Texas, er, US Politics

[All-for-Joffrey]

Additionally, why on earth would you think he's going to go to war with Iran when all of his foreign policy in the area is specifically geared to avoid war?

Not quite. Obama has heavily militarized the Gulf (the troop numbers from the Iraq withdrawal were reallocated to neighboring Gulf countries) and continues to foolishly send surveillance drones into Iranian controlled areas and territory. Furthermore, depending on how Isreali elections go, if nutters like Bibi are in control, it's pretty clear the US will unthinkingly and reflexively back Israel for no good reason (granted, I acknowledge that it's really just the Israeli right saber-rattling right now but who knows what'll happen two-three years from now). Lastly, the US has a tendency to invade a country after heavily hitting it with sanctions (see Iraq). The sanctions on Iran are wrecking shit on the Iranian economy and average Iranians (doctors have said they're already having trouble obtaining appropriate medicine for certain conditions), which makes your average citizen more hard-line and supportive of an aggressive Iranian government because the fundamentalist types tend to actually be compassionate about the poor and win over the economically impoverished to more extremist mentalities through charitable works/donations, just like everywhere else in the world. Remember that the Clinton/Albright sanctions got a lot of Iraqis, particularly children, killed and certainly didn't help the "operation Iraqi freedom" cause when Bush and the neo-cons invaded.

ETA: In sum, increasing the saber-rattling and implementing sanctions well beyond what's immediately effective in stopping the nuclear program/arms sales is a funny way of optimally gearing your foreign policy to avoid war.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

All-For-Joffrey - Aside from the drone surveillance I'd say the rest of that list is healthy pragmatism. He's trying to avoid war but realizes it might happen anyway.

I do think there is a threat that Israel will drag us into a conflict but Obama at least seems reluctant about it, unlike Romney.

[K.C.]

SHIT about to meet FAN? Are these secession ideas normal post election?

https://petitions.wh...e.gov/petitions

I for one am signing Alabama's petition. I would sign Mississippi's as well, but I like Elder Sister.

[Sci-2]

Sci - That is a pretty terrible story out of Minnesota. It is very Pastor Ted.

So much needless suffering.

Yeah, I think it's about time to ban ex-gay ministries as wonky nonsense. I realize there may be some violation of bigot freedoms or something in this belief, though there does seem to be a point where if we accept psychiatry/psychology as part of the medical field we need to regulate it.

[Inigima]

NOM To Blackmail Equality-Supporting Companies By Stoking Middle East Anti-Gay Persecution

This is really horrible, holy shit

[King Tyrion VIII]

Your informed insight is a valuable asset to us all.

When people like you say this -- it seriously makes me re-evaluate my stance on trying hard not to vote Democrat.

Why do you vote party? I vote issues.

[King Tyrion VIII]

Lol

Paulbots are a source of endless amusement.

King Tyrion - What, exactly, has Obama done to make you think he'd make any move to enhance gun control? He's never even mentioned it outside of the vague comments about assault weapons (already heavily regulated) in the debate.

Additionally, why on earth would you think he's going to go to war with Iran when all of his foreign policy in the area is specifically geared to avoid war?

TrueMetis - I see your point but one must also consider that the Republic's population was only 40,000. Their original claim was to land north of the Rio Grande - it's doubtful they realized how much land that was. In any case, gaining control over the territory was one of, if not the, most important reasons they accepted annexation.

What about the UN gun treaty?

We are in more wars under Obama then we were under Bush.

[tzanth]

NOM To Blackmail Equality-Supporting Companies By Stoking Middle East Anti-Gay Persecution

To me this sounds a lot like financing terrorism against US overseas commercial interests. Aren't there like, laws and such designed to stop such things?

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

It isn't the number of wars. I'm pretty sure I'd rather be involved in a dozen tiny conflicts than another world war. And I'm not sure you're correct in any case - am I missing some wars?

