't stand George W. Bush as a president, but I never once doubted that he didn't do anything for any reason other than it's what he felt was the right thing to do, even if I vehemently disagreed with it.
I really couldn't stand GWB, and my dad really can't stand Obama. We know this about each other and we are totally okay with it . A few years ago he was visiting me and was a bit surprised to find GWB's "Decision Points" in my book shelf next to Bill Clinton's "My Life". I told him that I feel that even if I didn't like the person that was the president, I feel like it is at least worth listening to their stories after they leave office to see what drove them to do what they did and to me it feels like giving them a chance to share their own thoughts is part of respecting the office of the presidency.
To bring it back around to the quote: even though we both have very opposite thoughts on politics, although they do intersect in various areas of libertarianism, and completely different opinions about the various presidents, neither one of us thinks that they had any malicious indent and we both think that while they have completely different ideas regarding the direction our country should take, they did everything they did out of a love for the country and wanting to see it become a better place. I don't think that Bush wanted to screw over the poor, minorities, and send youths to their death so that his oil buddies can become rich. He doesn't think that Obama wants to destroy America so that his communists Muslim brethren can pick up the pieces. We both think that even though many presidents have completely different goals and ideals for the country, they actually care about the country and genuinely just want the best for it.
Even though we have opposite ideologies, I credit my dad a lot for the way I view things in the world.
Gordon Shumway wrote: No Whembly, it isn't any more perverse. The tactics are the exact same. Just because you agreed with one side's use of them (or at least seem to dismiss them) and disagree with the other doesn't mean they don't both do (and have done) it for many years. It doesn't excuse it at all, but at least be intellectually honest about it. They all have "that relationship with the press" because the press wants access to get the scoop to be able to sell ads and administrations have agendas and narratives they want to promote. That is the way it works.
That's how it works today.
But it shouldn't.
So can we know agree that this Iran "deal" was nothing more than a means to build Obama's legacy... and not for altruistic reasons?
whembly wrote: So can we know agree that this Iran "deal" was nothing more than a means to build Obama's legacy... and not for altruistic reasons?
No we can't all agree to that.
Okay. Cool.
The president could have cured cancer, personally lead a colonization expedition to Mars, and invented an fething perpetual motion machine and you would still sit there and claim he's just doing it to "build a legacy" instead of trying to do the right thing.
I would not. You don't believe me, but that's not my problem.
Look, I couldn't stand George W. Bush as a president, but I never once doubted that he didn't do anything for any reason other than it's what he felt was the right thing to do, even if I vehemently disagreed with it.
I appreciate this as that's my viewpoint for just about every President in my living memory.
The personality, leanings, and knowledge you have displayed say otherwise quite loudly. If it is true that you would not you might then need to consider how you present yourself.
whembly wrote: You don't believe me, but that's not my problem.
Probably enough dogpiling on one user for their posting habits/general commentary about posting habits. So let's just end that here. There has to be something shiny and new in US politics to distract us from that, right?
The problem with the Iraq War was that Bush decided to invade and get rid of Saddam, then made up a load of crap, aided and abetted by Bliar, in order to create a pretext.
Well, leaving aside the hilarity of claiming that something's nuanced and then launching into about as cut-and-dried a partisan conspiracy theory as one possibly could, let's pretend that's true for a second.
Again, is the issue that we're shocked and outraged when politicians of the other party lie to us, but willing to give cynical approval when they're ours? When confronted with the assertion that Obama lied about what's likely to be the most important nuclear deal of the past two or next two decades, our usual partizans shrugged their shoulders and asked what we expected, because politicians lie all the time, yo, no big deal.
Huge numbers of people never believed the ridiculous statements made to support war, and predicted exactly the kind of scenario that actually did unfold. Not unnaturally we have been complaining about it ever since and we have a perfect right to.
We, huh?
Invading Iraq unnecessarily without a follow-up plan created the circumstances led to the completely gakky situation in the Middle East today, which keeps expanding to places like the Yemen, Sudan and Nigeria and we've got no good idea how to solve. When you look at these consequences which actually are worse than anyone imagined, the decision to invade Iraq was possibly the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of the western world.
I don't think I could get away with responding to this in full in this thread, since it ain't what the topic's about, so I'll just say for now that I strongly disagree.
If this is "shrieking" then I hope the next time a hot-headed president wants to plunge the country into a foreign military adventure he might listen a bit more to the "shrieking" in advance.
