US Politics: What Price Loyalty?

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's really easy to say when you're not the person getting bombed in order to 'fight tyranny'. 

What about the people getting bombed in order to promote tyranny? Is their plight worth less because their government wants to murder them? Would the holocaust not be worth going to war over?

Hell, I guess you're right. Better to leave France under German control than to risk hurting someone when trying to oust the occupiers then huh?

And you know what, if those people didn't want to be in slave camps I guess they shouldn't have been born in North Korea. I mean, now that you mention it I can't differentiate collateral damage from deliberate murder so I guess that means they're the same.

Because everything's the same. Let's equivocate relentlessly just to feel better about not caring enough about other people to make hard choices.

[Martell Spy]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's really easy to say when you're not the person getting bombed in order to 'fight tyranny'. 

Well, the invasion of Iraq has also has led to mass migration, the rise of far right racism, and growing authoritarianism in the world. It was already a historical blunder, but time has shown it something far worse.

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The Independent Counsel, as established by the 1978 EGA, lapsed in 1999.

Right. But if they're trying to pass a law anyway, they could reimplement that one instead if they wanted.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

50 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I know   I actually think it might get through the Senate, because the Senate is weird and I think you could put together cloture.  My comment was that Congress continues its steady abandonment of power to the Executive Branch.  I don't see anything stopping that impulse.

I’ve been trying to tell myself that one of the few potential positive outcomes of the Trump Administration will be the seceding of some Executive powers. However, it’s probably unlikely because the Legislative branch is incompetent and any potential new president is going to be reluctant to do so for that very reason.

51 minutes ago, Shryke said:

I think this is a serious mistake in understanding how Trump thinks. Trump does not distract. Trump doesn't think that way, nor plan that strategically. Trump wants attention. Always. But he doesn't try to get attention one way to divert from another thing.

It can be both at the same time. Trump will bring attention onto himself as a means of  distracting people from the story of him firing Mueller.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Right. But if they're trying to pass a law anyway, they could reimplement that one instead if they wanted.

True, but I think that might be more controversial.  The independent counsel lapsed for some fairly valid complaints on the frivolity of such investigations.  And even if, the prosecutor could be removed by the AG for "substantial improprieties," so we'd virtually be in the same boat anyway.  Alternatively, the judicial review aspect of the current bill(s) being considered simply adds another layer of protection from presidential encroachment.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

What about the people getting bombed in order to promote tyranny? Is their plight worth less because their government wants to murder them? Would the holocaust not be worth going to war over?

Hell, I guess you're right. Better to leave France under German control than to risk hurting someone when trying to oust the occupiers then huh?

And you know what, if those people didn't want to be in slave camps I guess they shouldn't have been born in North Korea. I mean, now that you mention it I can't differentiate collateral damage from deliberate murder so I guess that means they're the same.

Because everything's the same. Let's equivocate relentlessly just to feel better about not caring enough about other people to make hard choices.

Oh christ, you've been drinking rubbing alcohol again. 

Are the people getting bombed asking for help, or outside assistance? Are they asking to be bombed to save them? Are they asking for you to depose that leader, or maybe just to stop the bombing? Because there's a big fucking difference between 'please stop us from getting bombed' and 'violently overthrow this government and the leaders'. Cause right now, the big issue is that Syrians need refugee status and support and the US is not providing a god damn thing. Do you think those refugees are better off with the US killing more people there? Or restarting a civil war? 

And yes, you are basically saying that it is better to kill lots of people in order to save them than do literally anything else, and that's an incredibly myopic, violent, and genocidal viewpoint. 

The answer isn't to do nothing, and there are a lot of choices other than 'bomb other civilians over there'. Mostly, I'm bothered by the notion that somehow it's more acceptable to kill hundreds of thousands of people in Yemen with traditional bombs, but it's really really bad when you use chemical weapons, as if they don't result in the same people dying. 

 

[Martell Spy]

The President Can’t Kill the Mueller Investigation

https://lawfareblog.com/president-cant-kill-mueller-investigation

Quote

 

Second, Trump could invoke Article II to bypass or invalidate the Justice Department regulations and the Mueller appointment order to fire Mueller and shut down the parts of the investigation he does not like. This takes us to contested constitutional issues that are hard to explain without much more space. Suffice it to say that while Trump might be able to do some of this lawfully, it would be enormously controversial, legally and politically. I doubt he could find subordinates willing to execute the order, and if he did, he would be committing political suicide.