And exactly what UN gun treaty are you talking about? The one whose text hasn't even been finalized? The one that deals exclusively with illicit international gun trading and has absolutely no impact on legal gun sales within the US? The one that has been neither signed nor ratified by the US govt?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

[sologdin]

US currently involved in afghanistan, iraq, colombia, libya, with drone strikes in ~6 states as part of TWAT.

bush had iraq, afghanistan, TWAT, colombia. both guys have had plenty of non adversarial military deployments, bush plenty more, including deployments that papered over the coup against aristide in haiti. not sure if BHO has overthrown democratic government at all, to be honest, whereas herr bush had venzeula and haiti.

[Yagathai]

Goin' Galt: The Freeper advice thread. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2956311/posts

[All-for-Joffrey]

All-For-Joffrey - Aside from the drone surveillance I'd say the rest of that list is healthy pragmatism. He's trying to avoid war but realizes it might happen anyway.

I do think there is a threat that Israel will drag us into a conflict but Obama at least seems reluctant about it, unlike Romney.

Isolating Iran's banking-sector, forcing the rest of the world to stop trading with the country and instituting other sanctions that hammer civilians and hamper economic development is not "pragmatism" (which, btw, is a word often misused to sugarcoat the military-industrial complex' policies and intentions) -- it pushes Iran more towards nuclear development and saber rattling while damaging its economy and hurting civilians and really doesn't do much to inhibit nuclear development. It's an absolute uncalled for precursor to war.

And Obama and Romney's plans on dealing with Iran were essentially identical, Romney just said it louder without Obama's PR in a baseless attempt to make Obama appear "weak." The perception otherwise is one of the most infuriating election myths.

As for the possibility of war with Iran, last time I checked Israel was more likely to attack Iran and initiate war, the odds of Iran attacking Israel are extremely low as they realize how fucked they'd be. That said, where exactly is the contract that says the US must jump and take part if Israel's elected officials decide to do something incredibly stupid. In fact, militarizing the Gulf is incredibly unpragmatic for purposes of peace as it emboldens Israel to do something stupid and start a war. Jumping to Israel's immediate defense, even if they start a war, is the opposite of pragmatism. Funny how the Cold War mentality and strategy is still so in vogue among inept policy makers.

Why do you vote party? I vote issues.

I don't vote by party. My post explicitly said I try to avoid voting Democrat when I can -- that doesn't mean I vote by party. If I don't vote democrat or republican I don't have much of a party to choose from, do I?

not sure if BHO has overthrown democratic government at all, to be honest, whereas herr bush had venzeula and haiti.

He has not but he has preserved the status quo and enabled countries with some pretty brutal regimes in the face of Arab Spring protests (Yemen, Bahrain, etc.), including active arms sales and cutting deals to keep the regimes in power.

[sologdin]

oh, sure. but that's not to distinguish him from prior presidents.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

AFJ - Sorry I wasn't referring to the sanctions, but rather the military actions.

Sanctions were necessary to bring Iran to the table to stop their nuclear program (or, more likely, force it further underground and make it more difficult), and the news posted here the other day indicates that this was successful. I am wary of Israel dragging us into war but I don't support the no-holds-barred support of Israeli aggression by the US govt.

[The Marquis de Leech]

What makes the territorial integrity important enough to trump self-determination, Slobodan?

The notion that we can't have states breaking up willy-nilly? Where will it end: cities, towns, and individual houses claiming independence? As long as we're not talking 'colony' or 'foreign occupier', self-determination is the sort of thing that gets dealt with internally: autonomous regions and so forth.

[All-for-Joffrey]

AFJ - Sorry I wasn't referring to the sanctions, but rather the military actions.

Sanctions were necessary to bring Iran to the table to stop their nuclear program (or, more likely, force it further underground and make it more difficult), and the news posted here the other day indicates that this was successful. I am wary of Israel dragging us into war but I don't support the no-holds-barred support of Israeli aggression by the US govt.

The initial, well-calibrated sanctions which directly inhibited the nuclear program were useful. After that the sanctions basically became about isolating Iran's banking sector and crippling its trade and economy, particularly the Syrian Human Rights and Iran Threat Reduction Act. They are not useful for stopping the nuclear program and counterproductive in the pursuit of peace.