Well, it'd probably help if most of the wise sages didn't become wise sages after the fact.
Kilkrazy wrote: But let's ignore the "wise right-wing sages" who were so terribly wrong before the fact.
I'm fine with ignoring anyone who claims they know for sure how something like a national invasion is going to go. I'm even more committed to ignoring those who claim after the fact they knew it all beforehand with little evidence to prop up such claims.
Seaward wrote: When confronted with the assertion that Obama lied about what's likely to be the most important nuclear deal of the past two or next two decades, our usual partizans shrugged their shoulders and asked what we expected, because politicians lie all the time, yo, no big deal.
So you're running with the right-wing narrative that negotiations beginning prior to Rouhani's election don't count?
Seaward wrote: When confronted with the assertion that Obama lied about what's likely to be the most important nuclear deal of the past two or next two decades
Seaward wrote: I'm even more committed to ignoring those who claim after the fact they knew it all beforehand with little evidence to prop up such claims.
It was quite obvious at the time that invading Iraq was a bad idea and that the claims of it having weapons of mass destruction were not at all supported by inspections. I don't think anyone predicted the rise of a militant caliphate because that was kind of a far-out dream for even the most intense of jihadists but plenty of people held that the invasion was a very vicious thing to do. Bush and Blair were widely called out for their bullshitting even then.
Rosebuddy wrote: It was quite obvious at the time that invading Iraq was a bad idea and that the claims of it having weapons of mass destruction were not at all supported by inspections. I don't think anyone predicted the rise of a militant caliphate because that was kind of a far-out dream for even the most intense of jihadists but plenty of people held that the invasion was a very vicious thing to do. Bush and Blair were widely called out for their bullshitting even then.
American and British intelligence agencies weren't the only ones of the opinion that Saddam's regime was working on a WMD program. Whether or not that justifies an invasion is a more debatable point, but I'm of the opinion that even the many, many games he played with the inspectors was enough to warrant one.
But I'm glad there's agreement that nobody was prescient enough to predict the rise of ISIS.
American and British intelligence agencies weren't the only ones of the opinion that Saddam's regime was working on a WMD program. Whether or not that justifies an invasion is a more debatable point, but I'm of the opinion that even the many, many games he played with the inspectors was enough to warrant one.
Why even have that hair trigger? It just seems foolish to launch an invasion on the basis of a 4.5 year old resolution.
Seaward wrote: When confronted with the assertion that Obama lied about what's likely to be the most important nuclear deal of the past two or next two decades
What specifically was the lie?
I think the lie is that the Iran deal is entirely Obama's creation/fault?
But I'm glad there's agreement that nobody was prescient enough to predict the rise of ISIS.
Perhaps not exactly ISIS, but I think it's safe to say that by the time Obama was elected and the big pullout was extremely near, we knew that there was something worse waiting to fill the power vacuum we had created.
Seaward wrote: When confronted with the assertion that Obama lied about what's likely to be the most important nuclear deal of the past two or next two decades
What specifically was the lie?
I think the lie is that the Iran deal is entirely Obama's creation/fault?
Rosebuddy wrote: It was quite obvious at the time that invading Iraq was a bad idea and that the claims of it having weapons of mass destruction were not at all supported by inspections. I don't think anyone predicted the rise of a militant caliphate because that was kind of a far-out dream for even the most intense of jihadists but plenty of people held that the invasion was a very vicious thing to do. Bush and Blair were widely called out for their bullshitting even then.
American and British intelligence agencies weren't the only ones of the opinion that Saddam's regime was working on a WMD program. Whether or not that justifies an invasion is a more debatable point, but I'm of the opinion that even the many, many games he played with the inspectors was enough to warrant one.
But I'm glad there's agreement that nobody was prescient enough to predict the rise of ISIS.
Add into that mix that Saddam was nerve gassing entire villages, making it very easy to believe he had these weapons and the will to use them.
But I'm glad there's agreement that nobody was prescient enough to predict the rise of ISIS.
Perhaps not exactly ISIS, but I think it's safe to say that by the time Obama was elected and the big pullout was extremely near, we knew that there was something worse waiting to fill the power vacuum we had created.
"Years after the war had begun" is not the same as "before the war began," though, in terms of claiming to have foreseen it all.