Third, Trump might try to pardon everyone involved. This would almost certainly be lawful under Article II with regard to everyone except possibly the president himself, and in any event it would likely be efficacious because it would not be subject to collateral review. (The Office of Legal Counsel once concluded with little analysis that the president cannot pardon himself. There is little definitive law on this question.) But pardons by themselves wouldn’t stop the Mueller investigation from continuing. They wouldn’t stop the Justice Department from reporting Mueller’s findings to Congress under the special counsel regulations. They wouldn’t stop related state prosecutions. And they would be political dynamite that would destroy Trump’s presidency.

Note that my confidence that Trump cannot “get away with” killing the Mueller investigation ultimately rests on two factors: the good faith of Trump political appointees to follow the law and the political reaction if Trump acted to try to circumvent their good-faith adherence to the law.

 

 

[Jace, Extat]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Oh christ, you've been drinking rubbing alcohol again. 

Are the people getting bombed asking for help, or outside assistance? Are they asking to be bombed to save them? Are they asking for you to depose that leader, or maybe just to stop the bombing? Because there's a big fucking difference between 'please stop us from getting bombed' and 'violently overthrow this government and the leaders'. Cause right now, the big issue is that Syrians need refugee status and support and the US is not providing a god damn thing. Do you think those refugees are better off with the US killing more people there? Or restarting a civil war? 

And yes, you are basically saying that it is better to kill lots of people in order to save them than do literally anything else, and that's an incredibly myopic, violent, and genocidal viewpoint. 

The answer isn't to do nothing, and there are a lot of choices other than 'bomb other civilians over there'. Mostly, I'm bothered by the notion that somehow it's more acceptable to kill hundreds of thousands of people in Yemen with traditional bombs, but it's really really bad when you use chemical weapons, as if they don't result in the same people dying. 

 

You're attributing the lack of action of the U.S. government to me, Kal and that's not fair. I haven't mentioned chemical weapons once today. I don't give a fuck how people are being murdered, I just want it to stop.

And yes, I think we should have troops in Yemen.

If there is one person who wants to be free, every other free person has an obligation to assist them.

These are moral considerations though, and you're conflating them with actual policy. As I've laid out in the thread I opened about this, I am not in charge. My opinion means nothing.

And just to be clear, I am not of the persuasion that we should shoot first and ask later. Of course non-violent means should be used in EVERY instance possible. But they need to be far more severe than anything in the U.S. playbook at the moment and targeted to make oppressive regimes less capable of defending themselves against democratic efforts both foreign and domestic.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Pony Queen Jace said:

You're attributing the lack of action of the U.S. government to me, Kal and that's not fair. I haven't mentioned chemical weapons once today. I don't give a fuck how people are being murdered, I just want it to stop.

So you felt this way in 2011 with Syria, and 2012 with Yemen? 

Just now, Pony Queen Jace said:

And yes, I think we should have troops in Yemen.

We do. They're actively helping Saudi Arabia bomb the fuck out of Yemen. 

Just now, Pony Queen Jace said:

If there is one person who wants to be free, every other free person has an obligation to assist them.

Okay - can you help that one person by getting them out of that situation? That seems a lot more cost effective than murdering thousands.

Just now, Pony Queen Jace said:

And just to be clear, I am not of the persuasion that we should shoot first and ask later. Of course non-violent means should be used in EVERY instance possible. But they need to be far more severe than anything in the U.S. playbook at the moment and targeted to make oppressive regimes less capable of defending themselves against democratic efforts both foreign and domestic.

Bullshit. That's not where you went with this at all. Not even close. 

[Jace, Extat]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So you felt this way in 2011 with Syria, and 2012 with Yemen? 

We do. They're actively helping Saudi Arabia bomb the fuck out of Yemen. 

Okay - can you help that one person by getting them out of that situation? That seems a lot more cost effective than murdering thousands.

Bullshit. That's not where you went with this at all. Not even close. 

1) Unfortunately I was ill-informed regarding Yemen until more like 2013, but yes and yes.

2) Sorry, I forgot that I had to make it clear beyond idiocy that I want them to not be enabling the monsters I'm railing against.

3) Oh, I'm 100% for granting refugee status. In fact, I quite like the idea of giving every man woman and child asylum while we train an overwhelming force of local nationals into a coherent and functional army, while providing assistance in establishing an effective government-in-exile, and then helping them reclaim their homes.

