Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

My point wasn't so much about the role of Congress in the Iraq war as in the fact that Republicans and Democrats don't differ that much on foreign policy.

[Frumple]

Uh, wow. Yeah, 40% and 60% support really isn't much of a difference compared to 96% and 98% support.

Apparently.

...

I, um. Personally, that strikes me as being somewhat divergent. Just a smidgen.

[SalmonGod]

It's clear there's a difference... But not exactly a polarization, as there is on other issues.

[smjjames]

They can always go the constitutional monarchy route, like England and a number of other countries.

Anyhow, the king was ousted in a coup back in 1973, so it's a matter of the populace choosing whether they want the monarchy back or not. The royal family is still around, though the current crown prince is like 80. So, they could have the monarchy in a figurehead-like role (I'm thinking England here) and still have a democracy or republic. Again, it's up to the people there whether they want the monarchy or not.

Bahrain didn't escape the arab spring in that they still had the protests, but cracked down hard on them.

[scriver]

Also I'd like to point out that the last time the US tried to impose monarchy on the middle east Iran happened.

[smjjames]

Didn't we force that monarchy on them rather than the people choosing the monarchy? Theres a difference between forcing it (like Iran was a vassal or something) and the people choosing it.

[Helgoland]

Also I'd like to point out that the last time the US tried to impose monarchy on the middle east Iran happened.

Was mentioned already, and explicitly excluded. The order of desirability is democracy > monarchy > dictatorship > anarchy.

[misko27]

My point wasn't so much about the role of Congress in the Iraq war as in the fact that Republicans and Democrats don't differ that much on foreign policy.

The (much wordier) phrase you are looking for is "the parties lack internal homogeneity regarding foreign policy". Anything else is simply inaccurate (or damned lies). Simply put, foreign policy is not a partisan issue the way economic and social issues are. There are entirely different things at work, such as the fact that foreign policy is far more particular to the President and their personal views then the party composition of Congress (it's much easier to agree on things you don't have to deal with). The Democratic party neither came up with nor executed US actions during the Bay of Pigs Invasion and Cuban Missile Crisis (even if they did take some credit for them). They were Kennedy and his foreign policy teams' decisions. Divisions are not really along any consistent lines to begin with, so they should be discussed specifically with the issue in mind (discussing Iran vs Intervention in Iraq vs. warming ties with Cuba). I mean for example, both parties in Congress (if we average them out and act like the opinions of party minorities don't matter) support further sanctions on Iran, while Obama opposes further sanctions and says they would poison the well in negotiations (Congress likes poisoning wells).

And we're getting drawn back in again, largely due to the same ripple effects of us leaving the power vacuum. As for the splitting up of Iraq, yeah, nobody (the politicians at least) seriously considered that as a possibility previously. Now, it looks like that could very well happen anyway. I suppose we had too much hope and optimism initially.

We seem to be doing somewhat better with Afghanistan, probably in large part due to there being an actual Afghani ethnic and cultural identity.

IMO, restoring the Afghan monarchy would have been the smartest move- absolute monarchies have legitimacy that strongmen or even democracies don't always have. Saudi Arabia, Oman, Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, and the Emirates all escaped the Arab Spring with nary a peep. It's no coincidence that they were all absolute monarchies. The difference between a dictatorship and a monarchy is still very much a real one in the Middle East.

(Now, replacing a democracy with a monarchy, which we did in Iran in 1953, is a dumb move. But if you can't get a working democracy in place, a monarchy may be your next best bet.)

But, of course, we are too enlightened and liberated in the twenty-first century to impose absolute monarchies on people, now, aren't we?

Couple things: The question is not of enlightenment, but of the question "on what basis would an absolute monarch rule?" I hardly think that absolute monarchy would go over well in, say, Cuba. I can't imagine that the US could have successfully pushed for monarchy of any kind in Libya or Egypt, for example (Sisi seems like he might agree to it, but I don't think he is royal material.) Second: I have to take issue with listing Bahrain on a list of countries from which no peep was heard during the Arab Spring.

In general, monarchy is for case-by-case bases.

[FearfulJesuit]

My point wasn't so much about the role of Congress in the Iraq war as in the fact that Republicans and Democrats don't differ that much on foreign policy.

The (much wordier) phrase you are looking for is "the parties lack internal homogeneity regarding foreign policy". Anything else is simply inaccurate (or damned lies). Simply put, foreign policy is not a partisan issue the way economic and social issues are. There are entirely different things at work, such as the fact that foreign policy is far more particular to the President and their personal views then the party composition of Congress (it's much easier to agree on things you don't have to deal with). The Democratic party neither came up with nor executed US actions during the Bay of Pigs Invasion and Cuban Missile Crisis (even if they did take some credit for them). They were Kennedy and his foreign policy teams' decisions. Divisions are not really along any consistent lines to begin with, so they should be discussed specifically with the issue in mind (discussing Iran vs Intervention in Iraq vs. warming ties with Cuba). I mean for example, both parties in Congress (if we average them out and act like the opinions of party minorities don't matter) support further sanctions on Iran, while Obama opposes further sanctions and says they would poison the well in negotiations (Congress likes poisoning wells).