There's absolutely no question the pullout was a mistake, as evidenced by the fact that we're slowly building force back up in the country. Obama's genius is in doing it quietly, and in somehow keeping the metric fuckton of ordnance we're dropping on both Iraq and Syria a subject that nobody really wants to write about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Why even have that hair trigger? It just seems foolish to launch an invasion on the basis of a 4.5 year old resolution.
Because keeping Iraq from developing nukes was vital to our interests. If Iraq had successfully done it, Iran would've had to successfully do it, too.
Are we seriously pretending that as a nation we agreed 100% that invading Iraq was an awesome idea, that nobody predicted in advance that it would likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region, and that anybody who now claims that they knew it would turn out bad is a historical revisionist?
d-usa wrote: Are we seriously pretending that as a nation we agreed 100% that invading Iraq was an awesome idea, that nobody predicted in advance that it would likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region, and that anybody who now claims that they knew it would turn out bad is a historical revisionist?
Last time I heard anything about it, the chemical and biological weapons Iraq did have were sold by the US and thus already known. They had also already been destroyed along with the facilities to produce them under the supervision of the UN.
Anyone "playing games" doesn't really matter when you know that they've already destroyed at least 90% of everything they ever had in the way of WMDs and their production. Suggestions that Iraq was producing chemical or nuclear weaponry were never credible and were solidly debunked once UN inspectors returned after the invasion.
d-usa wrote: Are we seriously pretending that as a nation we agreed 100% that invading Iraq was an awesome idea, that nobody predicted in advance that it would likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region, and that anybody who now claims that they knew it would turn out bad is a historical revisionist?
People like Janeane Garofalo were against it from the beginning. Passionately, even. The problem is they weren't claiming destabilization of the region or such would happen, they were busy repeating the tired old lie "no blood for oil" which eventually changed to "Bush lied. People died."
But yes, few in Congress at the time voted against the invasion of Iraq and subsequent regime change.
Seaward wrote: When confronted with the assertion that Obama lied about what's likely to be the most important nuclear deal of the past two or next two decades
What specifically was the lie?
I think the lie is that the Iran deal is entirely Obama's creation/fault?
Obama was certainly taking credit for it here up until ISIS started it's campaign. Suddenly, he started saying it wasn't his idea.
Which takes us back to the "I'm shocked, shocked" that politicians spin the truth, if not outright lie at times. When things go good, politicians take the credit; when things go bad, they find someone else to blame (even if that someone else is God, see Rubio's statement that his path to the White House wasn't in God's Plan).
If Iraq had successfully done it, Iran would've had to successfully do it, too.
I'm fairly certain the Iranian push for nuclear development is grounded in Western hostility to the present regime, hostility which was affirmed by the invasion of Iraq.
d-usa wrote: Are we seriously pretending that as a nation we agreed 100% that invading Iraq was an awesome idea, that nobody predicted in advance that it would likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region, and that anybody who now claims that they knew it would turn out bad is a historical revisionist?
People like Janeane Garofalo were against it from the beginning. Passionately, even. The problem is they weren't claiming destabilization of the region or such would happen, they were busy repeating the tired old lie "no blood for oil" which eventually changed to "Bush lied. People died."
Seaward wrote: When confronted with the assertion that Obama lied about what's likely to be the most important nuclear deal of the past two or next two decades
What specifically was the lie?
I think the lie is that the Iran deal is entirely Obama's creation/fault?
d-usa wrote: Are we seriously pretending that as a nation we agreed 100% that invading Iraq was an awesome idea, that nobody predicted in advance that it would likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region, and that anybody who now claims that they knew it would turn out bad is a historical revisionist?
People like Janeane Garofalo were against it from the beginning. Passionately, even. The problem is they weren't claiming destabilization of the region or such would happen, they were busy repeating the tired old lie "no blood for oil" which eventually changed to "Bush lied. People died."
Were those warnings public? No? Did their warnings affect Senate votes? No? Did they help shape public opinion? No? Before you strain your arm find me some actual liberals who, prior to the invasion, were sounding the clarion call that it would "likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region."