4) Again, sorry. I guess again I just made the assumption that we were dealing honestly here and didn't need to explain (retroactively, because of how this started) that armed conflict is a last result.

5) -Bonus!- The global costs of eliminating oppressive regimes actually stemmed from someone asking if I thought we should be bombing Syria the Saudi's for bombing Yemen (to which I said 'Yes') and my response included a desire to 'sweep from one hemisphere to the next' free of tyrants. I didn't say 'invade every country one after the other like fucking Hitler'. I said 'sweep from power'. Again, I'll apologize for assuming we were dealing in intellectual honesty and that I didn't need to specifically add a condemnation of John Bolton to the post.

Context matters.

 

eta: just to be clear, we all know that the Civil war in Yemen didn't start until like 2015 right? Although events began in 2011

 

ETA: 1 was the Syra-Saudi fix, then I added the Yemen civil war notation.

Really messy post, I think I need to go get lunch.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

4) Again, sorry. I guess again I just made the assumption that we were dealing honestly here and didn't need to explain (retroactively, because of how this started) that armed conflict is a last result.

You suggested that we should bomb the fuck out of Syria. That was your suggestion. Or rather, your response to 'are we going to war in Syria' was "Mass murderers cannot be permitted to inflict their madness on innocents." The obvious implication is that YES, we are going to war, and you support it. My viewpoint is certainly not dishonest. 

2 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

5) -Bonus!- The global costs of eliminating oppressive regimes actually stemmed from someone asking if I thought we should be bombing Syria for bombing Yemen (to which I said 'Yes') and my response included a desire to 'sweep from one hemisphere to the next' free of tyrants. I didn't say 'invade every country one after the other like fucking Hitler'. I said 'sweep from power'. Again, I'll apologize for assuming we were dealing in intellectual honesty and that I didn't need to specifically add a condemnation of John Bolton to the post.

Context matters.

Right - so you're okay with bombing but not going to war, and you think this is somehow a better thing, or that it implies anything close to a nonviolent solution to anything. And I'm the one not dealing in intellectual honesty? Please. 

How are you proposing to free countries of tyrants - harsh language? The obvious implication in that context is a violent overthrow, and we already know bombing alone doesn't overthrow governments. 

2 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

eta: just to be clear, we all know that the Civil war in Yemen didn't start until like 2015 right? Although events began in 2011

The US has been bombing in Yemen since at least 2013, and probably earlier.

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You suggested that we should bomb the fuck out of Syria. That was your suggestion. Or rather, your response to 'are we going to war in Syria' was "Mass murderers cannot be permitted to inflict their madness on innocents." The obvious implication is that YES, we are going to war, and you support it. My viewpoint is certainly not dishonest. 

Right - so you're okay with bombing but not going to war, and you think this is somehow a better thing, or that it implies anything close to a nonviolent solution to anything. And I'm the one not dealing in intellectual honesty? Please. 

How are you proposing to free countries of tyrants - harsh language? The obvious implication in that context is a violent overthrow, and we already know bombing alone doesn't overthrow governments. 

The US has been bombing in Yemen since at least 2013, and probably earlier.

Alright, I'm going to try to lower the temperature now because I can appreciate the incongruity of my feelings here. Again though, I have to go back to the fact that I keep saying that I'm not the one making the decisions and therefore I'm just sharing my feelings on the matter. I could have made this more clear, that's on me.

Regarding Syria. Yes, full out armed conflict is the only resolution at this point. Assad will not bow to anything else with the support of Iran and Russia, and both of those countries have enough resources and allies that it would be impossible to disable their ability to assist Assad in a matter of time that is responsible considering the things at stake in the region. It's Turkey, by the way. That's what's at stake.

Regarding Yemen, I was asked if I thought we should be bombing the Saudi's over Yemen. I answered 'yes' and I should have said 'we should obviously not be bombing Yemen ourselves and should aim to cripple the Saudi ability to make war and effectively govern through asymmetrical non-engagement practices and if that doesn't work then we should send troops to defend the people. '

Regarding how to free countries of Tyrants, I've touched on that lightly but again I don't care to get bogged down in policy on this one so I'm gonna keep it simple and say ideological warfare would be appropriate and non-violent enough to be considered a blanket first step.

 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Regarding Syria. Yes, full out armed conflict is the only resolution at this point.

5 million refugees without any settled home disagree quite heavily. Fix that first.