And we're getting drawn back in again, largely due to the same ripple effects of us leaving the power vacuum. As for the splitting up of Iraq, yeah, nobody (the politicians at least) seriously considered that as a possibility previously. Now, it looks like that could very well happen anyway. I suppose we had too much hope and optimism initially.

We seem to be doing somewhat better with Afghanistan, probably in large part due to there being an actual Afghani ethnic and cultural identity.

IMO, restoring the Afghan monarchy would have been the smartest move- absolute monarchies have legitimacy that strongmen or even democracies don't always have. Saudi Arabia, Oman, Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, and the Emirates all escaped the Arab Spring with nary a peep. It's no coincidence that they were all absolute monarchies. The difference between a dictatorship and a monarchy is still very much a real one in the Middle East.

(Now, replacing a democracy with a monarchy, which we did in Iran in 1953, is a dumb move. But if you can't get a working democracy in place, a monarchy may be your next best bet.)

But, of course, we are too enlightened and liberated in the twenty-first century to impose absolute monarchies on people, now, aren't we?

Couple things: The question is not of enlightenment, but of the question "on what basis would an absolute monarch rule?" I hardly think that absolute monarchy would go over well in, say, Cuba. I can't imagine that the US could have successfully pushed for monarchy of any kind in Libya or Egypt, for example (Sisi seems like he might agree to it, but I don't think he is royal material.) Second: I have to take issue with listing Bahrain on a list of countries from which no peep was heard during the Arab Spring.

In general, monarchy is for case-by-case bases.

I'll fess up- I just thought I had remembered Bahrain and didn't do my fact-checking. I'll retract it from my post.

[FearfulJesuit]

Oh, hey, the Atlantic has a candidacy cheat sheet.

[TheDarkStar]

Was mentioned already, and explicitly excluded. The order of desirability is democracy > monarchy > dictatorship > anarchy > communism.

FTFY.

Oh, hey, the Atlantic has a candidacy cheat sheet.

Sarah Palin:

"Can she win the nomination? No.

When will she announce? It doesn't matter."

[Frumple]

Yeah, the palin and trump sections were probably the best bits of the article.

[smjjames]

I wonder why Hillary Clintons team want Romney to run? lol. Maybe they know that they can slam dunk him into the ground.

The Democrat field looks kind of meagre, but a dark horse upstart could very well show up. Remember Obama? He was a dark horse out of left field candidate in 2008.

[Rez]

I don't think Mrs. Clinton really inspires the Democratic base to vote, especially when compared with someone who is perceived as energetic, idealistic, and pure.  It's really hard to look energetic, idealistic, and pure when you've been around as long as Hillary Clinton.   She's produced no end of material for adversaries to smear her with in recent years, as well.

Are Democrats happy enough with this dark horse (DAS RACIST  ) President to vote for another one so soon?


...A few hours of stewing about politics later...

I forgot to not care.  I find it's best to not care, given how totally immoral our government is, whoever is in the White House.  Is 8 years enough time to end domestic spying?  Is it enough time to stop persecuting journalists and whistle-blowers?  Is it enough to stop murdering extra-judicially, in cold blood?  Do the Democrats bear any responsibility for these policies, now?  They could have stopped them; they had the seats before 2012.   Does liberty mean throwing men and women into prison for consenting economic activity (I specifically meant the drug war, though you wouldn't take it too awry if you thought I meant prostitution)?  I think not, but nearly every politician and bureaucrat in the federal government does.  Let's not even get into the way the racist drug war and greedy governments has morphed our police into highwaymen and thugs.

I don't presume to tell anyone how the scales of moral bankruptcy fall, for I don't know your morals and wouldn't impose mine.  For me, these Parties are appalling in equal parts and I don't care to plumb the depths of their evil to decide which I detest least.  I do know that our Rights, naturally-derived (or God-given, if you please) and/or State-granted, are written for naught, because they are ignored as readily as scrawling on the men's lavatory door.  What stake do I have in my government when the ultimate law of the land has the same power as "Call 232-xxxx for a good time"?

That's quite melodramatic, but I do feel better now.

I'm too idealistic to settle for someone who's just the lesser evil, but too cynical to believe anyone else could show up or that they'd ever get popular support if they did.

p2w

[misko27]

Well, speaking with the article in mind, the Democratic consensus is that if Hillary runs, she will immediately kill the bids of any moderate or establishment democrat (there's a reason Cuomo made it clear he would sit things out a long time ago). The reason people keep mentioning Joe Biden is because he is the only establishment figure (Vice-President is pretty establishment as things go) who could feasibly face Hillary Clinton while still having a chance of getting the nomination. Her strategy so far has sucked the air out of the room.

The Republican nomination is going to be a brutal, ruthless bloodbath that will, in the best case scenario for republicans, leave a candidate scarred but resistant to criticism, a baptism by fire that would leave them capable of taking Hillary Clinton head on. In the worst case scenario, it would be like the 2011-12 primary season, but so much better worse. In any case, this is the entertaining one, with a large roster of very serious and not-so-serious candidates prepared to fight tooth and nail for every bit of support, with every single candidate stepping on at least one other candidates toes.

I'm dramatically understating how fun the Republican nomination is going to be.