I vaguely remember Bill Clinton voicing concern that there would be unexpected consequences back then, but not extensively and never specifically what those consequences would be. I do remember concern about Iraq's stability eventually becoming the central topic when we started to form the new government over there with people like al-Zarqawi constantly making us look like a bunch of tools, but not so much prior to that. In fact, I don't remember many people questioning Bush's approach until al-Zarqawi and his ilk began appearing untouchable and Bush unwilling to engage. That was when comparisons to our failed strategies in Viet Nam and South Korea started - or at least became popular discussions on television. That was about the time when people seriously started questioning the war fighting strategy and wanting to know the exit strategy.
d-usa wrote: Are we seriously pretending that as a nation we agreed 100% that invading Iraq was an awesome idea, that nobody predicted in advance that it would likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region, and that anybody who now claims that they knew it would turn out bad is a historical revisionist?
People like Janeane Garofalo were against it from the beginning. Passionately, even. The problem is they weren't claiming destabilization of the region or such would happen, they were busy repeating the tired old lie "no blood for oil" which eventually changed to "Bush lied. People died."
Were those warnings public? No? Did their warnings affect Senate votes? No? Did they help shape public opinion? No? Before you strain your arm find me some actual liberals who, prior to the invasion, were sounding the clarion call that it would "likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region."
I vaguely remember Bill Clinton voicing concern that there would be unexpected consequences back then, but not extensively and never specifically what those consequences would be. I do remember concern about Iraq's stability eventually becoming the central topic when we started to form the new government over there with people like al-Zarqawi constantly making us look like a bunch of tools, but not so much prior to that. In fact, I don't remember many people questioning Bush's approach until al-Zarqawi and his ilk began appearing untouchable and Bush unwilling to engage. That was when comparisons to our failed strategies in Viet Nam and South Korea started - or at least became popular discussions on television. That was about the time when people seriously started questioning the war fighting strategy and wanting to know the exit strategy.
I'm sure if I spent 30 seconds on youtube, I could find a video of a Bernie Sanders speech from the Senate floor
Just to make sure I'm keeping up, we've gone from "no one thought invading Iraq was a bad idea" to "well, no one knew specifically why" to "well, the senate by and large didn't know specifically why" - is that where we are now? Or are you asking me to prove that a large percentage of the American public, who in January 2003 were majority against the invasion, knew exactly why the invasion was a bad idea? If it's the latter, you win this round, since at that time the majority of the public also thought that Iraq was behind 9/11. So, I guess that's sort of a victory, once you reframe it enough.
d-usa wrote: Are we seriously pretending that as a nation we agreed 100% that invading Iraq was an awesome idea, that nobody predicted in advance that it would likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region, and that anybody who now claims that they knew it would turn out bad is a historical revisionist?
People like Janeane Garofalo were against it from the beginning. Passionately, even. The problem is they weren't claiming destabilization of the region or such would happen, they were busy repeating the tired old lie "no blood for oil" which eventually changed to "Bush lied. People died."
Were those warnings public? No? Did their warnings affect Senate votes? No? Did they help shape public opinion? No? Before you strain your arm find me some actual liberals who, prior to the invasion, were sounding the clarion call that it would "likely turn out horrible and destabilize the region."
I vaguely remember Bill Clinton voicing concern that there would be unexpected consequences back then, but not extensively and never specifically what those consequences would be. I do remember concern about Iraq's stability eventually becoming the central topic when we started to form the new government over there with people like al-Zarqawi constantly making us look like a bunch of tools, but not so much prior to that. In fact, I don't remember many people questioning Bush's approach until al-Zarqawi and his ilk began appearing untouchable and Bush unwilling to engage. That was when comparisons to our failed strategies in Viet Nam and South Korea started - or at least became popular discussions on television. That was about the time when people seriously started questioning the war fighting strategy and wanting to know the exit strategy.
I'm sure if I spent 30 seconds on youtube, I could find a video of a Bernie Sanders speech from the Senate floor
I saw a video of Bernie speaking out against the invasion. He cited lack of imminent threat against the US as a country, as well as the potential threat of Saddam using chem weapons against our troops if he were to be boxed in. He then shifted to how Bush was ignoring the US economy and so on.
Ouze wrote: Just to make sure I'm keeping up, we've gone from "no one thought invading Iraq was a bad idea" to "well, no one knew specifically why" to "well, the senate by and large didn't know specifically why" - is that where we are now? Or are you asking me to prove that a large percentage of the American public, who in January 2003 were majority against the invasion, knew exactly why the invasion was a bad idea? If it's the latter, you win this round, since at that time the majority of the public also thought that Iraq was behind 9/11. So, I guess that's sort of a victory, once you reframe it enough.