4 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Assad will not bow to anything else with the support of Iran and Russia, and both of those countries have enough resources and allies that it would be impossible to disable their ability to assist Assad in a matter of time that is responsible considering the things at stake in the region. It's Turkey, by the way. That's what's at stake.

Okay, let's say you get rid of Assad miraculously without starting world war 3. What then? 

Do you think Russia and Iran are going to sit back idly and allow the US to install a puppet of their own? What does the new government look like? 

Here's the thing - I get that you really want to do something, but so far the US has been absolutely pants-on-head idiotic about both doing something AND what comes afterwards. We got it right in the 1940s and the 1950s (sorta, with Korea), and then have proceeded to fuck it up for the last 60 years. And now you're saying that you want the Trump administration - you know, that highly competent group - to be responsible for a targeted campaign of slaughter followed by nation-building with a country whose allies are the two most powerful countries in the region. 

4 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Regarding how to free countries of Tyrants, I've touched on that lightly but again I don't care to get bogged down in policy on this one so I'm gonna keep it simple and say ideological warfare would be appropriate and non-violent enough to be considered a blanket first step.

Gotcha, you support harsh language. Hudson would be proud.

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay, let's say you get rid of Assad miraculously without starting world war 3

I'm completely and utterly against armed conflict in Syria but let's not hyperbolize the argument.  Never say never, but ousting Assad would almost certainly not start WW3.  In all likelihood it'd be a horrible, pointless, bogged down proxy war like, ya know, the entire Cold War.

[Jace, Extat]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Gotcha, you support harsh language. Hudson would be proud.

Nice, but no. Asymmetrical non-engagement was something I mentioned earlier in the post.

That's stuff like shutting down their power grid, breaking all of their computers remotely, industrial sabotage, etc... I said a blanket step 1 is harsh language

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I'm completely and utterly against armed conflict in Syria but let's not hyperbolize the argument.  Never say never, but ousting Assad would almost certainly not start WW3.  In all likelihood it'd be a horrible, pointless, bogged down proxy war like, ya know, the entire Cold War.

I think you underestimate what Putin is willing to do to keep Assad in power and keep Syria as a puppet of Russia, and I think you underestimate Iran's response in this as well. We haven't had a real proxy war for a long time - 50 years - and never one in the Middle East. Between Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia and the US, there's a lot of room for things to boil over very badly. 

Hell, the simple fact that this would mean there are at least 3 nations in the area with nuclear capability, all with very different goals about what they want in the region, makes me think it shouldn't be dismissed lightly. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Nice, but no. Asymmetrical non-engagement was something I mentioned earlier in the post.

That's stuff like shutting down their power grid, breaking all of their computers remotely, industrial sabotage, etc... I said a blanket step 1 is harsh language

That's not ideological warfare; that's information warfare. 

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's not ideological warfare; that's information warfare. 

No, information warfare is what the Russians did.

I would flood the targeted nation with ideological triggers that make democracy seem preferable to the current system. Start simple with just providing support to existing pro-democracy groups and expand from there to engineer situations that demonstrate the invalidity of the current system.

So it's like what the Russians did. But they didn't really have an endgame besides sowing chaos and making the U.S. and democracy look bad. I don't just want to sow chaos and make the existing regime look bad, I want a specific outcome.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

We haven't had a real proxy war for a long time - 50 years

Um, apparently you forgot the Soviet-Afghan War.  As for proxy wars in the Middle East, all wars in the Middle East are basically proxy wars, depending on semantics.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think you underestimate what Putin is willing to do to keep Assad in power and keep Syria as a puppet of Russia, and I think you underestimate Iran's response in this as well.

Ha!  I think you vastly over-estimate Putin's resolve to have direct conflict with the US.  He has bluffed his entire country into disproportionate influence on the world stage.  As for Iran, they'll do what they always do, including Iraq of course, but they're not going to directly engage.  Both regimes aren't going to go all out in keeping Assad if we move in because that'd be incredibly stupid.  The infinitely smarter move would be to bleed us once we're on the ground.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Pony Queen Jace said:

So it's like what the Russians did. But they didn't really have an endgame besides sowing chaos and making the U.S. and democracy look bad. I don't just want to sow chaos and make the existing regime look bad, I want a specific outcome.

Destablizing the west and reduce influence in the world sounds like endgame, if you assume that Russia or a more Russia friendly power like China steps in and fills the void left behind by the US.