My favorite part of that bill is that it says "The United States bears no ill will towards its friends, the People of Iran, and regrets its necessary actions blah blah blah" or something to that effect. It reminds of when Madeline Albright said in an interview that the sanctions on Iraq, which killed thousands of children, were necessary and not regrettable as they served the greater good (which culminated in the country's eventual invasion mind you). The ends justifies the means (regardless of a proper perspective on the merits of the ends and the means) is a grisly hallmark of US foreign policy (and indeed all empires) and you have to be doing a well skewed, imperialist oriented/cold ward-esque cost-benefit analysis to justify harming the massive amount of civilians that these sanctions do. Long live the empire.

Also, if you don't support the no-holds-barred support of Israeli aggression by the US government then Obama's militarization of the Gulf doesn't make sense. Iran is certainly not foolish enough to attack Israel and it's the right wing nutcases in Israel that are trying to instigate a war. The militarization of the Gulf gives Israel and the Gulf states an insurance against stupid foreign policy maneuvers -- like bombing Iran. Doing away with it is more productive in the interests of peace.

[Shryke]

Isolating Iran's banking-sector, forcing the rest of the world to stop trading with the country and instituting other sanctions that hammer civilians and hamper economic development is not "pragmatism" (which, btw, is a word often misused to sugarcoat the military-industrial complex' policies and intentions) -- it pushes Iran more towards nuclear development and saber rattling while damaging its economy and hurting civilians and really doesn't do much to inhibit nuclear development. It's an absolute uncalled for precursor to war.

And Obama and Romney's plans on dealing with Iran were essentially identical, Romney just said it louder without Obama's PR in a baseless attempt to make Obama appear "weak." The perception otherwise is one of the most infuriating election myths.

As for the possibility of war with Iran, last time I checked Israel was more likely to attack Iran and initiate war, the odds of Iran attacking Israel are extremely low as they realize how fucked they'd be. That said, where exactly is the contract that says the US must jump and take part if Israel's elected officials decide to do something incredibly stupid. In fact, militarizing the Gulf is incredibly unpragmatic for purposes of peace as it emboldens Israel to do something stupid and start a war. Jumping to Israel's immediate defense, even if they start a war, is the opposite of pragmatism. Funny how the Cold War mentality and strategy is still so in vogue among inept policy makers.

That contract is called "The US electorate".

Blind support of Israel is not up for debate in US foreign policy because the voting public will not support any alternative. It's in the same category as "tough on crime".

It's not about inept policy makers, it's about the political realities in the USA. And democracy in general. ("Will of the People" can fuck ya sometimes).

Also, if you don't support the no-holds-barred support of Israeli aggression by the US government then Obama's militarization of the Gulf doesn't make sense. Iran is certainly not foolish enough to attack Israel and it's the right wing nutcases in Israel that are trying to instigate a war. The militarization of the Gulf gives Israel and the Gulf states an insurance against stupid foreign policy maneuvers -- like bombing Iran. Doing away with it is more productive in the interests of peace.

You are making a strange assumption here that it is the "militarization of the gulf" that acts as an assurance of US support. It's not. The Israeli government already knows they have it if needed for a military venture like that.

As for the militarization you say is occurring there's plenty of other explanations. It's not like Obama has been shy about the whole "blow terrorists the fuck up" plan, and plenty of that occurs in the gulf. With the support of local governments even.

[Castel]

That contract is called "The US electorate".

Blind support of Israel is not up for debate in US foreign policy because the voting public will not support any alternative. It's in the same category as "tough on crime".

It's not about inept policy makers, it's about the political realities in the USA. And democracy in general. ("Will of the People" can fuck ya sometimes).

Really? I always thought that people were afraid of Israeli lobbyists and the antisemitism charges.

[Shryke]

Really? I always thought that people were afraid of Israeli lobbyists and the antisemitism charges.

Well yeah. But those charges only have power because of the reaction to them.

[Eira Seren]

texas might do ok, not sure about the others. a bit nuts, wanting to go it alone in this economy. but perhaps we should let them. Please take Trump along.