You must have me confused with someone else. I don't join discussions with the hopes of "winning" or score keeping or giving someone a good drubbing. I post because I like to discuss certain topics, add commentary, and argue for/against things that interest me and that's about as far as it goes.
As to where we've gone during my part of this discussion, you'll remember that I joined in when you were questioning the idea of the nation being 100% behind the invasion and whether anyone predicted destabilization. I interpreted your use of the nation to mean the general public and news media. I interpreted opposition to invasion as the public/vocal anti-war campaign that was happening at the time, not a few CIA analysts producing classified reports or back room discussions between President Bush and foreign governments. I do not remember the anti-war position having a "it will destabilize the region" message. They were pretty much married to the "no blood for oil" and "it will just make the terrorists mad" tropes.
If I have misinterpreted your statement, I'm hardly infallible, please clarify and we can approach this from a fresh perspective.
d-usa wrote: So Ryan is not playing nice with Trump, so Palin announced that she will make sure he is defeated in his primary.
Well... he neither stated that he'd support nor reject Trump.
The Trumpkins are being very sore winners here...
It shows why Palin was McCain's biggest mistake, too. So frequently the Tea Party people are their own worst enemies.
EDIT: I just saw a news clip where Palin says she doesn't want to be VP choice because she doesn't want to be a burden on the Trump campaign effort. Of course her position was couched between coy statements that she'd gladly accept if asked. I thought nobody could be more destructive to conservative ideology than Ann Coulter. Way to prove me wrong, Sarah.
To be up front and honest, I believe that invading Iraq was a waste, intelligence was faulty, and it was a huge mistake. It was Bush's folly.
That being said, I'm not exactly thrilled with Hillary Clinton disavowing her participation in it. She was nearly as gun-ho about it as Bush, despite her denials today.
In fact, back in the Clinton Presidency, between 1995 and 1999 between Bill and Hillary they publically proclaimed to the press about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction. They didn't do this just once, it was at least 24 times, and videos of it exist. They claimed they had evidence that Iraq had WMD, the ability to make more, reliable delivery systems, and the willingness to use them.
Despite video records to the contrary Hillary denies ever having believed it.
Breotan wrote: I do not remember the anti-war position having a "it will destabilize the region" message. They were pretty much married to the "no blood for oil" and "it will just make the terrorists mad" tropes.
The argument "It will make the terrorists mad." is a conservative redraft of the argument "It will destabilize the region."
On this weekend's episode of the NPR game show Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!, humorist P.J. O'Rourke—usually classified as either a conservative-leaning libertarian or a libertarian-leaning conservative—announced that he's voting for Hillary Clinton. Clinton, he declared, was "the second worst thing that could happen to this country. But she's way behind in second place, you know? She's wrong about absolutely everything. But she's wrong within normal parameters!"
Of Donald Trump, he warned: "They've got this button, you know? It's in a briefcase. He's gonna find it."
The Economist -- not exactly reckoned a nest of seething left-wingism -- dislikes Trump so much they say just his selection as a candidate is a serious socio-political disaster for the USA.
While I'm no big fan of Trump's, I think I'm going to seriously enjoy the overblown pearl-clutching between now and November, if only so I can buy up every fainting couch I can find and make a killing on eBay.
The difference between voting for Trump and voting for Hillary is like an inmate deciding who will be raping him for the next 3-5 years.
In my opinion, Hillary is the kind of cellmate that will welcome you in, tell you everything is going to be okay, and he'll watch out for you. But after you go to sleep you are suddenly jarred awake as he's on top of you.
Trump is the kind that tells you up front that you are his meat. You know what's coming, but at least you have time to relax a little first, he let's you pull down your own pants, allows you to grip a pillow and bite down on it, he might even use a little lube. Every once in a while he might even offer a reach-around.
Kilkrazy wrote: So you reckon Trumpo will be a better president that Clinton?
Mildly, yes. While I don't really trust either side at least I have a better idea of where I stand with Trump. Clinton has shown an almost impulsiveness to lie to almost everyone. Just last week in the news they were interviewing her and they asked if anyone of her staff had been served a subpoena. She flatly said "no". Turns out that not only had they been served, they had all ready been interviewed, and she dang well knew it.
Politics is like GW rules. Sooner or later the pendulum swings hard one way or the other, there is rarely a middle ground. After 8 years of Obama, I'm ready to swing the other way.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another reason that I would prefer Trump is because of the Supreme Court. Obama has all ready appointed two Justices, with a third almost surely getting in. There are two or three additional Justices that are likely to retire or die. If Hillary gets to appoint them it will make the Supreme Court extremely lopsided for decades to come. I prefer a more rounded view of the court. Equal measures liberal and conservative with a dash of moderate.
Kilkrazy wrote: So you reckon Trumpo will be a better president that Clinton?
He will be great so great, you don't know how great he is going to be. And if the Pentagon thinks they aren't going to obey his orders despite being illegal, well just listen to him, he'll make 'em understand...
Do you feel the ground trembling slightly? Zombie Chesty Puller just started doing pushups for the upcoming real world Captain America: Civil War . Don't think so Trumpy.
Well, at least he hasn't ever knowingly given military arms to Al Queda, like Hillary has.
Remember when we were attacking Libya? In order to support that (despite vowing never to enter into an armed conflict with a country that wasn't a direct threat to us) Clinton signed off on supplying arms to rebel groups. However, intelligence reports confirmed that over half of those groups were controlled by Al Queda. Clinton knew about it long before sending weapons.
cuda1179 wrote: Well, at least he hasn't ever knowingly given military arms to Al Queda, like Hillary has.
And McCain, and Oliver North.
But he did say he planned on obliterating the US economy. "renegotiating your bonds" like a company does, is #1 on the hit parade after massed B29 strikes as a way to kill your economy for generations.
Just ask Zimbabwe. Oh look, they're run by a dictator too.
cuda1179 wrote: Well, at least he hasn't ever knowingly given military arms to Al Queda, like Hillary has.
And McCain, and Oliver North.
But he did say he planned on obliterating the US economy. "renegotiating your bonds" like a company does, is #1 on the hit parade after massed B29 strikes as a way to kill your economy for generations.
Just ask Zimbabwe. Oh look, they're run by a dictator too.
But Oliver North, Reagan and Hill are true american heroes they would never do something as bad as selling missiles to a state that just took a whole bunch of our citizens hostage
I know right. That would be unAmerican. I am sure there would have been an investigation, maybe even testimony before Congress. Can you imagine a Marine testifying that he sold arms to Iran? Imagine if he showed up...in uniform.
cuda1179 wrote: Well, at least he hasn't ever knowingly given military arms to Al Queda, like Hillary has.
Remember when we were attacking Libya? In order to support that (despite vowing never to enter into an armed conflict with a country that wasn't a direct threat to us) Clinton signed off on supplying arms to rebel groups. However, intelligence reports confirmed that over half of those groups were controlled by Al Queda. Clinton knew about it long before sending weapons.
While I'm not disputing that we armed at least some rebels in Syria that probably turned out to have links to Al Qaeda, or that it was sort of a bad idea to do so, or that what happened was actually a really likely outcome, laying that one at Hillary Clinton's feet seems a bit unreasonable since those decisions would have occurred a bit beyond her pay grade.
Frazzled wrote: I know right. That would be unAmerican. I am sure there would have been an investigation, maybe even testimony before Congress. Can you imagine a Marine testifying that he sold arms to Iran? Imagine if he showed up...in uniform.
I remember how upset I got during those televised hearings-taking up all of my precious Days of Our Lives programming time.
cuda1179 wrote: Well, at least he hasn't ever knowingly given military arms to Al Queda, like Hillary has.
Remember when we were attacking Libya? In order to support that (despite vowing never to enter into an armed conflict with a country that wasn't a direct threat to us) Clinton signed off on supplying arms to rebel groups. However, intelligence reports confirmed that over half of those groups were controlled by Al Queda. Clinton knew about it long before sending weapons.
While I'm not disputing that we armed at least some rebels in Syria that probably turned out to have links to Al Qaeda, or that it was sort of a bad idea to do so, or that what happened was actually a really likely outcome, laying that one at Hillary Clinton's feet seems a bit unreasonable since those decisions would have occurred a bit beyond her pay grade.
He said Libya, not Syria. Syria is a completely different tar pit and staying out of it may be the best foreign policy decision this administration has made.
Frazzled wrote: I know right. That would be unAmerican. I am sure there would have been an investigation, maybe even testimony before Congress. Can you imagine a Marine testifying that he sold arms to Iran? Imagine if he showed up...in uniform.
I remember how upset I got during those televised hearings-taking up all of my precious Days of Our Lives programming time.
Now what will really upset you is if you look at who was on the committee, and then see how many are still in Washington.
Frazzled wrote: I know right. That would be unAmerican. I am sure there would have been an investigation, maybe even testimony before Congress. Can you imagine a Marine testifying that he sold arms to Iran? Imagine if he showed up...in uniform.
I remember how upset I got during those televised hearings-taking up all of my precious Days of Our Lives programming time.
Now what will really upset you is if you look at who was on the committee, and then see how many are still in Washington.
And if you look at the cast of Days of Our lives, most of them are still there as well "like sands through the hourglass" my butt.
I'm still amazed at anybody that claims that with Trump we at least know where he stands. He can't even keep the same position during the same paragraph.
I mean, naturally the CIA and even bin Laden himself are gonna deny that they ever had any dealings with each other, and for largely the same reasons.
Perhaps you ought to read the document at your link, it does not contradict anything in my links. No aid to Arab Muj is mentioned. And as my links point out, there were darned good reasons for that (was not needed/would have been counter productive. )
Your wiki link even states:
According to Christopher Andrew and Vasily Mitrokhin, there is "no support" in any "reliable source" for "the claim that the CIA funded bin Laden or any of the other Arab volunteers who came to support the mujahideen."
So, I feel pretty damned comfortable in sticking with my position. How about you, are you comfortable sticking with yours?
d-usa wrote: I'm still amazed at anybody that claims that with Trump we at least know where he stands. He can't even keep the same position during the same paragraph.
He had an interval talking about his "unique" observation that Cruz 's dad killed JFK. In the space of twominutes, whenever the reporter cornered him, he changed his story. He changed what he was saying SIX TIMES. It was like watching John Lovett's pathological liar skit but for real.
d-usa wrote: I'm still amazed at anybody that claims that with Trump we at least know where he stands. He can't even keep the same position during the same paragraph.
He had an interval talking about his "unique" observation that Cruz 's dad killed JFK. In the space of twominutes, whenever the reporter cornered him, he changed his story. He changed what he was saying SIX TIMES. It was like watching John Lovett's pathological liar skit but for real.
It's been over a month, and I'm still having whiplash from trying to follow his "nuclear proliferation is bad, we need to give nuclear weapons to more countries so that they can defend themselves, nuclear proliferation is the greatest thread to our security, more countries need the bomb" answer.
d-usa wrote: I'm still amazed at anybody that claims that with Trump we at least know where he stands. He can't even keep the same position during the same paragraph.
He had an interval talking about his "unique" observation that Cruz 's dad killed JFK. In the space of twominutes, whenever the reporter cornered him, he changed his story. He changed what he was saying SIX TIMES. It was like watching John Lovett's pathological liar skit but for real.
Do you recall who the conducted the interview? I do love me some car crash television.
This may well be the most astute observation of the election yet
Yeah, at least with Hillary it will just be "business as usual" in Washington. With Trump, who the hell knows what'll happen from one day to the next?
So? Don't you think its past time to do something thats kinda crazy, but not really? I'd like Trump to do exactly what he says he will do. Its well past time to give a big FU to a bunch of people and countries.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I will mostlikely get the ban hammer for this, but I believe Islam should be destroyed, root and branch.
This may well be the most astute observation of the election yet
Yeah, at least with Hillary it will just be "business as usual" in Washington. With Trump, who the hell knows what'll happen from one day to the next?
So? Don't you think its past time to do something thats kinda crazy, but not really? I'd like Trump to do exactly what he says he will do. Its well past time to give a big FU to a bunch of people and countries.
.
So, everything, and nothing? The guy flip flops more than a freshly caught fish. The only the consistent thing about him is his inconsistency.
If you're getting behind the Donald because you think he's going to "do something" about dem dirty Arabs, then prepare yourself for disappointment.
And that means we have to not only question the world as it is, and stand up for those African Americans who haven’t been so lucky — because, yes, you’ve worked hard, but you’ve also been lucky. That’s a pet peeve of mine: People who have been successful and don’t realize they’ve been lucky. That God may have blessed them; it wasn’t nothing you did. So don’t have an attitude.
Imma say this with feelings...
"FETH.YOU.MR PRESIDENT."
From now on, I won't recognize the hard work that *you* achieved... "you got lucky bro".
cuda1179 wrote: Well, at least he hasn't ever knowingly given military arms to Al Queda, like Hillary has.
Remember when we were attacking Libya? In order to support that (despite vowing never to enter into an armed conflict with a country that wasn't a direct threat to us) Clinton signed off on supplying arms to rebel groups. However, intelligence reports confirmed that over half of those groups were controlled by Al Queda. Clinton knew about it long before sending weapons.
While I'm not disputing that we armed at least some rebels in Syria that probably turned out to have links to Al Qaeda, or that it was sort of a bad idea to do so, or that what happened was actually a really likely outcome, laying that one at Hillary Clinton's feet seems a bit unreasonable since those decisions would have occurred a bit beyond her pay grade.
He said Libya, not Syria. Syria is a completely different tar pit and staying out of it may be the best foreign policy decision this administration has made.
And that means we have to not only question the world as it is, and stand up for those African Americans who haven’t been so lucky — because, yes, you’ve worked hard, but you’ve also been lucky. That’s a pet peeve of mine: People who have been successful and don’t realize they’ve been lucky. That God may have blessed them; it wasn’t nothing you did. So don’t have an attitude.
Imma say this with feelings...
"FETH.YOU.MR PRESIDENT."
From now on, I won't recognize the hard work that *you* achieved... "you got lucky bro".
I know it's like pissing in a volcano, and nothing is ever going to get rid of your hate-boner for the man, but your capacity to willingly ignore half of your own quote and crank down your intelligence to make something be something you want it to be is always amazing.
I own and stand by my comments. If Trump stops muslims coming to the united states, I'm all for the man. And to be clear, I don't trust ANY of these greasy scumbags that would be president of this land.But Trumps got to be better than hillary. IMHO shes the death of this country. She gets in(and I believe she will), and it will be something to see.
I have a very nice RedJacket AK74 and 3,000+ rounds of 5.45x39. All I have to get is a pistol for my wife(she just got her cc permit). She wants a SIG, but I'm just a humble teacher. She may get a GLOCK.
And that means we have to not only question the world as it is, and stand up for those African Americans who haven’t been so lucky — because, yes, you’ve worked hard, but you’ve also been lucky. That’s a pet peeve of mine: People who have been successful and don’t realize they’ve been lucky. That God may have blessed them; it wasn’t nothing you did. So don’t have an attitude.
Imma say this with feelings...
"FETH.YOU.MR PRESIDENT."
From now on, I won't recognize the hard work that *you* achieved... "you got lucky bro".
I know it's like pissing in a volcano, and nothing is ever going to get rid of your hate-boner for the man, but your capacity to willingly ignore half of your own quote and crank down your intelligence to make something be something you want it to be is always amazing.
The problem with responding to you is it's going to be totally confusing to follow the conversation once Motyak or whoever deletes all your posts. I mean, I sort of want to? But no one will have any idea what I'm talking about in 2 hours.
Ouze wrote: The problem with responding to you is it's going to be totally confusing to follow the conversation once Motyak or whoever deletes all your posts. I mean, I sort of want to? But no one will have any idea what I'm talking about in 2 hours.
We will always have the memories to keep us warm at night.
I honestly wish some other vets here on dakka would tell you guys what these muslims are really like. mean to say, look at some of the utube vids on these scum flooding europe.
At least poland and hungery seem to have pulled their heads out of their asses.
cuda1179 wrote: Well, at least he hasn't ever knowingly given military arms to Al Queda, like Hillary has.
Remember when we were attacking Libya? In order to support that (despite vowing never to enter into an armed conflict with a country that wasn't a direct threat to us) Clinton signed off on supplying arms to rebel groups. However, intelligence reports confirmed that over half of those groups were controlled by Al Queda. Clinton knew about it long before sending weapons.
While I'm not disputing that we armed at least some rebels in Syria that probably turned out to have links to Al Qaeda, or that it was sort of a bad idea to do so, or that what happened was actually a really likely outcome, laying that one at Hillary Clinton's feet seems a bit unreasonable since those decisions would have occurred a bit beyond her pay grade.
He said Libya, not Syria. Syria is a completely different tar pit and staying out of it may be the best foreign policy decision this administration has made.
If he had no plans for Syria, it would have been best if Obama hadn't shot his mouth off about red lines.
